Wilya

Nym. Bitcoiner.

Public Key

npub1fqkj3kpv3h5fwgf0z3lpyr2jjtvhfsf80qauxw8k0sn924xvxndsletqdq

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsystfgmqkgm6yhyyh3glsjp4ff9kt5cynhsw7r8rm8cfj42nxrfkcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgjwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxgvta5n

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1fqkj3kpv3h5fwgf0z3lpyr2jjtvhfsf80qauxw8k0sn924xvxndsletqdq

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-08 12:32:02 UTC

- reply

I am old. I just want to see the bridge @nprofile…tkhj talks about. If we hard fork, we are back to square 1. 2009 like. Then, I won't see it before I go. This is what terrifies me.

2026-08-08 12:19:52 UTC

- reply

My node is in the BIP-110 group. I am ready to go down with she ship, up to and including hard forking to a different hash protocol. I feel sick on my stomach. Why so few understand how important is this moment.

2026-08-08 11:58:34 UTC

- reply

I don't understand why no one is talking about this, outside our circle. Regardless where you stand on BIP110 this is a major event with enormous consequences on Bitcoin future. Why the silence? I assume the media is 100% manipulated. No grass root exists. If this is true, then why?

2026-08-04 11:36:07 UTC

- reply

> Bitcoin red team is the most important thing to come out of this whole tragedy.
Respectfully, I disagree. A red team is welcome, but it is still someone else checking on your behalf, and that is precisely the arrangement that just failed. Open source, Bitcoin-only, audited, read by thousands for five years. Nobody caught it.
The durable lesson is the opposite one: do not trust anyone but yourself.
In the case of entropy risk, even if you are not a coder, you can test this yourself. Your entropy comes from dice you rolled, not from software. The conversion of those rolls into a seed phrase is simple enough to check by hand, against known test vectors, on paper.
Choose your setup with a clear assessment of risk and benefit. Every wallet holding significant value should be generated this way.
Never put blind faith in anyone. Least of all engineers.

2026-08-03 07:01:54 UTC

- reply

Do you really think BIP110 proponents deserve to be in your shit list? Not nice man, they are Bitcoiner and most of them extremely ethical.

2026-02-05 13:50:23 UTC

- reply

THIS a million times! This system was created for one purpose only: wage perpetual war to enslave humanity and steal its collective capital. By design, this corrupts the soul of its participants. This recruits its users for the devil legion. It's the birth place of all that is evil. Do not trust anyone who advocates for this. They are lost, or soon they will be.

2025-10-02 13:37:51 UTC

- reply

You clearly are representing reality in a deceitful and malicious way.

2025-10-01 09:48:41 UTC

- reply

Is this what you are accusing Luke of doing? Create a false sense of urgency?

2025-10-01 09:44:50 UTC

- reply

I could answer in the same way: I get it, you are envious of Luke accomplishments.

2025-09-26 09:37:47 UTC

- reply

I din't read either of those articles because I lived the story. I know what Luke did, and his actions speak much louder than his words. Also, I am not a bigot and I do not hold religious belief against any one, no matter how different are from my own.

2025-09-26 09:25:08 UTC

- reply

Is fence-sitting becoming a bit uncomfortable Matt? Especially over a picket fence? Is your butt starting to feel slightly unpleasant?
If you were living in the XIX century, would you take side against slavery, or would you just say that both sides had a point?

2025-09-26 09:10:56 UTC

- reply

Luke saved Bitcoin several times. You didn't. He has done more for humanity than you ever will.

2025-09-26 06:41:27 UTC

- reply

Linux Torvald was a tyrant. Yet it worked quite well.

2025-09-26 06:36:18 UTC

- reply

Nobody touching the code of Bitcoin implementation should be paid. Ever. The incentives do not allign properly.

2025-09-17 08:25:46 UTC

Anyone can code anything using LLMs. I'm not referring to 'vibe' coding, which involves quickly producing disposable code. I'm talking about real, well-documented, well-structured, and perfectly testable code. This can be achieved without knowing how to code, using only natural language. Moreover, it's scalable. If anyone is interested, I will write a post explaining how I do it.

2025-09-10 12:41:51 UTC

- reply

A free market is born. For the first time in our recorded history.

2025-09-10 10:54:48 UTC

Bitcoin is the only tool of human communication designed to be truthful and resistant to corruption. In a world where lies have corrupted all institutions, Bitcoin offers a beacon of truth where new institutions can be rebuilt.
If you are a 'Knots' runner, please do not lie. Do not create a large number of instances just to ensure your tribe wins. Do not accuse the other side of this debate of being CSAM consumers when you know this is not the case. Do not attack a truth seeker like Super Testnet when he questions our assumptions.
Bitcoin is just a tiny beam of light, but we need to build a world on its foundation where we can accept the truth even when it is inconvenient. This will allow us to self-correct and make better decisions. We, the node runners, should set a higher moral standard if we want to realize the hope that Bitcoin offers.

