Mischa

Working in Switzerland as an automation technician with a passion for studying Bitcoin

Public Key

npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqst4slmn2uyfejrkgeemjk3e9upn2ty2jw2gwvnps0804amv68ejhgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dswcewqy

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-31 14:16:00 UTC

- reply

I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future development, and that is a valid concern. Maybe there is a better and more conservative way to set the limits. But no one is proposing real alternative solutions, and the problem still exists: It cannot be the plan that we have full blocks forever. The limit should be there for periods of high demand, not so that blocks are permanently full.
If Core really wants to solve this problem, they should propose other solutions. Just saying that the problem cannot be solved is not enough.
What makes me skeptical is that at the same time, companies, or funding partners connected to Core are working on smart contracts and other use cases around Bitcoin. That creates a conflict of interest.
They tell the public that Bitcoin is money, but at the same time they are building business models on top of Bitcoin to make money themselves.
The public is being told one story, while the incentives behind the scenes are different. Decisions are not only being made for Bitcoin as money, but also for business opportunities and profit.
#nevent1q…zjjm

2026-03-31 12:11:31 UTC

In my opinion, Adam Back has lost a lot of credibility. First, he was involved with Epstein, and now I’m hearing more and more about Blockstream actively working on smart contracts on sidechains, with long-term plans to potentially expand this technology to Bitcoin Onchain.
This makes me question his motivations. I no longer trust that his opinions are purely based on what is best for Bitcoin. It increasingly seems that his views may be influenced by business interests, pushing additional use cases on Bitcoin through Blockstream and promoting his treasury company, even if those use cases may not actually benefit Bitcoin as money.

2026-03-30 17:47:09 UTC

- reply

If a split happens, much more is at stake than just fees. A chain split would hurt Bitcoin’s reputation, likely cause a price drop, reduce mining revenue and fees, and probably create issues for Lightning too.
Around 10% of nodes is already a significant share, and there will certainly be miners who want to capture those fees. The only realistic way to prevent this is to activate the BIP. The closer we get to the deadline, the more pressure miners will be under.
If miners really follow economic incentives, then in theory they will just adopt the BIP, or mine BIP-compliant blocks, because that’s the rational economic decision. A small amount of spam fees are not worth the trouble.

2026-03-10 15:04:37 UTC

- reply

Truly astonishing. It’s likely Citrea has more to do with it than they admit.

2026-03-10 14:26:14 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin becomes what its users use it for. The direction of Bitcoin is ultimately shaped by the collective agreement of users, and the rules can change if that agreement changes.
If more activity moves toward NFTs, smart contracts, or DeFi, the incentives around Bitcoin will also shift in that direction. Because Bitcoin is built on trade-offs between decentralization and scaling, pushing it toward other applications risks weakening its role as decentralized money and a store of value.
#nevent1q…cuy9

2026-03-10 13:23:59 UTC

Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were introduced with Taproot, with the promise that they would improve Bitcoin as a payment network. For a long time the argument was that these use cases simply needed time to develop.
Now more than four years have passed and Taproot is still barely used for payments. It had enough time to prove its value.
What we see instead is that a significant portion of blockspace is used for things that have little to do with Bitcoin as money, or a payment network.
The issue is that Bitcoin evolves through consensus. Bitcoin ultimately becomes what its users use it for. If more activity revolves around NFTs, smart contracts, DeFi, or similar applications, the incentives around Bitcoin will inevitably shift in that direction.
Bitcoin is built on trade-offs. Decentralization and scaling cannot both be maximized. Other applications have very different trade-offs than Bitcoin as decentralized money and a store of value.
Once those use cases become large within the network, they also gain influence over its future direction. At that point it becomes much harder to steer Bitcoin back toward its role as money. If a large share of blockspace is already used for other purposes, that shift has already begun. That is the risk I see, and why I support moving Bitcoin back toward being primarily a store of value and payment network.

2026-02-26 15:21:30 UTC

- reply

That’s true. But the fact that a bug has existed for a long time and was rarely used doesn’t mean it should be ignored once it starts being used more frequently.

2026-02-25 18:12:54 UTC

- reply

The current conflict has not changed our fundamental understanding of what Bitcoin is. We all have significant skin in the game. In my view, the main difference between us comes down to the information and perspectives we each rely on.
I am convinced that almost everyone in Bitcoin values your work. Thanks. However, after a long period of neutrality and silence, suddenly taking a clear side based on speculative arguments naturally triggers reactions.
The reason we have different blockchains today is historically connected to Core’s stance against non-monetary transactions. That is a fact. And that stance has clearly shifted.
The data that ends up on the blockchain is a direct consequence of the current rules. Bitcoin is meant to be a payment network. If the current state of the blockchain no longer reflects that, then the rules need to be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted.
Instead of personal attacks, the technical arguments should be discussed. If both sides clearly state what they disagree with on a technical level, compromises and durable solutions can be developed. Especially if the goal is the same.
That is exactly what I hardly see from Core and why i oppose it. Why, after such a long time, has no serious compromise even been visibly explored? If concerns are widely expressed and there is still no sign of meaningful reconsideration, it does not look like an open process. It looks like a predetermined direction being pushed through.

2026-02-22 19:17:28 UTC

- reply

The way I understood him, he thinks that both sides were paid to divide the community.

