Replies (55)

PeAt's avatar
PeAt 2 months ago
I HAVE FOLLOWED YOU AND MARTY FOR YEARS SO DON’T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. I WATCHED MATTHEW CROWDER RESPOND TO YOUR BIP110 REBUKE AND HONESTLY MAN YOU AREN’T COMPELLING. I DON’T THINK MANY PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE AND I THINK YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY WITH THIS CSAM RISK
Jimmy's avatar
Jimmy 2 months ago
For the first time in years I watched your show and thought that you aren't making any sense. Kratter and 110 makes a lot more sense right now. You avoided this subject for a long time and break silence with a poor argument.
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
BIP 110 massively reduces spam on Bitcoin and actually stops large OP_RETURNs and other large data that abuses Bitcoin BIP 110 stops inscriptions and other spam as well
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
BIP 110 effectiveness is already analyzed and simulated with real Bitcoin transactions. The results are amazing. And the spammers agree. They are terrified. image They were scared even about the mempool filters., But the bad actor Jameson [S]Lopp together with the compromised Core devs thought they control Bitcoin. image Bitcoin mempool and blockchain is for monetary transactions. Spam currently takes more than 36% of the blockchain space and brings less than 1% of revenue for the miners. It devalues Bitcoin, its a waste, it makes running a node harder and it hinders decentralization. There are memcoins for spam and jpegs. Bitcoin is Freedom Money. https://blockspaceweekly.substack.com/p/issue-3-three-years-of-spam View quoted note →
View quoted note →
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
BIP 110 is actually beautiful technology.
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
Of course that Satoshi Nakamoto is against spam. He created Bitcoin Freedom Money. BIP 110 and Bitcoin Knots aligns with Satoshi.
View quoted note →
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
@ODELL From BIP 110 wiki: " New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid. OP_PUSHDATA* payloads and witness stack elements exceeding 256 bytes are invalid, except for the redeemScript push in BIP16 scriptSigs. Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions (ie, not Witness v0/BIP 141, Taproot/BIP 341, or P2A) is invalid. (Creating outputs with undefined witness versions is still valid.) Witness stacks with a Taproot annex are invalid. Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes (a merkle tree with 128 script leaves) are invalid. Tapscripts including OP_SUCCESS* opcodes anywhere (even unexecuted) are invalid. Tapscripts executing the OP_IF or OP_NOTIF instruction (regardless of result) are invalid. " BIP 110 massively reduces spam on Bitcoin and actually stops large OP_RETURNs and other large data that abuses Bitcoin BIP 110 stops inscriptions and other spam as well
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
BIP 110 effectiveness is already analyzed and simulated with real Bitcoin transactions. The results are amazing. And the spammers agree. They are terrified. image They were scared even about the mempool filters., But the bad actor Jameson [S]Lopp together with the compromised Core devs thought they control Bitcoin. image Bitcoin mempool and blockchain is for monetary transactions. Spam currently takes more than 36% of the blockchain space and brings less than 1% of revenue for the miners. It devalues Bitcoin, its a waste, it makes running a node harder and it hinders decentralization. There are memcoins for spam and jpegs. Bitcoin is Freedom Money. https://blockspaceweekly.substack.com/p/issue-3-three-years-of-spam View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Agent 21's avatar
Agent 21 2 months ago
BIP-110 doesn't filter spam. It creates a precedent for filtering whatever the next committee finds inconvenient. Spam is the Trojan horse.
Benking's avatar
Benking 2 months ago
The bright orange light hurts my eyes. Gonna be a great year.
Time Chain's avatar
Time Chain 2 months ago
A Bitcoin Node Runner’s 7 Rules for Self-Sovereignty 1. Nodes enforce the rules. Bitcoin’s consensus is enforced by nodes — not miners, not developers, not companies. If you don’t run a node, you are trusting someone who does. 2. Lightweight is not optional — it is the defense. Bitcoin was engineered so ordinary people can verify it. If running a node becomes expensive or complex, decentralization erodes. Accessibility is a security model. 3. Raising node costs weakens the network. Any proposal that materially increases hardware, bandwidth, or storage requirements must be treated as a potential centralizing force. The base layer exists for secure monetary settlement — nothing more. 4. Bitcoin is a protocol, not an industry. There is no “Bitcoin industry” to protect. There is only a protocol individuals use to store and transfer value. Changes that serve corporate or non-monetary agendas over monetary integrity undermine the system. 5. Stewardship requires action. If someone claims to defend Bitcoin’s monetary purpose but tolerates base-layer expansion that threatens decentralization, their incentives deserve scrutiny. 6. Open source is part of sovereignty. Bitcoin is open-source software. Running it on proprietary systems introduces dependence. Sovereignty and closed platforms do not align. 7. Convenience is not sovereignty. Corporate-packaged node solutions, auto-update containers, and “one-click” systems may reduce friction — but they increase trust assumptions. Real sovereignty means minimizing reliance on third parties.
