Jzpx7Gg

A digital plumber

Public Key

npub1fgdc5gw7lfa2nvuqx549j56h9h8qhryjx5hq0djta7aqc5m5mtrslazdmt

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsy5xu2y800574fkwqr22je2dtjmnst3jfr2ts8ke97lwsv2d6d43cprpmhxue69uhhqatzd35kxtnjv4kxz7tfdenju6t0qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hsa2rxmj

Publishing to

public.relaying.io

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1fgdc5gw7lfa2nvuqx549j56h9h8qhryjx5hq0djta7aqc5m5mtrslazdmt

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-15 08:39:27 UTC

- reply

Time and money
A network ruled by raspberry pis with a external HDD under 200 USD a pop, as in late 2010s, is more decentralized that if nodes cost 1000 USD each, which in turn is more decentralized than a network run by miners costing 5000 USD a pop, which in turn would be more decentralized than current situation ruled by 6 huge mining pools centralizing all decision making.
This should be obvious to understand.
Also big miner incentives align to find ways to relax protocol rules to increase their revenue by reducing difficulty, increasing rewards, or allow more non monetary uses to inflate their revenue short term. This should also be easy to understand.
I would only be proven wrong in my current fears if in the next battle within bitcoin, a change that only benefits miners and not users (which is what bitcoin core v30 was BTW) is somehow rejected. Still not clear how such miracle would ever happen as bitcoin users already admit their miners overlords should be in charge.

2026-08-14 20:00:16 UTC

- reply

BTW "retarded plebs" as you "so respecfully" call them are the customers, miners work should for them. That is key, otherwise we are back to Fiat, where issuers define the rules, the supply, pay themselves first, etc
I did not come to Bitcoin for Fiat 3.0

2026-08-14 18:30:06 UTC

- reply

Forget about Luke for a moment. Ask yourself how incentives work on a coin dominated by miners and in which 6 pools hold thebwhole hashrate.
Are you relaxed?
What stops them changing the 21m cap eventually?
Stopping or softening havings?
Why run a node in such a network at all? Only miners would eventually

2026-08-13 20:50:14 UTC

- reply

Well it is all possible, people can get corrupted. But by their actions you will know them.
I did not follow bip110 because it was pushed by certain people. I followed it because Core move was a clear attack to node runners and this temporary correction seemed reasonable, and the only attempt to do anything against the Core powergrab beyond clenching fists in the air and say how "deeply concerned" you were about it.
Diversity of opinion? Anyone was invited to run either the UASF or the URSF. But node runners that were against bip110 did not exist or care enough to take the time to reject it, deferring to their miners overlords.
BIP110 does not give power to anyone, it only enforces 83 bytes in op return and no op its where taproot was not designed to use them anyways. And only temporarily, until we figured out a better way. This was not really a change, but a correction on a change already done to bitcoin behind its back.
Filters are almost as important as consensus, if bitcoin was a real protocol, with a formal spec and several reference implementations, long standing filters should be part of the spec and be observed by all reference implementations.

2026-08-13 20:30:03 UTC

- reply

If state capture is subtle enought they could make changes on filters by a round about way, with gasligthing and excuses, asking no consensus from users and leveraging reference implementation dominance and inertia. Then, if the awake part of users organize to correct the implicit changes and unfixed bugs, they gaslight the attempt and call the miners on the phone telling them what they should chose to do. The correction attempt fails and the recognized brand stays in the captured chain, making the rebel options very scarce. Most people would refuse to believe their beloved coin might have been coopted and compromised.
This could happen now at any time, or could already have happened.
The only way to scape all this is if users could chose from at least a handful of implementations, making Bitcoin a real protocol and not just a reference implementation that pretends to be a protocol. BTW filters, at least long lasting ones, should be part of the protocol spec, even if they might not be consensus.
On top of that, any hasher in a mining pool should be able to freely choose to which template they mind towards, including voting on softforks just as nodes choose between UASF or a USRF.
That would truly be safely decentralized.

