I'm starting to think quantum computing is a psyop. View quoted note →

I'm accused of farting in bed intentionally. The farts are long and loud. I don't have them during the day. My defense is if I could intentionally fart that long and loud intentionally, I would do it all day long.

Why do I care about Kuwait?

People who dump on @jack mallers are gay and retarded

@Stacker News > Hacker News

Wild rice is proof-of-work rice. Uncle Ben's 10-minute parboiled white rice is fiat rice.

The question of whether BIP110 makes Bitcoin censorable cannot be answered until “censorship” is defined with precision, because most disagreement stems from conflating fundamentally different mechanisms under a single moral label. In the context of Bitcoin, censorship should be defined as the enforced prevention of inclusion of a valid transaction into the blockchain despite the existence of a willing miner and sufficient fee. This definition is specific and necessary: the transaction must be valid under consensus rules, there must be at least one miner willing to include it, and some mechanism must prevent that inclusion from occurring. If any of these elements are missing, the situation is not censorship but rather invalidity, lack of demand, or voluntary refusal. Bitcoin operates across distinct layers that must not be collapsed into one another: consensus rules determine what is valid, policy rules determine what nodes relay or store, and economic behavior determines what miners choose to include in blocks. True censorship can only occur at the consensus layer or through external coercion that effectively overrides miner choice. Policy-level decisions, by themselves, do not meet this threshold. BIP110 operates at the policy layer. It influences what transactions nodes are willing to relay or prioritize, but it does not change what transactions are valid under consensus, nor does it prevent miners from including those transactions in blocks. A transaction filtered by policy remains valid, can still be mined, and can still propagate through alternative paths. There is no mechanism introduced that enforces its exclusion from the chain. The claim that denying non-financial transactions constitutes censorship depends on an overly broad definition in which any exclusion is labeled as censorship. This collapses the distinction between refusal to subsidize and coercive suppression. Nodes in Bitcoin are not obligated to carry all data, relay all transactions, or optimize for all possible uses of block space. They are sovereign actors operating under cost constraints. Refusing to relay or prioritize certain transaction types is not equivalent to preventing their inclusion; it is a form of resource selection within a competitive system. If a miner is willing to include a transaction and the sender pays an adequate fee, the transaction can still be confirmed. The system remains permissionless at the level that matters. Bitcoin is not a neutral data substrate; it is a constrained system designed to preserve decentralization under limited bandwidth, storage, and validation costs. These constraints are not arbitrary but are the mechanism by which permissionless verification is maintained. If arbitrary data is allowed to compete equally with monetary transactions without any policy-level filtering, the cost of running a node increases, fewer participants can independently validate the system, and control concentrates. At that point, actual censorship—at the consensus level—becomes feasible. In this sense, unbounded inclusion at the policy layer undermines the very property of uncensorability that is being defended. Framing Bitcoin as either a “timechain” or a “financial system” creates a false dichotomy. It is both, but its constraints are tuned for reliable monetary settlement. Non-financial uses are not prohibited, but they are not guaranteed equal priority. That prioritization is not an act of tyranny; it is an optimization aligned with the system’s core function. The introduction of arbitrary or potentially incriminating data further raises the stakes by introducing legal risk to node operators, which can deter participation and accelerate centralization. If participation declines, enforcement power concentrates, and the system becomes more vulnerable to genuine censorship pressures. Bitcoin is not governed democratically in the sense of collective decree. It evolves through the independent choices of node operators adopting software, miners responding to fee incentives, and the broader market coordinating around those behaviors. Policy changes like BIP110 are not acts of imposed authority but expressions of voluntary alignment within these constraints. Under a precise definition, BIP110 does not make Bitcoin censorable because it does not prevent valid transactions from being included by willing miners. It represents a policy-level adjustment in how resources are allocated and propagated across the network. Exclusion at this layer is not coercive suppression but selective participation. The failure to distinguish between these leads to the mistaken conclusion that any filtering is censorship. In reality, preserving the uncensorable transfer of value requires maintaining the conditions under which no single actor or coordinated group can enforce exclusion at the consensus level, and policy-level discretion is one of the mechanisms by which those conditions are sustained.

Ok, well, running a vps authed only with your nostr bunker and automatically paying for it over NWC, that would be really fucking cool. And that's exactly what you do with @npub1lnvp...7vjj

@Amethyst we have an epidemic of users' relay lists being misconfigured - inbox relays used for posting type 1 notes, etc. Something needs to be done.

GM View quoted note →

Does this mean liberals will flood into Bitcoin? Of course not, the TV will tell them to clammor for a CBDC View quoted note →

I am angry, therefore everyone is stupid. Everyone is stupid, therefore I am angry.