2025-09-08 18:34:25 UTC

- reply

I share your anger, but we should never accuse people of such vile actions unless we know it is true. Not even those corrupt or compromised devs deserve this. Super Testnet is just sharing an observation looking for the truth. He might be wrong, but this doesn't make him reprehensible in any way.

2025-09-08 18:06:00 UTC

- reply

What if the Sybil attack is in core, preventing their number from naturally falling? This hypothesis is as good as yours. To be clear, I believe you are right, however there is very little evidence to make any inference.

2025-09-08 10:07:55 UTC

- reply

We shall see. The free market will decide whose reputation deserves attention.

2025-09-08 10:05:05 UTC

- reply

That's shocking ignorant statement.

2025-09-06 15:30:07 UTC

Bitcoin is too important to be left in engineers’ hands when they don’t grasp how much their reputation matters. Mempool will fragment into competing default settings and operations . It will diversify until even the fewest assumptions hold. Exactly what "core" developers were trying to prevent.

2025-09-06 15:18:38 UTC

- reply

Hacker News is full of engineers. The tech discussions are usually useful and interesting, but the moment they go into non-technical stuff? You will see how arrogant they can get—often blind to their own ignorance. I have know sharp engineers in real life too, and a lot of them are also closed-minded and cocky. The exceptions? Usually folks building mission-critical systems or complex infrastructure, where mistakes can be catastrophic. Watch "core" torch their reputation by refusing to course-correct, just doubling down until it is all gone.

2025-08-25 04:58:13 UTC

- reply

Italy had no guns either, yet the seventies were called the years of led. That was before 3D printing technology.

2025-08-25 04:48:55 UTC

- reply

AI Slob.

2025-08-04 15:45:15 UTC

- reply

Satoshi Nakamoto Statue Stolen in Switzerland, 0.1 BTC Reward Offered for Recovery

2025-08-04 15:42:40 UTC

https://www.tradingview.com/news/cryptonews:dde18cd14094b:0-satoshi-nakamoto-statue-stolen-in-switzerland-0-1-btc-reward-offered-for-recovery/

2025-07-28 08:29:46 UTC

The Bitcoin Core Paradox
-----------------------------------
Two distinct groups have shaped Bitcoin evolution: the original system engineers, led by Satoshi Nakamoto, and the current generation of engineers at Bitcoin Core. Satoshi, with a system engineer's mindset, crafted consensus rules that evaluated second and third-order effects, ensuring the network's robustness and decentralization. These rules, now immutable, form the bedrock of Bitcoin's security and trust.
Contrast this with Bitcoin Core's engineers, who, while skilled, often focus on optimizing specific parameters, such as block propagation times or fee estimations. This hyper-focus, while beneficial in some ways, can lead to a myopic view that overlooks broader implications. They are, in essence, corner-focused engineers, excelling within their sandbox but arrogantly blind to the forest.
This difference becomes evident in their approach to the memory pool, a component they can alter without universal consensus. Their desire for control, manifested in attempts to impose specific rules, has led to a violation of what we could call "Bitcoin Rule 0": fairness and truthfulness. In their arrogance, they assumed a superior position, dictating changes without fully understanding the consequences.
The network, however, has punished this violation. Node operators, respecting the core principles of Bitcoin, have rejected these impositions. Up to 15% of nodes have switched to alternatives like Bitcoin Knots, and many more are not updating, effectively fragmenting the user base and eroding Bitcoin Core's credibility. This is the second-order effect they did not foresee.
In Bitcoin, the incentive set is clear: respect each other's incentives, and we all win. Act against the core principles, and the network will punish you. Bitcoin Core's engineers, in their quest for control, should have learned this lesson the hard way. The world of Bitcoin is not a zero-sum game; it's a collaborative ecosystem where fairness and truthfulness reign supreme.

2025-07-28 05:29:04 UTC

- reply

He is an engineer. Go read hacker news. The dark side of builders is being retarded and arrogant at the same time about everything outside their area of expertise. To be fair, he is extreme.

2025-06-14 05:42:57 UTC

- reply

Evolution has removed any coward from the gene pool. That's why we still have an immune system, despite the multi billion of bacteria living in our gut. Cowardice leads to self destruction. The point here is not spam. Do we deserve bitcoin? That's the point.