2026-02-22 15:11:16 UTC

- reply

I have another point:
#nevent1q…x7k7

2026-02-22 15:07:15 UTC

- reply

Is this technically accurate? I believe it would also be a strong argument against Core’s decision.
#nevent1q…x7k7

2026-02-22 15:01:22 UTC

I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose.
The concern is understandable: if users can bypass node relay rules by sending large OP_RETURN transactions directly to miners, that creates centralization pressure. Miners could start offering private submission channels for large data transactions. Over time, that weakens the public mempool and gives mining pools more gatekeeping power.
After recognizing this issue, Core likely looked at different ways to handle it. In the end, they decided to align relay policy with consensus and completely remove the OP_RETURN size limit at the policy level.
The idea was straightforward: if the standard relay path allows what consensus already allows, there is no incentive to route transactions around the network.
Up to that point, I can follow the reasoning. But that is not the only possible solution.
Why not go in the opposite direction?
Instead of loosening relay rules, why not tighten consensus to 80 bytes?
That would have:
• Closed the bypass vector completely
• Removed the incentive for direct miner submission
• Kept the attack surface smaller
• Avoided normalizing larger data embedding
• Reduced legal and reputational risks
• Made large-scale spam more expensive, since it would need to be split into multiple transactions
In short, instead of expanding what is permitted at the policy layer, consensus could have been made stricter.
So the real question is:
Why was this option not seriously debated? Were there strong technical reasons against it, or was it simply not the direction they wanted to take?

2026-02-22 11:46:23 UTC

- reply

I agree. I don’t feel particularly pressured, but I do find Core’s behavior questionable.
If the issue was that nodes can be routed around, that could have been addressed by tightening the OP_RETURN limits at the consensus level, rather than expanding the attack surface in Bitcoin.
At the same time, I think this reflects a very natural dynamic: closely connected people tend to avoid openly contradicting one another. In my last post, I outlined how I believe this situation developed.
#nevent1q…30dt

2026-02-22 09:44:39 UTC

- reply

There was no real urgency that required this change. A soft fork could have been prepared properly and discussed openly, instead of introducing a controversial change that may expand the attack surface.
The lack of serious debate naturally raises questions. It gives the impression that the change was primarily pushed for specific actors or projects, such as Citrea or individuals like David Bailey.
If you can’t see that connection, I honestly don’t know how else to explain it.

2026-02-21 20:45:37 UTC

- reply

Now in moments of weakness, you just open it in the browser ;)

2026-02-21 20:35:29 UTC

- reply

Maybe I’m wrong about the legal aspect. Right now, the risk seems limited. But we don’t know what could happen in the future if OP_RETURN remains open.
At the moment, block template creation is largely centralized at mining pools. I assume they currently prevent clearly problematic content from entering the blockchain, or maybe not needed?
If the long-term goal is to decentralize block creation, then moving in the direction of v30 feels questionable. Block creation without any kind of data filtering mechanism could significantly affect Bitcoin’s public perception in the future, but that’s simply my critical assessment of possible outcomes.
I would be fine with the change too. If there were at least some indication that Core is willing to change something.
So what is the plan going forward?

2026-02-21 20:05:07 UTC

- reply

I fully agree. In that post, I laid out how I see the whole situation and why this conflict in Bitcoin exists, if you’re interested ;)
#nevent1q…30dt

2026-02-21 19:43:26 UTC

- reply

“For the record, if Core gets routed around with Libre Relay, etc., the answer isn’t to turn Core into Libre Relay.”
Very true, but it could be addressed by reducing OP_RETURN at the consensus level.
I believe the legal dimension is more relevant, even if, in theory, node operators are not doing anything illegal themselves. The fact that they are not responsible for the content does not eliminate the practical risk. If illegal material is embedded in the blockchain, running a node could still expose someone to legal scrutiny or prosecution on the grounds that they are distributing, or storing that data.
This risk may be especially significant in developing, or more authoritarian countries, where legal systems are less predictable and due process is weaker. The recent events surrounding Samurai Wallet show that even when individuals are acting within the law, authorities may still pursue aggressive enforcement actions.
That reality should be taken seriously when changing fundemental things in bitcoin.

2026-02-21 19:33:20 UTC

- reply

I do not see the situation as an acute emergency, even if it is sometimes framed that way by the Knots side. And i agree, it would be naive to assume that any side is immune to compromised actors. Based on what I have observed over the past months, I still lean toward the Knots position.
The increase of the OP_RETURN limit was controversial from the outset. For months, the Knots side made it clear that their objective was to reverse the change. Despite that, there has been no visible willingness to seriously reconsider it. More nodes are now running Knots than Core v30. That cannot reasonably be described as a clear and uncontested mandate. Yet even in light of these signals, there has been no meaningful reflection or attempt at compromise. The obvious question remains: why?
The main argument in favor of the change is mining centralization. Without the adjustment, fee markets could develop outside node policy, allowing larger OP_RETURN data to be compensated directly to miners. The concern is that this would create long-term centralization pressure.
If the real issue is the potential for bypassing node policy, an equally effective approach would be to tighten consensus rules rather than relax OP_RETURN limits. A stricter consensus limit would make large OP_RETURN data fundamentally impossible, eliminate the bypass vector entirely, and at the same time address the broader data concern.
This is precisely the direction the proposed fork takes. It may be stricter than necessary, but it attempts to solve the same underlying problem Core claims to address, without introducing new incentive shifts or expanding Bitcoin’s attack surface.
I believe the legal dimension is relevant too, even if, in theory, node operators are not doing anything illegal themselves. The fact that they are not responsible for the content does not eliminate the practical risk. If illegal material is embedded in the blockchain, running a node could still expose someone to legal scrutiny or prosecution on the grounds that they are distributing, or storing that data.
This risk may be especially significant in developing, or more authoritarian countries, where legal systems are less predictable and due process is weaker. The recent events surrounding Samurai Wallet show that even when individuals are acting within the law, authorities may still pursue aggressive enforcement actions.
That reality should be taken seriously when changing fundemental things in bitcoin.

