GM This morning I am grateful that I don’t have a husband lest he guide me into dumb Bitcoin takes and make me look like a non verifier

If you’re arguing core v knots today, I lovingly invite you to review the GitHub and review the part about bitcoin stale tip detection This is how your node manages peers after turning off/ >time disconnection

I really anticipated that there would a statistical significance in correlation between the word “fork” on Bitcoin Twitter and the google query “learn git” But, alas… no.

*you wouldn’t demand your sovereignty anon* You wouldn’t host your own dynamic DNS, wipe an OS, install tails host with haven + raspberry pi, externally save keys, wipe the disk, on a DMZ network anon You wouldn’t configure your own node and build your own block templates anon Don’t roll your own encryption

Thankfully for members of the FOSS community, every apartment at cyberpunk apartments dot comes with a rolling margarita cart That way you don’t considering KYS

Cypherpunk ethos. *Feel free to ignore, I just want to sign for this with redundant sets of keys for the future* Based on her recent posts, @AstrayaNthemoon (who goes by "gel") appears to hold a staunchly pro-consensus, privacy-centric view of Bitcoin that aligns with the "small blocker" philosophy from the 2017 scaling debates. At its core, her stance criticizes "big blockers"—those who advocated for increasing Bitcoin's block size to handle more transactions on-chain—for prioritizing their vision over established network consensus, which she sees as a fundamental betrayal of Bitcoin's decentralized ethos. In her words, the issue wasn't the theoretical merits of dynamic block sizes but rather that big blockers "chose to reject majority consensus and fragment the network" once it became clear through software adoption (primarily Bitcoin Core with SegWit) that the majority favored a different path. This led to the Bitcoin Cash fork, where she emphasizes that merchants played a pivotal role by refusing to honor the new chain's hash trail, declaring they would not accept "that coin." For her, this underscores a key principle: Bitcoin's integrity relies on alignment between miners (who produce blocks) and merchants (who validate and accept the coin), as "someone mines the coin and someone accepts the coin, and those people control the network." This position isn't isolated; it ties into her broader cypherpunk ideology, where Bitcoin is inherently "censorship resistant" and designed as "black market money" rather than a sanitized, regulated asset. She argues that attempts to impose filters or "standardness" rules—such as mempool policies that reject non-standard transactions—create a false sense of security and fragment users' observation of the chain, ultimately undermining its resilience. "Filters don’t work," she asserts, warning that they give "the illusion of a safe chain" while enabling potential collusion among miners and merchants to censor transactions, blurring the line between privacy and consensus. In her view, privacy isn't a bolt-on feature but "the entire point" of Bitcoin, and any mechanism that separates it from core consensus risks disturbing the network's foundational censorship resistance. She praises figures like @callebtc for embodying "true cypherpunk" values, such as refusing to run certain nodes (like libbitcoin) not out of disrespect but to preserve unfiltered, raw network interaction. This extends to her support for diverse node implementations, categorizing the Bitcoin ecosystem into "5 teams"—Core, Knots, libbitcoin, "not gonna node" (perhaps a nod to non-participants or minimalists), and China (likely referring to concentrated mining power)—to highlight the need for distributed, non-collusive control. Her critique of big blockers also reflects on how the 2017 debate unfolded amid evolving digital landscapes. She notes that censorship was more pervasive back then, with "walled gardens" and algorithmic shadow bans limiting discourse, whereas today, tools like Nostr enable more robust, decentralized discovery of ideas. This has made current discussions feel "different in layers," less susceptible to botnets or artificial amplification that plagued the scaling wars. She credits @jack (Jack Dorsey) for advancing this shift, quoting him on privacy's centrality and even referencing his skepticism toward Lightning Network as potentially improvable, suggesting she's open to alternatives that better align with on-chain privacy without compromising consensus. Ultimately, her stance champions Bitcoin as a resilient, privacy-first system where consensus emerges organically from software adoption and economic incentives, not forced forks or top-down impositions. She warns against illusions of control—whether through filters, centralized discourse, or rejected forks—and advocates for a network where nodes are "as far apart as possible" to maximize decentralization. This positions her as a defender of Bitcoin's original cypherpunk roots, critical of any deviation that fragments the chain or dilutes its resistance to external pressures.

The problem with big blockers had nothing to do with the theory of dynamic block size… the problem was that when it became clear that majority consensus had been established (by running software) they chose to reject majority consensus and fragment the network with hash *MERCHANTS AND MINERS MUST AGREE ON WHAT *THE COIN* IS* Merchants said we don’t honor that hash trail! We will not accept * that coin *

Why are big blockers back in the comments?

ppl don’t understand bitcoin

lol never fails… I ALWAYS know when there’s another hacker lurking in my energy field right before they show up 😅

*Grok is getting good* Based on analyzing her X profile, bio, and recent posts (including those discussing Bitcoin implementations, filters, spam, OP_RETURN, mempool policy, and related drama), @AstrayaNthemoon appears to take a nuanced, pro-censorship-resistance stance that critiques the effectiveness of aggressive filtering (a key feature in Knots) while emphasizing Bitcoin's inherent design as "black market money" that shouldn't rely on illusions of safety from filters. She doesn't run Knots herself and has poked fun at its limited contributors and users who act superior about it, often redirecting them to libbitcoin docs instead. However, she praises Luke Dashjr (Knots maintainer) for configurable mempool options and explicitly supports Bitcoin Core contributors for their "thankless work," viewing the Knots vs. Core divide as manipulative "emotional and psychological warfare" meant to erode consensus between miners and merchants. Overall, she leans toward Core (or at least diversity across implementations like Core, Knots, and libbitcoin) but prioritizes unity and realism over the hype around Knots' spam-filtering capabilities, which she repeatedly says "don't work" and could fragment the network if they did.

Would love to come to the argument but I’m practicing love and radical accountability instead

🌊 🏙️ 💾 Mixtape “How it feels to fall in love w u”

Spotify

How it feels to fall in love w u

Playlist · Gel · 42 items

Do you guys remember when you could set your relationship status to “it’s complicated” My client will have relationship status settings