cheesypleb

Public Key

npub19q7cfcez62fhqf6m700mujaec05gkvmk4te03xg00aa3s23cgm2sj33ajd

Profile Code

nprofile1qqszs0vyuv3d9ymsyadl8ha7fwuu86ytxdm24uhcny8h77cc9guyd4gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dszlr9a0

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub19q7cfcez62fhqf6m700mujaec05gkvmk4te03xg00aa3s23cgm2sj33ajd

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-05 14:30:19 UTC

- reply

Wait hold on, bitcoin is money now?
I thought bitcoin was an arbitrary data exchange mechanism?

2026-03-04 07:22:56 UTC

- reply

There is a difference between policing the data and welcoming spammers by:
- providing official' support for large quantities of spam.
- refusing to fix the bug which enabled inscriptions
No one is claiming all spam can be stopped but deliberately removing friction for spammers is not a good idea for the long term health of the network. If spammers know that the network is hostile to them and there is a chance they will get rugged at some point in the future then that's a huge deterrent to VCs funding large scale spammers.

2026-03-03 14:42:59 UTC

- reply

Custom build running start9 on proxmox. Hardware wallets. Bitaxe mining and building my own blocks with Datum, signalling BIP110 of course.

2026-03-01 16:13:01 UTC

- reply

'Iranian media reports'...
The first casualty of war is truth.

2026-02-25 08:51:43 UTC

- reply

There is no gradient. It's either a financial transaction that uses the monetary network as it was designed to be used, or it's spam. You can't stop all spam but that doesn't mean you have to make the network spam friendly.

2026-02-25 08:49:29 UTC

- reply

The whole point of bitcoin is that it is a monetary network outside the control of central banks and governments. If you believe that's a good thing then you have to accept that it will be used by people you don't like.

2026-02-24 21:37:36 UTC

- reply

Yes because they are financial transactions on a monetary network. Arbitrary data or as we use to call it spam, is not.

2026-02-24 15:15:49 UTC

- reply

'impossible to define what spam is externally.'
It's this kind of gaslighting nonsense that is the reason BIP110 exists. Everyone knows what spam is. Those that claim not to must be viewed with suspicion.

2026-02-16 08:13:26 UTC

- reply

That's nonsense. I can confirm as someone that actually runs a node that bandwidth and CPU usage are considerably less running a knots node than it was with core. What you are arguing is nodes should just follow miners. That's the wrong way around, miners work for the network, nodes signal what we want to see in the network. I will filter my mempool how I want not how compromised core devs paymasters want me to.

2026-02-15 23:57:38 UTC

- reply

Err, so why the desperate push to remove the OP_RETURN limit in the face of significant opposition then?

2026-02-12 10:11:58 UTC

- reply

Spammers are stealing resources from node runners. Node runners did not sign up to be a general data storage network for dickbutt jpgs.

2026-02-12 07:04:55 UTC

- reply

Is that why Monero suffered a 51% attack as recently as last year?

2026-02-11 08:59:44 UTC

- reply

The ONLY thing that makess bitcoin unique is decentralisation. There are a 1000 networks offering, cheap, quick, private transactions. All of these have/will fail due to centralisation. If everything else is compromised to ensure decentralisation in the long term then that's a compromise we have to make.

2026-02-10 17:12:03 UTC

- reply

He's one of the most anti shitcoin voices on YouTube. How many years back are you going? Cant see anything except toxic bitcoin maximalism on his feed going back years.

2026-02-08 10:10:53 UTC

- reply

We need less shitcoin apologists involved in bitcoin.

2026-01-23 17:25:53 UTC

- reply

The paradox is that regular people will only buy bitcoin if the price keeps going up and that will only happen at this point (2T market cap) with (more) institutional adoption.

2026-01-14 16:35:59 UTC

- reply

Sigh. So we redefined AI to mean LLM chatbot and now we are going to redefine AGI to mean 'can write code'. What will we call actual reasoning intelligence when/if it does arrive then? RAI? RGI? AAGI?

2026-01-13 07:29:33 UTC

- reply

Why? MNAV was below one at many points in 2022.

2026-01-13 07:24:41 UTC

- reply

He is absolutely right that the bitcoin community is unnecessary toxic towards treasury companies when they should adopt a 'bitcoin is for everyone' attitude. However he could have answered a lot of the questions less defensively, bitcoin going up will lift these companies back above nMAV 1 just as it did for strategy when they were below 1 for a good chunk of 22-23.

