Bitcoinmaxi
Ferris Bueller BIP110

Public Key

npub157tdvkdprxlr49qqn84krta7ra7ezqhr2ph7qm6pvtr08tjfj6fq40ve6m

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs209kktxs3n036jsqfn6mp47lp7lv3qt34qmlqdaqk93hn4eyedyspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds7d0cfg

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub157tdvkdprxlr49qqn84krta7ra7ezqhr2ph7qm6pvtr08tjfj6fq40ve6m

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-17 23:28:15 UTC

- reply

Must hurt to fence sit so hard on the BIP110 debate that your analogy of choice is suggesting "someone can be a pedophile and still have good suggestions and implementations". @nprofile…umg9 why do you think this guy is fire? @nprofile…2jpv @nprofile…uv6j
#nevent1q…00zu

2026-02-19 13:00:29 UTC

4500 nodes signalling BIP 110 at 5.11%!! Its so awesome to see bitcoiners taking a stand!!

2026-02-09 06:47:27 UTC

- reply

And Venezuela

2026-02-08 09:41:30 UTC

- reply

You’re hiding behind definitions. In the real world, a contested checkpoint forces a chain choice and locks in history, which is a split in everything but name. Calling it soft doesn’t change that.

2026-02-07 17:33:23 UTC

- reply

Over the past few months he has taught about hard/soft forks, the BIP process, different node implementation and how to run them, segwit, taproot, inscriptions, op codes, BIP 110, the Cat, satoshi dice, spam on Bitcoin, mining decentralization, ect. I could go on and on. You're an NPC and/or brain dead

2026-02-07 10:28:26 UTC

2615 nodes at 3.04% supporting BIP 110. Let's keep the momentum! Let's see if we can get a few miners to signal!

2026-02-07 00:20:18 UTC

- reply

When somebody cuts you off walking on the street, usually one person says excuse me and they both move on with their day. When somebody gets cut off on the highway going 60 miles and hour, that interaction usually isnt as civilized.
The stakes are high with bitcoin like on the highway. These debates can have serious effects on your money so no wonder people get emotional. If Adam is somehow compromised, getting him far away from Bitcoin is in Bitcoins best interest, and in many others who have a large stake in the networks survival.

2026-02-06 23:50:42 UTC

- reply

Good thing you dont get to decide who or what a bitcoiner is

2026-02-06 23:48:48 UTC

- reply

Our just mute them so you have a safe space, right?

2026-02-06 21:48:38 UTC

- reply

If it's contested, if forces and chain choice and a split that cannot be brought back together without another emergency intervention. So yes, effectively it is a hard fork by history change rather then a rule change. And if not Core, who and how? I think there are some very serious and committed bitcoiners on the knots side that are interested in maintaining bitcoin as money and I don't think they will capitulate. Yourself, and youre inner circle of serious bitcoiners may not thing Cores reputation has deteriorated but the reality is 22% of the network jumped ship, price has been down huge since release, lead maintainer gone, legendary supporter likely involved with epstein, and having to pull the Core 30 release for a major bug. Doesnt look great to me

2026-02-06 20:29:43 UTC

- reply

Simple in code, not simple socially. What you are suggesting is essentially a hard fork and that would require serious coordination by Core who's reputation has deteriorated. While all that is being deliberated on, assuming the BIP 110 has enough hash power for a few blocks here or there, wipeout and game theory aren't working in Core chains favor

2026-02-06 18:58:30 UTC

- reply

Bye

2026-02-06 18:54:44 UTC

- reply

Haven't seen a URSF client yet so this is all posturing it seems. We will see if miners are willing to risk wipeout but I think it could only take a couple to cave and the dominos will fall

2026-02-06 18:52:11 UTC

- reply

That's not how that works

2026-02-06 12:27:25 UTC

- reply

Will you back your words with a UASF?
Instead of playing fiat futures games, work within Bitcoin’s rules and run it.
Or are you unwilling to risk it all just to protect spam on-chain?

2026-02-05 12:29:00 UTC

@nprofile…femd Trying to move away from strike and switch to bitcoinwell. Any update on fixing the bank linking issue? I keep getting the banner, oops something went wrong. Also got an email that it was down.

2026-02-04 01:48:15 UTC

- reply

The only chart I trust

2026-02-03 10:55:56 UTC

- reply

The chain split happened in august 2017. Price went from 4k to 20k during the split. What's your point? Price went up for 3 months so it clearly didn't effect bitcoin perception or people wouldnt have been buying. Negative short term price dips in printed fiat money is a traders problem and mean nothing to the long term health of the network.

