Satoshi Bitcoin Cycle, as defined by Crises 🧵🔽 "For society to function properly, all it takes is a small number of intolerant VIRTUOUS people with SKIN in the GAME, in the form of COURAGE." - Minority Rule, Taleb GENESIS (2009) - Creation of Bitcoin Intolerant Monetary Purist Minority rises 1st Satoshi Crisis (2015-17) - Blocksize Wars. Tolerant Majority fought a war for control, disguised as blocksize debate. Intolerant minority (thank the Core) refused to give in. Victory for Bitcoin & society. 2nd Satoshi Crisis - Miner vs Node Power (2017): Tolerant majority (Wuille, Maxwell,Corall,etc) wanted miner fork activation. Intolerant minority (Luke, Shaolinfry) said Node Power (UASF) = key Bitcoin difference. Intolerant minority won - Bitcoin survived. 3rd Satoshi Crisis (2020-21) - Spam Floodgates Intolerant minority (Luke) warned Taproot = spam vector. Tolerant majority (Wuille, Poelstra, Maxwell, Nick, Zhao, Adam) pressed activation (Speedy Trial), then rejected fixes (2 controversial). Inscriptions/bloat surged. 4th Satoshi Crisis (2025) - Core confidence crisis. Tolerant majority (Core) pushes high risk-low return change to align with OOB, PP, trolls, despite controversy. Dissent squashed. Intolerant minority (Knots) fights back. Technical nuance awareness on the rise.

Subtle difference: protocol used as intended-block structure intact vs protocol exploitation-corrupted block structure. Core v30 makes OP_RETURN viable 4 wallets to start accepting & displaying images. It's not black & white, it's probabilities & probability is increased by v30. I keep saying: Core v30 has awful ROR in terms of game theory. Because of prevalence of older Core versions which will not upgrade, OOB & PP remains, no changes to fee estimation, no changes to decentralization, not changes to propagation. We are buying nothing, except larger attack surface. What's in it for vast majority of users? More risk What's in it for the network? More risk What's in it for the world? Weakening of Hard Money Why would Core do such a thing? Sorry to be rude, but the entire Core v28-v30 saga is a massive circle jerk. Plain and simple. This is why people are mad at you. Adam, you are a legend, brother, a well respected Bitcoin OG. You are using your considerable brain power & political capital to muddy water, vaguely trying to salvage the un-salvageable. Core is losing the war by winning the battle. It is the most probable outcome, if you understand game theory. "For society to function properly, all it takes is a small number of intolerant VIRTUOUS people with SKIN in the GAME, in the form of COURAGE." - Minority Rule, Taleb In the long game, intolerant minority wins.

THESIS ====== Bitcoin is STRONGEST when DEFAULTS=TIGHT and CONTROLS=WIDE. Knots is the antifragile client. Core trends toward cartelware. AXIOMS ======= A1. Security outranks convenience. Fee estimation and propagation tweaks are noise compared to keeping consensus sacred. A2. Policy variety = resilience. A mixed mempool makes censorship costly & faults survivable. Policy must never ossify into consensus defaults. A3. OOB/PP are ineradicable through policy. They’re latency hacks. You contain them, not abolish them. A4. Non-mining nodes incentives = tight policy. Sovereign nodes protect themselves from DDOS by filtering junk. A5. Miner incentives = loose policy. Templates broaden to maximize fees, but edges stay controlled. A6. Max resiliency = max distance between tight nodes & loose miners, plus max variety across the spectrum. A6 is a function of A2, A4, and A5. COROLLARIES =========== C1. All nodes matter. Even “quiet” nodes that neither mine nor spend enforce consensus. They: 1) quarantine invalid forks (2013) => they don’t just reject, they prevent further relay. 2) throttle spam floods (2015), 3) protect supply cap (2018 inflation bug). Without them, miners are just hashing an altcoin fork. With them, Bitcoin stays Bitcoin. C2. Healthiest client traits: 1) Ships tightest defaults to keep the baseline lean. 2) Exposes all policy knobs so power users can widen deliberately. 3) Hides nothing, welds nothing. Defaults aren’t destiny. Objections & Counters ================= 1. “Loose helps fee estimation.” Wrong. Block inclusion, not mempool relay, sets the price. Extra junk adds variance, not clarity. 2. “Loose aids propagation.” No. Compact blocks + low bandwidth costs matter. Loose-everywhere just bloats relay and kills home nodes. 3. “Diversity fragments mempools.” That’s the point. Fragmentation stops defaults from ossifying into law. 4. “OOB makes policy moot.” OOB masks insider costs, doesn’t erase them. Tight defaults quarantine the blast radius. Fees change the game ================== a) Low fees: diversity looks muted, OOB papers over. b) High fees: diversity bites. Weird-but-valid txs = pure revenue. Ignore them and you’re burning sats. Tight defaults guarantee those signals survive. CONCLUSION: Knots vs Core =========== KNOTS: Tight defaults + wide operator knobs. Policy entropy preserved, consensus untouched. CORE Loosening defaults and welding settings to mirror miner behavior. Fewer knobs, higher costs, creeping centralization. RESULT ===== Knots is the healthier client. Core drifts toward cartel-ware.

THIS IS DATABASE!

SATOSHI in 2010: 1. PLAINTEXT Messages should NOT be recorded in block chain. 2. PLAINTEXT MESSAGES = ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN 3. Separate msg system should be created, if needed. TLDR: v30 is malware per Satoshi's reasoning.