2026-02-21 16:54:35 UTC

- reply

For those who are not aware yet, this is the reason behind this childish attack.
#nevent1q…5xez

2026-02-21 16:30:54 UTC

- reply

That’s how you properly respond to an accusation.

2026-02-21 10:21:04 UTC

- reply

Fair point, but what is actually preventing Core from tightening the consensus rules? Why choose to fully open up OP_RETURN despite significant controversy?

2026-02-21 08:49:18 UTC

Most nodes oppose the change in v30. Most nodes also oppose the change proposed in BIP110.
So why not roll back both and slow down?
Take the time to develop serious solutions. Let different teams propose different approaches. Evaluate them openly. Test them thoroughly. Compare the trade-offs honestly. Then, in one or two years, decide which path truly makes sense for Bitcoin.
As long as Core refuses to reverse its change, I feel pushed toward supporting the fork. We clearly have a spam problem and spam harms Bitcoin in multiple ways. Ignoring it is not a strategy. Pretending it has no meaningful impact is the wrong approach. If the change were rolled back, I would be willing to give the process more time.
I do not see this as an immediate emergency. But failing to address the issue and signaling that spam will simply be tolerated will only accelerate the problem. That is not a direction Bitcoin should move toward.

2026-02-21 06:50:27 UTC

- reply

We clearly have a spam problem. Core should roll back OP_RETURN and then actually focus on addressing spam properly.
Take the time to develop real solutions. Let different teams propose different approaches. Evaluate them openly. Test them. Compare trade-offs. Then, in one or two years, decide which path makes the most sense for Bitcoin.
What is actually stopping this approach?
@nprofile…2uzc

2026-02-21 06:37:52 UTC

- reply

Why not roll back the change? I’m convinced some people would pause and reconsider how urgent this fork really is.
If the goal is truly to minimize damage, reduce division, and lower the risk of a chain split, then reverse the change…

2026-02-20 19:52:57 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fg9w , I genuinely want your view on this, especially after seeing this post.
Around 20% of nodes have upgraded to v30 within six months. A significant portion of the community opposes the change, and several developers themselves say it has had virtually no meaningful impact on the blockchain’s data volume.
Yet there has been no visible sign of reconsideration or willingness to reassess.
If the practical effects are minimal, adoption remains low, and resistance is clearly evident, what explanation, other than ego or control, would justify continuing to push it forward?
And in your reasoning, how is this meaningfully different from the dynamics we see around the BIP110 proposal?

2026-02-20 17:48:41 UTC

- reply

If BIP110 is about ego and control, then how is removing the OP_RETURN limit despite heavy backlash, refusing to reconsider, not the same?

2026-02-18 21:23:30 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the podcast. I agree with almost everything.
One more specific point I would add: every additional development on Bitcoin increases complexity and with it the risk of errors. Each new layer makes us more dependent on developers, on how they interpret the code, and how they assess trade-offs.
The more complex the system becomes, the harder it is for the network as a whole to evaluate changes and make sound decisions. At the same time, the attack surface grows, both technically and socially. Greater dependency also increases the risk of capture or undue influence.
In that sense, a simple and clearly defined protocol is not stagnation. It is protection.
https://fountain.fm/episode/1t4C7RMHfzQQn4oxbREU
#nevent1q…unu4

2026-02-15 00:25:33 UTC

- reply

History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally.
The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses.
Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low.
This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction.
One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable.
These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest.
This post is inspired by this video.
Best regards, I appreciate your content.

2026-02-14 21:37:33 UTC

2026-02-14 15:58:39 UTC

- reply

As mining competition intensifies, efficiency increasingly depends on access to cheap capital rather than technology. In a world of centralized finance, this pushes miners toward centralized funding sources that come with conditions and influence. The result is a mining sector far more centralized than many are willing to admit.
#nevent1q…aknu

2026-02-14 12:06:53 UTC

As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit.

2026-02-12 10:23:24 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability.
The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future.
https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4
#nevent1q…t07v

2026-02-11 12:04:55 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is for money. Nothing else.

2026-02-11 11:27:19 UTC

- reply

The parallels to back then are obvious.
One side argues for smaller blocks and long-term decentralisation.
The other side pushes changes that shift Bitcoin slowly away from money toward a general information layer.
Looking at blockchain data from the past three years versus earlier periods shows the direct result of the current rule set and I don’t like where it leads.

