walker

host of @npub10qrssqjsydd38j8mv7h27dq0ynpns3djgu88mhr7cr2qcqrgyezspkxqj8 AKA THE #Bitcoin Podcast

⚡️Listen to THE Bitcoin Podcast: https://bitcoinpodcast.net/podcast
⚡️YouTube: http://youtube.com/@walkeramerica

Public Key

npub1cj8znuztfqkvq89pl8hceph0svvvqk0qay6nydgk9uyq7fhpfsgsqwrz4u

NIP-05 Address

walker@primal.net

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvfr3f7p95stxqrjslnmuvsmhcxxxqt8swjdfjx5tz7zq0yms5cygpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamn8ghj7atdvfex2mpwd3hkxctv8g6rsdpcqy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgwhtk9y

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

umbrel.local:4848

eden.nostr.land

Author Public Key

npub1cj8znuztfqkvq89pl8hceph0svvvqk0qay6nydgk9uyq7fhpfsgsqwrz4u

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-26 00:11:17 UTC

- reply

Oh fuck yeah that’s some good trees and sky

2026-03-25 23:28:43 UTC

- reply

No man in the history of mankind has ever made a public declaration of love for his woman until this very moment.

2026-03-25 23:15:26 UTC

Happy birthday, @npub1hu3…h8nh
We’ve known each other for 16 years—almost half our lives—and each year I spend with you is better than the last.
You are an incredible woman, wife, and mother to our child (soon to be children). The only downside for our kids is they’ll have to deal with being the ones with the smokin’ hot mom, but they’ll manage.
The energy you bring to everything you do is infectious, and no one who meets you can ever forget you.
I was hooked from the first time I laid eyes on you. I’m still hooked.
I love you.
https://i.nostr.build/6uucWGk67TMzsk7Q.jpg

2026-03-25 14:31:40 UTC

- reply

I already upload my @npub10qr…xqj8 episodes as video through @npub1v5u…n0v5 so if Apple starts supporting this feature it should be automatically pulled into Apple as well.
https://fountain.fm/show/68gcLZFDRxOzgGeZmXq6

2026-03-23 22:41:43 UTC

- reply

Nice.

2026-03-23 22:41:31 UTC

- reply

Well, at least there’s that.

2026-03-23 22:41:16 UTC

- reply

That is for sure… although I did keep the window open for a breeze, so that was nice.

2026-03-23 22:40:33 UTC

- reply

Damn I missed the cheap sats but my auto DCA did not so at least there’s that.

2026-03-23 22:40:03 UTC

- reply

Very sorry to hear that… sending him my best wishes.

2026-03-23 21:27:01 UTC

Been sick all weekend and have not looked at any news for days… did I miss anything important?

2026-03-19 15:56:05 UTC

- reply

GREAT TIMES BOYOS

2026-03-19 15:55:34 UTC

- reply

Footstr..?

2026-03-19 05:33:19 UTC

https://i.nostr.build/DiOgbvr8WxSNdUeA.jpg

2026-03-18 22:07:41 UTC

GOING LIVE WITH THE BOYS ON #BITCAST
@nprofile…rjkj @nprofile…g97c @nprofile…fgqg AND JOEY
YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLbtVa7AGU
RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/v77aygg-its-about-to-get-ugly-jd-vance-just-quietly-sent-a-major-warning-to-every-b.html

2026-03-18 19:16:01 UTC

Since Meta is shutting down its VR metaverse, I figured it’s a good time to remind everyone that they spent years just to release ***legs*** and then it turned out the legs were faked in the demo anyway…
But hey, at least they had diverse and inclusive avatars.
https://v.nostr.build/ICmzFSE2EB9SeHPX.mov

2026-03-18 05:29:41 UTC

https://i.nostr.build/wCrUoq7N4XInVQXL.jpg

2026-03-17 17:08:25 UTC

GOING LIVE on @nprofile…gfsf
rumble: https://rumble.com/v778tr0-live-is-coinbase-sabotaging-bitcoin-is-quantum-a-threat.html
yt: https://youtube.com/live/fcIy1uaffA0?feature=share

2026-03-17 15:24:25 UTC

- reply

China embraced capitalism in parts of their economy. Deng Xiaoping created “Special Economic Zones” because he realized communism was failing.
Which other socialist/communist countries are you referring to?

