furio

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-26/tether-stablecoin-stability-rating-reduced-to-weak-at-s-p?srnd=homepage-americas&embedded-checkout=true S&P says tether, with 70-80% reserves in USTs is “weak.” Now do JPM. And tradfi inflooencers spike the football that this proves tether is a scam.

Maybe cashu will be saved when Calle follows in Satoshis footsteps and leaves the project to run on its own. His toxic influence will ruin the promise otherwise.

Today, Trump endorsed Core30. Core is scrambling to install knots.

The Clintons perfected the ability to do a thing, then accuse everyone they don’t like of doing the exact same thing, and gaslighting everyone relentlessly. Now, with social media, that tactic is being used by virtually everyone.

What we all need right now is more nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tc5y5as6 talking down to people who don’t know how to code as leet as he does. Please lecture us more, daddy

New BIP: incentivize financial transactions and dis-incentivize non-financial transactions. 1. Find a heuristic where the basic "bitcoin transaction" is identifiable. This is defined as "bitcoin transferred peer to peer with no alterior motives. 2. Charge the minimum for these transactions. 3. Charge a premium for any non-transaction related data. (this definition is where my "im not a LEET bitcoin programmer" will show) But I think "op return" and "<whatever causes inscriptions>" should pay a premium. Lets set this premium at 10x. And this could be adjusted similar to difficulty, but in inverse proportions. So if fees are low, then the premium is 100x. If fees are high, then 10x, since they are probably priced out anyway. This, to me, is a win-win. There is no "filtering" or "censorship" to be accused. This aligns incentives to eventually price out "non-peer to peer bitcoin transactions" when fees are not stupid low. But while we wait for fees, the non-financials are dis-incentivized as they should be. This "calls the bluff" on the core devs who say they are on the same side and want bitcoin to thrive in the "peer to peer bitcoin transactions." I don't think this is the reality, so call their bluff. See who's swimming naked.

@calle is filtering replies on X. lol

@callebtc on twitter, but not on nostr: https://x.com/callebtc/status/1971162531545977026?s=46 Also nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tc5y5as6 , unironically in the same tweet reply stream: https://x.com/callebtc/status/1971165127811661836?s=46 So is my choice of running a different bitcoin node variety “the end of bitcoin’s censorship resistance,” or does my mempool “not matter”?

Wen @calle start to dump on users who choose fedimint instead of cashu?