_kami_gawa
su-do

Public Key

npub1j4442yrhl9dfnxe68gk6jefachmmmd6a4e4p4t0s7fvck997r6gqkghe65

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsf2664zpmljk5envar5tdfv57utaaakaw6u6s64hc0ykvtzjlpayqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsvmrqpe

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1j4442yrhl9dfnxe68gk6jefachmmmd6a4e4p4t0s7fvck997r6gqkghe65

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-11 14:00:48 UTC

After carefully analysing and testing the
@COLDCARD
rng bug, I am quite sure the attacker(s) knew about the bug already and spent weeks if not months to enumerate some vulnerable wallets. The whole enumeration did not take 3 days (the delta between Kimi K3 release and the attack)

2026-08-09 20:45:31 UTC

Instead of buying dice on Amazon, go to your local boardgames store.
These guys will have amazing choice, dice that FEEL (and look) great, and they don't need to know where you live.
Support your local game store.

2026-07-29 15:41:44 UTC

#BIP54 (Consensus Cleanup) fixes 4 old Bitcoin consensus bugs:
- timewarp
- poison blocks
- Merkle quirks
- duplicate coinbases
I built a small dashboard + interactive simulator to explain them:
bip-54.com
Do you already know how the consensus cleanup works? #asknostr #bitcoin

2026-07-29 10:19:59 UTC

No bitcoiner cries harder than a former fighter pilot in spaces

2026-07-29 10:19:54 UTC

Strategy buying BTC and adding it to the large pool at Coinbase Custody does absolutely nothing to spread Bitcoin adoption, and actually helps build the honeypot for a future 6102 attack. Real Bitcoin adoption looks like self-custody of real BTC, plebs running nodes, plebs buying

2026-07-29 10:19:42 UTC

Imagine how dangerous it would be for Bitcoin if a minority could impose a fork on everyone.
What makes you think Saylor and Larry won’t try something similar, for example, to ban certain transactions or blacklist addresses?
Pro 110 should consider both sides of the coin.

2026-07-27 05:01:16 UTC

- reply

No taproot and cheaper than op return high resolution image
bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction c99ba3723689aa70d548b5188b3417f78c4f41a783f67d437810a209ee53d387|xxd -r -p|tail -c+1073>l.jxl

2026-07-24 17:28:53 UTC

- reply

*lady

2026-07-24 17:03:39 UTC

- reply

"They are happening every single day now."
You are retarded

2026-07-24 11:12:56 UTC

- reply

Let’s imagine we successfully activate BIP110. Currently, the majority of spam comes from tiny OP_RETURN transactions that won’t be filtered out by nodes running BIP110.
So what this fork actually tackles is:
- The `if (false) { ...data }` inscription envelope
- Large OP_RETURN transactions.
Given that large OP_RETURNs are already rare and inscriptions have been mostly dead for the past two years, what happens the "day after" the fork?
We’ll likely see a new wave of inscriptions using a different envelope, paying more or less the same fees as today (since you can still get into a block for 1 sat/vbyte).
What did we actually achieve?
This is what I mean: spam is garbage and spammers are pieces of shit, but we need to reason logically rather than emotionally. What did we achieve other than proving we wasted time while spammers continue to mock us by spamming without any real disruption?

2026-07-24 10:58:39 UTC

- reply

I run Knots, I don't relay big op_return, I don't relay spam.
That's the right way IMO.
Also Ocean and SV2 are the solution to the spam issue and, more broadly, to the centralization of Bitcoin.

2026-07-24 09:57:36 UTC

- reply

I disagree, sorry.
I've spent years discussing spam. When we first came together (in that huge Twitter group chat), it was clear we did not want to fork. We knew from day one that spam is fought at the policy level, not through consensus.
Chris then came out with this fork proposal, which is flawed on many levels except for signaling disappointment from us, the plebs.
You don’t change a protocol just to express disappointment. As a developer, I’ve never done such a thing.
If you try to look at it without the anger over spam, you’ll realize that 110 is a terrible proposal.

2026-07-24 09:20:01 UTC

Stripping the emotion from the 110 fork debate, the proposal is technically useless.
No protocol should patch one specific issue that can be replicated countless other ways.
We have far bigger problems focus on what actually matters.