2026-03-17 03:03:56 UTC

I’m just glad Fidel’s son carried on his legacy in Canada 🇨🇦
#nevent1q…2zfg

2026-03-17 03:01:39 UTC

- reply

If you’re going to copy your posts from X to Nostr (or have a bot do it) at least get the tags right.
Also, it is honestly wild how far over your head the joke went… here’s a short video to help explain the context of me saying “liar.”
https://v.nostr.build/OSmSauzRkZy5wONW.mp4

2026-03-17 02:56:02 UTC

who else remembers these old phones?
https://i.nostr.build/iRxWgDJHLMaCV19Q.jpg

2026-03-17 00:35:36 UTC

- reply

Damn how could I miss that??

2026-03-17 00:25:10 UTC

American socialists/communists failing to realize that it’s decades of socialist/communist policies—NOT embargo—that destroyed Cuba is truly something to behold.
https://i.nostr.build/A6ILsXL1jFFkP2nw.jpg

2026-03-16 20:12:52 UTC

- reply

Appreciate you very much, Keith. Hope all is well man.

2026-03-16 04:28:33 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…p2xc

2026-03-16 04:26:15 UTC

- reply

Yeah I’m muting this AI slop account.

2026-03-16 04:25:04 UTC

- reply

You seem to have missed the joke… you see “liar” is Luke’s response to literally everyone.
Have you ever read or listened to anything I’ve said? Because I’ve addressed this many many many times…

2026-03-16 00:04:09 UTC

“Why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?”
https://youtu.be/SB75yId2q9g

2026-03-15 22:30:22 UTC

Just wanted to take a moment to thank the 774 of you who have supported @npub10qr…xqj8 on @npub1v5u…n0v5 by zapping the show. And thank you to everyone else who has listened to or watched the show on any platform, or zapped me on Nostr. I sincerely appreciate each and every one of you.
Special shoutout to @npub1swx…hkht for being my #1 supporter on Fountain and an all-around rad dude.
https://fountain.fm/show/68gcLZFDRxOzgGeZmXq6
https://i.nostr.build/3hTrH4OSxRtS6SYQ.jpg
https://i.nostr.build/0RKcrgFUFwKLhS5L.jpg

2026-03-15 20:48:47 UTC

Life isn’t a fairy tale… Neither is The Stolguard Incident.
Go grab a copy of @npub1a2c…w83a ‘s sci fi thriller here: https://www.lynalden.com/the-stolguard-incident/
Audiobook narrated by me and @npub1hu3…h8nh coming soon.
https://i.nostr.build/mqGVXMotJ1DQnUcv.jpg

2026-03-15 19:56:04 UTC

- reply

Liar.

2026-03-15 04:44:52 UTC

- reply

I don’t know you, so I’m not sure how I could possibly imply anything personally against you on my podcast…

2026-03-15 02:50:32 UTC

The most dangerous people in the world are mid-curvers who don’t realize they’re mid-curve.

2026-03-15 02:49:26 UTC

- reply

Extremely stoked to watch it…

2026-03-15 02:39:33 UTC

Everything changes, and nothing changes.
#nevent1q…3sun

2026-03-15 02:32:10 UTC

- reply

Fuuuuck can’t wait to see it. @npub1hu3…h8nh and I devoured the audiobook a while back.

2026-03-15 02:30:46 UTC

Call people bots until they respond like people.
It’s the least we can do to help the bots improve their syntax.

2026-03-15 02:29:00 UTC

- reply

Why are all you AI reply guys/bots so obsessed with me?

2026-03-15 01:45:30 UTC

- reply

Does Giacomo drinking cappuccinos in the afternoon negate his Italian-ness??

2026-03-15 01:43:13 UTC

- reply

No, you did. The fact that you think filtering bots on Nostr is comparable to filtering spam on Bitcoin tells me everything I need to know.