2026-02-02 21:00:16 UTC

- reply

I agree with most of the transactional issues stated. However, I'm not sure why you assume the price will crash or that perception would be damaged. That's not what happened in 2017, which is the only data point we have that is even remotely similar. Price went up and bitcoin came out the other side stronger for it.

2026-02-02 11:10:19 UTC

- reply

J slopp making more BIP 110 supports than I ever could. Thanks bud

2026-02-02 11:01:12 UTC

- reply

Plebs taking a stand. Got to love it

2026-01-30 22:50:24 UTC

1743 nodes ; 2% of the network is running BIP 110

2026-01-28 21:00:39 UTC

- reply

Running BIP 110 rn. Let's keep Bitcoin money

2026-01-27 20:09:50 UTC

- reply

Its not a policy filter. Its a consensus change.

2026-01-27 12:30:07 UTC

- reply

This you?
https://blossom.primal.net/7eb1ddcb3ee60a37d4a5269bca3be64d596c612bfe1f7d5008e020d5bb0c0c50.png

2026-01-26 19:04:34 UTC

Signaling for the soft fork as of today!

2026-01-26 18:58:56 UTC

- reply

Its soft fork time! Your running BIP 110 yet?

2026-01-26 00:59:43 UTC

- reply

Hell yes. My weekly buy is Monday to snag that Sunday night dip. Love it

2026-01-25 03:47:08 UTC

- reply

What does it mean by activate? If I'm running knots with defaults right now, is bip 110 going to act the same till it starts to follow the stricter rules in September? My only hesitation is my node being essentially isolated and having hanging txs because they arent getting to a miner, or if I'm doing coinjoins and having issues there. If you're running it, are you experiencing anything like that?

2026-01-25 03:40:56 UTC

- reply

There is actually nobody left... Blockstream and now coinkite. What r we supposed to do now? Seed signer? Doesnt that have no secure element? Obviously not touching HW that allow shitcoins

2026-01-22 22:24:43 UTC

Who is running bip-110 so far?

2026-01-19 15:23:40 UTC

- reply

Looks cool AF till something breaks and the cost to fix is half the value of the car

2026-01-17 16:41:38 UTC

- reply

Why? Because of the spam debate?

2026-01-17 10:52:05 UTC

- reply

Did he sell?

2026-01-11 23:57:04 UTC

- reply

With blades on their feet. Thats crazy

2026-01-06 00:30:36 UTC

- reply

A Karen's weapon of choice

2026-01-03 15:55:44 UTC

- reply

Agreed, but the drug element is useful to make it "legal". Yes, clearly political/legal games but that seems like the majority of the justice system nowadays. And to be fair, its not like Trump has lied about the motivations. i think he has been pretty clear about them compared to passed administrations.

2025-12-28 00:02:56 UTC

- reply

LOTR, no contest

2025-12-24 16:25:44 UTC

- reply

God dam!! Hahahahaha

2025-11-17 11:15:37 UTC

- reply

Goebbels would be so proud

2025-11-10 01:49:47 UTC

- reply

I would like to watch this

2025-11-02 17:30:05 UTC

Paul Lamb has a new video out on YouTube on how to run Garbageman. A node implementation that preferentially peers with libre relay nodes but refuses to relay spam adding friction and rate-limiting to protect the chain. Check it out if you're ideologically inclined

2025-11-01 16:56:56 UTC

- reply

He means, fuck your self sovereignty and being able to run an electrum server or have an actual copy of the blockchain. We should really leave the full node running to a centalized authority

2025-11-01 14:44:00 UTC

Thank you Peter Todd, Bitcoins greatest pentester

2025-11-01 13:24:49 UTC

- reply

And to further steel man, it has been possible because of Libra relay and even knots large configuability options to build transactions with large op returns if you really wanted to.
Peter Todd may have had a point that if we don't stop this at consensus, then we cannot stop CSAM or other from being mined at some point and that is where we are now, potentially introducing a UASF.
Idk maybe I have been trying to see the other side of this debate and its starting to fuck with my brain haha

2025-11-01 13:18:43 UTC

- reply

To steel man here, I think citreas project would require something very close to the 143 byte so for that specific use case, it would be more healthy and economical for the network to use OP return instead of fake pub keys.
But again thats making changes for a start up scam company and how that didn't just get met with total hostility is upsetting to see for the state of the community

2025-10-21 14:26:13 UTC

The gold dump before the btc rip?!?!?