2026-08-13 19:46:22 UTC

- reply

You are basically defending proof of stake, "I invested x in mining so I matter x and node plebs (users) don't matter",
The issuers rules, just like in Fiat.
Enjoy your MinerCoin!
Looking forward to when you guys decide halvings should be optional, and 21M is not enough...
Just curious, what was so bad of BIP110? Did you dislike the limit of 83 bytes on op return? (Which was inplace practicality til yesterday)
The block to avoid op false op if? Why? Well I guess bloat alings with miners incentives

2026-08-13 07:17:59 UTC

- reply

Nothing is good. I have not much faith on a new chain fixing this. Decentralization death might be permanent.
You are recognizing yourself that the final decision was in the hands of miners. They decided what you wanted this time, good for you.
Opposers to bip110 told us it was moot because miners were in charge and node plebs did not matter. We did not want to believe it, but on Saturday they were proven right.
So the question is, how decentralized is a miner ruled coin?
You still have not awnser that
Nobody has, because the answer is both obvious and scary

2026-08-12 20:07:35 UTC

- reply

The softfork dynamics worked that way, at least they did in 2017 when segwit activated and the big blockers got defeated. If you had some support and no opposition therefore non colluding miners are incentiviced to obey and avoid their blocks getting rejected by part of the network, which could lead to losing mined blocks, if most miners behave in the safest way for them individually.
That is why Saturday told us they colluded, it is the only logical explanation.
The only way for bip110 to be rejected properly is by URSF run by node runners, which would signal miners they will get their block rejected if they go for the softfork (when the URSF has an edge over the UASF)
That is the way node runners would enforce their control on the network evolution, but supporting or rejecting explicitly.
If you defer to miners and they collude, you are in a network whose rules are controlled by the same that issue the coin, not the users. If that sounds familiar, it is how the Fiat system works in essence.
If you don't believe Saturday litmus test, don't worry, there will be others. But they will not do it in a hurry, unless they are stupid. They will boil the frog slowly. Eventually you will see them pushing for relaxing halvings, tail emissions, etc

2026-08-12 18:23:44 UTC

- reply

But core ones get automatically accepted.
You delegated to miners, and you don't get what their collusionmeans yet.
I am not saying the fork might work. I am saying bitcoin is ruled by a handful of miners, and that is effectively the death of bitcoin as a decentralized permissionnless network.
Bitcoin shitcoined itself

2026-08-12 17:45:03 UTC

- reply

Name calling? Seriously? That is your best argument? Facts and logic already failed you?
OK, I must be right then
On Saturday no node runners opposed the bip110, they did not use the USRF, so they did not oppose. A handful of miners decided instead.
Is your Corecoin/MinerCoin decentralized? Are you sure?
I know it is scary to think, but dont lie to yourself

2026-08-12 17:34:25 UTC

- reply

How is your Minercoin/Corecoin decentralized?
Explain how permissionless is a network where devs merge controversial changes on a whim, without asking consensus, in fact, against quite loud pushback. And when a correction is attempted, it is rolled back by a handful of miners colluding
Bitcoin as a permissionless decentralized network might have died on Saturday. Or more accurately, we learn it was already dead on Saturday
Enjoy your blissful ignorant complacency

2026-08-12 07:02:55 UTC

- reply

Not sure if you are talking about the upcoming hard fork. But what you described is what is happening right now. 15-20% of node runners discovered on Saturday that fighting for node affordability to avoid node centralization was moot, as the network was already controlled by the colluding centralized set of miners.
A new chain may resume on September, but the triumph of whoever colluded to do this is they got to keep the brand name and ticker for the captured chain. This is a huge blow, it can range from decades of delay of separating money and state to the decentralized chain becoming the Linux of money, only used by those in the known, but maybe even without an equivalent server market.
I know this is too scary to concede. We assumed bitcoin dynamics will always eject the "big blockers" dujour, but this time, if you look at the chain from 2022 you understand big blokers won this one, even worse, they are a small centralized cooptable colluding group.
People don't like to think their money is fragile, happens with Fiat minds, and can happen within bitcoin with a little overconfidence and complacentcy.

2026-08-12 06:38:50 UTC

- reply

It is true that there is more than one state out there, and dampens the blow, for instance in the censorship of some tx, state sponsored ones mostly. But not long ago bitcoin was to separate money and state. Remember? That is not going to happen on a blockchain controlled by a handful of miners. They will have their differencees, but states will agree to not lose control of money. Saturday is proof, both the Chinese and US governments would prefer a docile bitcoin that allows behind the back practical changes while block corrections to those.
Imagine gold mining rules could be written by gold miners. Does not make sense for gold nor bitcoin.