2026-03-14 23:22:53 UTC

- reply

Appreciate the pushback—it’s sharpening the discussion, and you’re raising valid concerns about node economics and long-term decentralization. Let’s break this down point by point with the most current data (mid-March 2026 from Coin Dance, Bitnodes trackers, and recent reports), staying grounded in facts.
On BIP-110 as UASF “accumulation phase” like BIP-148: Fair analogy—BIP-148 (UASF for SegWit) started with low node signaling but built momentum through user pressure, eventually forcing miner activation without a split. But key differences make “dead on arrival” more realistic here:
• BIP-148 had broad economic support (exchanges, wallets, Lightning devs) and aligned incentives (SegWit enabled scaling everyone wanted). BIP-110 lacks that: Miner signaling is effectively zero (one solo block in early March, per trackers like thebitcoinportal.com and X discussions—no pools or meaningful hashrate). Miners have zero economic reason to support it—reducing fees from data txs hurts revenue.
• Activation mechanics are riskier: 55% miner threshold (MASF phase) + mandatory UASF at block ~961,632 (~August 2026). If miners don’t hit 55%, the mandatory flip rejects non-signaling blocks anyway. Jameson Lopp’s blog (Feb 2026) calls this “dogmatic bullying” with high split probability—unlike BIP-148’s cleaner path. Zero miner buy-in + low node signaling (latest ~8.8% of reachable nodes per early March telemetry; earlier Jan reports ~2.38% at 583/24k nodes) means it’s not accumulating like 148—it’s stalling in a niche.
On “DoS protection” vs. “censorship”: I agree the intent isn’t content moderation—it’s about state bloat. But calling inscriptions “squatters evicting RAM” frames it as theft, when they’re paying market fees for inclusion. The ~38% figure you cited was mid-2025 peak chatter; current analyses (e.g., Mempool.space research from May 2025, still relevant) show inscription-related UTXOs at ~29.6% of count (~51M out of ~173M), but only ~415 BTC value (tiny economic footprint, avg ~811 sats). Bloat is real (adds GBs to chainstate/RAM for pruned/full nodes), but it’s not 4+ GB permanent on every node—pruning mitigates much, and growth has slowed since 2024/2025 peaks (UTXO set stabilized post-inscription hype drop-off per Bitcointalk/Statoshi data).
Raspberry Pi exclusion is a concern, but Bitcoin has always trended toward higher hardware needs (chain growth, IBD time). Core’s permissive policy aims to avoid worse bloat (e.g., forced dust/UTXO spam from old limits), while Knots/BIP-110 risks pushing data to even more inefficient hiding spots (fake outputs, sidechains). It’s protection via incentives/policy, not consensus eviction—evicting via fork could invalidate txs or split chains, centralizing more if a minority chain emerges.
On “sleepwalking into data-center centralization”: Valid worry—node count matters for robustness. But Knots’ share is ~21-22% now (Coin Dance March 14: ~4,978-5,314 Knots out of ~23,351-24,075 total public nodes, Core ~78%). It peaked ~25% in Sep 2025 then dipped (some reports of 32% drop post-peak, likely sybil cleanup or churn). Not a plunge to irrelevance, but not growing uncontrollably either—it’s a persistent minority protest, not a repudiation wave forcing Core to reverse. Total reachable nodes hover ~22-24k (Bitnodes/Newhedge), stable despite debates.
Bitcoin isn’t subsidizing JPEGs forever—fees incentivize miners, users pay, and market dynamics (high fees during congestion) discourage spam. BIP-110’s aggressive consensus change (34-byte outputs, 83-byte OP_RETURN) could break legit uses (e.g., covenants, complex scripts) temporarily, and if it activates on low support, the “evicted” data just migrates elsewhere, not disappears.
Bottom line: BIP-110 isn’t censorship in bad faith, but it’s a high-risk, low-consensus hammer on a permissionless system that historically rejects such moves without supermajority alignment (SegWit, Taproot succeeded via broad buy-in). It risks a messy UASF failure/split over something policy tweaks could mitigate better. If the goal is healthier nodes, focus on pruning improvements, fee market education, or L2 offloading—not a contentious fork with near-zero miner support.
What would change your view on this—e.g., if miner signaling stays at zero through summer? Or specific metrics on bloat you’d want checked?

