Something I should have built a long time ago:

I guess I was a bit repetitive, and I wrote too much. I'll be shorter: Did you *want* BIP110 to activate? (Your preference) Did you think it would get the necessary support? (The preferences of others. Game theory, ...) I guess your answer is "Yes" to both, but I'm curious which of those two - if any - you would be willing to discuss with me

There was no 'attitude' from me. Bitcoin Core didn't increase the OP_RETURN limit in version 30. It was increased months earlier by the Bitcoin network; an in fact the consensus limit on OP_RETURNs was set to 1MB at least 10 years ago. The Bitcoin Network made its own decentralized autonomous decision to accept large OP_RETURNs, and it made that decision before v30 existed In fact, the number of large OP_RETURNs actually decrease slightly after v30 was released You disagree with that decision. That's fine. But it's difficult for you to argue with the Bitcoin Network, precisely because it's decentralized and autonomous. Who are you going to argue with? You can't blame Core30, as the Network had already made the decision months earlier. By the time v30 was released in October 2025, the default in Bitcoin Core was "effective", it was having one harmful effect and no positive effect: It was stopping small miners and small pools from seeing the transactions that were going to be mined. Again, you might disagree with that, but you have to be realistic if you want to go to war against the Tolerant Minority; it's very difficult to stop us I know this seems repetitive to you. But this is an important opportunity to learn. People like me, in the Tolerant Minority, step in to take action to save Bitcoin. We don't ask for permission from Core or from Knots. You don't like our decisions sometimes, but that's what happens in a decentralized system. Serious question: why did you think BIP-110 would succeed? It was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose, as it would bloat the UTXO set, and the main leaders were liars research.mempool.space/opreturn-report/

(I think I've read all the replies by you in this [assuming my client is finding and rendering them all correctly]) You refer elsewhere to your desire for more variety of Bitcoin network clients. But that will just bring relay closer to consensus, so you better be prepared for the consequences 😀. There will always be people (like me) who are happy to be more tolerant, such as relaying OP_RETURNs, when we believe the filters are harming the small miners. (You might think we have made the wrong judgement, but we do exist and we will take action) Secondly, miners want to earn fees, and therefore they will connect to the nodes that give them fee-paying transactions Therefore, the *de facto* relay policy will be the policy of the few dozen nodes that are more relaxed, if the miners connect to them. Relay policy isn't a democracy. Relay policy isn't even controlled by the economics nodes. Relay policy is controlled by the *relaxed* nodes and the *relaxed* miners If you have a goal to keep relay policy far from consensus, i.e. to have lots of filters, then you need to be very realistic. People like me will fight the filters, if we believe it's necessary to help the small miners, and there isn't much you can do about it

Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're misunderstanding what happened with BIP110 (I enjoy following you, as I feel that you are different from many bitcoiners here on Nostr, and it's useful to follow different perspectives) The big miners didn't really *reject* BIP110, they simply ignored it. They just kept mining Bitcoin blocks as usual. Dathon Ohm lied when he said the big miners did a "secret hard fork". Some users configured their nodes to reject Bitcoin blocks, and therefore it's no surprise that they ended up on a different chaintip; sorry if this is uncomfortable to read, but it's true BIP110 was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose. It would have made it more difficult to run a node, by forcing data into the UTXO set; and that's the worst outcome for node decentralisation The Knots and filtering movement is harmful to mining decentralisation, as it makes it difficult for small miners to see what's going to be mined. The "Tolerant Minority" fought back, to defend decentralisation, by helping small miners to see all the fee-paying transactions; they did this by relaxing their mempools to relay more transactions So, it's good that BIP110 was ignored by Bitcoin. And the BIP110 leaders told many lies about "game theory", as well as generally being egotistical maniacs

I think using your Bitcoin to open Lightning channels, and then swapping your Lightning balance to onchain (e.g. via Boltz) is easier to do - and at least as private - as what you suggest

"attack" The Bitcoin network did literally *nothing*. It didn't even notice BIP110 No URSF, no invalidateblock. Miners didn't make any change to their templates, or their signalling code Bitcoin didn't defeat BIP110, it ignored it

Bitcoin moved on without BIP-110 Bitcoiners did nothing. No URSF. No 'invalidateblock'. We accepted BIP-110 blocks; but they fell behind the heavier chain We just kept doing doing, relaying transcations and mining blocks as usual. Your 'fork' didn't impact us any way Is it embarassing that you lost so comprehensively, despite us doing nothing?