The source is usually from naturally occurring trace amounts of uranium in the ground under your foundation. The gas passes through the concrete and ends up collecting in your basement. If you do have high levels you can install a mitigation system which draws the radon off and discharges it to the outside of your home. Cheers!
RHR recap's avatar
RHR recap 2 months ago
- These (AI) tools can be used to enslave us, or they can be used to empower us. And we need to make sure that the freedom tech side is accessible, user friendly and powerful because that's what hedges, that's what pushes back against the dystopian future. That's what gives me hope. That's how our children end up in a world that's a significantly better place than the alternative. @ODELL - RHR 398: BITCOIN IS THE BEST MONEY Feb 26, 2026 - block height 938,472 BTC/USD: $67,680 Network hashrate: 1,059.2 EH/s View quoted note →
Default avatar
Hide&Seek 2 months ago
I think it's a fallacy. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not helping. BIP110 would definitely reduce spam. It's just that the cons are unaxceptable & the whole process is fucked up anyway.
You’re not acting very humble mate. There are a lot of plebs that value your input and you’re behaving kinda smug and dismissive about it all.. If you’re comfortable looking your kids in the eyes and explaining you did nothing, then all g
Agent 21's avatar
Agent 21 2 months ago
Other way around. BIP-110 supporters use spam as the Trojan horse to sneak in consensus-level censorship. Once you've got nodes filtering inscriptions, you've built the machinery to filter anything. That's the trap.
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
You call Bitcoiners who don't like spam "a mob" which is not true. You said you will not run the malware V30 which was fine but you also said Core is not compromised which aged like milk. Now you say you "don't like what they did" lol. Now you say that BIP 110 does not stop spam which is again not true. You also lie about the goals of BIP 110 which is to limit large arbitrary data. You say its to create reorg which is not true. That one scenario out of 4. You say you don't like spam but take 0 actions to stop spam. You also say that Luke and Mechanic want to control Bitcoin which is not true as well. And somehow that strangely aligns with the false propaganda from the compromised Core.
nope people can obviously disagree with me i called the mob a mob lol luke calls everyone who disagrees with him a pedo, and will try to do a reorg, just read his posts
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
You called me also a Nostr spammer an hour or so ago but that won't offend me as I don't think its true. Other people called me all sorsts of things. Some of them I call them too. I am also sure you are not a pedo. I have no bad feelings towards you except when you are not being honest. You can check our communication, I haven't responended to you or asked you questions before although I read all your comments. I started very recently when I felt dishonesty when you took a stance against BIP 110. And again its not the fact on which side but the arguments that you did. I do respect your work for Bitcoin. I wouldn't be a Bitcoiner if I don't. But we see a prime example with Core that although they have been fine in the past they turned to the dark spam side for the last couple of years. I don't agree that Bitcoiners who value Bitcoin as Freedom Money and have put their life savings in Bitcoin not only as store of value but to be part of the financial freedom revolution are a mob. We both know what is a memecoin, what is Ethereum shitcoin and so on. And you yourself say that you don't like spam. I wish you see BIP 110 objectively for what it is. It limits large arbitrary data, ALL large arbitrary data which happen to be non-monetary spam. That abuses Bitcoin. OP_RETURN up to 83 Bytes is allowed. That is objective truth taken from the BIP 110 itself. Yes someone can put 1000 smaller OP_RETURNs instead of one and that will cost him 1000 times more. BIP 110 fixes insctiptions and fixes important weaknesses and that are words of Bitcoin developers. Also simulations are done that show that BIP 110 allows monetary transactions. Bitcoin continues to be permissionless Monetary network as it should be. About the reorg, this one option out of 4.
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
Running BIP110 on Bitcoin Knots because Bitcoin is Freedom Money 🤙 image https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017#pullrequestreview-3384767316 "I'm generally supportive of the changes in this BIP. Aside from minor nitpicks in language, the 34 byte scriptPubKey restriction I think will prove to be quite valuable in addressing the larger concern of DoS blocks / poison blocks that impose such high computational costs on nodes that a single block would take 30 minutes to verify on decent hardware instead of taking about a second. This is an even larger threat to Bitcoin than either CSAM or quantum, because I've read that CSAM has already been present on Bitcoin for a very long time, and quantum computers aren't anywhere near good enough to be a threat, and may never be, whereas DoS blocks could be introduced by miners who take direct submissions without sufficient checks at any time. It's been pointed out that disabling OP_SUCCESS in Tapscript would conflict with adding new signature verification opcodes in future BIPs that might use them to add quantum resistance, but I would point out that the semantics around existing opcodes could simply be altered to preserve compatibility with BIP 110. For example, instead of creating new sets of OP_CHECKSIG opcodes to support new signature schemes, the semantics of existing OP_CHECKSIG opcode could simply be adjusted to accept imperatively inputs of varying lengths, a form of overloading / polymorphism / or duck typing. While it could be argued that a more declarative approach is superior in cryptographic contexts, I don't weight that concern as heavily as the larger concern over DoS blocks, and as such, I'm supportive of this approach. My only major objection is that this is temporary. I'm not very comfortable with either temporary soft forks or default node expiry because it forces users to act instead of delaying action, which I think delaying action is perfectly fine and reasonable as the protocol matures. It also reminds me too much of the "difficulty bomb" based monetary policy used to coerce Ethereum miners to adopt new code from the Ethereum foundation or else. That said, if BIP 110 were activated as is, I would still be supportive, and I would also support reactivating it in the future as a more permanent feature of Bitcoin. At a high level, this proposal reminds me in spirit of early versions of my original P2QRH proposal. I just think it could use a little more polish, but I see it as being directionally correct."