2026-08-11 19:37:10 UTC

- reply

OK, let's explain.
UASF is User Activated Soft Fork
And URSF is User Rejected Soft Fork (was writing thatwronggly before, sorry)
Here is where it was tracked
https://bip110.org/ursf-monitor
The BIP110 USAF initial logic was from the 2017 big blockers defeat era, that is, soft fork tightens the rules and therefore miners, which are employed by node runners (who pay the fees) should be compelled to obey. This is because collusion was not contemplated, of course.
So the USRF was there to give the option to node runners, not miners, to signal actual rejection towards the UASF supporters and miners.
If the USRF would have been say 5% above the USAF I would concede the network was actively rejecting the change. This is because in this case not voting was passively consenting. Again, assuming no collusion of miners.
I guess the USRF would have be coded to actually reject blocks signaling for the UASF, to make the point clear.
Do you understand now why the way things went down on Saturday is scary?
On top of that, several detractors of the BIP literary said that nodes or plebs did not matter, only miners do, because they had invested billions of USD, etc. (Sounds proof of stake to me) Not sure how you feel about that, but I don't like it.
The facts are, you are now on a chain ruled by miners, nodes are only useful for privacy assurance, but don't give you a voice in the protocol. Core devs propose changes and the miners accept them. (I would be very surprised if miners actually reject a Core change, that would be an interesting scenario, theatrics? Real discrepancy?)
As a result I can yell you now, even if I decide to continue to use the kegacy chain, I do not plan to run a node in there, its too much hassle for little reward. As node prices climb with data storage bloat, I guess most people will seek privacy by lighter means.
But even that does not matte now.. BIP110 was fighting spam to avoid node centralisation, but on Saturday that fight was shown moot. If nodes don't matter any more and miners rule, centralization is here already.

2026-08-11 12:30:16 UTC

- reply

UASRF was deserted, which meant miners did not know how much real explicit opposition was there. The only way to make sense of their decision was they knew for a fact that none of the other big miners would signal.
How could they know that without some collusion?

2026-08-10 20:22:10 UTC

- reply

Indeed, ad hominem is never the way
Just to recap the different views:
You say it is still in the power of (who exactly? "The network"?) to change the op return limit back. I do not see how, core had crappy arguments for their change of opinion, and ignored and gaslighted all critics. The battle for knots was uphill and still went from nothing to over 20% of the network share. There is great asymmetry there.
You said miners followed economic gravity... Except that is not what happened on Saturday. In 2017 they followed economic logic, but not this time. Signaling had zero risk, as the bip110 block is a valid non bip110 one, and if other miners defected, you were in trouble. Without a USARF signaling rejection, they had to be very sure their cronies would not defect in order to risk it as they did.

2026-08-10 19:39:36 UTC

- reply

Yes the op return limit was not formally protocol, but the filter was mostly enforced as law, and the point is the change of opinion did not make any sense. Don't you see a red flag there?
Some people did care, and complained. They were ignored. Weren't they? Another red flag. Most people do not really have the time to stay on things, informed and all that, so you can't judge silence as rejection or apathy.
Core devs behaved as they were running the show unilaterally.
I do not see why miners would have to "go
In line" once they agree to collude. The hope was they will chose safety, and thus could have been backed by promises of fiat bailouts behind the scenes. It is a possibility.
For whatever reason a most hostile was decided? Who was doing anything about it? Even the 20% knots market share jump in matter of weeks was impressive, but insufficient to improve things.
Anyway, decentralization means you have the right to think you hold the truth and stay on the legacy chain. If you are indeed right, things will go well for you and you'll have nothing to worry about.
But if you find later you were wrong, and the legacy chain is indeed captured, you will be be thankful we forked now so you have a non captured coin to move to. And the earlier you notice that, the more you will be rewarded.

