“onchain” Bro it’s a private database operated jointly by a few large companies that has “blockchain” in the name of the consortium. View quoted note →

If you’re in Bitcoin and you gave the Feds your fingerprints just for TSA PreCheck….🤦‍♂️

Every five years I go through old backups looking for wallets that might have money in them. And every five years I realize that was a total waste of time cause I’m looking through the same backups that were empty five years ago.

Have 25 of the absolute most exclusive hats printed for Vegas. For promoting the actual most important thing in bitcoin this year. Seeking the 25 most interesting heads. DM me.

What was the custom tshirt company that were secretly bitcoiners? Someone posted it here a week or two ago. Maybe @ODELL ?

Bitcoin down on a day where the market is celebrating. Honestly good for Bitcoin.

Learn more about OP_RETURN and why making standardness less restrictive isn’t just Bitcoin Core navel gazing, it’s actually very important for Bitcoin! View quoted note →

I think this is an important thing to grok - there is no reason Bitcoin Core should be bound by “consensus” for things unrelated to Bitcoin’s consensus rules. Bitcoin Core is a software project with a wallet, a GUI, an RPC API, and an implementation of a P2P network for rumoring blocks and transactions. For all of those things, there’s no reason for Bitcoin Core to only act with “consensus” - can you imagine if they needed consensus of the community to make opinionated decisions in the GUI?! But specifically on the topic of the P2P layer - Bitcoin Core contributors’ jobs are to be good stewards to that implementation and do what is right for Bitcoin to maximize decentralization and robustness. There’s no debate (except from people who don’t understand Bitcoin) that reducing or removing paternalistic censorial standardness limits is not only good but possibly important for Bitcoin’s long-term decentralization. There is nothing that says anyone has to run Core, and there is nothing that says Bitcoin Core must only do things when there exists consensus in the broader Bitcoin community, especially when it’s abundantly clear those things are important for Bitcoin. None of this applies, of course, to Bitcoin’s consensus rules - that sub-project of Bitcoin Core has drastically different constraints. View quoted note →

Alright by popular(?) demand, here’s a great track from Shazam in a restaurant bathroom which it turned out was a Moroccan family band.

Currently I post more detailed Bitcoin stuff here, less detailed Bitcoin stuff on Twitter/X, and music on BlueSky. Should I start posting music here or would people be annoyed cause they just want Bitcoin content?

Its really obvious who actually pays attention right now and who is just getting their information tenth-hand from this site. Bitcoin Core GitHub has always been for technical discussion relevant to the specific PR to avoid it being impossible for them to get any work done. There are many other places to have broader discussions (e.g. the mailing list, IRC, delving, etc). Bitcoin Core is *finally* enforcing this rule, which is incredibly healthy for the project as it allows developers to stay focused, and people are upset because they only get bad takes on this site and don't actually research what happened. If you went and looked, you'd see that people who got banned were repeatedly making off-topic comments and didn't stop when it was made clear they should. That deserves a ban in *any* community. As for the specific thing going on, yes, sadly having a relay policy in Bitcoin Core that accepts all the transactions that people want to make (in this case Citrea wants to make) is a *critical* feature of the Bitcoin network. It ensures small miners (like Ocean!) are able to compete by making sure all transactions are available to everyone, rather than only available to large pools like @MARA via their Slipstream product or ViaBTC via their accelerator.

I really love when people obsessed with censoring the blockchain get mad about getting banned for brigading and trying to prevent others from doing their work.

Honestly incredibly excited that Bitcoin Core folks are finally more strictly creating an environment where contributors can focus on code rather than letting things get bogged down in stupid drama. This is incredible news for Bitcoin.

Is there a reason why people are pushing CTV currently over TXHASH? It seems like the second is strictly more flexible and I haven’t seen a reason why we should prefer not-that. Maybe @stevenroose ?