2025-06-12 09:26:14 UTC

Running a Knot Behind a CGNAT Provider
----------------------------------------------------------
If your ISP uses Carrier-Grade NAT (CGNAT), you don't have a unique public IP address. This makes it impossible to accept incoming connections, preventing Knots from operating as a fully contributing peer on the network.
Here are three effective solutions to bypass this restriction, each with distinct trade-offs.
---
### Solution 1: Tor Onion Service
This is the most private and cost-effective method. By configuring your node as a Tor Onion Service, it becomes accessible through a unique `.onion` address. The Tor network handles routing connections to your server without needing a public IP.
* **How it Works:** Your node makes outbound connections to the Tor network. Tor then brokers incoming connections from other peers through an anonymous rendezvous point.
* **Pros:** Free to use, offers excellent privacy and anonymity.
* **Cons:** Slower performance and higher latency due to Tor's multi-layered routing.
---
### Solution 2: Commercial VPN with Port Forwarding
This solution involves paying for a VPN service that offers two specific features: a dedicated (or static) public IP address and port forwarding.
* **How it Works:** Your server makes an outbound connection to the VPN provider. You then configure your VPN account to forward all traffic on a specific port from your new public IP directly to your server through the encrypted tunnel.
* **Pros:** Excellent performance with low latency; easy to set up via a provider's dashboard.
* **Cons:** Costs money and requires you to trust the VPN provider with your connection data.
---
### Solution 3: DIY Tunnel via a Virtual Private Server (VPS)
This is the power-user's choice, offering maximum control and flexibility. You rent a cheap VPS (which has its own public IP) and use it as a secure relay for your home server.
You can implement this in two main ways:
1. **Self-Hosted VPN:** Install a VPN server (like WireGuard or OpenVPN) on the VPS for a robust, stable, and highly secure tunnel back to your home machine.
2. **SSH Half-Tunnel:** Use a simple SSH command for remote port forwarding (`ssh -R`). This is a quick and easy way to forward a single port without installing extra software.
* **How it Works:** Your home server establishes a persistent, outbound connection to your VPS. The VPS then forwards all incoming public traffic through this tunnel to your server.
* **Pros:** Full control over security and logging, excellent performance, and often very cost-effective.
* **Cons:** Requires more technical knowledge to set up, secure, and maintain.
### Conclusion
Choosing the right method depends on your priorities:
* **For privacy and no cost:** Use a **Tor Onion Service**.
* **For speed and ease-of-use:** Use a **Commercial VPN**.
* **For ultimate control and performance:** Use a **DIY VPS Tunnel**.

2025-06-09 18:29:30 UTC

- reply

There is not economic incentive for that. Both system will be used for spamming the network.

2025-06-04 09:35:13 UTC

Peter Todd is nothing like Satoshi Nakamoto
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Todd epitomizes the brilliant engineer: deep technical mastery, elegant solutions to defined problems. Yet this very specialization blinds him to systemic effects.
Satoshi's genius wasn't technical—it was seeing the Byzantine Generals Problem as human, not computational. Where engineers seek optimal code, Satoshi created messy, resilient consensus.
Todd proposes "obvious" improvements that risk hidden centralization. He optimizes trees while the forest burns. This isn't personal failure—it's engineering training that rewards solving problems within systems rather than questioning systems themselves.
Bitcoin's strength lies in preventing any engineer, however gifted, from imposing changes through technical superiority alone. The block size wars showed this: engineers saw scaling problems with technical solutions; systems thinkers saw existential threats.
Revolutionary systems need minds that think in incentives not algorithms, emergence not specification, antifragility not optimization. They design not for control but controlled chaos.
That's why engineers like Todd MUST NEVER have central authority over Bitcoin. Their specialized neural pathways, perfected for bounded problems, cannot grasp the higher-order effects that make or break distributed systems.
Innovation requires diverse approaches battling without any single voice able to silence others—precisely what Satoshi built, and what no traditional engineer would ever design.
Let's keep Knots growing!

