UXI / UXI is on Nostr

"13183c5c02a1880bbedef80f29d3a9bdc76db96d401309945682dcfee11c2c01a749fcbf1f69ba11a7c6a8db3e3005b3b19dd510f7789cce7b8f003e50719089"

Last Notes

2026-03-23 17:47:54 UTC

- reply

So it's better to download from what ?

2026-02-24 22:54:52 UTC

- reply

I agree that financial transaction will likely price out most of the spam in the long term, and block size are static so no storage issue, but the problem isn't there, the problem is in the UTXO set, which inscription such as ordinal creates multiple non used UTXO which nodes need to keep in RAM (so RAM cost are going significantly higher, so node cost more overtime. So I believe one of the most important things is to remove at the consensus level exploit that permit inscriptions to save UTXO set (which is what BIP-110 is mostly doing) now is BIP-110 the good approach, maybe not but at least its working in the good direction.

2026-02-23 18:34:53 UTC

- reply

Agreed that this is not ideal and its a risk on bitcoin stability (assuming the BIP-110 fork is initially a minority chain), but in your opinion, what should we do about UTXO bloat (which is a risk on decentralization) ?

2026-02-22 18:42:38 UTC

- reply

OK, I see the double spend reorg risk now, that would indeed be bad, but if BIP-110 would initially get accepted by most miners (55% signaling I believe) would you consider that as the ideal scenario ? (Since BIP-110 limits adjustment seams better for the protocol overall)

2026-02-22 16:02:20 UTC

- reply

But won't BIP-110 valid tx always be included in both chain ?

2026-02-22 14:59:04 UTC

- reply

But it will only reverse "invalid" (relative to BIP-110 consensus rules) tx, most likely spam, not normal tx, correct ?

2025-11-16 03:05:30 UTC

- reply

Which international airport is the closest ?

2025-10-01 20:32:49 UTC

- reply

I was referring more to bitcoin core development in general since the last ~5 years, "features" get added or filters preventing arbitrary data get removed, thus dramatically increasing spam and even increasing utxo bloat. And it doesn't seam to bother core dev, because I believe a lot of them are excited about new possibilities of building on top of bitcoin with all this arbitrary data space available. I agree that bitcoin core V30 has gained too much drama for what it does, but I think the drama around core itself is well justified

2025-10-01 20:06:12 UTC

- reply

Like he said, bitcoin core dev are technically competent, I would even say really competent and that's the problem. Bitcoin L1 needs maintainer not "builders", a builder cannot help himself, he has to build (add features). This is I believe very dangerous to have builders on the L1, builders should be on the other layers like @nprofile…xnfk

2025-06-24 01:17:30 UTC

- reply

How is that gay ?

2025-06-22 21:35:00 UTC

- reply

Don't cook with aluminum, it's toxic

2025-01-22 20:01:26 UTC

- reply

Link ?

2024-08-28 18:53:14 UTC

- reply

Zaps do not use BTC layer 1 (main blockchain), it uses lightning network (layer 2) and the lightning network is extremely scalable for high frequency transaction, therefore zaps are totally suitable for micropayment.

2024-08-28 18:27:18 UTC

Does anyone knows an high quality AI image generator site that you can pay with lightning as you generate image ?

2024-08-26 21:55:02 UTC

- reply

Not to worry this arrestation have nothing to do with free speech, president Macron says.