2025-10-14 15:11:27 UTC

- reply

I can't have 2 bitcoin psychopaths in the same house. My wife keeps me grounded so I don't use leverage and sometimes helps me keep some dry powder for dips

2025-10-14 15:07:52 UTC

- reply

This is such a strange argument. Core devs dont want to play the cat and mouse game, without realizing it justifies a majority of their existence as a Dev. If you aren't fixing exploits and bugs, then what the fuck else are supposed to do? Thats when they get bored and come up with insane ideas to "make bitcoin better". Or they realize its not paying the bills anymore and choose to work on shitcoin projects (heard that from a core Dev on the "what bitcoin did" podcast recently)

2025-10-10 22:22:10 UTC

- reply

https://knotsgoup.vercel.app/

2025-10-10 22:20:58 UTC

- reply

I doubt that many people are "in the know" on that issue. But maybe you're right. Although the rest of the market is down too so that also doesnt seem to support your thesis

2025-10-10 22:16:49 UTC

- reply

I havent tried to buy on strike yet but it is estimating a price of 116.5k when trading view is showing around 114k...

2025-10-10 17:21:09 UTC

- reply

https://knotsgoup.vercel.app/

2025-10-10 15:27:21 UTC

- reply

Very well said. This whole shit show has forced me to dig deeper and do my homework. I moved to knots for may of the same reasons you outlined after many hours of research that has led me to a much deeper understanding of bitcoin. Even got myself a miner and mining with Ocean. This whole situation makes me sick to my stomach and I hope we make it though this relatively unscathed. As much as I want to see core supporters eat their own words for this crap they pulled, I don't want to see an unnecessary bear market over it

2025-10-09 19:49:26 UTC

This new core 30 update is making me sick. I think it is inevitable that csam and other nasty thing are going to make it on the chain in plain text and my head is spinning. I'm not sure where we go from there. These are my thoughts rn:
Do a ton of nodes just suddenly go offline? Does it hit the news and the price drops like a rock? Does it continue to go up anyway like during the block size wars? Will news people just not even notice anyway? Should I feel wierdly comforted by the fact that the current US administration and more importantly Blackrock is supportive of it? Will they protect us from the almost inevitable bad PR that will come? Are node runners safe? With Core be held responsible and turn into this whole legal battle? Should I try and protect myself by buying IBIT put options to hedge this possible downswing? I really don't want to be a gold bug...
Yea yea stay humble, stack sat, but its hard not having these thoughts when I'm all in.

2025-10-02 23:58:40 UTC

- reply

This is the way

2025-10-02 19:04:57 UTC

- reply

Bechler did a shit job representing the knots position

2025-10-02 11:20:30 UTC

- reply

Fair enough. He is a bit "out there" but he is the most tapped in philosophical bitcoiner that I'm aware of. And if nothing else, he had 220k subscribers

2025-10-01 21:42:47 UTC

- reply

Will watch this tomorrow. Breedlove seemed to think this issue was overblown and even seemed to be leaning to cores side. Curious to see if bechler does a good job of turning him.

2025-10-01 21:37:10 UTC

- reply

You seem really happy

2025-09-30 23:04:10 UTC

- reply

My thoughts exactly. It makes perfect sense now. Makes perfect sense why she makes fun of Luke for his religious beliefs as well

2025-09-24 12:36:43 UTC

- reply

A lifetime supply of pudding would hold its value better

2025-09-23 11:44:18 UTC

- reply

Here it comes boys! The bull has begun!

2025-09-18 12:12:06 UTC

- reply

Hahahah

2025-09-18 01:26:58 UTC

- reply

Rustin fucking rocks!

2025-09-16 22:15:20 UTC

- reply

Probabaly nothing...

2025-09-14 02:26:49 UTC

- reply

I don’t think it’s malice or that he’s bought out. He is trying to cool tensions and keep bitcoiners united against fiat and the state, which he sees as the bigger threat. But out of misplaced trust and compassion, he is befriending scammers for manpower and capital, at the cost of eroding bitcoin’s very principles.