2026-07-23 18:15:02 UTC

How to defeat the newly created Bitcoin cartel?
- Keep pushing SV2 & Datum
- Plebs running their own nodes

2026-07-16 13:53:09 UTC

- reply

Here it is 😉
Let me start off by saying I’m not pro-BIP110, and I’m not anti-BIP110. If it actually succeeds as something that gains true consensus within the network and ends up being enforced by a majority of the network… cool. If so, then we’ll go with it because the network has spoken and accepted it, and all nodes, including non-BIP110 nodes, will be pulled along for the ride.
Unfortunately for proponents of the proposal, that simply isn’t currently the case by any measurable metric, nor does it appear to have a trajectory suggesting that will change, either.
There’s been a lot of misleading information about this whole thing, especially in the context of mining. Few quick key bullet points to briefly counter some hyperbole from proponents:
BIP110 is NOT inevitable. It CAN fail.
BIP110 can and will cause a chain split/fork in a minority hashrate situation.
BIP110 is NOT without risk to miners choosing to adopt it.
Miners not supporting BIP110 are not suddenly mining “invalid” blocks just because a proposal that isn’t yet adopted simply exists.
You’re not a bad person or evil simply because you don’t like or support BIP110.
(The fact that I feel the need to point out that last part is actually kind of sad…)
I was going to write a long post to help keep miners informed about things they need to remain aware of as this all plays out… before realizing I already did so months ago as a document I authored that I had hoped could be put out as a miner education piece at OCEAN. Sadly, it never got published. So I went ahead and updated it, and well, here it is:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14DfMSVYBHTHIOmW32JTOR6BAP7AITbinvrhl8rJuvvc/edit?usp=sharing
Again, keep in mind this was written months ago, intended to be as agnostic as possible in an effort to make it acceptable as a corporate post. That effort failed, so I'm posting it as a personal document today instead.
As a miner making important decisions about your operations, you need to be aware of all of this without the sugarcoating and frankly outright misleading information coming from some of the BIP110 proponents. You must be vigilant, and decide what’s right for you. While there is certainly some misleading information from the opposition as well, nothing I’ve seen is nearly as egregious as the extremely premature claims of victory and accompanying hyperbole pushed by the BIP110 side.
Summarizing my doc a bit, my personal suggestion to miners is this:
Signal if you support BIP110
Do not signal if you don’t support BIP110 or don’t care
Either way, monitor the network on/around/before block 961632.
If you continue to see non-signaling blocks from major pools you can be reasonably certain they’re not going to suddenly decide later to throw away millions of dollars worth of revenue to backtrack and signal for BIP110.
If they do by some chance start to signal for BIP110, you should monitor that and consider switching as required to stay on the heaviest chain.
Key point being that realistically, only one side can win. It’s either BIP110 succeeds and miners not on the BIP110 side fail, or BIP110 fails and miners on the non-BIP110 side succeed.
Moving on, let’s dive into some small fraction of my rationale.
🟠QUICK FACT: Between 7 and 15% of Bitcoin Nodes are signaling support for BIP110.
Depending on which centralized crawler you look at… no way to know for sure. My personal private crawler puts this number much lower, but that’s a discussion for another day. Suffice it to say, I think it’s logical and correct to say that even 15% is not a majority.
“But Jason! UASF got Segwit activated with fewer nodes!”
Yep, because many miners, merchants, users, etc all actually wanted Segwit. There was tremendous economic and community weight behind it. Without rehashing that whole thing (plenty of resources on the topic from before BIP110 that are worth a read), suffice it to say that BIP110 and Segwit activations are not quite comparable, as many have already pointed out. Segwit, for example, went into its UASF territory with around 1/3rd of the network hashrate already signaling support. With that kind of backing, the UASF to help push the MASF over the tipping point made a lot of sense.
It doesn't make sense here for BIP110.
🟠QUICK FACT: 0.6% of blocks over the past 60 days have signaled support for BIP110.
Pretty stark contrast to even Segwit’s low baseline support. Yes, I know it's increased slightly in the past couple of weeks, but no new entrants. Just more clearly rented hashrate from one of the same small proponants.
Something to keep in mind is that mining BIP110 signaling blocks via DATUM on OCEAN carries virtually no risk to the miner up until the fork point at block 961632. The cost is negligible, as you're effectively guaranteed to recoup rental costs, etc.
It's awesome that the ability to do so exists, and I wouldn't have it any other way... but just something to keep in mind when weighing signaling from such blocks in the grand scheme of things from a risk/reward/money-on-the-table perspective.
“But Jason! Miners have no incentive to signal until the last minute!”