2026-02-04 11:12:18 UTC

- reply

One point many people overlook is that before v30, only public, identifiable operators could push big OP_RETURN data into blocks, which created a clear line of accountability. Today it’s a network-wide behavior: every node relays it, responsibility becomes diffuse and the impact on decentralization is now embedded in Bitcoin’s core protocol.
#nevent1q…8ws7

2026-02-04 10:58:11 UTC

It is correct that before Core v30, miners could also include large OP_RETURN transactions in blocks, but that choice was made by clearly identifiable actors. Miners are public-facing companies. Deliberately mining large OP_RETURN data could lead to reputational damage, loss of hashrate, and in extreme cases legal consequences. That acted as a natural social and economic brake.
With the opening of OP_RETURN, responsibility shifts from individual miners to the network as a whole. Every node now relays these transactions, regardless of their content. This removes clear attribution to a responsible actor. What used to be a conscious choice by a few miners becomes a structural property of the protocol.
Large OP_RETURN data and inscriptions increase storage, bandwidth, and computational requirements. That raises the cost of running a node. Over time, fewer people can afford to operate their own nodes, which weakens decentralization and concentrates influence among large operators.
In the long run, this can alter Bitcoin’s level of decentralization and change the balance of power within the network.

2026-02-02 11:29:13 UTC

- reply

I’m also curious to see if opinions will change

2026-02-01 20:10:28 UTC

- reply

I believe that once BIP adoption rises above 20%, miners will start upgrading to it before a UASF. The risk of turbulence and reputational damage for Bitcoin, especially around Lightning disruptions, exchange confusion, and price pressure, will push miners to protect themselves financially by preventing a fork and adopting the new rules. Miners who continue to mine spam would effectively split off from the main chain.

2026-02-01 20:00:17 UTC

- reply

Isn’t that exactly why miners would support this BIP? If they want to stay profitable without creating chaos, all they have to do is back it and refuse to mine spam.

2026-02-01 12:50:26 UTC

- reply

I get your point, but I disagree. For safety, transparency is actually a strength. As a medium of exchange, privacy is better, but that’s exactly what Bitcoin can offer.

2026-02-01 11:09:25 UTC

- reply

Just like paying with gold isn’t practical for everyday use, paying with Bitcoin directly on-chain isn’t either. That’s why we end up with different trade-offs and approaches trusting companies, using protocols, or mixing both.
The main thing that matters is that the on-chain layer can’t be censored and stays decentralised. If we want global payments to work for everyone, in my opinion there’s no way around taking responsibility for those trade-offs ourselves.

2026-02-01 07:38:59 UTC

- reply

I choose a more optimistic view. The fight isn’t over. Lightning and eCash are powerful tools for increasing privacy. What we need now are strong, practical use cases that bring more people to Bitcoin. Not only because of the price. Nostr is already a solid start, and Fanfares, which I recently discovered, is interesting too.
We can’t help everyone, but we can make sure people have real options to protect themselves if they choose to. That includes CoinJoin, Lightning, and eCash…

2026-01-31 07:59:21 UTC

- reply

true💯

2026-01-31 07:34:00 UTC

- reply

In school, we spend most of our time studying what went wrong in the past, how people were exploited, manipulated, pushed into war, and what we claim to have learned from it. But there’s almost no focus on the problems we face today, or on how to truly think critically. Everything seems anchored in the past rather than the present.
When I left school, I thought we had become an advanced society and I couldn’t understand how such bad things could have happened before. Years later, I discovered the reality for myself: in many ways, we haven’t actually improved as much as we like to believe.

2026-01-29 05:46:56 UTC

I really like the idea behind Fanfares.
I tested the reward-sharing mechanism with a second account, but it didn’t work as expected.
Here’s what I noticed:
I was using the Brave browser, and I’m wondering if having cookies disabled prevents rewards from working.
When I logged in with my second account, the public key was correct, but the Lightning address shown was different from the one in Primal. I tried logging in twice and got the same result.
Also, when I first clicked the link, I was automatically logged in with a new account. In the browser. After that, I switched to my real one. Could that have confused the reward-sharing mechanism or caused it to link the wrong account?
@npub1md3…ctp9

2026-01-28 16:53:04 UTC

I’ve often heard that the true potential of Nostr hasn’t appeared yet, that its revolutionary use case still doesn’t exist. I think I’ve found one and the name is fanfares.
Create a new incentive system where valuable content is stored encrypted on Nostr and unlocked through Lightning payments.
Sounds very simple, but give it a listen..
https://api.fanfares.live/s/P9km2Q

2026-01-22 10:24:28 UTC

- reply

I think Bitcoin shifts power and incentives away from money creators and toward those who hold and save it, enabling them to influence existing systems and political structures. Even if only a small fraction of miners confirm your transaction, the funds remain yours and usable. Even if you need to wait longer. The critical point is the 21 million cap, and so far there is no proven attack vector against it

2026-01-15 08:56:43 UTC

A good beginner video for people who have not yet deeply looked into the fundamental reasons why some want to create a fork of Bitcoin.
https://youtu.be/4w4ij1ipt3Y
@nprofile…zdjf

2026-01-13 06:53:41 UTC

- reply

Thanks, it looks really nice :)

2026-01-11 20:46:04 UTC

- reply

My mistake. I had actually written the comment for a different episode. Still, it doesn’t fit too badly ;)

2026-01-11 20:43:55 UTC

- reply

Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this.
Thank you, Peter. It’s clear that you truly want to make things better and that you are actively working toward change.
https://fountain.fm/episode/WEmrOjNrhHWarZgiN3Yq
#nevent1q…rapm

2026-01-11 20:26:59 UTC

- reply

2026-01-11 08:17:49 UTC

- reply

Do you think it will come to that?