2025-09-14 01:31:00 UTC

- reply

Just at a quick glance at the knots page on github it looks like luke is still the only person with commits but that others have authored updates to the code recently. I've heard around 10 others as of a few weeks ago. We also went from around 2% of the nodes to over 20% so more talent is moving over

2025-09-14 01:20:00 UTC

- reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this latency also bad for big miners? If 2 blocks are found close to the same time, the miner including all those garbage transactions nobody has seen before also risks a stale block because the "standard" block was already validated by the majority of nodes already. Thats why slip stream cost double the regular network fee to make up for this possibility.

2025-09-14 01:12:59 UTC

- reply

Putting spam in the witness data using the inscriptions hack is 4x cheaper, yes

2025-09-13 23:41:30 UTC

- reply

I just think walker just doesnt understand how it works tbh and he is getting manipulated because of it. The bulltarded podcasters talk about bitcoin a lot but don't actually get in the weeds of this. Although when you have Jameson lopp is a verified shitcoiner, it makes me think....

2025-09-13 23:29:13 UTC

- reply

The NPC assumes NPC behavior lol

2025-09-12 22:26:20 UTC

- reply

Just received my bitaxe! Looks awesome guys thank you!

2025-09-12 16:47:05 UTC

- reply

Hell yea @nprofile…9vg9

2025-09-12 00:19:46 UTC

- reply

Oceans payouts aren't as regular as the fpps (I think that what it is called). I think thats a big issue for the large miners and how they pay their power bills

2025-09-11 11:35:52 UTC

- reply

Haha dam you right that hilarious

2025-09-11 00:53:56 UTC

- reply

Dam... Bad look man

2025-09-11 00:35:18 UTC

- reply

When did he call people knotzis? Not disagreeing. Just curious because I don't see it. If true you are 100% right

2025-09-11 00:07:49 UTC

- reply

I'm 100% on knots side but I totally agree that this meme should be unacceptable and it doesnt matter if it was before or after today's events. To bad though that you didn't just target that person and instead decided to say "knots people". Thats the same kind of thinking that keeps this cycle going.

2025-09-10 20:15:33 UTC

- reply

Mother fuckera dude

2025-09-10 16:22:57 UTC

- reply

Either way finding a block is obviously a huge barrier to entry where as a 50 dollar transaction free is nothing to spread it around the network just in mempools for a while so it doesnt even matter. Crazy how helpful filters have been in that area haha. Light bulb moments happening. Much appreciated

2025-09-10 16:14:07 UTC

- reply

But there is no stoping a solo miner in including bad stuff with a large op_return if they wanted too correct? Seems like one big filter is actually that we have large mining pools that find blocks. How come we havent seen a ocean miner with datum create a block with malware or csam on it? Im going go start mining with them soon so maybe I will answer my own question but doesnt allowing miners to create their own block templates open us up to csam/malware even without the core 30 change? Or do they have protections that prevent that from happening? I would imagine that opens them up to liability like any other pool

2025-09-10 16:04:35 UTC

- reply

Although a solo miner could still have decided they wanted to add malicious stuff this whole time to OP return that exceeded the 80bytes. That just has never happened?

2025-09-10 15:56:41 UTC

- reply

This is connecting a lot of dots thank you. Honestly I'm surprised we havent seen casm or malware in OP_Return yet if its possible. Has just the barrier to entry and having to go to a large miner to get your malicious garbage really protected the network from it getting into OP_Return? I guess in order for it to have happened, you would need to link in with a smaller miner (because a large regulated entity would never do it) and they would just have to mine a block for you. That could take months or years which obviously would deter people (aka filter). But after Core 30 anybody mining that is using their own block template could add malicious OP_return data and nodes would be forced to relay it if using core 30. Did I miss anything there?

2025-09-10 15:23:59 UTC

- reply

OK I see now. My bad, I thought he actually put malware there and not just joke text like I see now. That does seem pretty trivial though tbh. Even if someone had to cut it up like he did, its still displayed front and center in op return so if I had malware or a csam binary, it would still be pretty easy to get where as witness data seems much more complicated. You think a cloud service wouldn't flag malware file if its cut up as crudely as Todd did? Is there a difference between it being on RAM vs disk? I'm all on board with not bring a malware csam relay service, I'm just trying to understand what ramifications we could see when they goes through. Thanks for clearing that up for me

2025-09-10 14:46:33 UTC

- reply

Can you go a bit more in depth on this? This good right? Assuming cloud nodes didn't just all go down as I'm writing this haha, does this mean if somebody puts malware in op_return that it won't force cloud nodes to go offline?

