Schism is sad and destructive. Reform is preferable to schism. BIP-110 has forked. Many of the node-maximalists will leave Bitcoin for the new chain, and the Bitcoin network will be weaker because of this.

🥲

Applications of the future will have an MCP or MCP-like surface that will allow your agents to drive them autonomously.

Humanity has been on an inevitable crash course with AGI ever since we first tried to communicate our own thoughts and experiences with each other. And AGI is probably already here anyway. It's what we call "The Internet".

Firing the miners with a PoW change constitutes an intentional hard fork. I do not support any new coin. I also do not support the bricking of all miners ASICS. Miners support the security of the Bitcoin network. Just want to be very clear about this specific issue. Its clear that regardless of how many node runners supported the BIP, miners were inclined to veto. So until I fully understand why that is, I will support no additional efforts relating to #BIP-110.

I'm not interested in a new coin. I'm interested in protecting #bitcoin. #BIP110 has failed. Pretending it didn't is not helpful. I am interested in addressing the shortcomings the BIP had and moving forward together to make Bitcoin as robust as possible. I still think arbitrary data on the chain is an important problem to solve.

Sleep paralysis is not fun...

Dang Chris Guida is awesome. ✊

Bitcoin exists to provide sovereign decentralized money. Full-node affordability is part of its security model. Arbitrary permanent data imposes costs on that infrastructure without improving Bitcoin's monetary function. Users are therefore entirely within their role as sovereign validators to tighten the protocol against those externalities.

This may be the core disconnect between Core and Knots runners. The fee market does not correctly price the resources it uses. Assuming that it does is pure ignorance. View quoted note →

Its going to be an interesting weekend. I won't be moving any coin until the dust settles.

BIP-110 is a restrictive soft fork, not a permissive hard fork. Once mandatory signaling begins, miners can set one bit and remain compatible with both legacy nodes and BIP-110 nodes, or refuse and knowingly mine blocks that thousands of enforcing nodes will reject. If miners are rational and profit motivated, risking their block reward to preserve a tiny amount of arbitrary-data fee revenue makes no economic sense.

You have Bitcoin and then you might also have some "Core Coins" soon.

The fee market prices blockspace today. It does not pay for the storage, indexing, bandwidth, backups, and infrastructure costs imposed on full nodes for decades. Run #BIP110

Which constraints cause Bitcoin to perform its monetary function most robustly while preserving permissionless financial use? Run #BIP110

a protocol that refuses to distinguish its primary function from every conceivable secondary use is poorly specified. Run #BIP110

I had an idea a few weeks ago while I was painting my brothers new house. The idea was, what if we abstract Nostr tech away from the user and focus on an experience that normies understand and already use, then transitioning them to use a Nostr application might be easier. That idea has grown and developed into #bitlogin. I'd love to get more feedback on this.

BitLogin — one login for every site that uses it

A login name and password that work on every BitLogin site — no extension to install, no separate signer to keep running. Built on the open Nostr...

And here is a #Nostr based web app I created as a test for bitlogin to provide a seamless experience without talking about "Nostr" or making any technical arguments.

Satisfied

Know what you eat, without giving away your data. Private AI nutrition analysis paid in sats.

I'm sorry to have to break the news to you. "Artisanal" code isn't a security model.