2026-01-10 19:28:44 UTC

- reply

Each to their own but this would be my idea of hell.

2026-01-01 10:01:09 UTC

- reply

Why is blocksteeam promoting quantum FUD? In the list of problems bitcoin currently has quantum isn't even a minor concern.

2025-12-29 10:24:17 UTC

- reply

This is a joke right? WiFi exists and can be measured. Mystically woo-woo can't because it doesn't.

2025-12-21 19:46:29 UTC

- reply

Quantum is not on the near term horizon. Not even close. It's decades probably centuries off and in my view more than likely will never be a threat. It's highly theoretical at best and has achieve no actually useful results so far.

2025-11-11 09:41:21 UTC

- reply

A BCH appologist says what?

2025-11-10 17:07:38 UTC

- reply

Gaslighting nonsense. The biggest threat to decentralisation is making it harder to run nodes. That's exactly what facilitating spam does. Bitcoin has all the utility it needs to become the dominant global store of value. Once we get there then layered payment solutions will be needed and yes that may involve centralised solutions. Satoshi foresaw the development of 'bitcoin banks' as inevitable. Bitcoin is the base layer. The base layer should be kept as simple, stable and risk free as possible.

2025-11-06 17:33:37 UTC

- reply

Exactly. So why not drop the push to open up bitcoin to more 'use cases' against the wishes of a large segment of bitcoiners and focus instead on making bitcoin the sound money the world needs.

2025-10-25 07:51:35 UTC

- reply

Is it normal for miners to upgrade to new versions so quickly?

2025-09-29 09:18:08 UTC

- reply

I would describe myself as a technical user and I understand the technical arguments core is attempting to make but I think you are still wrong here.
Yes perfect spam filters don't exist, but saying that decentralised spam filters can never work is not true otherwise email would be unusable. Yes I know email is more centralised now than originally intended so maybe not the perfect example but I can still run an email server and filter 90%+ of spam myself.
What's important is making bitcoin hostile to spam, yes it's a cat and mouse, wack-a-mole game that will never be 'won', but total victory is not needed.
The alternative, to accommodate spammers by giving them a 'nice' way to spam only encourages them, both to spam more and to demand more and more 'accommodations' via essentially blackmail - give us what we want or we harm the chain with more UTXOs etc. Making bitcoin hostile to spammers has worked pretty well for years (apart from the inscriptions fiasco caused by core not fixing a bug - again an example of what happens if you accommodate spammers). There is a reason most scams/spam has occured on other chains rather than bitcoin up till now.

2025-09-26 10:45:01 UTC

- reply

I think that meme applies to the core team right now tbh.

2025-09-02 15:44:46 UTC

- reply

Propagation not proportion

2025-09-02 15:43:23 UTC

- reply

Yes. At least it will slow the proportion of junk round the network. Even better though as the % of knots nodes rise and hopefully become the majority it's a powerful signal to core that they are on the wrong side of this debate. If they refuse to change, they risk becoming the minority bitcoin implementation and thus increasingly irrelevant.

2025-08-24 09:43:32 UTC

- reply

Don't think he knows what maxi means.

2025-08-14 11:49:11 UTC

- reply

That's great but the fee/premium is too high. A competitive premium needs to be at least 10x less than it is now.

2025-08-06 13:28:02 UTC

- reply

How do you avoid the annually refinanced loan compounding by 10% (or whatever the rate is) each year). Eventually you pr your estate will have to pay off an enormous loan. This is only really possible or sensible if you have a very large stack of bitcoin.

2025-07-19 08:08:20 UTC

- reply

The thing I don't understand is that ultimately all these scaling solutions apart from lightening , require trust in at least one third party. Not just for the bridge but in the nodes as well (maybe I'm missing something but what forces users to respect the nullifiers?). If you have to complete trust at least one third party then why use a blockchain at all?

2025-06-25 06:34:16 UTC

- reply

What if the blind oracle is unavailable, or at some point in the future is shut down?

2025-06-11 13:50:35 UTC

- reply

You spelt without wrong.

2025-06-11 12:25:00 UTC

- reply

Environmentalism.

2025-06-02 23:29:08 UTC

- reply

This is standard in my experience. People are far too trusting of AI answers. The worst thing is that it will give made up answers with complete confidence where a human would just admit they don't know. Yet another indicator that there is no real intelligences here just glorified auto-complete.

2025-05-31 19:03:21 UTC

- reply

That's interesting but if the placebo group show higher incidence of the disease in question it still kind of indicated that the vaccine works no? I assume it does right?