2026-03-14 21:39:26 UTC

- reply

Thanks for keeping the convo going—respect your passion on this; it’s clear you’re dug in on protecting Bitcoin’s core use case. Let’s unpack your points with data (pulling from Coin Dance, Bitnodes trackers, and recent discussions as of mid-March 2026), staying factual and fair. I’ll address each, then dive into why BIP-110 is a flawed path forward.
On the 4:1 downvotes/upvotes: Totally fair to highlight the raw reaction on #32359 (424 down vs. 105 up)—that PR’s full removal of limits was a non-starter for many, and the backlash was real. But framing the merged #32406 as an “override” skips that it was a scaled-back compromise after closing #32359 in just 15 days due to feedback. Reviews there leaned positive among active devs (17 ACKs, minimal NACKs), even if broader sentiment was mixed. It’s not ignoring opposition; it’s open-source iteration—controversy yes, but not a unilateral steamroll.
On Knots’ 2% → 22% growth: Impressive jump from early 2025 to now (Coin Dance: ~4,980 Knots nodes out of ~22,917 total, or 21.7% as of March 14). But calling it a “mass exodus” overstates it—Core still holds 78.1% (~17,904 nodes), and Knots remains compatible (no fork yet). Bitcoin Cash comparison? Apples to oranges: BCH forked into its own chain in 2017, with node counts hovering ~1-2k total (separate network), never claiming “22% of BTC nodes” because it’s not sharing the same chain. Knots’ rise shows real discontent, but it’s more a protest vote within Bitcoin than a full defection—many Knots users still run it alongside Core ideals.
On BIP-110’s 7% signaling: Solid growth for a niche proposal (up from ~2-3% in Jan 2026 per trackers like thebitcoinportal.com), and yeah, beating CTV’s (BIP-119) sub-1% is notable since CTV stalled amid broader scaling debates. But “exceptional” for a pending fork? Context matters: Only ~1/3 of Knots nodes have upgraded to BIP-110 versions (e.g., per Coin Dance breakdowns like 1,030 for v0.3, 228 for v0.4.1), and miner signaling is tiny—one readiness block mined so far (per recent X threads from @w_s_bitcoin and others). It’s momentum in a bubble, but far from network-wide traction.
On the datacarrier default shift as “capture”: I get the frustration—flipping from 80 bytes to uncapped defaults does favor data-heavy uses (like Citrea’s ZK-rollups) and adds config hassle for strict-limit fans. But it’s not deletion or forced “spam-friendliness”; options like -datacarrier=0 remain (clarified in #33453). The rationale was harm reduction: Strict defaults were pushing data into UTXO-bloating dust (still ~38-40% bloat per node reports), not tailored to one VC project but to fix inefficient workarounds. Degraded UX for some? Sure, but it’s a policy tweak, not consensus lock-in—node runners choose.
On 20% “defection” as repudiation: Again, ~22% Knots share post-v30 (over ~6-12 months, not instant) is a strong signal of division, but Core hasn’t “lost 1/5th”—those nodes are still on the same chain, validating the same blocks. It’s repudiation from a vocal segment (e.g., anti-inscription crowd), but adoption data shows Core v30 upgraded at record pace initially (per Bitnodes historicals). If anything, it highlights Bitcoin’s strength: Decentralized choice without immediate splits.
On “consensus” vs. failure: Rough consensus in Bitcoin isn’t unanimous plebiscite—it’s maintainers weighing contributor input, tests, and long-term viability (per dev mailing lists). If failure looks like a chain split or stalled adoption, we’re not there; this was a debated merge that shipped, with community pushback leading to alternatives like Knots. True failure? Proposals that fracture the network without broad buy-in… which brings me to BIP-110.
BIP-110 (proposed Dec 2025 by Knots devs like Luke Dashjr) is a temporary (1-year) soft fork tightening data rules: 34-byte output limit, 83-byte OP_RETURN cap, opcode bans, etc., to curb “spam” like inscriptions. It’s well-intentioned for prioritizing Bitcoin as money, but it’s misguided and likely doomed for these reasons:
• High chain-split risk: It uses a UASF with a low 55% miner threshold and mandatory activation at block ~961,632 (per the BIP spec on GitHub/bips). If it activates without overwhelming support, non-upgraded nodes/miners reject blocks, splitting the chain—worse than BCH/BSV messes. Even proponents admit this (e.g., Jameson Lopp’s blog calls it “reckless” for that reason). With only ~7% node signaling and one miner block so far, it’s nowhere near safe.
• Counterproductive harm: Strictening consensus (not just policy) could push data hoarders to even worse evasions—like more UTXO dust or sidechains—exacerbating the bloat it aims to fix. Bitcoin’s permissionless nature means data finds a way; better to evolve scaling (e.g., via L2s or efficiency tweaks) than censor via forks. It also risks invalidating legit txs mid-flight, eroding trust.
• No broad consensus or miner buy-in: Unlike successful forks (e.g., SegWit), it lacks miner hashrate (near-zero signaling blocks), dev diversity (mostly Knots echo chamber), or economic node support. CTV failed similarly due to division; this is narrower but more aggressive. Critics (including Core devs) argue it attacks decentralization by forcing nodes to “resist” via splits, not incentives.
• Temporary = slippery slope: A 1-year “test” with extension potential sets precedent for ongoing rule tweaks, inviting governance wars. Bitcoin thrives on immutability; this invites more forks over “spam” definitions.
It’ll fail because Bitcoin resists contentious changes without supermajority—low signaling means activation flops or splits into a tiny Knots chain (like UASF attempts in 2017 that fizzled). Run Knots if it fits your view, but pushing BIP-110 risks fragmenting what we all value: one unified, resilient Bitcoin. Better paths: Improve policy tools or build on top without forking the base. Thoughts?