So FIPS stands for Fastest Internet Packet Switching? (Seriously though, love )

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I'd trust myself to just select words myself from a print out of the BIP-39 word list And similarly, for dice rolls I would trust myself to do random rolls in my brain Yeah I know what some of you are thinking. While I'm not a professional cryptographer, I've been studying randomness and statistics in some form in my entire career, so I trust myself - if I need to select a new seed phrase really quickly - to do it with good enough entropy

We need to rethink "Bitcoin only" as a purity test. Multiple things recently have reminded me of this issue, not just the ColdCard hack. If you *genuinely* understand the tech, and the economics, and all that other stuff, you can come to the conclusion that Bitcoin will win. That you should put all your wealth in it, and you should help out with freedom tech if you can But things aren't so easy for people who don't really *understand* it all. They have to go on faith a lot. I've had just one long face-to-face conversation with a BIP-110 supporter. Very nice older man, but he knew essentially nothing about how Bitcoin worked. He had put all his life savings into Bitcoin, but he was very stressed and said he'd have to sell if BIP-110 didn't activate. My point there isn't to (yet again!) criticize a BIP-110 supporter. He kept using the word "conviction", and that his "conviction" was being tested. It's like a religious person talking about "faith" He was Bitcoin-only (on the face of it), but only because it was an article of faith for him and because he copied the opinions of people smarter than him. If we try to bully people to take "Bitcoin only" as an article of faith, then it becomes a meaningless slogan. And it can become harmful because it means that people can't ask the hard questions that challenge Bitcoin. And if people are Bitcoin-only as an article of faith, and not because they've actually learned about it, then I don't think that does anybody any good

If the code is open, bad actors will read it and exploit it If you want to motivate people to review and help you to improve the code, actively encourage them to use it and encourage them to depend on it in their products Make it truly open source (MIT, GPL, BSD). Be flattered, not angry, when people incorporate the code in their products. They are now motivated to help find and fix problems Don't arrogantly try to say that it's "your code", as if you are perfect I.e. don't be like ColdCard. Don't do a dumb rewrite, against the loud advice at the time, to switch all the code to a fake-open license which allows bad actors to read the code and doesn't incentivize good actors to do the same More examples are being (re-)surfaced of Coinkite/nvk being assholes. Their anti-open attitude appears to be deeply embedded in their DNA. I say this because they can't recover from this; the root cause of this isn't just "aww shucks, this one line was unfortunate". They were mismanaged by an egomaniac who hated openness ---- Just one example https://thecharlatan.ch/COLDCARD-Supply-Chain/ I guess I'm lucky that I had a slightly "icky" feeling about Coldcard. Their device looked really cool, and they had some good marketing, but that all felt kinda sus to me. So I don't think I really considered it

And, of course, in the 'Fork Talk' Telegram group, their main attack dog there is trying to find a way to blame Core for the Coldcard thing

I'd buy a device which simply did this: I enter 11 (or 23) BIP-39 words that I selected randomly myself, and then it computes the checksum and 12th (or 23rd) word and displays it to me Then I'd enter these 12 (or 24) words in a separate conventional hardware wallet The device could come with dice and a table of the words I'm suggesting this because this checksum is the only part of seed generation that isn't easily done manually

I was going to say "well actually, the coin splitting won't be possible until September at the very earliest, as they won't be blocking op_if at consensus level until 4032 blocks after August 8th" But then I remembered that the bip110 miners will, due to their strict *relay policy*, be "enforcing" certain rules immediately. And are in fact already enforcing them Have you checked the *policy* that bip-110 miners (assuming they stay at the defaults) are enforcing today and will enforce throughout this? Does it reject OP_IF?

Are there tools to download the list of all the songs I've liked on Spotify or Youtube Music? I'm not asking for the actual audio itself, just to backup the lists of songs #AskNostr

This will be dead with hours In fact, I'm pretty sure that they'll get literally zero blocks during mandatory signalling So don't worry about these hypothetical details 😊

Such a strange hill for you to end your Bitcoin career on