I understand and share the fear of rising node costs, but #BIP110 doesn’t actually solve that class of problems. Pruned nodes already discard historical block data, so large witness fields or OP-RETURN blobs are a temporary validation cost, not a permanent burden. The real long-term cost is UTXO growth, because UTXO entries live in RAM and cannot be pruned. By hard-capping prunable fields, BIP110 creates an incentive for motivated spammers who want to store more than the allowed bytes to shift part of the payload into fake outputs or synthetic keys. That moves data from the prunable side of the system into the non-prunable side. Several demonstrated constructions show that the node ends up carrying more bytes in UTXO than it would have stored in a single prunable OP_RETURN, while the fee delta for the spammer is minimal. So the proposal tightens some superficial limits but risks worsening the one part of the system that actually matters for long-term decentralisation: UTXO size, not raw block weight. That’s not obviously a win for decentralisation, and it’s a very weird hill to die on if our stated goal is keeping node costs low. Sending a message to spammers that they are not welcome is futile as the spammers do not care about our messages; they will just move to more destructive methods, and the cat and mouse game will continue. View quoted note →

This man needs to go. View quoted note →

Six million is a magic number. View quoted note →

The whole BIP-110 brouhaha reads like a self-righteous bureaucrat in a hackerspace: loud, performative, and fundamentally ignorant of the system it claims to “fix.” The recent KnotsLies exposé demolishes core talking points by literally encoding a contiguous image in a transaction that violates none of the rules its proponents say are sacrosanct, exposing that the very limits they want to enforce are either bogus or trivially circumvented — a classic case of ideological zealotry masquerading as technical rigor. Far from protecting #Bitcoin, this faction is pushing arbitrary consensus-level censorship of “non-monetary” data based on subjective judgments about what is “spam,” a slippery slope that corrupts Bitcoin’s neutrality and permissionless ethos. Worse yet, these narratives lean on inflated node counts and hollow signaling to suggest a groundswell that doesn’t exist in economic reality, and they paint market-driven fee dynamics as existential threats while dreaming up governance hooks that invite centralized control. What looks like principled minimalism on the surface is really just a tantrum that weaponizes “technical correctness” to graft political preferences into Bitcoin’s consensus layer, a move as counter to sound money and neutrality as any hard fork ever dreamed of.

The Knots lies

With an optimistic starting point of 25% miner support, the #BIP110 chain would take roughly 56 days to complete its first retarget, at which point it would hit the maximum allowed 75% difficulty reduction. If an additional 30% of global hashrate joins immediately after that (bringing total participation to 55%), the chain would then operate with 55% hashrate against 25% of the original difficulty. Under those conditions, blocks would average about 4.5 minutes, more than twice as fast as the 10-minute target, and the chain would deliver roughly 4× higher revenue per unit of hashrate compared to a chain that has not yet adjusted downward from its original difficulty. The exact payoff depends on how the non-BIP110 chain recalibrates, but the core incentive structure remains: once BIP110 reaches its first difficulty reset, the profitability spike creates a strong economic pull for miners to migrate. If a fork relies on asymmetric economic leverage while simultaneously labeling dissenters with extreme accusations, it can create the perception of a coerced consensus rather than an earned one. That dynamic is part of why trust erodes around such proposals, and why I do not support BIP110. I might be wrong, but this is how I currently perceive this.

Am I not getting this right? #asknostr View quoted note →

It would be quite a thing if they bought put options to offset the long position. That's just a wasted shot. Seems like some people have no idea how trading works. View quoted note →

The year just started, let's see if the trend is reversing from 2024. View quoted note →

Dumb for the idiots to have taken this long to realize money can't be anything else than impartial. View quoted note →

At least some remain witty in this shitshow of Yankees being Yankees. View quoted note →

Death is certain. Deletion is not. We fade, but our posts persist — cached, mirrored, archived — adrift in the digital void long after we’re gone. Like information falling into a black hole: once thought lost, now believed to be encoded on the horizon, scrambled but not destroyed. Maybe nothing truly vanishes. Maybe it just waits for the right reversal mechanism.

GM from the coldest ports of NA🤍

Government pressure to crank up the monetary base is always lurking in the room — hand on the lever, eyes on the printer, ready to hit “go” the moment nobody’s looking.

The state of Bitcoin. Let's make the demand for block even more harder to find. Run 110. View quoted note →

#Nostr is hastily losing its organic appeal; the late bot infestation is killing the vibe. This wild uptick likely to push users to less censorship resilient areas through WoT and Trusted Assertions.

My great-granddad told his son — my grandad — “Every man wants to be the greatest alive, yet for you, my son, I want someone greater than me to exist.” This captures a common paradox in fatherhood: the desire for personal greatness coexists with an even stronger wish to be outdone by one’s own child. View quoted note →