I also see no evidence to suggest that this could be the case. Subjectively, I disagree with the premise, as it’s not in a mining pool’s best interest to destabilize the network in such a way. Part of the reason for early signaling and lock-in periods is to help coordinate upgrades in a smooth fashion. Waiting until the last minute negates that benefit entirely. I see no compelling rationale or upside to doing so.
Continuing on this, as part of my personal node monitoring setup, I specifically monitor nodes known to belong to various entities, such as other mining pools, exchanges, large lightning nodes, merchants, etc. A supermajority of which are monitored with explicit permission and confirmation/coordination.
🟠QUICK FACT: All major mining pools I monitor are currently running some variant of Bitcoin Core v30 or v31 (except OCEAN).
Expanding on that, most have updated their nodes since the proliferation of BIP110’s release, even since the release of Knots 29.3. Additionally, it is known that many mining pools run modified versions of their node software to facilitate various requirements of their specific infrastructure. Such changes would need to be ported to a BIP110 compatible client, tested, evaluated, and deployed ahead of time. I currently see no evidence that this is the case currently.
As far as I can tell, the pools are aware but ignoring.
“But Jason! Miners don’t determine consensus! Nodes do! Otherwise they’ll just cancel halvings!”
This is one of the funniest and most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard from the pro-BIP110 crowd. Comparing a consensus change that can be unilaterally enforced upon the network by miners and accepted by 100% of existing nodes (a soft fork), with a hard fork which no existing node will accept… is disingenuous at best.
Tightening rules (like BIP110): Soft fork, can be enforced by miners if they choose to do so. Loosening rules (like canceling a halving): Hard fork, can not be enforced by miners without effectively 100% buy-in from the entire network……. Which isn’t likely to happen.
Comparing the two is, bluntly, just stupid.
“But Jason! If you don’t upgrade to the latest consensus rules, you’re insecure! You’ll lose funds! You’ll mine invalid blocks! You’ll [insert additional hyperbole here]!”
This would be true of a consensus change that has, well, consensus. While BIP110 has made a valiant effort to gain that consensus, it has yet to have any measurable majority at what is now arguably the 11th hour. Not in nodes, not in hashrate, not in the social layers (consensus.health has a cool visual there where you'll find me in the middle).
If somehow BIP110 gains 51%+ of the network hashrate on/before block 961632… then, alright. It’s enforced, since as a soft fork a majority of miners can unilaterally enforce it in the absence of a fully adopted URSF (effectively a misnomer, as this would kind of be a hard fork).
“But Jason! It can’t gain consensus by already having consensus! You have to give it a chance!”
Firstly… no I don’t, even though I have. Second, it’s a rushed proposal that never had the time to even try and gain real consensus. It’s been 7 months since the release of the first BIP110 client. There’s ~3 weeks to go before “mandatory” signaling starts as of now (less by the time you read this). 90% of the time available has passed with no change in overall sentiment from any relevant players. If it hasn’t gained sufficient adoption in the past 7 months, it’s not likely to do so in the next 3 weeks.
"But Jason! CSAM! CSAM! Pedophiles! CSAM!"
I'll be the first to say, even I personally overstated the risk here early on when Core proposed its OP_RETURN change. I personally expected something particularly egregious to hit the chain almost immediately, and to the best of my knowledge that's not yet happened. Could it still happen? Yeah, I suppose.
But considering from a technical perspective, byte-for-byte the same contiguous arbitrary data can provably end up stored in the current chain or the BIP-110 chain without much issue... this particular argument for BIP-110 falls pretty flat to me at this point.
Do I want CSAM in the chain? Of course not. Am I a pedophile if I don't support BIP110? Also not.
...
I could continue to go on and on and on, but I'll stop here. I've wasted enough time on this. I'm sure I've done plenty to annoy both sides of the BIP110 debate at this point, as I don't adopt either stance. I'm sure I'll catch flack from all angles simply for daring to speak my mind on it.
Overall, I mostly think it was silly to approach addressing a real problem (the OP_RETURN default change in Bitcoin Core) with the maximum anti-spam manifesto based soft fork proposal... which provably cannot stop spam, arbitrary data, etc. 🤦‍♂️ (Yes, I know, proponents will claim it's not about spam... and will also make semantic arguments that it does stop data as well... neither of which appears to be correct.)
I'll close with the concession that I could be wrong. I'm not Nostradamus, and I can't accurately predict the outcome with 100% certainty. I can only go by what the data tells me, and so I give BIP110's success less than a 5% chance of actually succeeding... and I consider that generous.
You can take my opinions on this however you wish, but I highly recommend you don't discount the actual data points, remain vigilant, and do what's best for you and your mining revenue. Don't be gaslit by either side of the debate, and make your own decisions.
Here's a link to the same document linked above for ease of access: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14DfMSVYBHTHIOmW32JTOR6BAP7AITbinvrhl8rJuvvc/edit?usp=sharing