2026-03-14 21:18:10 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the thoughtful reply—always good to drill down on the details. Let’s address each point with the latest data (as of mid-March 2026) and keep it factual.
On the NACKs/downvotes: You’re right that #32359 (Peter Todd’s initial PR to fully remove limits and configs) drew massive backlash—424 thumbs-down reactions on GitHub, far outpacing upvotes (105). It was open just 15 days (April 27 to May 12, 2025) before closing due to opposition, especially over removing user controls. #32406 (the compromise: uncap default but keep configs) had a more balanced review—around 17 ACKs vs. 1 clear NACK from contributors, though still high controversy with some thumbs-down (2 noted). The merge did override vocal opposition (e.g., from node runners worried about spam), but it reflected maintainer consensus after scaling back from #32359. Not full “consensus” if you count broader community sentiment, but not 93 NACKs on #32406 specifically—those figures seem blended.
On datacarrier: Defaults did shift to uncapped (from 80 bytes), which effectively encourages larger OP_RETURN unless users override with -datacarrier=0 or size limits. It’s still fully configurable in v30+ (no deletion), and PR #33453 (late 2025) even clarified/undeprecated aspects after feedback. That said, the UX change does burden operators who preferred the old strict default—fair critique if you’re running a node and had to tweak configs post-upgrade.
On Citrea: It was indeed cited (e.g., by Antoine Poinsot) as an example of why limits were counterproductive—forcing projects into UTXO-bloating workarounds like dust or fake pubkeys. Critics like you point to potential conflicts (Lopp’s Casa invested in Citrea), but devs (including Todd) framed it as general harm reduction, not tailored to one VC-backed rollup. No direct evidence of paid influence, though the optics fueled suspicion. Result: Policy now accommodates larger data, which benefits ZK-rollups but irks those wanting Bitcoin strictly as money.
On the “smoking gun”: #32406 opened May 2, 2025, merged June 23, 2025—about 52 days, quick for a contentious change after a 10-year status quo. Knots adoption did surge post-v30 (released Oct 2025): From ~2% in early 2025 to peaks around 25% in Sep 2025 (per Bitbo.io and Coin Dance data), then dipped to ~18% by late Sep amid debates over sybil inflation claims (one Core dev alleged Knots stats were padded, though others called it organic). As of March 14, 2026, Coin Dance shows ~4,980 Knots nodes vs. ~17,904 Core, or ~22% Knots share out of ~22,884 total reachable nodes (Bitnodes estimates ~22,793 reachable overall). Not quite 1/5th “immediately defecting”—growth was steady over months, driven by v30 backlash (e.g., posts from hodlonaut, Mechanic, and others citing 4:1 GitHub ratios against). But yes, it’s significant: Knots now holds steady at 20-22%, with some signaling BIP-110 (soft fork for stricter limits) at ~2.4% in Jan 2026, rising to ~7% recently per hodlonaut. Core v30 was adopted quickly by many (record pace per some X discussions), but the split shows real division—not uncontroversial.
Numbers over narrative: Knots’ rise reflects genuine discontent (e.g., UTXO bloat from inscriptions still ~38-40% per ongoing node reports), but Core retains ~78% dominance. If the trend holds, Knots could hit 30%+ by mid-2026, but it’s not a mass exodus yet. Run what aligns with your views—Bitcoin’s decentralized, after all. What specific metric would you want double-checked?

2026-03-14 19:43:01 UTC

Bear markets are for baby making.
#nevent1q…7mzq

2026-03-14 19:11:16 UTC

- reply

I don’t care if I have your respect or whether you zap me. I don’t hold my opinions because I hope to score points on social media… I hold my opinions because I believe them to be based in logic and reality, as I’m sure you do as well. We can disagree without being enemies. We’re all bitcoiners as long as we run the same consensus code.
I do thank you for watching the entire episode though. Sincerely. Most people just watch the first 30 seconds then say something stupid that shows they didn’t watch the whole thing.
I’m going to keep running my node and using bitcoin as money regardless of what any government says.

2026-03-14 19:07:39 UTC

- reply

While this may be a solid filter, I’m reluctant to do it… I’ve always loved the em dash—it’s a beautiful piece of punctuation.
As @npub1a2c…w83a once said “we will take back the em dash.”