2026-08-10 18:02:24 UTC

- reply

Good. Now the question is, a network ruled by a single dev team and a handful of miners?
Is still decentralized? Is it permission less?
If so, how?
What makes them reply "I can't do that" to a head of state ordering them something?
Please, explain

2026-08-10 17:10:31 UTC

- reply

Not true. Segwit activated with a minority backing similar to bip110.
You don't seem to understand the importance of the USARF. Those who did not want bip110 should have gone for it, but didn't. So miners had a significant push for a change, which was really an undo patch, and decided to go against it.
The only way they could risk that is if they knew no miners would defect. Somehow they knew, aks yourself now, does that sound decentralized to you?

2026-08-10 17:02:30 UTC

- reply

BTW you haven't replied my question. How decentralized is a protocol whose evolution is decided by a handful of miners?
This is what should keep you up at night until you can answer it properly. Specially now that you now the bip110 crazy crowd is no longer a threat to your chain.

2026-08-10 16:59:15 UTC

- reply

17000 individual nodes signaled by downloading the nonstandard node, and switching RDTS on. Luke did not give you RDTS on by default, you could download a version without it and even in the one I got I had to configure it explicitly.
17000 vs 6 miners and a dev team with probably a dozen or so key individuals. The small cabal prevailed.
The rest of the nodes were given the chance to mount a rejection version, none did, so they effectively abstained. This is key, because if bip110 would have been rejected by nodes, you would have had a point, but no, miners decided.
Bip110 basically limited op return to 83 bytes, the practical limit before most of bitcoin life. It also forbid op if were it was not expected to be used anyway I'm normal taproot txs, as this was being exploited to fill the chain and the memory. In general it just added strict filed size limits which is, BTW, standard protocol practice anyways. In fact I never understood why op retirn was never limited im size from the very begining.
If you do a IBD now you would notice the impact in 2022.
My agenda is my own. If a new fork is born my proposal would be to have 3 different implementations, in 3 distinct languages, so there is no single point of failure reference implementation anymore, neither at the hands of Luke nor anyone else's. But you would understand this is a long project to push for, even in the age of AI. Rust guys, for instance, seem keen to rewrite everything in Rust... except they seem frightened of bitcoin, for whatever reason.
If Luke shows signs of pushing changes that seem to give him or someone in particular any edge, I would be the first to move to something else.
And yes, Core did change consensus in practical terms. When you have a filter and rule 99% of the nodes, your conventions are like protocol. And the excuses they made up were totally retarded. Guacamole game, etc. Software Engineering is about guacamole game always, on every releasse you do, you know it will be affected by a CVE in a matter of days (specially now with AI), but you stop patching security issues? Nope, you patch faster!

2026-08-10 15:02:32 UTC

- reply

No one? The core team did it without asking. One of the times they were loudly told not to do it, they went ahead anyways.
On Saturday bip110 attempted to undo the changes, return the proticol to rigut after taproot merged but before it was exploited. The miners said no. It was not a USARF with thousands of people behind rejecting BIP 110 explicitly, it was a handful of miners dictating bitcoin rules.
I see changes from a minority here going in and the same minority rejecting changes from another minority that happens to be at least a couple of orders of magnitude bigger in numbers.
Don't you see it?
Don't repeat theoretical rethoric, check the facts

2026-08-10 12:04:44 UTC

- reply

The question is, are you OK with a handful of miners deciding what changes go in (core ones) or not (bip110)?
If a handful of miners rule bitcoin evolution, is it still decentralized?
Pkease, reply sincerely and explain what makes you so relaxed after seeing this play out.
Side question, do you run a node? Not that it matters anymore in the current chain, but I am curious if you ever had to to an Initial Block Download and noticed the las 4 years take longer than the previous 13, and it is all suddenly somewhere around 2022

2026-08-10 11:28:02 UTC

- reply

Let's build together, or not.
Decentralization is what makes Bitcoin permissionless and a threat to Fiat and State control.
Today we have a reference implemention that makes unilateral changes on conventions that are as important in practice as changes to the protocol
We have a handful of miners deciding to ignore the bip110 security patch that tried to formally undo those core introduced bugs/changes. Bip 110 gave the opportunity to oppose the proposal formally via USARF, but none opposed, nodes really do not matter.
If all this does not make you uneasy, I would really like to understand why? What is that makes you still have faith in the health decentralization on bitcoin?