2026-07-16 13:48:03 UTC

- reply

https://x.com/wk057/status/2077444826232955365

2026-07-16 13:28:33 UTC

- reply

Jason published an article on Twitter.
TLDR (with Claude):
TLDR: Jason (the author) is neutral on BIP-110 but wants miners to have accurate info before deciding. Key points:
BIP-110 is not inevitable and could fail — it currently has weak support: only ~7-15% of nodes signal for it, and just ~0.6% of blocks over the last 60 days have signaled support.
This is much weaker than Segwit's UASF had (which started with ~1/3 of hashrate already on board), so comparisons to Segwit's activation don't hold up.
Nearly all major mining pools he monitors are still running non-BIP110 clients (Core v30/v31), with no sign they're preparing to switch.
He pushes back on common pro-BIP110 talking points: that miners have "no incentive to signal early," that opposing it is like trying to cancel a halving (soft fork vs. hard fork — not comparable), that not upgrading makes you "insecure," and that CSAM concerns are a decisive argument (he says arbitrary data can end up on either chain regardless).
His advice: signal only if you genuinely support it, don't signal if you don't/don't care, and closely monitor major pools' behavior around block 961632 to see which chain has the real hashrate — then follow the heaviest chain.
His personal estimate: less than 5% chance BIP-110 succeeds, and he calls that generous.
Bottom line message: don't get pressured by hype from either side — look at the actual data and decide what's best for your own mining operation.
Because of this Mechanic got pissed, and he was removed.

2026-07-16 13:21:22 UTC

Crazy times we live in. By the way, Jason is very much smart and skilled.
People have lost the plot.
https://blossom.primal.net/ed3d3d33896c5f134f543c1bf730a3e41dd8dcfd00069f1518d423bde20ca187.png

2026-07-14 13:00:16 UTC

Bitcoin is a peer to peer electronic cash system.
Its best use case has been buying drugs online.
Bitcoin is not "digital capital" whatever that means, in Italy we call that a "supercazzola" (a string of fancy words meant to sound smart while saying nothing)
https://blossom.primal.net/9ce0053cb772d6e3450b56fdc6a82cdec1f5973e8673a193003bffb795f91be7.png

2026-07-14 12:16:04 UTC

Saylor does master the "buy high, sell low" strategy. I thought that was just a meme.

2026-07-10 09:06:38 UTC

Immigration can't be stopped, but it can be mitigated.
Pollution can't be stopped, but it can be mitigated.
Spam on Bitcoin can't be stopped, but it can be mitigated.

2026-07-09 22:43:39 UTC

- reply

Fair criticism, v1 was RSA-2048-OAEP directly on the plaintext, no hybrid. I've just replaced hchat's weak RSA encryption with X25519/Ed25519 + AES-256-GCM

2026-07-09 18:49:18 UTC

- reply

Right, it's not a custom app talking to their servers.
It piggybacks on the official WhatsApp Web client whatsapp-web.js runs web.whatsapp.com in headless Chromium and automates it, linked as a companion device via the standard QR flow.
WA Web has no device attestation so as far as Meta sees it's a normal linked-device session. hchat just RSA-encrypts the plaintext before it enters that session, so WhatsApp only ever carries ciphertext.

2026-07-09 18:34:10 UTC

- reply

No.
Apps such as WhatsApp are going to implement backdoors that can be used by the police to decrypt your messages.
By using this custom WhatsApp client, you will encrypt your messages locally in your browser, which means that whatsapp will only see your messages encrypted, and won't be able to decode them since the private keys is stored in your browser only

2026-07-09 17:54:20 UTC

- reply

E' una web app, quindi funziona con Android e iOS.
Potrei fare un'app nativa per mobile ma non credo che Apple Store o Google play l'approverebbero.