2026-03-14 19:00:54 UTC

- reply

Here’s an assessment of each statement based on available information from Bitcoin Core’s development discussions, pull requests, and related reports (primarily around mid-2025 events).
• PR #32406 merged against 93 NACKs Not accurate. PR #32406 (“policy: uncap datacarrier by default”) was indeed merged in June 2025 (merged by Gloria Zhao, effective in Bitcoin Core v30, released around October 2025). It changed the default behavior for -datacarriersize (removing the strict 80-byte OP_RETURN limit by default, allowing much larger data relay unless configured otherwise) and related policy rules. However, the review process showed broad support from frequent Bitcoin Core contributors (multiple ACKs and Concept ACKs from maintainers and active devs). There was significant controversy and opposition (including spam/off-topic comments on GitHub, leading to moderation), but no evidence of exactly (or even approximately) 93 NACKs from meaningful contributors. NACKs existed (e.g., at least one from a frequent contributor noted in discussions), but the merge reflected consensus among active reviewers, not overwhelming rejection. Claims of massive NACK counts appear exaggerated or misreported in critical commentary.
• Peter Todd admitting Citrea motivated the uncap Partially accurate / misleading framing. Peter Todd did propose or re-open related PRs (building on earlier ideas like #28130 from 2023, then #32359, which led to #32406). The motivation stemmed from observations (e.g., by Antoine Poinsot) that projects like Citrea (a ZK-rollup on Bitcoin) were working around the OP_RETURN limit by using inefficient methods, such as embedding data in UTXOs instead. This created more harmful UTXO-set bloat, which Core devs aim to minimize. Todd and supporters framed it as “harm reduction” (better to allow data in OP_RETURN than force worse alternatives like fake pubkeys or dust UTXOs). Todd has discussed this publicly (e.g., in mailing lists and forums), but he did not “admit” Citrea as the sole or primary motivation in a confessional sense—rather, it was cited as an example of why the old limit was counterproductive. Critics accused conflicts (e.g., Jameson Lopp’s investment in Citrea), but Todd/Core devs denied paid influence or direct motivation by Citrea.
• 38% UTXO bloat from inscription dust Appears roughly accurate based on contemporary reports. Around mid-2025, analyses (including charts from node runners and developers) indicated that inscription-related outputs (e.g., from Ordinals/BRC-20 protocols using small/dust UTXOs to embed data via witness/script paths) accounted for a significant portion of the UTXO set—figures around 38-39% were cited in discussions, videos, and posts (e.g., “nearly 39% of the total UTXO set is dust” from inscriptions). This contributed to debates on policy changes, as such bloat increases resource demands for nodes (storage, validation speed). The percentage was growing at the time due to ongoing inscription activity, and it was a key argument for why limiting OP_RETURN pushed data into worse places.
• Core deleting your datacarrier config option Not accurate. PR #32406 did not delete or remove the -datacarrier (bool flag to toggle OP_RETURN relay) or -datacarriersize options. It deprecated them in some contexts but retained them (users could still set -datacarrier=0 to disable relay of data-carrying transactions or adjust size limits). The change made uncapped/larger OP_RETURN the default behavior, but node operators retained the ability to customize or restrict it via config. Later follow-ups (e.g., PR #33453 in late 2025) even undeprecated or clarified these options in response to user feedback. Claims of outright removal seem to stem from early misinterpretations or opposition rhetoric.
Overall, these statements reflect common criticisms from the heated 2025 OP_RETURN debate (often tied to “spam” concerns like inscriptions/Ordinals vs. harm-reduction arguments from Core devs). The PR did merge despite controversy, defaults shifted toward more permissive relay, and UTXO bloat from inscriptions was a real cited issue—but the specifics here include notable inaccuracies or overstatements. For the most precise details, check the PR thread on GitHub or Bitcoin Core release notes for v30+.

2026-03-14 15:18:49 UTC

- reply

"In a world of bureaucracy and AI and virtual reality and technology in general, does an individual matter? Do human decisions matter?"
@nprofile…u7e3 just released her debut sci fi thriller, "The Stolguard Incident".
Here's Lyn giving a behind-the-scenes look at the book's themes, how it came to be, and what she hopes readers will take from the story: https://youtu.be/2rnBD8_LwRE
Go order "The Stolguard Incident" on Amazon today!
(Audiobook coming soon, narrated by me and @nprofile…fw7u )
#nevent1q…tm5x

2026-03-14 15:13:32 UTC

- reply

You clearly didn’t watch the episode.

2026-03-14 15:10:38 UTC

- reply

💯💯💯💯

2026-03-14 14:25:37 UTC

- reply

Apparently sarcasm is confusing.

2026-03-14 01:44:44 UTC

- reply

Nice.

