Is anyone making a personalised social media aggregator? Like it could take your X, Nostr, Insta etc. feeds and strip out ads and post of accounts you don’t follow? No infinite scrolling, your feed only shows all the new posts since you last looked? Open Claude bot with read-only API access to your accounts, phone app or browser feed.

Be humble stack sats w/e Take your bitchass buy-the-fucking-dip $300 BTC DCA and buy MSTR $150 strike Feb 2027 calls instead. MSTR ~0.8 MNAV @ current share price of $110 BTC @ $65K. Return to MNAV of 1 fair value is $137.50 with BTC still at $65K. Upside of 25% without BTC price changing. July 2025 MNAV was 1.6, share price of $415, BTC $120K. Return to MNAV of 1.6, BTC price fixed at $65K, share price at $220. Upside of 100%. Saylor recently tarred and feathered for being too autistic to be a pedophile, blowing up at my beautiful boy @Danny Knowles on WBD. Sentiment bottoming Bullish MSTR here, expecting revert to MNAV parity at 1, good (price and size) execution of more BTC purchases sub their average price ($76K) MNAV back to premium up to 1.5. Targets: MNAV at 1, BTC $100K, MSTR $170 MNAV at 1.5, BTC $100K, MSTR $$320 *ignored increase in BTC holdings from potential future purchase because who the fuck knows how hard in the paint Saylor can go here

Luke Gromen is straight up chilling in that lake side house right now 🫡

Cheap hack for reducing phone screen time usage: enable grayscale colour filters. Nothing removes the emotional /dopamine spiking impact quite like sucking the colour out of whatever thing is on your phone.

Merry Christmas you filthy animals

MSTR MNAV at ~1.1, $162 a share. Starting to look tasty

Ooooft. The wagons are circling.

Bear market goal: enter the 1000 pound lifting club. 200 pounds to go, LFG

Is this the 2nd or 3rd cycle where the top was marked by the mass availability of collateralised lending products?

If I was MSTR I would be trying to buy out bitcoin treasury companies with MNAVs < 1 right now absorb their discounted bitcoin.

I gave you an honest shot @Dave Marcus 🤷

10 bucks to have a go Dave, it’s a fair deal.

This episode has sparked an absolute fire in me

Fountain

What Bitcoin Did • What It Really Means to Be Sovereign | SeedSigner • Listen on Fountain

SeedSigner is an open-source Bitcoin signing device. In this episode, SeedSigner breaks down why trustless hardware matters and why Bitcoin secur...

The anti-vax movement seems strong on Nostr. Can anyone point me to a substantive piece (article, research paper etc.) to try to better comprehend this point of view? All of the anti-vax people I know IRL are to put it politely, not good advocates for the movement.

It’s 2025. No social media (minus nostr). Not reading the news. are-watching Futurama. Life is good.

I feel the reasons for why you might be a #knots person really should make you a #monero advocate

@Rajat Soni, CFA I stuck to my plan, where you at my dude?

Yo Weeb of Trust, anyone got a good anime recommendation? Cypberpunk / ghost in the shell style?

I am a reasonably technical lay-person, has anyone got a strong reason why the OP_RETURN data size increase is necessary or wanted? Is it a case of improving the infrastructure before we need it? Building out infrastructure and letting the use cases develop? I think I understand that the alternative uses of the Bitcoin network are maxing out the 80 byte limit, increasing the size of the block chain. Then, they are also using the UTXO address (or something) to post their data, bloating both the blockchain and the UTXO set. As these UTXOs are not valid transactions they can not ever be spent and will sit in the UTXO set for eternity. The UTXO set is stored in memory (RAM - expensive) and the blockchain is in storage (cheap). The workaround is to just increase the OP_RETURN size to stop the UTXO bloat. Blockchain gets bigger so more storage is needed by nodes, but nodes are mostly SPV nodes and don’t store the blockchain anyway. These nodes do require the UTXO set in RAM (somewhat). If the UTXO set were to get too large, nodes become too expensive and as a result the total number of nodes drops, reducing the security of the network as a whole. The Bitcoin core developer stance is they are being neutral to the various forms of users of the Bitcoin network by increasing the data limit. In effect, large OP_RETURN data transactions take up larger portions of each block without increasing the total block size beyond the already established 4MB maximum. So we’re still having the same maximum block size, just it’s likely it’ll be used more frequently. The OP_RETURN data is optional to store on a full node, so you don’t need store it. The growth of the blockchain size is still inline with previous projections if you assumed full size blocks for every block. So technically, nothing changes. Thus the developer stance of neutrality. The issue is then philosophical, being that a 100kb file size is well… concerning. 100kb allows for 640 x 480 pixel JPEG to be stored directly on the blockchain. I guess that’s the crux of the issue then right? Plausible deniability that running a bitcoin node isn’t distributing illicit material goes straight out the window. So the only nodes you can run would be lightweight nodes, and no one ever stores the full blockchain or they’ll get SWATed for CSAM. This is where I don’t get the WHY of the change. Why enable the undesirable use cases of the Bitcoin network because it’s “technically neutral” to do so, when clearly you’re opening the door to certain doom? Please help me understand.