2026-07-09 17:30:04 UTC

Built a WhatsApp client that fucks #ChatControl.
It layers RSA E2E encryption on top of WhatsApp itself your messages are encrypted before they ever hit the wire.
In few days will share a url, for now you can run it locally.
Supports Tor as well.
https://github.com/dani69654/hchat
https://blossom.primal.net/4fc65fe70379614682b47c08e5447abebc5373f3c333dc21748a8b5933e9cdf8.png

2026-07-04 19:41:02 UTC

I am working on #neo https://github.com/dani69654/neo a tiny AI that anyone can run locally.
It can learn cool stuff, here's where I #asknostr for help, by adding skills.
Feel free to open PRs 🫡

2026-06-25 13:52:05 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/6f9c66339aea7019a43c72f69957c9c1e2d545870b9183aaa51a37ccae2124d4.mp4
🫡

2026-06-17 06:30:04 UTC

Receipts
https://blossom.primal.net/c57e9951e88bed387e372a06df7ac898d22f507c8ee133ec071b1a235bd30615.png

2026-06-11 08:51:33 UTC

They panic when I say "sell a little coin just to prove the whole market doesn't break or get destroyed"
https://blossom.primal.net/b05cb1e88e853c96e671fbf6aee002a708c6bc3ceea59f491a6c1cc82f88c336.png

2026-06-06 17:11:21 UTC

- reply

Cool but what's the use case?

2026-06-06 12:40:06 UTC

- reply

Leech

2026-06-06 09:44:48 UTC

- reply

Given how many exploits Floppy keeps finding in your software, maybe running your own isn't such a great idea.

2026-06-05 08:58:53 UTC

Community is healing, memes are back
https://blossom.primal.net/18c232880a9615d5e45bae3fac1e4507c3a98a59589d00319e0f4914f945f4e9.png

2026-06-04 11:52:37 UTC

When Saylor started buying paper coins, the focus shifted to hoping that Wall Street and the government would start doing things for us.
How fun is that?
Of course, everything started to break. If we're going to survive, we need to rebuild, starting with our mentality.
Wall Street will never do anything for us. They're our enemies, for fuck's sake.

2026-06-03 16:35:07 UTC

- reply

It could die that way indeed, but if some miners keep mining on it, diff will eventually adjust downwards.
I have no idea what's going to happen but man things in Bitcoin are crazy and, considering the current price and how dead the chain is, miners may be willing to try insane tweaks to stay afloat.

2026-06-03 15:27:10 UTC

- reply

If we can really do a MASF it would be great :3

2026-06-03 15:09:20 UTC

Long story short, if 110 activates as UASF, its chain could split. Eventually its mining diff adjusts down, a miner finds out he can make money mining the chain. The chain catches up with the spammy one and ends up wiping it out. Fun times ahead.

2026-06-01 06:53:43 UTC

Everything around Bitcoin seems increasingly corrupted, but there’s still hope.
A small minority noticed something was wrong with Core. What we're seeing now may be just the tip of the iceberg.
https://blossom.primal.net/3435371cb5c5abd25c57b81f615f067a86f003c1023a6b6ed55dfa7cfe41264c.png

2026-05-31 21:29:42 UTC

In the beginning of 2024 Binance ended support for Ordinals, and two months ago Magic Eden shutdown its Ordinal marketplace.
Now not even the Solana degen casino Phantom supports Bitcoin Ordinals, BRC-20 or “Rare Sats” anymore
The world is healing

2026-05-28 19:17:57 UTC

Been here since 2017, and this is easily the worst Bitcoin sentiment I’ve ever seen.

2026-05-05 19:48:02 UTC

Hope you dudes will find love if you haven't already.
It's a game changer.

2026-04-29 13:36:05 UTC

- reply

Glory to Madeira <3

2026-04-29 13:33:06 UTC

- reply

https://x.com/BTCtreasuries/status/2049296498962186412

2026-04-29 13:21:48 UTC

Fucking hell
https://blossom.primal.net/38d98f520d093502c098acac71e2f61884a932150b810ca550510aaccfd4a507.png

2026-04-29 08:52:18 UTC

- reply

I agree Bitcoin is better than gold, no doubt. But comparing it to real estate is a stretch since they serve different purposes.
Payments with Bitcoin are cheap and fast, but people still prefer fiat because it’s immediately usable. Converting Bitcoin to fiat isn’t always easy, especially in the EU where exchanges require documentation and banks may question large transfers.
In daily life (coffee, groceries, beer), using Bitcoin is almost impossible, with a few limited exceptions.
Until spending Bitcoin becomes effortless, there’s still a lot to fix. For now, the options are basically to hold and hope for better regulation, or hold and sell later for fiat.
I’ve been holding for almost 10 years and still believe in the original vision, but it’s hard not to feel a bit disappointed today.

