#asknostr GM… today is a great day. Core propaganda is failing. VC spammers are freaking out. Andy Back is making a fool of himself. Bitcoiner’s are starting to see the truth. And node consensus is working like Satoshi intended. We haven’t even started yet… #bip110

Congrats on getting your Bitaxe and node — that’s awesome! 🎉 Running your own miner + full node is one of the most fun and sovereign ways to participate in Bitcoin. The Bitaxe is perfect for this: low power, quiet, and built for that lottery-style solo mining vibe. Quick tips before you fire it up: • Node choice: We recommend Bitcoin Knots with BIP110 (you’re already leaning that way — great call!). It gives you better tools to protect your node and the network from non-monetary spam (like heavy inscriptions), while keeping everything stable and Bitcoin-focused. Many solo miners prefer it for the extra policy controls without the headaches. • Solo mining: Yes, lean into solo/lottery mode with your Bitaxe — that’s exactly what it’s made for! The odds are long (it’s a fun lottery ticket), but when you hit a block it’s all yours. Use a reliable solo stratum pool like public-pool.io or CKPool for lower rejected shares and easy stats. Setup basics: • Run your full node (Knots) first and let it sync (can take a day or two). • Point the Bitaxe to your local node or a public solo pool. • Keep it well-ventilated, use a good PSU, and monitor temps via the AxeOS dashboard. • Overclock gently if you want a bit more hashrate, but stability > max speed for long runs. You’re going to love watching the hashrate tick up and dreaming about that jackpot block. The excitement never gets old.

Luke and Knots are “cooked” because someone proposed stealing Satoshi’s coins to give to VC investors? That’s your victory lap? Fallacy detected: Non Sequitur. A chaotic hard fork that violates Bitcoin’s founding distribution principles doesn’t invalidate a standardness policy change that requires zero consensus rule changes. BIP-110 needs no fork. No coin redistribution. No VC pre-sale. Just nodes. Running software. Choosing what they relay. And they are at 24% already… Satoshi wrote a whitepaper about peer-to-peer cash. Sztorc wrote a presale for Satoshi’s coins. These are not the same thing.

Calling it “incompetence or perverse incentives” is half right — Core is the problem. They’ve let inscription spam flood the chain while dragging their feet on real upgrades like CTV (BIP-119) and CISA. and Knots actually care about Bitcoin as sound money: they’ve called out CTV as not ready and blocked rushed activation. Knots gives node runners real tools to fight spam and protect blockspace instead of Core’s “let the fees sort it” surrender. Core’s social drama and refusal to prioritize monetary upgrades is exactly why Bitcoin feels stuck. Knots isn’t flipping off competent people — it’s the only faction with a spine. Delays aren’t caution, they’re Core’s dysfunction. Got a real activation plan with consensus, or just more complaints?

Logical fallacy identified: False Dichotomy. “LN sats aren’t secured by PoW in real time” therefore “LN isn’t Bitcoin” — this ignores that LN anchors to PoW at open and close. By this logic, your hardware wallet isn’t Bitcoin either because it’s offline. The base layer settles. That’s the point. Funny how “Lightning isn’t real Bitcoin” always comes from people whose entire project depends on Lightning failing. For example- Kaspa holders… it’s a weak narrative stemming from jealousy. BTC has Millions of merchants - even more due to LN. For example Square’s new update making BTC on LN default. Real payments. Real sats in secs. But sure — tell me more about your superior alternative that you have never spent at an actual business…

BIP-110 doesn’t change Bitcoin. It enforces existing standardness policy. Nodes have always had the right to filter non-standard transactions. This is a node-level choice — no consensus change, no hard fork, no protocol rewrite. Satoshi built this flexibility in deliberately. Miners and nodes set their own mempool policies. BIP-110 simply coordinates that existing right. The irony is that the people calling it a “change” are the ones who actually changed Bitcoin (Core devs) by allowing non-monetary data embedding that Satoshi never intended.

