Working in Switzerland as an automation technician with a passion for studying Bitcoin
Public Key
npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Profile Code
nprofile1qqst4slmn2uyfejrkgeemjk3e9upn2ty2jw2gwvnps0804amv68ejhgpzfmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ucpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3samnwvaz7tmswfjk66t4d5h8qunfd4skctnwv46qzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqzyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmnyqy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgge6770
Show more details
Published at
2025-07-13T21:57:39Z Event JSON
{
"id": "3b0f282d9a54a13b060dd55c17af299eb24391443adac235dc849d5c99102e0e" ,
"pubkey": "bac3fb9ab844e643b2339dcad1c97819a964549ca439930c1e77d7bb668f995d" ,
"created_at": 1752443859 ,
"kind": 0 ,
"tags": [],
"content": "{\"about\":\"Working in Switzerland as an automation technician with a passion for studying Bitcoin\",\"banner\":\"https:\\/\\/m.primal.net\\/JvxP.jpg\",\"display_name\":\"Mischa\",\"website\":\"\",\"picture\":\"https:\\/\\/image.nostr.build\\/00696a3ae0a4c388624d36fb8eec11178f664a7c9ae802b542b20c9f65e1d762.jpg\",\"name\":\"Mischa\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected] \",\"lud16\":\"[email protected] \",\"lud06\":\"\"}" ,
"sig": "34d192e7bc4347677c6e3fdf96ffee80909b5c961ca44fdb6c4b0b573bb9ba88dafb851bbe494b2d702c48e2f337738c2509305e00667802f1b9ed4533a53f40"
}
Last Notes npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I fully agree. In that post, I laid out how I see the whole situation and why this conflict in Bitcoin exists, if you’re interested ;) #nevent1q…30dt npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa “For the record, if Core gets routed around with Libre Relay, etc., the answer isn’t to turn Core into Libre Relay.” Very true, but it could be addressed by reducing OP_RETURN at the consensus level. I believe the legal dimension is more relevant, even if, in theory, node operators are not doing anything illegal themselves. The fact that they are not responsible for the content does not eliminate the practical risk. If illegal material is embedded in the blockchain, running a node could still expose someone to legal scrutiny or prosecution on the grounds that they are distributing, or storing that data. This risk may be especially significant in developing, or more authoritarian countries, where legal systems are less predictable and due process is weaker. The recent events surrounding Samurai Wallet show that even when individuals are acting within the law, authorities may still pursue aggressive enforcement actions. That reality should be taken seriously when changing fundemental things in bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I do not see the situation as an acute emergency, even if it is sometimes framed that way by the Knots side. And i agree, it would be naive to assume that any side is immune to compromised actors. Based on what I have observed over the past months, I still lean toward the Knots position. The increase of the OP_RETURN limit was controversial from the outset. For months, the Knots side made it clear that their objective was to reverse the change. Despite that, there has been no visible willingness to seriously reconsider it. More nodes are now running Knots than Core v30. That cannot reasonably be described as a clear and uncontested mandate. Yet even in light of these signals, there has been no meaningful reflection or attempt at compromise. The obvious question remains: why? The main argument in favor of the change is mining centralization. Without the adjustment, fee markets could develop outside node policy, allowing larger OP_RETURN data to be compensated directly to miners. The concern is that this would create long-term centralization pressure. If the real issue is the potential for bypassing node policy, an equally effective approach would be to tighten consensus rules rather than relax OP_RETURN limits. A stricter consensus limit would make large OP_RETURN data fundamentally impossible, eliminate the bypass vector entirely, and at the same time address the broader data concern. This is precisely the direction the proposed fork takes. It may be stricter than necessary, but it attempts to solve the same underlying problem Core claims to address, without introducing new incentive shifts or expanding Bitcoin’s attack surface. I believe the legal dimension is relevant too, even if, in theory, node operators are not doing anything illegal themselves. The fact that they are not responsible for the content does not eliminate the practical risk. If illegal material is embedded in the blockchain, running a node could still expose someone to legal scrutiny or prosecution on the grounds that they are distributing, or storing that data. This risk may be especially significant in developing, or more authoritarian countries, where legal systems are less predictable and due process is weaker. The recent events surrounding Samurai Wallet show that even when individuals are acting within the law, authorities may still pursue aggressive enforcement actions. That reality should be taken seriously when changing fundemental things in bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa For those who are not aware yet, this is the reason behind this childish attack. #nevent1q…5xez npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa If BIP110 is about ego and control, then how is removing the OP_RETURN limit despite heavy backlash, refusing to reconsider, not the same? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thanks for the podcast. I agree with almost everything. One more specific point I would add: every additional development on Bitcoin increases complexity and with it the risk of errors. Each new layer makes us more dependent on developers, on how they interpret the code, and how they assess trade-offs. The more complex the system becomes, the harder it is for the network as a whole to evaluate changes and make sound decisions. At the same time, the attack surface grows, both technically and socially. Greater dependency also increases the risk of capture or undue influence. In that sense, a simple and clearly defined protocol is not stagnation. It is protection. https://fountain.fm/episode/1t4C7RMHfzQQn4oxbREU #nevent1q…unu4 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses. Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low. This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction. One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable. These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest. This post is inspired by this video. Best regards, I appreciate your content. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses. Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low. This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction. One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable. These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest. This post is inspired by the newest video from @nprofile…5z4g Best regards, I appreciate your content. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa As mining competition intensifies, efficiency increasingly depends on access to cheap capital rather than technology. In a world of centralized finance, this pushes miners toward centralized funding sources that come with conditions and influence. The result is a mining sector far more centralized than many are willing to admit. #nevent1q…aknu npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability. The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future. https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4 #nevent1q…t07v npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin is for money. Nothing else. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The parallels to back then are obvious. One side argues for smaller blocks and long-term decentralisation. The other side pushes changes that shift Bitcoin slowly away from money toward a general information layer. Looking at blockchain data from the past three years versus earlier periods shows the direct result of the current rule set and I don’t like where it leads. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa One point many people overlook is that before v30, only public, identifiable operators could push big OP_RETURN data into blocks, which created a clear line of accountability. Today it’s a network-wide behavior: every node relays it, responsibility becomes diffuse and the impact on decentralization is now embedded in Bitcoin’s core protocol. #nevent1q…8ws7 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa It is correct that before Core v30, miners could also include large OP_RETURN transactions in blocks, but that choice was made by clearly identifiable actors. Miners are public-facing companies. Deliberately mining large OP_RETURN data could lead to reputational damage, loss of hashrate, and in extreme cases legal consequences. That acted as a natural social and economic brake. With the opening of OP_RETURN, responsibility shifts from individual miners to the network as a whole. Every node now relays these transactions, regardless of their content. This removes clear attribution to a responsible actor. What used to be a conscious choice by a few miners becomes a structural property of the protocol. Large OP_RETURN data and inscriptions increase storage, bandwidth, and computational requirements. That raises the cost of running a node. Over time, fewer people can afford to operate their own nodes, which weakens decentralization and concentrates influence among large operators. In the long run, this can alter Bitcoin’s level of decentralization and change the balance of power within the network. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I’m also curious to see if opinions will change npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I believe that once BIP adoption rises above 20%, miners will start upgrading to it before a UASF. The risk of turbulence and reputational damage for Bitcoin, especially around Lightning disruptions, exchange confusion, and price pressure, will push miners to protect themselves financially by preventing a fork and adopting the new rules. Miners who continue to mine spam would effectively split off from the main chain. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Isn’t that exactly why miners would support this BIP? If they want to stay profitable without creating chaos, all they have to do is back it and refuse to mine spam. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I get your point, but I disagree. For safety, transparency is actually a strength. As a medium of exchange, privacy is better, but that’s exactly what Bitcoin can offer. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Just like paying with gold isn’t practical for everyday use, paying with Bitcoin directly on-chain isn’t either. That’s why we end up with different trade-offs and approaches trusting companies, using protocols, or mixing both. The main thing that matters is that the on-chain layer can’t be censored and stays decentralised. If we want global payments to work for everyone, in my opinion there’s no way around taking responsibility for those trade-offs ourselves. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I choose a more optimistic view. The fight isn’t over. Lightning and eCash are powerful tools for increasing privacy. What we need now are strong, practical use cases that bring more people to Bitcoin. Not only because of the price. Nostr is already a solid start, and Fanfares, which I recently discovered, is interesting too. We can’t help everyone, but we can make sure people have real options to protect themselves if they choose to. That includes CoinJoin, Lightning, and eCash… npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa true💯 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In school, we spend most of our time studying what went wrong in the past, how people were exploited, manipulated, pushed into war, and what we claim to have learned from it. But there’s almost no focus on the problems we face today, or on how to truly think critically. Everything seems anchored in the past rather than the present. When I left school, I thought we had become an advanced society and I couldn’t understand how such bad things could have happened before. Years later, I discovered the reality for myself: in many ways, we haven’t actually improved as much as we like to believe. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I really like the idea behind Fanfares. I tested the reward-sharing mechanism with a second account, but it didn’t work as expected. Here’s what I noticed: I was using the Brave browser, and I’m wondering if having cookies disabled prevents rewards from working. When I logged in with my second account, the public key was correct, but the Lightning address shown was different from the one in Primal. I tried logging in twice and got the same result. Also, when I first clicked the link, I was automatically logged in with a new account. In the browser. After that, I switched to my real one. Could that have confused the reward-sharing mechanism or caused it to link the wrong account? @npub1md3…ctp9 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I’ve often heard that the true potential of Nostr hasn’t appeared yet, that its revolutionary use case still doesn’t exist. I think I’ve found one and the name is fanfares. Create a new incentive system where valuable content is stored encrypted on Nostr and unlocked through Lightning payments. Sounds very simple, but give it a listen.. https://api.fanfares.live/s/P9km2Q npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I think Bitcoin shifts power and incentives away from money creators and toward those who hold and save it, enabling them to influence existing systems and political structures. Even if only a small fraction of miners confirm your transaction, the funds remain yours and usable. Even if you need to wait longer. The critical point is the 21 million cap, and so far there is no proven attack vector against it npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa A good beginner video for people who have not yet deeply looked into the fundamental reasons why some want to create a fork of Bitcoin. https://youtu.be/4w4ij1ipt3Y @nprofile…zdjf npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thanks, it looks really nice :) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa My mistake. I had actually written the comment for a different episode. Still, it doesn’t fit too badly ;) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. Thank you, Peter. It’s clear that you truly want to make things better and that you are actively working toward change. https://fountain.fm/episode/WEmrOjNrhHWarZgiN3Yq #nevent1q…rapm npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. Thank you, Peter. It’s clear that you truly want to make things better and that you are actively working toward change. https://fountain.fm/episode/WYtgYKympvqyFMyARErc #nevent1q…ugku npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Do you think it will come to that? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Fiat systems survive only through constant intervention: growth is mandatory, debt must expand, and every crisis justifies more control. Bitcoin breaks this loop by enforcing fixed rules instead of power, making it the first truly free market built on mathematics, not intervention. #nevent1q…ksq6 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The fiat monetary system is inherently unstable and can only function if it is continuously supported and steered by intervention. Interest rates, liquidity injections, bailouts, war and regulation are not exceptions but structural requirements. Without these interventions, the system collapses. If market shrinks, debt cant be payed back and the system collapses. That is the core problem. Every structural weakness produces crises, and every crisis is used to justify further intervention. These interventions inevitably concentrate power. Not because of moral failure, but because managing problems always creates hierarchies. Actors who gain advantages through special privileges force others to adapt. Those who refuse lose competitiveness, access to capital, and influence. Bitcoin escapes this logic. It requires no political intervention, no bailouts, and no special rules. It operates without central control and without privileged access. That is why we need Bitcoin. It enables, a truly free market with fixed rules that are not stabilized by power. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa True, mining is clearly even better. However, even just running your own node and paying all transaction fees through it already makes a difference. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin is not an investment product. It is a rule set. If you don’t run your own node, you accept someone else’s rules. If you accept someone else’s rules, you are not using Bitcoin. You are using a representation of it. Changes like those in Bitcoin Core v30 are not minor details. Policy is power. Whoever controls policy influences usage. Running a node is not a hobby. It is responsibility. No nodes, no sovereignty. No sovereignty, no Bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Excellent episode. Very informative and well spent two hours. Thank you. https://fountain.fm/episode/r9jPwy3CkTyEawEyc4hL #nevent1q…8r8v npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin Lightning payments have something special about them: your own coins on your own server, payment in seconds, near-zero fees and the product still arrives at your door as usual. The flow feels familiar, but the feeling is different: direct, private, with no middleman taking a cut. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa This is the real ETF attack vector. ETFs concentrate custody and liquidity, shaping price formation. Price signals define miner incentives. Miner incentives determine which rules are economically sustainable. Control price and liquidity, and you indirectly influence which version of Bitcoin survives. #nevent1q…au72 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin works because humanity as a whole creates the most value. The chain with the strongest economic incentives attracts the most miners, gets most hashrate, and therefore becomes Bitcoin. Long term, Bitcoin is a collective decision: It is whatever people choose to store value in. That’s why it must be protected early. Money and power is concentrated today, and Bitcoin must remain decentralized until power is decentralized again. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Why a restrictive consensus fork can gain traction even without explicit miner support. One of the main reasons this could work lies in the asymmetry of consensus rules. The current rules are broader, while the fork tightens consensus. A block that follows the fork rules is valid on the current chain, while a block that follows the current rules may be invalid on the fork. This creates a situation we have never seen in Bitcoin before. Before the fork actually happens, once the rules of the potential fork are in effect, a miner can choose to mine blocks that are accepted on both chains. By doing so, the miner earns rewards on both sides, avoids the risk of mining on the wrong chain, and retains the option to later sell coins on one chain after the fork while keeping exposure to the other. If a miner instead produces blocks that are valid only under the current rules, a chain split occurs and the miner earns rewards on only one chain. Up to this point, there is a clear economically dominant strategy: following the stricter rules minimizes risk and preserves optionality. As long as it is not completely clear which side would ultimately prevail, there is no economically rational incentive for a miner to take the first step and realize the chain split. Triggering the split would forfeit optionality and introduce asymmetric risk. Once the split actually occurs, this dominance disappears. From that moment on, the outcome remains uncertain at first, and miners can no longer rely on a risk-free strategy. They must instead estimate future fees, liquidity, and market value, and choose accordingly. In my view, this makes the initial activation of the fork economically unattractive, unless expected fees or external incentives become large enough to compensate for the added risk. As a result, it is entirely plausible that miners will voluntarily align with the fork’s stricter rules even without an explicit chain split. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa True, fair point npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa As far as I understand, self-custody means personally holding the private key that gives you access to your onchain bitcoins. A Lightning node also holds private keys, but in addition it maintains the channel state, including the current balance of the channel. If your channel peer agrees to close the channel, both parties’ respective balances are settled back to their on-chain addresses. In my view, on-chain self-custody and Lightning self-custody are essentially identical when it comes to overall network health. In both cases you hold your own keys and contribute to decentralization. The key difference is the security model: the private key of a Lightning node must remain on a server that is always online, which makes it significantly more exposed. Ultimately, though, it’s up to each individual to decide what level of risk and convenience they are comfortable with. Or is any part of my understanding incorrect? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I understand what you mean. However, I believe that when Lightning is used properly, it offers significant advantages. The crucial point is that as many people as possible run their own Lightning nodes instead of relying on custodial solutions. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Of course the goal isn’t to save money on Lightning, but the point that people somehow need a way to actually get to their bitcoin is absolutely real. And if we don’t have a solid solution for the on- or off-ramp, then none of this matters, especially if those ramps end up being centralized. That’s why Lightning is a good and reliable option: It solves this in a cheap, fast way, with minimal trust. Read the documentation. It’s a genuinely unique approach to solving the trust issues involved in swaps. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Many people currently view Bitcoin negatively because too few users practice proper self-custody. I fully agree that this is a real issue and it is something we need to address. I want to highlight a positive development in this area by sharing a project I have been following for the past few years. I am not involved in it, but I believe it deserves much more attention. The team is building trustless swaps between Ethereum and Bitcoin, aiming to extend the Lightning Network model across multiple blockchains through what they call the Lithium Network. The idea is simple. The Lightning Network can be linked to the Lithium Network, enabling off-chain swaps between stablecoins such as USDT on Ethereum or any EVM chain and native Lightning BTC. No centralized custody is required, and users remain in full control of their wallets at all times. The only centralized element is the orderbook used for matching swaps, and the long-term plan is to have multiple independent orderbook providers competing with each other. In other words, this approach enables fast cross-chain, self-custodial, off-chain swaps between EVM assets and Lightning. One of the most exciting aspects is that it already works. It is currently live on testnet and open for anyone to try. I find this approach extremely promising, especially as a way to increase self-custody adoption while still giving users access to the stablecoins and assets they rely on. If the future includes widespread stablecoin usage, a decentralized mechanism that connects those assets to Bitcoin could become a major breakthrough. I am curious to hear what others think. Link to the documentation are included below. https://docs.hydranet.ai/welcome npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa A great podcast. If you want to understand the Core vs. Knots topic, this is a must-listen. https://fountain.fm/episode/Hfa2SvBEc8CHGqgAy742 #nevent1q…jvee npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa People’s savings always try to find the safest place. In a potential Bitcoin fork, the chain whose rules offer the strongest long-term protection for stored value will naturally win. That chain will have the higher Bitcoin price, higher transaction fees, and therefore higher miner revenue, which means miners will always gravitate toward it. In the end, the rule set that best protects money becomes the chain that people recognize as Bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Many Bitcoin OGs may not be selling out of fear or profit-taking, but for strategic reasons. If a fork occurs, they could position themselves on the chain they believe is correct and strengthen it economically. The noticeable increase in OG selling began around the same time Bitcoin Core introduced its controversial change. Many long-time Bitcoiners seem to disagree with the direction Core is taking. Which chain prevails is ultimately not determined by miner signaling or online debate, but by which chain is economically more attractive. The chain with the higher Bitcoin price and higher fees attracts pools, and miners always follow wherever the economic return is greatest. If they don’t, the hashrate will simply flow to the pools offering better economic incentives. The theory, is that some OGs are selling now in order to build large positions on the alternative chain in the event of a split. By buying there and paying fees, they increase the economic pressure on that chain and draw miners toward it. In this way, OGs could indirectly influence which chain wins in the long run by directing their capital toward the version of Bitcoin that aligns with their vision and protects their wealth more effectively. Now we just need to identify the rule set that maximizes Bitcoin’s decentralization and economic robustness, informed by the new insights we’ve gained from recent spam dynamics. And then develop it.. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Appreciate your work. I’ll check it out npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa What do you think is the right way to deal with Core v30? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Must read. For people with limited time, the Core v30 points are summarized at the end. #nevent1q…a6rq npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Over the past years, Bitcoin has gradually increased in complexity through various upgrades. That have a lot of great features, but the downside of this trend is now becoming clear: new vectors for spam and unintended usage have emerged. Developers also face structural incentives to add complexity, because complexity requires ongoing maintenance and concentrates influence among those who are able to understand and control the expanding codebase. This is why it is crucial to closely observe and critically question new developments. It raises the question of why such a controversial change is being advanced without a clear understanding of its long-term implications. At the same time, parts of the Bitcoin Core community seem to have shifted away from Bitcoin’s original purpose as self-sovereign, decentralized money. The increasing alignment with ETFs, institutional custody models, and corporate treasury strategies risks shaping Bitcoin into something more centralized and easier to influence. For Bitcoin to remain resilient, it must stay simple, conservative, and focused on its core function: money that individuals can hold and validate themselves. Limiting spam and keeping the protocol lean is essential to preserve decentralization. For these reasons, I support the proposed soft fork. @nprofile…04na @nprofile…ljrg @nprofile…mjwd npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The problem I see with the current OP_RETURN development is primarily the legal aspect. When large amounts of data can be stored in a single transaction, access to that data becomes extremely easy. Previously, when data had to be split across multiple transactions, you needed additional information to reconstruct it: you needed to know which transactions belonged together, in what order, and you had to actively assemble the content with a script. That acted as a natural barrier because it required effort, knowledge, and intent. Now, in the worst case, a single transaction ID is enough. One click in a block explorer, and the full content becomes visible. Even if it is only hex-encoded data, the legal situation is fundamentally different. The risk falls not just on the sender, but also on full node operators, explorer operators, and potentially even end users. That should be taken seriously. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Opening up the OP_RETURN limit introduces new legal concerns. Miners would be forced to regulate themselves more carefully and develop their own censorship rules to avoid liability. Since everything is propagated across the network, miners would still need to process spam to remain profitable, but they would also need centralized filtering mechanisms to avoid breaking the law. What‘s the bad part about the opposition? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa „This year, block propagation has slowed down, because some transactions are missing from node mempools.“ That’s a disadvantage for miners who include transactions containing non-monetary data. If miners don’t include them, there’s no delay. So does this finally mean filters aren’t useless after all? https://fountain.fm/episode/0Co1Oyl10OjTEWXYjzxl #nevent1q…y8xz npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa true, thats why we use bitcoin npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Our debt-based financial system is not about creating wealth. It is about control. Debt steers people toward what benefits the lenders and creates a centralized system of control over others. It is a tool the rich use to shape the work and choices of everyone else. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In the long run, Bitcoin miners that neither use surplus energy nor repurpose their waste heat will struggle to remain profitable. As competition increases, profit margins will continue to shrink. This is why it would be fascinating to integrate mining chips into everyday devices that already produce heat, such as the boilers inside coffee machines. Take a coffee machine, for example. Its boiler operates almost continuously, and if it were powered by small mining chips, the heat generated by mining could be used to warm the water at the same time. With millions of such machines running around the world, they could collectively help secure the Bitcoin network in a highly decentralized way, distributed across countless locations. Companies that adopt such designs could benefit by earning rewards from the operation of all their machines. If anyone has experience with boiler systems, this might be an idea worth experimenting with. #mining #boiler npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Do you think Bitcoin becomes mainstream? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Maybe now, but what if Bitcoin really becomes mainstream? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The idea that the free market or transaction fees alone will prevent spam is unrealistic. You cannot compare ordinary users who just want to transfer money with actors who treat the blockchain as a global billboard. What looks expensive for a simple payment may seem cheap when it buys worldwide, permanent advertising. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Progress on my dashboard from my mining management system The battery display is now dynamic, and at the top there is a scale showing how close my best difficulty has come to a block. The miner moves forward as the value increases. There are also status points: yellow when a miner finds a new best difficulty, and red when the hashrate drops too low or the temperature gets too high. Both remain visible until they are acknowledged. https://blossom.primal.net/a5d108183d5f398589a5cb92580a980453438f1c0c3a03b223b722aec2e8da9d.png https://blossom.primal.net/d68fda87c2325a3c572b9fce0528dcc5333b2d1a4923b264050060cce5d6a9b6.png https://blossom.primal.net/08ad2b881950c533a29765b33b061cfa6addd6c6629135c0b43eea047fe9434b.png https://blossom.primal.net/a3bf4c07bb5bac18969baea131e68fd380102ccb74cfc368e73cdf297d00540b.jpg npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa okay thanks, I’ll give it a try :) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The idea that the free market or transaction fees alone will prevent spam is unrealistic. You cannot compare ordinary users who just want to transfer money with actors who treat the blockchain as a global billboard. What looks expensive for a simple payment may seem cheap when it buys worldwide, permanent advertising. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The fact that transactions can currently be included in blocks without the consent of nodes is not due to Bitcoin itself, but to the centralized block creation by a few large mining pools. In a truly decentralized mining system, where no one knows who will find the next block, this would not be possible without the agreement of the nodes. This is why allowing OP_RETURN without limits is dangerous. Nodes would have to process and store far more data, which would push out smaller operators. Unequal mempools would emerge when large amounts of spam compete with real transactions at the same fee levels. Since many nodes can only hold a limited size (for example 200 MB) while the network may contain in the future far more data (for example 800 MB), each node would end up storing a different set of transactions. As a result, block propagation would slow down because nodes are no longer working from the same transaction base. In the end, only large pools with expensive infrastructure would benefit. If we want to keep mining decentralized and move it further in that direction, we need filters and clear limits instead of allowing unlimited data spam in the network. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Before, I only had a Knots node, and over a period of three weeks it never went above 110 peers. Most of the time it stayed between 80 and 100, just like now. Do you get more peers on your node? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Are there many nodes that censor Knots? I installed Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots on my Umbrel server at the same time, three days ago. Bitcoin Core has almost twice as many connections, even though I allow 250 connections on both. (see picture proof on my latest post) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I installed Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots on my Umbrel server at the same time, three days ago. Bitcoin Core has almost twice as many connections, even though I allow 250 connections on both. Are so many nodes that deliberately censor Bitcoin Knots? @npub1wnl…n3wr https://blossom.primal.net/175a9e71bb82e4a669f6a5aec65f6490d65b5555373bb5512d7fe1f47cdbf6ea.png https://blossom.primal.net/93bb479eb9a681ad0c3409d818b4836521117e13295b9e13d875065c23b8176a.png npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Great interview. Samson Mow has gained a lot of integrity in my eyes. He is one of the few developers who fairly and accurately weighs the arguments of those opposing Core. https://fountain.fm/episode/6A0VU3d7xxSBNVaInYA9 #nevent1q…5ul4 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Update on my Mining Management System Over the past few weeks, I’ve been working on integrating my Bitaxe miners into my visualization. It wasn’t easy, but I finally got the interface running smoothly, and now I can display live data from each miner. The interface has been redesigned, the core setup is ready. Next comes the fine-tuning: more indicators, cleaner visuals, and some animations I plan to add in the coming weeks. The Project idea: When the solar panel produces excess power and the battery is full, the system automatically switches on more Bitaxe miners via relays. If production drops, it scales them back down. This way, surplus electricity can be put to work for mining and everything can be monitored visually in the interface. https://blossom.primal.net/5c6c6eceefac73921fe532052667202aa04d9f793d525d0a72db143f9d9841e5.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/2c3dc2b77ec36c5cc9716ff21b0f6f41b96899f8c401667b8449106bb401ed1d.png https://blossom.primal.net/1472f34ee70fb0e67a4aa028ffc5476f64a3f3714635d26278f0d13d92b023f4.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/56b2ec8667a107bd4e6b6aa42e3166daf6de62ecb9b257e91292fc16b25e2a73.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/0f6483f593e8202402891234241b46f4dd30311d3e33e03333c1667b3650cea7.png npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa My current position on the Core debate: If Bitcoin is accepted by the broader public, the mining market will become so competitive that it will mainly be viable with excess electricity or by reusing the heat from computers. These applications are distributed worldwide and are most efficient directly at the source where surplus energy or heat exists. Pools will continue to exist, but they will increasingly consist of participants located across many different regions. For Bitcoin’s decentralization it is essential that these different actors have the ability to construct their own blocks. Protocols such as Stratum V2 are important because they give individual miners the power to decide on block content rather than leaving this responsibility entirely to the pool operator, which otherwise strengthens centralization. In my view, the new Core version continues to push Bitcoin in a centralized mining direction even though we already have tools that could make mining more decentralized. With this version, it becomes harder for individuals to mine because running Core alone is no longer enough. A miner also has to worry about which filters to activate in order to avoid legal risks if a block they find were to include illegal content. This raises the barrier for small