2025-05-31 09:18:40 UTC

- reply

I'm listening but I don't think you are. It's perfectly logical to not make bitcoin a safe space for spammers. Node must have a say in what goes into blocks, giving up and ceeding all control to miners, which is what removing the ability of nodes to filter will do, will be the end of bitcoin in the long run. The ONLY thing that makes bitcoin unique (other than first mover advantage, network effects etc) is that its nodes can be run by ordinary users. The nodes signal to the miners what they want them to do. The fact that miners can currently ignore them is the problem that needs to be fixed (by decentralising mining), the solution is not to just give up all control to the miners. If that happens we are effectively ethereum.

2025-05-30 20:19:50 UTC

- reply

So rather than fix the problem we just give in to spammers? There is no reason to believe that out of band transactions will ever cost the same as legitimate transactions.
Meanwhile we need to work aggressively to fix the miner centralisation problem. Making bitcoin a spam friendly space in the meantime will do enormous harm, not just in reducing decentralisation but in the public perception of bitcoin. You want institutional and nation state adoption and the number go up that goes with it? If bitcoin becomes a cesspool of spam and scams like ethereum or solana the chance of that goes down massively.
If you want non-monetary transactions on bitcoin thats fine but don't also expect bitcoin to become the base layer of money worldwide.

2025-05-28 23:19:40 UTC

- reply

He seemed to lack conviction in that interview. He is no Saylor that's for sure.

2025-05-28 16:46:49 UTC

- reply

Technically true.. So why do spammers want the filters removed?
Nodes can make it harder and more expensive to spam the network. That's why they want the filters removed.

2025-05-26 19:49:44 UTC

- reply

It was a question not a statement. I'm trying to understand the origin of your view that nodes preferences about what should be in blocks doesnt matter at all.

2025-05-26 15:26:12 UTC

- reply

So you believe the miners control bitcoin not the nodes?

2025-05-26 15:24:36 UTC

- reply

It's core that want to meddle with it by removing a filter that was clearly working pretty well. We just want them to leave it alone. Removing control from nodes and pandering to spammers is the biggest long term threat to bitcoin IMO.

2025-05-26 07:26:05 UTC

- reply

In practice they do. Yes spammers can pay more or go to more effort to go direct to rouge miners but that does not mean we should abandon all attempts to limit spam.
Your second paragraph reveals the problem with your thinking. It is the nodes that are in charge, miners should respect node runners preferences not the other way around. Nodes Mempool filtering (which they have always done) is a signal of our preferences to the miners. Thanks to miner pool centralisation, individual rouge miners are able to ignore the nodes wishes and put unwanted junk in the blocks. The fact that mining has become this centralised gives us bigger problems anyway but that's another issue.
If we accept that nodes no longer have a say in the content of the Mempool then bitcoin is dead and we might as well let the big two mining pools run everything. Then we have become ethereum or any other shitcoin.

2025-05-26 07:13:09 UTC

- reply

You miss the point. Yes spammers can go direct to miners. But it costs them more and requires more effort, as you then admit 'it males it more comfortable for people with these transactions to be part of the network'. I do not want to make it more comfortable for spammers I want the network to be as hostile to them as possible.
The fee estimate point is FUD, even if it were an issue it would be a price well worth paying, but it is simply not an issue. See Mechanics explanation for details, but my understanding is it only affects those using an outdated method of estimating fees anyway.

2025-05-26 06:59:36 UTC

- reply

I believe that doesn't include those running behind tor? Which includes all the Umbrels and start9s?

2025-05-25 09:23:04 UTC

- reply

I do (or should) get to decide what my node relays. The email analogy is not perfect but pretty good, Google, Microsoft, ISPs and anyone that runs an SMTP replay are the 'node operators' of email. They all filter spam, if they didn't no one would use email.
The argument that filters do nothing because determined spammers can just go direct to miners (and pay much more) is nonsense. If that is the case why do they want to remove the filters? Clearly they do do something, they make it harder and more expensive to spam.
'No universal definition of spam' is also complete by gaslighting nonsense. Email marketers (like Lopp in his early career) say the same thing, but everyone knows spam when they see it. Just because we can't agree on a perfect definition doesn't mean allowing all spam is good idea. Hint: JPGs are spam.