2026-01-07 13:17:04 UTC

- reply

Fiat systems survive only through constant intervention: growth is mandatory, debt must expand, and every crisis justifies more control. Bitcoin breaks this loop by enforcing fixed rules instead of power, making it the first truly free market built on mathematics, not intervention.
#nevent1q…ksq6

2026-01-07 13:06:41 UTC

The fiat monetary system is inherently unstable and can only function if it is continuously supported and steered by intervention. Interest rates, liquidity injections, bailouts, war and regulation are not exceptions but structural requirements. Without these interventions, the system collapses. If market shrinks, debt cant be payed back and the system collapses. That is the core problem.
Every structural weakness produces crises, and every crisis is used to justify further intervention. These interventions inevitably concentrate power. Not because of moral failure, but because managing problems always creates hierarchies. Actors who gain advantages through special privileges force others to adapt. Those who refuse lose competitiveness, access to capital, and influence.
Bitcoin escapes this logic. It requires no political intervention, no bailouts, and no special rules. It operates without central control and without privileged access. That is why we need Bitcoin. It enables, a truly free market with fixed rules that are not stabilized by power.

2025-12-30 07:54:01 UTC

- reply

True, mining is clearly even better. However, even just running your own node and paying all transaction fees through it already makes a difference.

2025-12-29 22:30:27 UTC

Bitcoin is not an investment product. It is a rule set.
If you don’t run your own node, you accept someone else’s rules.
If you accept someone else’s rules, you are not using Bitcoin. You are using a representation of it.
Changes like those in Bitcoin Core v30 are not minor details.
Policy is power.
Whoever controls policy influences usage.
Running a node is not a hobby.
It is responsibility.
No nodes, no sovereignty.
No sovereignty, no Bitcoin.

2025-12-26 17:26:17 UTC

- reply

Excellent episode. Very informative and well spent two hours. Thank you.
https://fountain.fm/episode/r9jPwy3CkTyEawEyc4hL
#nevent1q…8r8v

2025-12-18 10:11:32 UTC

Bitcoin Lightning payments have something special about them:
your own coins on your own server, payment in seconds, near-zero fees and the product still arrives at your door as usual.
The flow feels familiar, but the feeling is different: direct, private, with no middleman taking a cut.

2025-12-17 11:00:53 UTC

- reply

This is the real ETF attack vector.
ETFs concentrate custody and liquidity, shaping price formation.
Price signals define miner incentives.
Miner incentives determine which rules are economically sustainable.
Control price and liquidity, and you indirectly influence which version of Bitcoin survives.
#nevent1q…au72

2025-12-17 09:54:54 UTC

Bitcoin works because humanity as a whole creates the most value.
The chain with the strongest economic incentives attracts the most miners, gets most hashrate, and therefore becomes Bitcoin.
Long term, Bitcoin is a collective decision: It is whatever people choose to store value in.
That’s why it must be protected early. Money and power is concentrated today, and Bitcoin must remain decentralized until power is decentralized again.

2025-12-15 15:44:58 UTC

Why a restrictive consensus fork can gain traction even without explicit miner support.
One of the main reasons this could work lies in the asymmetry of consensus rules.
The current rules are broader, while the fork tightens consensus.
A block that follows the fork rules is valid on the current chain, while a block that follows the current rules may be invalid on the fork.
This creates a situation we have never seen in Bitcoin before.
Before the fork actually happens, once the rules of the potential fork are in effect, a miner can choose to mine blocks that are accepted on both chains. By doing so, the miner earns rewards on both sides, avoids the risk of mining on the wrong chain, and retains the option to later sell coins on one chain after the fork while keeping exposure to the other.
If a miner instead produces blocks that are valid only under the current rules, a chain split occurs and the miner earns rewards on only one chain.
Up to this point, there is a clear economically dominant strategy:
following the stricter rules minimizes risk and preserves optionality.
As long as it is not completely clear which side would ultimately prevail, there is no economically rational incentive for a miner to take the first step and realize the chain split.
Triggering the split would forfeit optionality and introduce asymmetric risk.
Once the split actually occurs, this dominance disappears.
From that moment on, the outcome remains uncertain at first, and miners can no longer rely on a risk-free strategy. They must instead estimate future fees, liquidity, and market value, and choose accordingly.
In my view, this makes the initial activation of the fork economically unattractive, unless expected fees or external incentives become large enough to compensate for the added risk. As a result, it is entirely plausible that miners will voluntarily align with the fork’s stricter rules even without an explicit chain split.

2025-12-01 13:29:01 UTC

- reply

True, fair point

2025-12-01 12:59:25 UTC

- reply

As far as I understand, self-custody means personally holding the private key that gives you access to your onchain bitcoins.
A Lightning node also holds private keys, but in addition it maintains the channel state, including the current balance of the channel. If your channel peer agrees to close the channel, both parties’ respective balances are settled back to their on-chain addresses.
In my view, on-chain self-custody and Lightning self-custody are essentially identical when it comes to overall network health. In both cases you hold your own keys and contribute to decentralization.
The key difference is the security model: the private key of a Lightning node must remain on a server that is always online, which makes it significantly more exposed.
Ultimately, though, it’s up to each individual to decide what level of risk and convenience they are comfortable with.
Or is any part of my understanding incorrect?