2025-09-10 14:24:37 UTC

- reply

Telling me to fork myself is not an argument haha. If I was driving and I hit somebody who jumped in front of my car because they had headphones in vs. I'm drunk and I hit somebody with my car, would you say its the same thing because the result is same? Or do you think that would be treated different in each perspective?

2025-09-10 12:09:07 UTC

- reply

How about the court of public opinion? I thought a lot of us where here to spread adoption and move everybody to a bitcoin standard because its a net positive for humanity? If you want an underground secret money for drugs then maybe go hang out with the monero guys? No need to drag BTC down with you because you think BTC isn't "cool" anymore.

2025-09-10 10:06:01 UTC

- reply

It is a reasonable question and I don't understand why its hard for you to answer. I would argue all day that we should relay what is necessary to maintain consensus because maintaining this new monetary system is a net benefit to society even if it includes illicit material. I however cannot defend an individuals actions that knownly and purposely decided to store it when there is a perfectly good alernative. Opening ourselves unnecessarily to legal and the court of public opinion for almost no reason is just not a positive and i don't see why we need to put it on the front page when it can atleast stay buried in witness data for now.
This defeatist additude you have is really sad. The btc community (atleast that run a node and use it) isn't that big yet. You can make your voice heard and make a difference if you decide too.

2025-09-10 05:58:03 UTC

- reply

That's not what I asked. Are you going to choose to store it beforehand and relay it to your peers as node policy?

2025-09-10 00:57:53 UTC

- reply

Are you going to help relay it before it gets into a block?

2025-09-10 00:52:14 UTC

- reply

I pulled up my mempool instance in start9 and I'm looking at block 913983. I'm looking at the witness data and I do not see 6a or 6f7264 anywhere. The fact that you needed to tell me what too look for I feel like is proving my point haha. The witness data is crazy long and would overwhelm most people. Isnt that because its split up like you are saying every 520 bytes?
I run a start9 so I don't see ordiscan on their registry or community one. I didn't even know there was another one besides mempool.space.
And I mostly agree that is not stopping CSAM or child abuse for that matter. I just dont see why Core decided node runners should be required to relay it and store it on their own computers. Why do they want to give another place to put spam, that I would argue is easier to see for a non tech person? I don't want to facilitate spam because I just want it to be money. I understand the UTXO bloat argument but if the spam is in op_return it would cost more anyway so idk why they would use it unless to make a statement with something explicit or to attack the network.
Do you give any volitity to the idea that if somebody put malware in the OP_Return that it would trigger antivirus on nodes around the network? Especially cloud ones for example? I understand they wouldn't be executable but I'm hearing it could still set them off. Thoughts?

2025-09-10 00:08:01 UTC

- reply

Only to maintain consensus. I don't think anybody wants a fork here. I'm just not interested in helping give spammers another place to put their data.

2025-09-09 21:48:01 UTC

- reply

The first paragraph doesnt seem very compelling. Im relatively technically compitent and that doesnt seem straight forward yo me but maybe we can agree to disagree there.
The second paragraph however is the most compelling thing I have seen yet. Thank you for sharing that. But this is still a website on the clear net that obviously cant host csam on it. So a normal person running a node couldn't use that website to see csam if it was there. It would then only be easily seen with OP_Return on their node
Am I missing something or do you disagree?

2025-09-09 20:49:56 UTC

- reply

Lol cmon man. My mempool and the blockchain aren't the same. I hope you're trolling

2025-09-09 20:35:52 UTC

- reply

Is bitcoin node software the first software ever created that doesnt have bugs or vulnerabilities? Wild... Haha

2025-09-09 20:32:11 UTC

- reply

True, but alteast I won't be choosing to relay it and share with others

2025-09-09 20:23:10 UTC

- reply

I didn't see anything in your link that told me what I needed in order to see witness data and I've never tried to do it so I used an LLM and this is what it told me I needed to extract the data:
-bitcoin-cli (to dump the raw transaction)
-jq or another parser to extract witness fields
-xxd or Python/Go/Rust to reassemble hex into binary
-Knowledge of file formats / scripting skills
Here is for OP_Return:
- copy / paste hex to binary with one command
One seems harder to get as a normie...
Also, as a knots node, I am not forced to send data I don't want to participate in. If it ends up on the chain anyway, atleast I wasn't complicate in propogating it

2025-09-09 20:06:46 UTC

- reply

What? Haha

2025-09-09 18:52:07 UTC

- reply

Then you are opening youself up to DDos attacks, fee management issues, privacy leaks, ect