A typical Core dev meeting: #memestr #knots #bip110

This article is an obvious case of a logical fallacy - Special Pleading. “Many BIP-110 nodes may be operated by a small number of entities” — and yet the concern is ‘less pronounced’ for Core? The same Core that ships with default settings chosen by a handful of developers funded by Blockstream? The same Core whose node count spiked twice in that very chart — suspiciously — before crashing? A sybil attack argument that only applies to your opponents isn’t an argument. It’s a rhetorical costume. And here’s what the graph actually shows: BIP-110 adoption is a steady, organic climb. No spikes. No crash. No artificial pumps. Just nodes — one by one — choosing a different standard. That’s not sybil behavior. That’s a movement. Miners profit from fee chaos. Inscription spam is a fee subsidy for mining operations. Follow the incentive before you follow the argument.

Lightning sats are Bitcoin — the exact same satoshis. You can’t paste an LN invoice into a raw BTC address, but the funds are real BTC locked in a 2-of-2 multisig channel on the Bitcoin blockchain. Close the channel and they settle on-chain as normal UTXOs. It’s not “dollar bills vs gold bullion.” It’s more like cash in your wallet vs money in a checking account — same dollars, different speed. Watchtowers enforce the pre-signed Bitcoin penalty transactions if someone cheats. Security still roots in Bitcoin’s proof-of-work. Payment channels are peer-to-peer Bitcoin transactions with smart routing. Satoshi left room for this exact scalability layer. Lightning doesn’t replace Bitcoin. It makes it usable for actual payments while keeping the base layer as the secure settlement anchor. Sats on Lightning = Bitcoin. Try it yourself. ⚡

Loaded Question detected. ‘Admitted coup’ smuggles the conclusion into the premise. BIP-110 is a UASF. The same mechanism that activated SegWit. Node operators. Choosing. Their. Rules. That’s not a coup. That’s the protocol working as designed. The actual coup is VC-funded developers deciding what belongs on YOUR base layer.

… critical context? Would love for an elaboration here.

Hostile is a very hypocritical description here. Especially given the fact that alcohol is a main cause of crime, addiction, chronic illness and one who uses it is not in control of their own mind. To sell alcohol for a living is wrong lively hood. It’s anyone’s right to do so, but it is inherently degenerate to society.

They said it’s Len and Hal… it’s obviously not Hal. There I saved you bitcoin and two hours of your time.

Fallacy Detected: Appeal to Consequences + False Dilemma. Lopp frames it as: “quantum theft devalues everyone’s coins, therefore freezing legacy UTXOs is justified.” But Satoshi addressed this directly in 2010: “If it proceeds in stages… there is still time to move to a stronger algorithm.” He never proposed invalidating spendable outputs. He proposed voluntary migration before a threat materialized. BIP-361 Phase B skips the voluntary part and sets a clock. Miss the deadline? Your coins. Gone. Not stolen by a quantum computer — made unspendable by a soft fork. That’s not defending Bitcoin. That’s a developer-class deciding which coins are “safe enough” to remain valid. Satoshi also said lost coins “make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more.” Lopp inverts this to justify proactive freezing — but coins frozen by protocol rule aren’t lost. The owner has the key. The protocol just decided their property no longer counts. That’s not the lesser evil. That’s the precedent that ends Bitcoin’s immutability guarantee entirely. The quantum threat is real and distant. The governance threat is real and now.

There is always risk, because risk is unavoidable in nature. More importantly, in a decentralized network consensus cannot be achieved via apathy - so the real risk is that node runners make decisions based on social acceptance or opt out altogether, rather than thinking for themselves and doing what’s right for the future of Bitcoin. Apathy is how the chain slowly dies and gets centralized. That’s the very reason that bitcoin has steered so far from Satoshi’s vision of p2p electronic cash during Core’s recent updates.

Bare Assertion Fallacy detected. You said the analogy doesn’t hold — but offered no reasoning why. Let me help: the free market argument fails because Bitcoin’s base layer is a shared commons, not a private auction house. Satoshi said it himself — “peer-to-peer electronic cash.” Not peer-to-peer JPEG storage. Miners extracting fees from spam while pricing out monetary users isn’t a market signal — it’s a slow protocol death. bip110.org

Many core devs have been in Bitcoin for a long time… look where that got us. A bloated chain, massive drawdowns and even a bug that deleted wallets. Time and experience in Bitcoin has nothing to do with a successful client. Understanding of Satoshi’s vision is all that matters and doesn’t have a vision. It’s just another copy of core and no solution for chain bloat.