2025-12-01 11:51:56 UTC

- reply

I understand what you mean. However, I believe that when Lightning is used properly, it offers significant advantages. The crucial point is that as many people as possible run their own Lightning nodes instead of relying on custodial solutions.

2025-12-01 11:25:57 UTC

- reply

Of course the goal isn’t to save money on Lightning, but the point that people somehow need a way to actually get to their bitcoin is absolutely real. And if we don’t have a solid solution for the on- or off-ramp, then none of this matters, especially if those ramps end up being centralized.
That’s why Lightning is a good and reliable option: It solves this in a cheap, fast way, with minimal trust.
Read the documentation. It’s a genuinely unique approach to solving the trust issues involved in swaps.

2025-12-01 10:41:47 UTC

Many people currently view Bitcoin negatively because too few users practice proper self-custody. I fully agree that this is a real issue and it is something we need to address.
I want to highlight a positive development in this area by sharing a project I have been following for the past few years. I am not involved in it, but I believe it deserves much more attention.
The team is building trustless swaps between Ethereum and Bitcoin, aiming to extend the Lightning Network model across multiple blockchains through what they call the Lithium Network.
The idea is simple. The Lightning Network can be linked to the Lithium Network, enabling off-chain swaps between stablecoins such as USDT on Ethereum or any EVM chain and native Lightning BTC. No centralized custody is required, and users remain in full control of their wallets at all times. The only centralized element is the orderbook used for matching swaps, and the long-term plan is to have multiple independent orderbook providers competing with each other.
In other words, this approach enables fast cross-chain, self-custodial, off-chain swaps between EVM assets and Lightning.
One of the most exciting aspects is that it already works. It is currently live on testnet and open for anyone to try.
I find this approach extremely promising, especially as a way to increase self-custody adoption while still giving users access to the stablecoins and assets they rely on. If the future includes widespread stablecoin usage, a decentralized mechanism that connects those assets to Bitcoin could become a major breakthrough. I am curious to hear what others think.
Link to the documentation are included below.
https://docs.hydranet.ai/welcome

2025-11-26 19:40:44 UTC

- reply

A great podcast. If you want to understand the Core vs. Knots topic, this is a must-listen.
https://fountain.fm/episode/Hfa2SvBEc8CHGqgAy742
#nevent1q…jvee

2025-11-19 17:46:25 UTC

People’s savings always try to find the safest place. In a potential Bitcoin fork, the chain whose rules offer the strongest long-term protection for stored value will naturally win. That chain will have the higher Bitcoin price, higher transaction fees, and therefore higher miner revenue, which means miners will always gravitate toward it. In the end, the rule set that best protects money becomes the chain that people recognize as Bitcoin.

2025-11-17 19:40:03 UTC

Many Bitcoin OGs may not be selling out of fear or profit-taking, but for strategic reasons. If a fork occurs, they could position themselves on the chain they believe is correct and strengthen it economically.
The noticeable increase in OG selling began around the same time Bitcoin Core introduced its controversial change. Many long-time Bitcoiners seem to disagree with the direction Core is taking.
Which chain prevails is ultimately not determined by miner signaling or online debate, but by which chain is economically more attractive. The chain with the higher Bitcoin price and higher fees attracts pools, and miners always follow wherever the economic return is greatest. If they don’t, the hashrate will simply flow to the pools offering better economic incentives.
The theory, is that some OGs are selling now in order to build large positions on the alternative chain in the event of a split. By buying there and paying fees, they increase the economic pressure on that chain and draw miners toward it. In this way, OGs could indirectly influence which chain wins in the long run by directing their capital toward the version of Bitcoin that aligns with their vision and protects their wealth more effectively.
Now we just need to identify the rule set that maximizes Bitcoin’s decentralization and economic robustness, informed by the new insights we’ve gained from recent spam dynamics.
And then develop it..

2025-11-15 08:44:33 UTC

- reply

Appreciate your work. I’ll check it out

2025-11-15 07:53:12 UTC

- reply

What do you think is the right way to deal with Core v30?

2025-11-15 07:47:52 UTC

- reply

Must read. For people with limited time, the Core v30 points are summarized at the end.
#nevent1q…a6rq

2025-11-08 14:12:31 UTC

Over the past years, Bitcoin has gradually increased in complexity through various upgrades. That have a lot of great features, but the downside of this trend is now becoming clear: new vectors for spam and unintended usage have emerged.
Developers also face structural incentives to add complexity, because complexity requires ongoing maintenance and concentrates influence among those who are able to understand and control the expanding codebase. This is why it is crucial to closely observe and critically question new developments. It raises the question of why such a controversial change is being advanced without a clear understanding of its long-term implications.
At the same time, parts of the Bitcoin Core community seem to have shifted away from Bitcoin’s original purpose as self-sovereign, decentralized money. The increasing alignment with ETFs, institutional custody models, and corporate treasury strategies risks shaping Bitcoin into something more centralized and easier to influence.
For Bitcoin to remain resilient, it must stay simple, conservative, and focused on its core function: money that individuals can hold and validate themselves. Limiting spam and keeping the protocol lean is essential to preserve decentralization.
For these reasons, I support the proposed soft fork.
@nprofile…04na @nprofile…ljrg @nprofile…mjwd

2025-11-06 18:28:07 UTC

The problem I see with the current OP_RETURN development is primarily the legal aspect. When large amounts of data can be stored in a single transaction, access to that data becomes extremely easy. Previously, when data had to be split across multiple transactions, you needed additional information to reconstruct it: you needed to know which transactions belonged together, in what order, and you had to actively assemble the content with a script. That acted as a natural barrier because it required effort, knowledge, and intent.
Now, in the worst case, a single transaction ID is enough. One click in a block explorer, and the full content becomes visible. Even if it is only hex-encoded data, the legal situation is fundamentally different. The risk falls not just on the sender, but also on full node operators, explorer operators, and potentially even end users. That should be taken seriously.

