imagine that the blocksize war was won by big blockers few years later blocks are 10,20,30 mb, they’re full of spam, and running a node requires a 5tb hardrive and somebody comes along proposing to impose a 4mb block size limit in consensus would you have called it censorship? An attack on Bitcoin? a betrayal of neutrality?

the bip110 debate has exposed a basic confusion about censorship censorship is preventing someone who follows the network’s rules from using the protocol changing the rules of the protocol (bip110) is not censorship was segwit censorship? taproot? the 2010 inflation bug fix? rule changes are explicit, universal, and uniformly enforced censorship is targeted & discretionary whether you support bip110 or oppose it, you should at least know what censorship means

core devs could end this in 5 minutes by announcing that they’re going to change OP_RETURN default back to 80bytes

Here’s a summary of the Core vs Bip110 debate: CORE: spam is bad but there’s not much we can do about it except encouraging spammers to do it in the least harmful way possible. Transaction fees are the main defense against spam. BIP110: Spam is an existential threat to the survival of Bitcoin as money and we should do everything we can, including soft forks, to reduce spam as much as possible and discourage spammers.

Saw a disturbing message in Club Orange this morning and realized how important is for some Bitcoiners to have a real Bitcoin friend, ideally one you can meet in person. You don’t have to go through a bear market alone. View quoted note →

As the CEO of Club Orange, my duty is to serve our customers and our shareholders. As a father and husband, my duty is to serve my family. Both of these duties requires me to defend Bitcoin. So here's some thoughts about Bitcoin: Saylor is right that there are multiple camps trying to steer Bitcoin in their desired direction. The Technologists (core, ordinals wizards, citrea, and co.) think bitcoin is fundamentally just a database, most of them probably don't even own bitcoin. Their goal is to turn bitcoin into ethereum 2.0 where all kind of experiments and new technologies are layered on top of bitcoin. If they win, I believe bitcoin will die rapidly. The Capitalists (saylor, walton, and all the bitcoin treasury companies aficionados.) think bitcoin is "digital capital" a financial product that should be exploited for fiat gains. Their goal is to turn Bitcoin into another Wall Street product: "We convert Bitcoin into money". "Our goal is to outperform Bitcoin". Essentially they want to turn Bitcoin into fiat. If they win, I believe bitcoin will become another stonk and captured by the government. The Maximalist, the camp I find myself in, think bitcoin is our only hope to separate money from the state, that it should be used as money, that fiat is a cancer to the world and that the ultimate goal is not to get rich, but to enrich the world. I believe this was Satoshi's original vision for bitcoin, a mission much greater than NGU. These 3 camps cannot coexist and they are colliding as we speak (bip110, attacks on saylor, adam back, etc). We are living in the most consequential time in bitcoin history so I urge you to pay attention. In a few years it will be obvious which camp has won but there might be nothing left to fight for.

RECAP FROM VEGAS 2026: sleep very little did not gamble listened to 1 talk spent a lot of sats met 100+ Club Orange members had dinner with strange characters ran the first Club Orange Private event Until next time.