Luke perfectly following in Roger's footsteps, if you don't accept his fork it's not bitcoin. Looking forward to you leaving the project for good Luke.

Will have a few things to say.

No mechanic has not been here since 2011, that is a new and false claim.

Ah yes the politician that likes to flip flop back and fourth on his stance on 110 because he does zero technical research is wondering why the people who were against 110 might be against another core wrapper grift. Go figure.

It took you a year to create a new website, logo and a donation button? With literally no code to speak of? This is what a grift looks like.

Is this a joke? Fork core and immediately ask for donations? I can understand wanting multiple implementations and forking the open source project that is bitcoin core to do something different to advance the protocol and then afterwards asking for donations to complete the idea or take it further and/or expand upon it. I can also understand wanting to be conservative, and wanting to work on older versions prior to v30 without more advanced SFs in the future, there's a market for that. But slapping a shiny new name, logo and website on a straight fork of core, with a donation button as the first thing you see, and where 2 of the 4 main supporters literally won't let you reply to their tweets unless you follow them... That looks a lot more like a virtue signal powered LARP begging for money than "multiple implementations".

Bitcoin is programmable money.

Imagine being a bitcoiner and thinking the word permissionless is bad. Wow. Censorship resistance is one of the defining principles of bitcoin and always be.

So get this... Apparently all the Knots people don't understand that Knots is just Luke's personal project that he unilaterally pushes changes to whenever he feels like with no public community review whatsoever. I believe in multiple implementations and running whatever you want but... Knots is NOT safe IMO and I'd never trust it with my coins.

Bitcoin is programmable money. More features like better self custody and vaults as well as scaling lightning are important in making it an even better money. It's early days and bitcoin isn't finished yet.

LOL the filteroos aren't going to like this tweet by saylor!

We have clear, verifiable evidence confirming that v30 was a response to network changes, not the cause of them. You can clearly see that op returns and spam were spiking well before v30 shipped from this on-chain data. Sources linked in reply below.

X (formerly Twitter)

BitMEX Research (@BitMEXResearch) on X

Transaction Relay Filters & Bitcoin Core Defaults There appears to be considerable confusion about transaction relay filters on the Bitcoin ne...

X (formerly Twitter)

Murch (@murchandamus) on X

I got a bit tired of being constantly told that oversized OP_RETURN outputs exploded since the release of Bitcoin Core 30.0 (2026-10-10). So, here�...

X (formerly Twitter)

orangesurf (@OrangeSurfBTC) on X

The important thing is that the spikes in nonstandard OP_RETURNs were in Mar 2024, May 2025, Aug 2025. All before v30 shipped in November 2025. The...

BuT LiGhTnInG nEtWoRk iS dEaD...

LOL hodlonaut flip flopping, such a politician, if he only he'd of actually pay attention to technical information instead of politics and cancel culture he'd have a lot easier time.

X (formerly Twitter)

hodlonaut #BIP-110 (@hodlonaut) on X

I had a long talk with wise @giacomozucco today. And I am withdrawing my support for BIP-110. I stand by A and B of this post. And partly C. Som...

It seems BIP 110 folks are perfectly fine with breaking bitcoin's neutrality, removing important upgrade paths, destroying people's vaults, confiscating coins and causing a split. Awesome.

Remember when everyone was like "hey devs shouldn't 'tinker' too much" when CTV was being proposed, and now people are literally going along with a far more significant update and endless SFing to stop spam. The irony is too much.

Bitcoin is freedom money. Bitcoin is fuck you money. Bitcoin is NOT a democracy-good-feelz money.

With the removal of the op return limit in v30 Core recognized that it's important we keep block space a decentralized market and not incentivize a private mempool with backdoor channels to miners.

hodlonaut was a clown in 2017, and he's a clown now, the only difference is instead of begging for money he's begging for attention.

See what Knots / 110 folks don't seem to understand is that Core tried to take a stand at the relay level (safer) and literally everyone ignored them. So doing it at the consensus level (far more dangerous) would certainly cause a split, which is exactly what 110 is going to do. And even then it doesn't actually prevent spam as Peter Todd proved when he embedded the entire 110 pdf doc in a 110 compliant transaction :/ So when the split inevitably happens and a future market forms, 110 will be on the losing end.