2026-08-10 03:34:26 UTC

- reply

This is the "imperial strikes back" moment of big blockers. There was a chance to go back to pre taproot bloat, while still enjoying taproot, and reinforce the op return limit that has been in place for most of bitcoin's life. It all went down the drain on Saturday.
Still, if it had been rejected by a USARF, then it would have been bad but you could argue node runners and plebs are still in charge. What happened instead is that miners demonstrated they are in charge now. They ultimately decide what changes go in (bitcoin core ones) and which do not (bip110)
Go rewatch that old video by Andreas to an Ethereum crowd, "the difference between I won't do that and I can't do that". The State can now coopt bitcoin at will with 6 or 7 phone calls.
A hard fork is required now as an insurance policy. While it exists, the State is incentiviced not to abuse their control on Bitcoin too clearly or to fast, or people might jump off their coopted chain.
If it is not there, then you have no choice and the State pretty much owns you again.
Don't you see it?

2026-08-10 03:19:56 UTC

- reply

Indeed, whereas being a core team member or one of the handfulminers pool managers does allow you to change the consensus rules in practice and reject any corrections to your rule.
Not sure how decentralized and permissionless is that in your book.
Small gangs are easily coopted by the State

2026-08-10 03:14:26 UTC

- reply

How should bitcoin be renamed?
CoreCoin
MinerCoin

2026-08-10 03:01:37 UTC

- reply

Great technical analysis, now the deeper analysis: is bitcoin still decentralized? What data points prove that assumption?

2026-08-10 02:52:45 UTC

- reply

When a protocol has undefined corner cases and the reference implementation is almighty, your theory faces reality: A gang of devs plus a gang of miners, decide what is a change that passes, like the taproot bloat loophole, or the op filter drop, and what does not, like bip110. Both gangs are easily coopted by the State, so we are at square one again.

2026-08-10 02:24:04 UTC

- reply

At this point there are 2 possibilities. One is the "nothing burger" scenario, in which the majority chain is right that bip110 was rejected for lack of interest, but does not mean bitcoin is captured. The other is that bitcoin was indeed captured already (there are 3 data points backing that so far) and therefore, a new bitcoin fork is needed to stay decentralized and permissionless. If option one is true, people may have lost time and effort on a fork, but if the other option is true, the fork is the escape hatch you will eventually realize you need to go to.

2026-08-10 02:10:26 UTC

- reply

If miners are in charge? Is Bitcoin decentralised? Is it permissionless?

2026-08-10 02:04:26 UTC

Miners seem to be in charge now. What does it mean for "decentralization" and "permissionless"?

2025-10-24 20:03:57 UTC

- reply

All centralization will be attacked. Bitcoin implementation centralization was the last angle to exploit, and so it has been. A healthyimplementation landscape means at least a handful of competing node projects with double digit usage base percentages and at least 3 different languages, some of them memory safe BTW.

2025-08-22 13:43:22 UTC

Imagine a world un which you generate a pair of keys at home, get some sats, and can pay a TX fee so that you reserve a doman name for yourself for the next 7 years. In such a domain, the ownership of your keys allows you to be your DNS authoritative source AND TLS CA. No intermediaries, no registrars, no other certification authority other than yourself.

2025-08-20 06:06:15 UTC

- reply

This smells as dispair on their side

2025-07-31 06:47:46 UTC

- reply

Thx, I didn't know that one. Still it is yet another "buy my token scheme". We do not need that. You can do it on Bitcoin directly. Send regular a tx with one extra output with a less than 80bytes op_return. That contains the hash Id of a registration.
Registrationss are kept track on a side chain. Each registration holds one or more claims. Each claim assigns a too level domain.tld to one or more holder key ids (public key hashes) and an optional signature, requited to prove ownership for claims that change already owned domains.
Once the bitcoin block holding the tx that confirms the registration is confirmed, so is that entry on the mempool of the registration protocol.
This provides source of truth for both domains and TLS certificates, which must both be signed by one of the domain owner keys to be valid.

2025-07-31 05:33:41 UTC

- reply

@jack know anyone already working on permissionless DNS?