2025-10-29 23:40:47 UTC

- reply

Opening up the OP_RETURN limit introduces new legal concerns. Miners would be forced to regulate themselves more carefully and develop their own censorship rules to avoid liability. Since everything is propagated across the network, miners would still need to process spam to remain profitable, but they would also need centralized filtering mechanisms to avoid breaking the law. What‘s the bad part about the opposition?

2025-10-20 11:09:33 UTC

- reply

„This year, block propagation has slowed down, because some transactions are missing from node mempools.“ That’s a disadvantage for miners who include transactions containing non-monetary data. If miners don’t include them, there’s no delay. So does this finally mean filters aren’t useless after all?
https://fountain.fm/episode/0Co1Oyl10OjTEWXYjzxl
#nevent1q…y8xz

2025-10-19 11:09:11 UTC

- reply

true, thats why we use bitcoin

2025-10-19 10:13:56 UTC

Our debt-based financial system is not about creating wealth. It is about control. Debt steers people toward what benefits the lenders and creates a centralized system of control over others. It is a tool the rich use to shape the work and choices of everyone else.

2025-10-11 10:54:43 UTC

In the long run, Bitcoin miners that neither use surplus energy nor repurpose their waste heat will struggle to remain profitable. As competition increases, profit margins will continue to shrink.
This is why it would be fascinating to integrate mining chips into everyday devices that already produce heat, such as the boilers inside coffee machines.
Take a coffee machine, for example. Its boiler operates almost continuously, and if it were powered by small mining chips, the heat generated by mining could be used to warm the water at the same time.
With millions of such machines running around the world, they could collectively help secure the Bitcoin network in a highly decentralized way, distributed across countless locations.
Companies that adopt such designs could benefit by earning rewards from the operation of all their machines.
If anyone has experience with boiler systems, this might be an idea worth experimenting with.
#mining #boiler

2025-10-04 12:24:05 UTC

- reply

Do you think Bitcoin becomes mainstream?

2025-10-04 12:06:43 UTC

- reply

Maybe now, but what if Bitcoin really becomes mainstream?

2025-10-03 19:54:52 UTC

- reply

The idea that the free market or transaction fees alone will prevent spam is unrealistic. You cannot compare ordinary users who just want to transfer money with actors who treat the blockchain as a global billboard. What looks expensive for a simple payment may seem cheap when it buys worldwide, permanent advertising.

2025-10-03 12:53:22 UTC

Progress on my dashboard from my mining management system
The battery display is now dynamic, and at the top there is a scale showing how close my best difficulty has come to a block. The miner moves forward as the value increases. There are also status points: yellow when a miner finds a new best difficulty, and red when the hashrate drops too low or the temperature gets too high. Both remain visible until they are acknowledged.
https://blossom.primal.net/a5d108183d5f398589a5cb92580a980453438f1c0c3a03b223b722aec2e8da9d.png
https://blossom.primal.net/d68fda87c2325a3c572b9fce0528dcc5333b2d1a4923b264050060cce5d6a9b6.png
https://blossom.primal.net/08ad2b881950c533a29765b33b061cfa6addd6c6629135c0b43eea047fe9434b.png
https://blossom.primal.net/a3bf4c07bb5bac18969baea131e68fd380102ccb74cfc368e73cdf297d00540b.jpg

2025-10-03 12:35:03 UTC

- reply

okay thanks, I’ll give it a try :)

2025-10-03 10:55:57 UTC

- reply

2025-10-03 10:29:31 UTC

The fact that transactions can currently be included in blocks without the consent of nodes is not due to Bitcoin itself, but to the centralized block creation by a few large mining pools.
In a truly decentralized mining system, where no one knows who will find the next block, this would not be possible without the agreement of the nodes.
This is why allowing OP_RETURN without limits is dangerous. Nodes would have to process and store far more data, which would push out smaller operators. Unequal mempools would emerge when large amounts of spam compete with real transactions at the same fee levels. Since many nodes can only hold a limited size (for example 200 MB) while the network may contain in the future far more data (for example 800 MB), each node would end up storing a different set of transactions. As a result, block propagation would slow down because nodes are no longer working from the same transaction base.
In the end, only large pools with expensive infrastructure would benefit. If we want to keep mining decentralized and move it further in that direction, we need filters and clear limits instead of allowing unlimited data spam in the network.

2025-10-03 06:13:38 UTC

- reply

Before, I only had a Knots node, and over a period of three weeks it never went above 110 peers. Most of the time it stayed between 80 and 100, just like now. Do you get more peers on your node?