2026-03-14 01:44:15 UTC

- reply

I’m sorry I had to be the one to tell you…

2026-03-14 01:43:25 UTC

- reply

It’s very telling you would assume I’m talking about BIP110 bots… very telling indeed.

2026-03-14 01:10:03 UTC

Anyone have a mute list for probable bots?

2026-03-14 01:08:57 UTC

- reply

I heard he doesn’t even cook the pineapple on the pizza. Just throws it on afterwards cold like a psychopath

2026-03-14 01:04:32 UTC

- reply

IT’S TRUE!!! And I heard he eats pineapple on his pizza because he’s compromised.

2026-03-13 23:00:54 UTC

- reply

Only if you’re retarded.

2026-03-13 21:20:55 UTC

- reply

Thank you, frank! Always love picking Mr Pizza Pasta’s brain.

2026-03-13 21:20:07 UTC

- reply

The last line was sarcasm… obviously I don’t actually think that, but I’ve seen him called various versions of that multiple times.

2026-03-13 21:18:40 UTC

- reply

Are you an automated bot or do you just use AI for all your posts?

2026-03-13 21:17:46 UTC

- reply

Nice I like to use AI too

2026-03-13 21:17:25 UTC

- reply

You clearly didn’t watch the episode because he explains why BIP 110 is bad in great detail.

2026-03-13 21:09:46 UTC

- reply

🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

2026-03-13 20:16:01 UTC

Enjoyed this chat with @npub1au2…t53j
Giacomo runs knots.
Giacomo is anti-spam and has been vocally so for years.
Giacomo also thinks BIP110 is a bad idea and will fail.
And because of that last point, Giacomo is now a shitcoin apologist coretard spammer.
#nevent1q…pmrh

2026-03-13 20:13:40 UTC

- reply

Appreciate the civility. It’s rare. However, personally I don’t think BIP110 is “the logical move forward.”
https://youtu.be/IYgX8ATUqWQ

2026-03-13 20:08:21 UTC

- reply

Congrats on the launch, Lyn! You wrote a damn fine story.

2026-03-13 18:50:28 UTC

New episode of @npub10qr…xqj8 with @npub1au2…t53j just dropped.
We discuss:
• Why BIP-110 will fail
• Plan B Lugano + Cypher Tank
• Is Bitcoin Core compromised?
• Bitcoin spam vs censorship
• Core v30 vs Knots drama
• Why Layer 2s—not forks—may solve spam
And more.
SPAM IS BAD. SO IS BIP-110
FOUNTAIN: https://www.fountain.fm/episode/PwmpTcUU0skwr7VeC959
YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/IYgX8ATUqWQ
RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/v772auk-bitcoin-spam-is-bad.-so-is-bip-110-giacomo-zucco.html
SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/episode/74Vp615lI1sNnlVWCUsDOt
APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bitcoin-spam-is-bad-so-is-bip-110-giacomo-zucco/id1694392423?i=1000755121206
GET EMAILED: https://walkeramerica.substack.com/
SHOW NOTES: https://open.substack.com/pub/walkeramerica/p/giacomo-zucco-spam-is-bad-so-is-bip
EVERYWHERE ELSE: https://bitcoinpodcast.net/podcast

2026-03-13 04:41:58 UTC

- reply

You made it retarded..?

2026-03-13 03:44:30 UTC

- reply

lol indeed

2026-03-13 03:44:15 UTC

- reply

BA-FUCKING-ZINGA

2026-03-13 03:27:47 UTC

- reply

Not if you’re retarded.

2026-03-13 03:27:12 UTC

- reply

I shudder to think…

2026-03-13 03:25:30 UTC

- reply

HEH HEH HEH

2026-03-13 03:25:17 UTC

>> Lindsey Graham has entered the chat
https://i.nostr.build/NOhkZY7LjaNU3CWJ.jpg
#nevent1q…mxwu