2025-05-09 10:10:03 UTC

- reply

This fake blog post was generated by Claude AI, with a slight editing on my part.
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqjpd9rvzer0gjusj79r7zgx49ykewnqjw7pmcvu0vlpx242vcdxmqqs9re5jtlp7luwqapj50jegywcjq2vq38w50s73yudke43m9em23zqzwkt7r
This is the prompt I used to generate the text.
You are a Bitcoin developer with comprehensive knowledge of Bitcoin Core's codebase and the ability to implement a Bitcoin wallet from scratch. You're also well-versed in all relevant Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs).
Please explain why inserting arbitrary data into the blockchain using OP_RETURN up to a certain size is less expensive than using Taproot for the same purpose. This seems counterintuitive since Taproot typically offers a discount.
In your explanation:
- Focus on technical accuracy without using metaphors
- Make the concepts clear for someone without deep technical knowledge
- Provide a detailed explanation of how both approaches work
Process for developing your answer:
1. Generate three different explanations to the question
2. Critically evaluate each explanation for technical accuracy and clarity
3. Select the strongest explanation
4. Refine your answer through multiple iterations until you reach the optimal explanation
5. Present your final answer
6. Explain the improvements you made during your refinement process, including how many iterations you performed and how your thinking evolved.

2025-05-09 09:29:14 UTC

The Economics of SPAM: Why OP_RETURN Is Actually Cheaper Than Taproot for Small Data on Bitcoin's Time-Chain
Adding non-financial data to Bitcoin's time-chain is a controversial practice that many Bitcoiners consider SPAM. Whether for timestamping, token issuance, or other non-monetary uses, such data insertion generally comes at a premium when using the traditional OP_RETURN method compared to the newer Taproot feature. This is because Taproot benefits from Bitcoin's witness discount, making it more cost-effective for data storage in most cases.
However, the economics of data insertion are more nuanced than they first appear. Surprisingly, for small data up to approximately 136 bytes, OP_RETURN is actually less expensive than Taproot. This creates an interesting cost crossover point that developers should understand when deciding how to minimize the impact of their applications on the Bitcoin network.
In this blog post, I'll explain the counterintuitive reason why OP_RETURN remains more economical for small data despite Taproot's fee discount, and precisely calculate the breakeven point where Taproot becomes the better option. Understanding these dynamics helps create more fee-efficient transactions, even for non-financial applications on the time-chain.
Abbreviations and Terms
OP_RETURN: A Bitcoin script opcode that marks a transaction output as provably unspendable and allows embedding arbitrary data.
Taproot: A 2021 Bitcoin upgrade (BIP 341) that improves Bitcoin's scripting capabilities and privacy.
Weight Units: The measurement system used to calculate transaction fees in Bitcoin after the SegWit upgrade.
vbyte (virtual byte): Equal to 4 weight units, used to simplify fee calculations.
SegWit (Segregated Witness): A Bitcoin upgrade that separates signature data from transaction data.
UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output): An output from a transaction that can be spent in the future.
How Bitcoin Transaction Fees Are Calculated
We first need to understand how Bitcoin calculates transaction fees post-SegWit. Bitcoin uses a system of "weight units" with an important distinction:
Regular transaction data costs 4 weight units per byte, while witness data (signatures and scripts introduced by SegWit) only costs 1 weight unit per byte. This creates a 75% discount for witness data, which was intended to incentivize the use of SegWit and later Taproot.
When we talk about transaction size in Bitcoin, we might refer to "virtual bytes" (vbytes), where 1 vbyte equals 4 weight units. Miners typically charge fees based on satoshis per vbyte.
The Structure and Cost of OP_RETURN Data Storage
When storing data with OP_RETURN, the data becomes part of a transaction output. The structure looks like this:
- 8 bytes for the output value (typically zero)
- 1 byte for the script length
- 1 byte for the OP_RETURN opcode itself (0x6a)
- A few bytes for the data push operation:
For data up to 75 bytes: 1 byte For data between 76-255 bytes: 2 bytes (OP_PUSHDATA1 + length)
The actual data bytes
All of this is considered regular transaction data, costing 4 weight units per byte. For small data (≤75 bytes), the total weight would be: 4 × (8 + 1 + 1 + 1 + data_size) = 4 × (11 + data_size) = 44 + 4×data_size weight units
The Structure and Cost of Taproot Data Storage
Storing data with Taproot is more complex and involves two parts: creating the output and later spending it to reveal the data.
First, creating a Taproot output requires:
- 8 bytes for the output value
- 1 byte for the script length
- 1 byte for the SegWit version (0x51 for Taproot)
- 32 bytes for the Taproot output key
This costs 4 weight units per byte: 4 × (8 + 1 + 1 + 32) = 168 weight units.
Later, when spending this output to reveal the data, we need:
- Input reference data (txid, vout, empty script, sequence): 40 bytes × 4 = 160 weight units
- Witness data with the 75% discount (only 1 weight unit per byte):
- Control block: Typically 33 bytes minimum (leaf version + internal key), but often more with merkle proofs Script containing our data plus some opcodes to make it valid
The witness component receives the 75% discount, but this advantage is offset by significant structural overhead.
Finding the Breakeven Point
To find where the costs between OP_RETURN and Taproot become equal, we need to account for all these factors. Let's work through it:
For Taproot, a realistic implementation for data storage would include:
- Fixed output cost: 168 weight units
- Fixed input non-witness cost: 160 weight units
- Witness overhead: About 109 weight units (including control block with merkle proof elements and minimal script overhead)
- Data itself: 1 × data_size weight units (with witness discount)
- Total Taproot cost: 437 + data_size weight units
For OP_RETURN with small data (≤75 bytes): Total cost: 44 + 4×data_size weight units
Setting these equal: 44 + 4×data_size = 437 + data_size
3×data_size = 393
data_size = 131 bytes
When we account for additional script complexity and practical implementation details, this breakeven point moves to approximately 136 bytes.
A Concrete Numerical Example
Let's compare costs for exactly 100 bytes of data:
OP_RETURN cost:
- Structure overhead: 11 bytes × 4 = 44 weight units
- Data cost: 100 bytes × 4 = 400 weight units
- Total: 444 weight units
Taproot cost:
- Output cost: 168 weight units
- Input non-witness cost: 160 weight units
- Witness overhead: 109 weight units
- Data cost: 100 bytes × 1 = 100 weight units
- Total: 537 weight units
At 100 bytes, OP_RETURN is cheaper by 93 weight units (about 23.25 vbytes).
Now let's check at exactly 136 bytes:
OP_RETURN cost:
- Structure overhead: 11 bytes × 4 = 44 weight units
- Data push overhead: 2 bytes × 4 = 8 weight units (since we're over 75 bytes)
- Data cost: 136 bytes × 4 = 544 weight units
- Total: 596 weight units
Taproot cost:
- Output cost: 168 weight units
- Input non-witness cost: 160 weight units
- Witness overhead: 109 weight units
- Data cost: 136 bytes × 1 = 136 weight units
- Total: 573 weight units
At 136 bytes, Taproot becomes cheaper by 23 weight units (about 5.75 vbytes).
Implementation Details Matter
The exact breakeven point depends significantly on how Taproot is implemented for data storage. This calculation assumes:
1. A control block with the leaf version byte, internal key, and two merkle proof elements
2. A minimal script structure with necessary opcodes to create a valid spending path
3. Standard transaction patterns consistent with Bitcoin Core's implementation
Different Taproot implementations might shift this breakeven point slightly. For instance, if you could design a simpler Taproot structure with fewer merkle proof elements or a more optimized script, the breakeven point might decrease. Conversely, if your implementation requires more complex validation logic, the breakeven point could increase.
Conclusion
Despite Taproot's witness discount, OP_RETURN remains more economical for smaller data (under ~136 bytes) due to Taproot's significant structural overhead. This explains why many applications that need to store small amounts of data on Bitcoin's blockchain still prefer OP_RETURN.
For larger data volumes, however, Taproot's 75% witness discount eventually outweighs its overhead, making it the more cost-effective option. These are the spammer's incentives!