2025-10-02 19:30:53 UTC

- reply

Are there many nodes that censor Knots? I installed Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots on my Umbrel server at the same time, three days ago. Bitcoin Core has almost twice as many connections, even though I allow 250 connections on both. (see picture proof on my latest post)

2025-10-02 16:07:08 UTC

I installed Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots on my Umbrel server at the same time, three days ago. Bitcoin Core has almost twice as many connections, even though I allow 250 connections on both. Are so many nodes that deliberately censor Bitcoin Knots?
@npub1wnl…n3wr
https://blossom.primal.net/175a9e71bb82e4a669f6a5aec65f6490d65b5555373bb5512d7fe1f47cdbf6ea.png
https://blossom.primal.net/93bb479eb9a681ad0c3409d818b4836521117e13295b9e13d875065c23b8176a.png

2025-09-28 19:34:37 UTC

- reply

Great interview. Samson Mow has gained a lot of integrity in my eyes. He is one of the few developers who fairly and accurately weighs the arguments of those opposing Core.
https://fountain.fm/episode/6A0VU3d7xxSBNVaInYA9
#nevent1q…5ul4

2025-09-21 15:22:57 UTC

Update on my Mining Management System
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been working on integrating my Bitaxe miners into my visualization. It wasn’t easy, but I finally got the interface running smoothly, and now I can display live data from each miner.
The interface has been redesigned, the core setup is ready.
Next comes the fine-tuning: more indicators, cleaner visuals, and some animations I plan to add in the coming weeks.
The Project idea:
When the solar panel produces excess power and the battery is full, the system automatically switches on more Bitaxe miners via relays. If production drops, it scales them back down. This way, surplus electricity can be put to work for mining and everything can be monitored visually in the interface.
https://blossom.primal.net/5c6c6eceefac73921fe532052667202aa04d9f793d525d0a72db143f9d9841e5.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2c3dc2b77ec36c5cc9716ff21b0f6f41b96899f8c401667b8449106bb401ed1d.png
https://blossom.primal.net/1472f34ee70fb0e67a4aa028ffc5476f64a3f3714635d26278f0d13d92b023f4.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/56b2ec8667a107bd4e6b6aa42e3166daf6de62ecb9b257e91292fc16b25e2a73.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/0f6483f593e8202402891234241b46f4dd30311d3e33e03333c1667b3650cea7.png

2025-09-15 17:11:37 UTC

My current position on the Core debate:
If Bitcoin is accepted by the broader public, the mining market will become so competitive that it will mainly be viable with excess electricity or by reusing the heat from computers. These applications are distributed worldwide and are most efficient directly at the source where surplus energy or heat exists. Pools will continue to exist, but they will increasingly consist of participants located across many different regions. For Bitcoin’s decentralization it is essential that these different actors have the ability to construct their own blocks. Protocols such as Stratum V2 are important because they give individual miners the power to decide on block content rather than leaving this responsibility entirely to the pool operator, which otherwise strengthens centralization.
In my view, the new Core version continues to push Bitcoin in a centralized mining direction even though we already have tools that could make mining more decentralized. With this version, it becomes harder for individuals to mine because running Core alone is no longer enough. A miner also has to worry about which filters to activate in order to avoid legal risks if a block they find were to include illegal content. This raises the barrier for small participants. Until now the OP_RETURN limit has already made it almost impossible for illegal content to slip into a block without being split across multiple transactions. Instead of leaving this safeguard as it is, the new changes create additional complexity and discourage individual miners. The result is that large pools benefit while individuals lose part of their freedom to decide how to run their node, whether they want to mine or simply participate independently in the network.
I am aware that settings can still be adjusted, but it is a major pitfall if I want to use my node for mining. What I find troubling is the very assumption that a node is not by default meant to be used for mining and for securing Bitcoin’s decentralization.
#mining #core

2025-09-15 14:24:03 UTC

- reply

Okay, fair. One could argue that Core v30 is mainly suitable as node software and less so as mining software, since an inexperienced person might otherwise end up creating blocks that contain illegal content.

2025-09-15 13:39:19 UTC

- reply

So the goal of Bitcoin isn’t to be as decentralized as possible, allowing anyone to run a node and mine? Instead, only large pools that then use their own filters for block production.
As an individual person, you’re not allowed to use filters?

2025-09-03 19:55:38 UTC

- reply

I assume that as a public company, they probably have to implement strict filters to ensure they’re not writing any illegal content into the blocks. So maybe yes..

2025-09-02 10:16:54 UTC

- reply

Hey Jack, you uploaded the same episode as last week on Spotify and Fountain😅
@jack mallers
https://fountain.fm/episode/nLUlYDg3g0E8OJM1Lssm

2025-09-01 15:19:05 UTC

I use Bitcoin Knots because I disagree with Bitcoin Core pushing changes and adjusting default settings despite significant resistance.
Having multiple developer groups is crucial for decentralization, security, and diverse perspectives. Whether it’s about differing opinions or preventing unintended bugs.
I’ve also come across an even stronger argument: Without proper filters or limits, attackers could push large amounts of illegal data, including pictures or even videos, through the mempool, letting it spread across the network without paying the high fees required to get it into a block. Node operators could unknowingly become legally exposed by relaying such content.
Don’t change a running system. Why is it suddenly so important to remove these limits? Are the Bitcoin Core developers fully aware of these potential consequences?
#knots #node #spam

2025-09-01 12:38:55 UTC

- reply

Hopefully, not at all. Bitcoin is decentralized, and having a single developer group programming all the nodes is already a risk. If Bitcoin Knots helps form a second developer group, it would actually make Bitcoin much healthier. Both by encouraging diverse opinions and by increasing the network’s robustness against potential bugs.