2025-04-14 09:23:18 UTC

- reply

It seems you are not aware of the dire situation of the Argentinian finances Milei inherited. Defusing such ticking bomb without a default is not an easy feat. The IMF is used to countries that waste the loans and fall deeper into their net. Milei is using surplus after surplus to avoid that. So far has managerd to avoid hyperinflation, reverse economic downtrend into growth and remove the "cepo" (internal exchange controls with the USD).
Next step is closing the Central Bank.
From now on, USDs may flow in and the treasury might be able to sell bonds in the regular markets. The exposure to IMF loans should reduce or disappear over the years, if peronists don't return to office. If Milei keeps going to the IMF without a good reason, then you might have a reason to criticize. It is not the case for now.

2024-09-25 08:03:50 UTC

- reply

Before and after. Again as a serial defaulter the IMF and whatever other funding you can get, including China's loans, are not optional. It is either that or total collapse.
It is like a drug, and the only way out is fiscal responsibility until you can repay those loans and not ask for more, because you can fund yourself or get regular funding in the markets.

2024-09-25 05:22:14 UTC

- reply

I do NOT think there was any real choice there.
Back in the real world, the Central Bank of Argentina had a huge amount of negative reserves. If you think the US or EU are essentially bankrupt, Argentina is at another level.
Nobody lends money to serial defaulters.
Milei wants to achieve the almost impossible, deactivate the Central Bank ticking bomb without defaulting in the process, trying to minimize the pain for the population in the transition. So far he is managing it, inflation trend has reversed and capital controls might be close to be removed. Next big milestone after that I believe is closing the Central Bank for good, so next politician in power cannot print the population into oblivion.
If that ends up working, Argentina might be able to fund the government through normal markets again, pay the IMF loans and be done with them.
Milei so called "dollarization" is really not such, instead the law allows to chose currency. Argentinians prefer dollars today, and compared to Pesos, who can blame them?
But once they get used to measure inflation in yearly terms, instead of monthly, they will see the dollar is probably not the last currency they want to hodl. Bitcoin is inevitable and may have a better law environment there than in most other countries.

2024-09-18 20:50:55 UTC

- reply

Right. But for now Linux is basically for nerds (like myself). Normies do not care to control their NixOS setup with nix packages and flakes to be fully reproducible, or buy a relatively pricey phone such as Pixel a series so that they can run Graphene OS to try scape the Google or Apple digital jails
Imagine a mobile devive with similar UX to an iPhone or Android, but being totally open source underneath, from one of several vendors who do not engage on services, just sell fully working devices, old school. By default, your docs & media gets backed up to your own devices, not the cloud. And you didn't configure a thing. Imagine an open router device with your own Tor relay server facing the Internet. Imagine Tor browsing by default and the regukar browsing being " the othet option". Imagine 1-2 TByte storage in that router to backup your files there, instead of on somebody elses computer. A more powerful and expensive version for nerds also allows to run your Bitcoin and LN nodes and Nostr relay.
Imaging open source development being funded by companies that just sell devices. Not barebones hardware loading a proprietary OEM closed source OS, but actual working devices out of the box running fully open source. Running images you could check the signatures for online, if your nerdiness required it.
We have all the right foundations: Linux, Grapheme OS, Tor, Nostr, Bitcoin, Lightning, etc.
We now just need to onboard the Normie's into open and privacy by default devices. Normie's do not install stuff, they buy things. It has to be convenient if it is going to work.

2024-09-17 17:45:00 UTC

- reply

Hardware keys are the only real practical way to have keys offline, which is always safer. And not just for Bitcoin, but in general for BYOK: certificates, passkeys, etc. We should always prefer keys we own and generate, with services only adding or removing trust from public key hashes.
Trusting the key hardware and software, so long as it is open source, is no different from trusting your bitcoin node, wallet, nostr client or relay.
The real problem is that the privacy situation today sucks. Everything is a cloud service accessed through an proprietary OS by one of a handful companies. Difficult to protect your data from being stolen, keys and all.

2024-08-27 21:11:00 UTC

- reply

Still, next vector of atack from authorities is that we all access the Internet through hardware and software controlled by a handful of companies, Single Points of Failure that can be easily coerced into bugging the OS or even the hardware itself.
We need open devices to run not just Bitcoin nodes or Nostr relays, but phones and computers that even normies can use.
Open and user friendly devices in which we know a send syscall will not be tracked by some closed source AI powered filter, or that the device itself is not collecting data to send to the HQs, or allowing rear door access somehow.
Anyone knows someone already working on that?