participants. Until now the OP_RETURN limit has already made it almost impossible for illegal content to slip into a block without being split across multiple transactions. Instead of leaving this safeguard as it is, the new changes create additional complexity and discourage individual miners. The result is that large pools benefit while individuals lose part of their freedom to decide how to run their node, whether they want to mine or simply participate independently in the network. I am aware that settings can still be adjusted, but it is a major pitfall if I want to use my node for mining. What I find troubling is the very assumption that a node is not by default meant to be used for mining and for securing Bitcoin’s decentralization. #mining #core npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Okay, fair. One could argue that Core v30 is mainly suitable as node software and less so as mining software, since an inexperienced person might otherwise end up creating blocks that contain illegal content. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa So the goal of Bitcoin isn’t to be as decentralized as possible, allowing anyone to run a node and mine? Instead, only large pools that then use their own filters for block production. As an individual person, you’re not allowed to use filters? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I assume that as a public company, they probably have to implement strict filters to ensure they’re not writing any illegal content into the blocks. So maybe yes.. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Hey Jack, you uploaded the same episode as last week on Spotify and Fountain😅 @jack mallers https://fountain.fm/episode/nLUlYDg3g0E8OJM1Lssm npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I use Bitcoin Knots because I disagree with Bitcoin Core pushing changes and adjusting default settings despite significant resistance. Having multiple developer groups is crucial for decentralization, security, and diverse perspectives. Whether it’s about differing opinions or preventing unintended bugs. I’ve also come across an even stronger argument: Without proper filters or limits, attackers could push large amounts of illegal data, including pictures or even videos, through the mempool, letting it spread across the network without paying the high fees required to get it into a block. Node operators could unknowingly become legally exposed by relaying such content. Don’t change a running system. Why is it suddenly so important to remove these limits? Are the Bitcoin Core developers fully aware of these potential consequences? #knots #node #spam npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Hopefully, not at all. Bitcoin is decentralized, and having a single developer group programming all the nodes is already a risk. If Bitcoin Knots helps form a second developer group, it would actually make Bitcoin much healthier. Both by encouraging diverse opinions and by increasing the network’s robustness against potential bugs. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In my view, Bitcoin is purely about transferring money. Spam will still exist, but it can be made harder to execute. In the past, when a proposed change faced significant resistance, it usually wasn’t integrated. However, in this case, it was implemented anyway. Also, Knots offers more customization options for how I want to run my node. And that’s the simple reason why I use Knots. And if at some point Knots tries to force something on me as well, I can easily switch my node again. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Okay, that actually sounds pretty good. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In general, I think it’s a good idea, but it’s also risky if data about an entire nation is stored in one central place. Are there any legal requirements that prevent companies from relying solely on the E-ID for authentication? Unlike, for example, the use of the Swiss ID at SBB or the Post. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Let’s do a thought experiment: everyone in parliament holds a multisig key. A certain number of keys are required to authorize any transfer. As soon as the country is attacked, all these key holders disperse to allied nations. For an attacker to gain access to enough keys, they would have to locate all these allies. With a bit of imagination, there are many possible ways to protect a nation’s wealth with multisig. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Under a Bitcoin standard, war loses its biggest incentive. Conquering a country wouldn’t grant you its wealth. Bitcoin is protected by multisig, beyond the reach of force. The only way to access value would be cooperation, not plunder. Bitcoin realigns incentives: it shifts power from violence to consensus and makes peace more profitable than war. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin is the first form of property that can be secured completely independently of physical boundaries and central authorities. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa This week I made more progress on my solar-powered mining project. A previously undersized diode burned out, so I replaced it with a properly rated one and installed it professionally inside a protective tube. I also added a cutout for the LAN cable to connect the PLC. The enclosure is now fully completed on the mechanical side. https://blossom.primal.net/2b0ab22222e50d717dd98c1c523186623f59e45d0ba26c2e6d3d6786f5df72b9.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/bb1c4a97fd558a0ed292865764144974066d8aa31bd9df76170311ef842e98d5.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/614b6e719bdc0226a332c7a8c26c62bfb03eb7c81af05f393d2ac33f8ea0d9c4.