The Nostr community is much smaller than Twitter’s, but the ratio of real people and meaningful discussions is easily 10x. No algorithm pushing propaganda also makes Nostr way cooler.

Plebs do matter

“There is marked need for grift functionality” Well, yeah. But there’s a bigger market need for freedom and sovereignty. What you focus on tells a story…

Turns out cyber hornets aren’t into jpeg grifting. Who would have thought? Shockingly non-technical. Very pleb slop.

GM We are so lucky to be alive today, don’t waste this gift

GN frens

Why don’t presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?

Shall we get back to the basics? Not your keys, not your coins. Stack sats and move them to cold storage. Don’t overthink UTXOs. Fees are as cheap as they get right now, and you can always consolidate later for pennies.

The only bad part of the debate between @reardencode and Jimmy Song (can’t tag him, he blocked me) was @ToneVays Ten years in Bitcoin and still clueless It actually takes effort to actively avoid learning the thing you work on every day.

Cross post #Twitter to #Nostr is easy :) Check out my #Chrome extension https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/nostrx/abkngohdpnofgkfgofgpfjogfmfillda

Spam fees = 0.75% of total mining revenue over 3 years But coretards and shitcoin core devs (i.e Moron @murchandamus ) want you to believe that it's a good use of empty blockspace. "Blocks filled with financial txs only > Empty blocks > Spammy blocks"

Bitcoin's core promise is sound money via decentralized, permissionless transfer. Not a subsidized database for grifters and NFTs. By uncapping OP_RETURN in Core (even if already "de facto" bypassed by a minority), we're facilitating, normalizing and lowering friction for non-monetary use cases. That’s not harm reduction, it's more like a philosophical surrender. «There is data demand, so let's make it cleaner for them" instead of policy nudges that discourage turning the chain into a grift ledger. IBD/sync burdens accumulate on new/archival nodes regardless of pruning. Long-term that harms decentralization. Why risk eroding the sound money ethos for speculative edge cases?

Pre-v30 Core operated under the same principle design as Knots still does. It's only Core30 that is trying to reimagine Bitcoin as a data storage system.

Feeling pretty stupid holding Bitcoin right now. Probably a good time to buy Bitcoin.

The arrogance of Core and v30 apologists is pretty bad. Uncapping OP_RETURN is: - very controversial, leading to conflict and distrust in the social layer - potentially centralizing, since it opens up for quite massive chain bloat and worsened IBD - a bending of the knee to narratives of «innovation», previously an Ethereum and shitcoin narrative - standardizing and facilitating using Bitcoin for other things than money - cheered on by a united grifter community - an expansion of spam attack surface Where is the careful and conservative stewardship of sound money? Why force such controversy? With so flimsy reasoning that you can’t make a good case for it in rational layman terms, but need to resort to «PLEB SLOP!» and «You’re not tEcHniCaL eNouGh!»

Many people who oppose BIP-110 also oppose Core 30 and suggest "just not upgrade to 30." It's crazy how the community argues about solutions but agrees that 30 and the current core are garbage.

Human nature + continuous protocol changes = unavoidable slide towards corruption of the protocol. Which is exactly why the «you’re not technical enough to understand the wisdom of this very controversial protocol change» should raise big red flags. Especially when strongly supported and promoted by people with terrible track records.

#GM lads

If anything, I want bitcoin to be LESS programmable and iNnoVatiVe. You don’t fuck around with sound money when you finally have it ffs.

Running BIP-110. Bitcoin is money. GFY