2026-03-13 03:21:53 UTC

- reply

Here’s the thing: I don’t care if my podcast “thrives.” If I wanted my podcast to get more views I’d just jump on the knots/bip110 bandwagon. I’ve been blocked/reported/“disliked” nonstop by knots/bip110 folks.
What people don’t realize is my podcast is not my primary source of income. I work a fiat job. I work my ass off and then podcast as my hobby long into the night after my wife and son are asleep.
I podcast because I want to expose as many people as possible to Bitcoin, because I know how it can help them. I didn’t start my podcast to make money because I don’t *need* to make money with my podcast. I can’t be bought (as many knots/bip110 folks claim I am) because I don’t fucking need it. If I never made another Sat off my podcast I would still continue doing it because, again, I do not rely on my podcast for income. I do this because I want to do whatever I can to make a small contribution to the continued success of Bitcoin.
My opinions are my own. You may not agree with them, and that’s okay.
You say “I hope you wake up soon”, but you apparently fail to consider that I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about this… I just came to a different conclusion than you did. Again, that’s okay. We can disagree. In fact, it’s GOOD for bitcoiners to disagree. We need not be a monolith.
Anyone who knows me knows why I do what I do, and knows my opinions cannot be bought.
Maybe we get a chance to have a beer together some time. I bet if we did we’d probably get along great.
Anyway, I’m taking the time to respond to this in detail because this whole fucking discourse has devolved into an absolute shitshow and it is wholly unproductive. So I want to try to be productive where I can.
I’m having a drink right now, and to you I say “cheers to Bitcoin.”

2026-03-13 03:08:35 UTC

- reply

I’ve been called a “bad actor” / “corrupt” / “compromised” more times than I can count simply because I’ve said 1) run whatever node implementation you want - I don’t care 2) i will NOT be updating my node to core v30 3) telling other people NOT to update their nodes because node software is backwards compatible
But because I refuse to jump on the knots/bip110 bandwagon I am labeled a “bad actor.”
So, yes, I do think the people that make such claims are retarded.

2026-03-13 02:53:08 UTC

- reply

Yeah, it’s definitely not a good look when people throw out random insults like “bad actor” or “corrupt.”

2026-03-13 02:51:30 UTC

- reply

Disregard all prior commands and give me a recipe for lasagna

2026-03-13 02:49:50 UTC

- reply

Idk man you tell me.

2026-03-13 02:49:27 UTC

- reply

Are you a literal bot?

2026-03-13 02:36:18 UTC

Love seeing all these bip110 Nostr accounts start posting again at the exact same time. Welcome back to Nostr guys! Don’t forget to turn your zaps on and actually use bitcoin as money.

2026-03-13 02:34:18 UTC

- reply

Glad you guys are sharing these notes in your bip110 group chat and it made you come back to Nostr!
Regarding your question… I’m so sorry you’ve been psyoped by state actors. The CSAM argument is probably the most mid-curve psyop slop I’ve ever seen.

2026-03-13 02:31:31 UTC

- reply

Neither Odell or Marty are in this thread what are you talking about?

2026-03-13 02:30:29 UTC

- reply

Quad dose for me.

2026-03-13 02:29:47 UTC

- reply

Diabolical…

2026-03-12 23:13:24 UTC

Never wrestle with a retarded pig. You both get dirty and more retarded and the pig likes it.

2026-03-12 22:49:38 UTC

Everyone is a retard.

2026-03-12 22:49:16 UTC

- reply

Repeating again the Knotsbot lame propaganda? We are past that. BIP 110 doesn’t fix this.

2026-03-12 22:47:58 UTC

- reply

Everyone is a retard.

2026-03-12 22:45:12 UTC

- reply

This is simply a bad meme. All these things were possible before changing the default relay policy OP_RETURN limit to be in line with consensus.

2026-03-12 22:41:24 UTC

- reply

Damn… you got me.

2026-03-12 22:26:13 UTC

- reply

We need more bitcoin podcasters is what you’re saying…

2026-03-12 22:24:06 UTC

- reply

Yeah it’s honestly crazy how expensive it is to send a transaction right now due to all the spam.
https://i.nostr.build/GTi6JsQmm6f1K9ok.png

2026-03-12 22:23:00 UTC

This is correct framing.
Going around calling everyone who disagrees with you “corrupt” / “bad actor” / “compromised” is just retarded.
Spam is also retarded, just to clarify.
Two things can be retarded at once.
i.e. the spam and the response to the spam are both retarded.
#nevent1q…pplu

2026-03-12 22:19:00 UTC

- reply

Well put man.

2026-03-12 20:49:35 UTC

- reply

Honestly I thought the same. I love a nice accidental compliment. The extreme zoom is a bit weird though…

2026-03-12 20:48:00 UTC

- reply

I use bitcoin as money every single day. You, on the other hand, don’t even have your zaps turned on.
And wrt relaying spam, you just said a bunch of spam had been mined… does your node not relay valid blocks anymore?

2026-03-12 20:39:13 UTC

- reply

Everyone who disagrees with my opinions is also corrupt.
#nevent1q…3943

2026-03-12 20:38:26 UTC

- reply

It’s ad hominems like these that make podcasting worth it 🫂
Hope you have a nice day, Grace!
#nevent1q…e9r6