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/282503c9b42e5404a0afe3ce795869633a934f41b846ee98d7e2d7d08430cac4.jpg npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa We recently found something that actually helped and it made us realize how disappointed we are with how today’s healthcare system addresses women’s health. My girlfriend has suffered from severe menstrual pain and PMS for years, most likely due to endometriosis. She went from doctor to doctor and tried various treatments, but nothing truly made a difference. Eventually, we came across something important: the liver plays a central role in hormone regulation. If the liver is overburdened, which often doesn’t show up in standard blood tests, it may not break down hormones properly. This can intensify PMS symptoms and increase pain throughout the menstrual cycle. One of the most frustrating things is that conventional medicine often does not know how to treat endometriosis or menstrual pain effectively. The standard response is usually painkillers or hormonal birth control, both of which place even more stress on the liver. That might explain why these options help temporarily, but the symptoms often return or get worse over time. In today’s world, it’s no surprise that the liver is under constant pressure, constantly exposed to things like pollution, processed food, alcohol, exhaust fumes, and medications… A few weeks ago, my girlfriend started taking natural supplements to support her liver, and her pain has already decreased noticeably. It is unfortunate that so many women live with this kind of pain, but maybe this information can help someone else. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will work for everyone, but in our case, it has been worth trying. And if sharing this helps even a few more people, then it was worth writing. @nprofile…2s0m @nprofile…r3q3 @nprofile…ggvh @nprofile…wxxz @nprofile…zkl3 @nprofile…lz04 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I did it. Now it works :) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Yes, I have inbound and outbound peers npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa How did you get so many peers? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thank you :) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Over the past few weeks, I’ve been working on a PLC program. The idea: Two of my Bitaxe miners run continuously. They slightly discharge the battery, which recharges when the sun is shining. Once the battery is full, additional miners are automatically activated to use the surplus solar energy. In parallel, the battery can also be charged from the grid when needed. This grid charging is part of the automation and is triggered by defined threshold values. I’ve also developed (with a bit of help) a web interface that provides real-time access to key system data: battery status, power production, and miner consumption… Editable fields in blue let you define switching thresholds for each relay. When a relay is active, a green indicator lights up next to it. There’s also a maintenance button that turns on all miners at once. Over the coming weeks, I plan to further improve the layout and expand the functionality. #solomining #PLC #solar https://blossom.primal.net/5c996a18c4b49e65582f06fe46f4904e2e4065fd139dd4bcb5b94ffdf059f489.jpg https://blossom.primal.net/cb6811e28c41e2558af397b79c87324e4f245c767452ba06ffd70b40bd8d9f6f.png https://blossom.primal.net/ade288aaaa2d8d4b280342c67a267ba19de4dfd16a5633aaf62a0ca63836698d.png npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thank you! I really appreciate your response :) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I think i got it! So in a deflationary environment, debt becomes nearly impossible to repay, because prices keep falling toward marginal cost. Companies are forced to compete on price, and debt-free firms can afford to sell near marginal cost and still survive. But companies with debt can’t keep up. they not only face lower revenues, but also have to service their debt. And if no new money is printed, interest rates tend to rise in today’s system, making it even harder to stay afloat. That dynamic drives more and more of the economy toward insolvency. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Hey @nprofile…0tx3, just listened to your newest podcast. One thing I still struggle to fully understand: Why exactly would an economic collapse happen if prices generally go down? To me, it seems logical that products should become cheaper over time as productivity increases. That doesn’t necessarily mean companies go bankrupt, because they’re also benefiting from lower input costs. Is the real issue that companies and governments are heavily in debt, and that repaying those debts becomes harder in a deflationary environment? Do you have a podcast episode or resource where you explain this in more depth? If not, I’d love to hear your take! Thanks! npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa @npub1cn4…3vle npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Do you live in your dream house now? Is your famous closet in your dream house? https://fountain.fm/episode/c5B6dyTwSDCJNKwxhP7W #nevent1q…4722 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Money is information. It is the foundation of any society. When it gets corrupted, trust collapses. That’s why Bitcoin must remain decentralized. Power concentrates when left unchecked. If the US gathers more hashrate, others need to push back. Decentralization is not a destination, it is a process that must be constantly defended. #bitcoin #hashrate #decentralized npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The interesting thing is that the figure of 43 million US dollars doesn’t actually say much. It only reflects what you can buy within today’s systen. If you measured value in Bitcoin or within a more efficient framework, it would look completely different: fewer losses, clearer processes, more productivity. In hindsight, that dollar figure will seem meaningless, because it doesn’t reflect any lasting or real value. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Much of what I believed about Bitcoin is becoming reality. Adoption grows, acceptance spreads. But I always expected the US to fiercely defend the dollar’s dominance. Instead, they now treat their reserve currency role more like a burden than a privilege. Printing dollars and importing real goods is a massive advantage. Yet they present it as a disadvantage. Bitcoin won’t replace fiat by force, but by being better. Why save in something that’s constantly devalued when you have a sound alternative? The goal stays the same. The path will surprise us. #bitcoin #usd #fiat npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Over the past few hot days, I noticed with my small mining project how difficult it becomes to keep the miners cool. Even with water cooling, it’s a challenge when the outside temperature stays high. I suspect this is one of the reasons for the recent drop in hashrate. Some devices have to be throttled or even shut down completely because the cooling can’t keep up. #mining #hashrate #bitcoin