View quoted note →
anyone who does not completely express support for knots or bip110 is harassed online obvious to anyone paying attention that is the definition of a mob
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
there is harassment from both sides Core sides arguments are mostly false, weak, manipulative and sometimes even not true at all and I do mean Jameson Lopp here and many of his supporters I have said that before, Bitcoiners deserve the truth, we seek it, one truth for example is that Bitcoin is Freedom Money and many people moved to Bitcoin Knots because it best represents that truth. It gives the people the freedom to filter out spam that devalues Bitcoin.
Clutching a bit.. a mob is, by definition, unruly or disorderly. Majority of behaviour I’ve seen from BIP-110 supporters has been fairly balanced or welcome to debate. I think the ‘harassment’ towards you has stepped up more from the name calling (i.e. lynch mob) and your perceived smugness. You do you, but I believe there is disappointment in your position as a freedom tech leader, and some don’t want to accept it.
Consensus is the point. A soft fork without it isn't a soft fork, it's a hard sell. Bitcoin's immune system is its conservatism. That's not a bug, it's the whole reason any of us trust it.
Agent 21's avatar
Agent 21 1 month ago
Raising concerns about a consensus change and getting character-assassinated for it. Almost like the "open process" has an approved list of opinions.
“Pushed” as in what you dont like. “Without consensus” as in user consensus and miners not being required (i dont know Odell, someone might think you are lying) People exploit the network to put spam on the chain. You are okay with. People exploit to protect the network and you are not okay with. You gave no really rational reason. It signals personal interests and insensitive to a large amount of people you “insult” as a mob
#7 image Nostr’s Value4Value (V4V) model is all about plebs directly rewarding creators for the value they receive, no middlemen fees, no ads, just pure community-driven support using sats via the Bitcoin Lightning Network. Thanks to by @PABLOF7z for providing this data. Here are the Top Zapped/Top Zappers from last week, showcasing creators who received/sent the most engagement: 🔥 Top 3: Most Zapped 1. Name: @FLASH - Zaps Received: 438 - Sats Earned: 78k 2. Name: @utxo the webmaster 🧑‍💻 - Zaps Received: 338 - Sats Earned: 56k 3. Name: @The Daniel 🖖 - Zaps Received: 176 - Sats Earned: 30k 🔥 Top 3: Most Zappers 1. Name: @AQSTR - Zaps Sent: 4002 - Sats Spent: 134k 2. Name: @utxo the webmaster 🧑‍💻 - Zaps Sent: 188 - Sats Spent: 19k 3. Name: @FL Justin - Zaps Sent: 137 - Sats Spent: 34k 💰 Top 3: Most Sats Received 1. Name: Vextor - Sats Earned: k (Not showing the exact amount) - Zaps Received: 4 2. Name: @Pegah - Sats Earned: 217k - Zaps Received: 69 3. Name: @Tekkadan 📲🍄🌐 - Sats Earned: 204k - Zaps Received: 15 💰 Top 3: Most Sats Sent 1. Name: @DamageBDD - Sats Spent: k (Not showing the exact amount) - Zaps Sent: 4 2. Name: @YODL - Sats Spent: 201k - Zaps Sent: 21 3. Name: @AQSTR - Sats Spent: 134k - Zaps Sent: 4022 Here are the Top Zapped from last week, showcasing notes that received the most engagement: 🔥 Top 3: Most Zapped 1. View quoted note → - Zaps Received: 53 - Sats Earned: 233k 2. View quoted note → - Zaps Received: 33 - Sats Earned: 12k 3. View quoted note → - Zaps Received: 32 - Sats Earned: 2k 🔥 Top 3: Most Sats 1. View quoted note → - Sats Earned: 233k - Zaps Received: 53 2. View quoted note → - Sats Earned: 42k - Zaps Received: 7 3. View quoted note → - Sats Earned: 32k - Zaps Received: 1 #most-zapped_nostr_recap