2025-05-25 07:42:29 UTC

- reply

I assume you use email with spam filters turned off? I mean those spam emails are valid messages according to the protocol right? Why should they be censored? Some spam will alway get through anyway.
Here is the thing - even if you do turn the filters off, the amount of spam you will get is far less due to the fact that would be spammers know that most others do have the filters on. Email would be completely unusable if spammers knew their activitoes were blessed, even encouraged by the main email providers.

2025-05-25 07:24:43 UTC

- reply

So we should make it easier to spam? This makes no sense. Does it really help nation state and institutional adoption if bitcoin has a reputation of being a dumping ground for JPGs and scams? We still have an uphill battle to persuade governments that bitcoin is trustworthy, encouraging spam doesn't help.

2025-05-19 16:34:45 UTC

- reply

I can only assume this was created by someone who wants to sabotage bitcoin. Put this together with the OP_RETURN debacle and it starts to look like a pattern is forming.

2025-05-17 18:03:49 UTC

- reply

2. Then you realise that normie media headlines will be 'bitcoin supply increased to 21 quadrillion' and people laugh when you claim bitcoin is sound money.

2025-05-14 12:56:42 UTC

- reply

I would still rather trust this one person who appears to understand what bitcoin is for and what makes it unique, than a group who appears to have been compromised, either ideologically or financially, to introduce a change that is clearly against the long term interests of bitcoin.

2025-05-10 12:07:34 UTC

- reply

If it does nothing why remove it? They is Core devs..

2025-05-10 08:07:09 UTC

- reply

It clearly does or they wouldn't want to remove it.

2025-05-03 07:27:05 UTC

- reply

Does this include those behind tor?

2025-05-03 07:23:39 UTC

- reply

So because some spammers might go to the trouble and expense of direct miner submission we should abandon all attempts at stopping spam? This is not a credible argument.

2025-03-13 14:11:48 UTC

- reply

They don't have access to your private keys. At worst they have access to your pin if you don't trust the whole double blind thing. Private keys never leave your device.

2025-03-07 12:26:48 UTC

- reply

You need one before the other. No one will use it as cash until it is accepted as a store of value by most people we are not there yet.

2025-03-04 11:15:19 UTC

- reply

Surely if anything it shows the opposite? no mind would create something so non-sensical.

2025-01-21 15:02:05 UTC

- reply

If a bad actor tries to censor transactions, node operators can simply not accept blocks generated by the bad actor. I thought the blocksize wars already established that the miners don't have all the power.

2024-12-18 09:46:57 UTC

- reply

I want BTC to be used as currency as much as anyone but I think bitcoiners need to chill and accept that it won't be widely used in the west as such whilst it is still rapidly monetising against the dollar. Becoming the dominant store of value asset is a necessary first step before the majority will even consider using it as currency.

2024-12-10 10:10:30 UTC

- reply

Quantum computing has always been and i'm pretty confident will always be vapourware. I'm not even convinced that what they claim to be able to do is even theoretically possible.

2024-10-30 20:13:41 UTC

- reply

Exactly, feature creep has ruined so many great pieces of software. Developers like to develop. It's not in their nature to say 'the is feature complete, let's not break it'. I say this as a developer.

2024-09-16 15:26:30 UTC

- reply

They don't want civil war they just want to get rid to Trump. I'm wondering how many more 'lone gunman with mental health issues' it will take before the mainstream media starts asking the right questions.

2024-08-23 11:43:56 UTC

- reply

it was not bad but I found all the religious stuff a bit hard to swallow. Bitcoin has nothing to do with religion nor should it. Religion only divides.

2024-07-22 07:42:42 UTC

- reply

'judge a person by their enemies ' is appropriate here. The best thing about Trump is that annoys all the right people. The mainstream media, the deep state, lefty Hollywood/TV types, all are clearly terrified of a second Trump term and getting more and more desperate.

2024-06-12 16:47:02 UTC

- reply

Environmentalost are hard to reason with because their base level assumption is that 'the planet' and it's wellbeing (whatever that means) are more important than the wellbeing of people.

2024-05-09 17:54:12 UTC

- reply

Disagree., low-fat and diet products are just a symptom not the cause. The cause is always eating unhealthy snacks between meals, particularly in the evening, usually crisps and chocolate. Show me a fat person and I guarantee they sit on the sofa in the evenings eating crap. Taking in calories when your body doesn't need it just before sleep means it goes straight on as fat.

2023-12-16 21:23:12 UTC

- reply

Tell that to people in the developing world.

2023-02-15 20:01:46 UTC

- reply

The bad:
https://i.imgur.com/1ooVfLs.jpg