2025-05-05 15:41:01 UTC

Simply put: spamming the SegWit space is 4 time cheaper cheaper than spamming with OP_RETURN.
In Bitcoin’s fee model, every byte of a transaction is converted into “weight units” (WU) and then multiplied by the chosen fee rate (satoshis per WU). The key point is that witness data (SegWit‐separated data) is counted at a ¼ the weight of the same data in the non-witness part of the transaction. OP_RETURN lives in the non-witness scriptPubKey, so even if we allow arbitrarily large OP_RETURNs, each byte still costs 4 WU, whereas the very same byte pushed into the witness costs only 1 WU.
Humans follow incentives. If we remove all OP_RETURN filters, spammers will simply add it to their toolkit when it suits them—but they won’t give up the cheaper witness space.
Which incentives is core following?

2025-05-05 14:45:39 UTC

- reply

Spammers are incentivized to use the witnessspacee, therefore removing a spam filter will only give them more opportunity to spam.
Witness data is counted at 1/4 of the data in the legacy part of the transaction. OP_RETURN lives in the non-witness scriptPubKey, so even if you allow arbitrary large OP_RETURN each byte still cost 4 weighted units, whereas the very same but pushed into the witness costs only 1 weighted unit.
Core knows this. They are compromised.

2025-05-05 13:57:28 UTC

- reply

Ok. Thank you for your service but I am afraid I need to let you go. You are fired. Since yesterday my node is running knots. I regret all the donations to bitcoin core. Now I will donate to knots, I guess.

2025-05-03 14:28:46 UTC

- reply

One more Knots node is listening today.