2026-04-28 07:32:08 UTC

Saylor's ponzi will explode magnifically.
It will take years, maybe decades to get back on track.
Bitcoin needs use cases, currently it's just us holding.
Holding is not a use case.

2026-04-16 09:56:23 UTC

- reply

Those selling Bitaxes seem to be losing it, probably because they’re worried people will stop buying their machines.
Others label it “cloud mining” to imply it’s a scam.
Some are just irrationally upset and keep insisting that renting hash power doesn’t make you a miner.
For the record, I’m not renting hash power from Braiins. I just don’t understand why this topic triggers people so much.

2026-04-16 09:37:10 UTC

- reply

Some people are going nuts over plebs renting hashrate 😂

2026-04-16 09:30:52 UTC

Only retards would criticize plebs renting hash power that would otherwise be rented by Foundry and company.
Nobody complains against foundry but people seem to get triggered when an Anon on twitter rents few PHs.

2026-03-28 15:42:04 UTC

Spins up a service that generates random Bitcoin wallets and checks if they have balance using you Electrum server.
You will never find anything but it's a fun thing to teach how hard is to breaks a private key
https://github.com/dani69654/bitcoin-wallet-hound

2026-03-26 08:48:18 UTC

Guys I tried openclaw, it's amazing only if you are retarded.
It's a good project but absolutely overrated at its current state.

2026-03-24 15:17:12 UTC

You can't play "game theory" with people who believe they win if they die.

2026-03-24 15:17:02 UTC

People mad about
@ProductionReady
donated over $10k to Peter Todd on Geyser for maintaining Libre Relay (another fork).

2026-03-23 20:32:35 UTC

This is just misinformed, sorry
Segwit was contentious

2026-03-23 20:32:26 UTC

Spent a bunch of time with some normies this weekend.
They didn't even know what vibecoding was or what it was like being up at 3am with AI psychosis.

2026-03-23 20:32:15 UTC

Serious question. Why has Bitcoin outperformed gold during the Iran war escalation?

2026-03-20 06:58:22 UTC

- reply

Will get back to you in September then

2026-03-19 21:30:16 UTC

- reply

It’s almost certain bip110 nodes will end up forking on a dead chain with little hashrare

2026-03-19 10:05:41 UTC

- reply

No wait that's not what I mean at all.
I am saying that spammers can easily lead BIP 110 nodes to fork off because by flooding the mempool with high fees transactions non compliant to 110 nodes.
Miners will surely mine these non compliant transactions because they may get 10/15/20 BTC in reward for each block and this will force a chainsplit.

2026-03-19 08:38:45 UTC

- reply

I agree 100% but it does not answer my question 🥲

2026-03-19 08:36:57 UTC

- reply

Yes but the 110 clients forks off because miners will surely choose to mine non-110-compliant blocks. Am I wrong?

2026-03-18 14:16:04 UTC

To all 110 supporters.
If BIP110 activates, miners are expected to favor compliant blocks over small fee differences.
But what stops attackers from flooding the mempool with high fee spam like we already had, pushing miners to risk non compliant blocks for bigger rewards?

2026-03-17 19:33:39 UTC

BE RETARD:
- Sabotage EU Nord stream
- Attack EU economically with Tariffs
- Forget to fill the SPR
- Start unprovoked war with Iran
- Energy prices soar
- Beg for EU military support
- Get left on read
- Lose midterms
- Become lame duck

2026-03-17 16:10:35 UTC

Orange Caligula makes a good point: Iranians should put a bunch of illiterate demented pedos in charge to make things fair.

2026-03-17 16:10:33 UTC

You IDIOTS elected a conman to presidency, not once but twice, and now look at you. Can’t afford gas, farms going bankrupt, masked men shooting Americans in the streets, and your kids are dying in Iran to distract from the EPSTEIN Files. While his family makes BILLIONS. DUMBASSES

2026-03-17 16:10:25 UTC

The worst part of Trump is that he is retarded.
Putin and Xi are big criminals, but they are very smart and knowledgeable.
There is nothing more dangerous than a stupid, ignorant person with a lot of power.

2026-03-16 06:47:32 UTC

Never forget: American Bitcoiners on this app were all in for Trump.
European Bitcoiners are based, and this is widely recognized.
Don't go to American conferences. Don't work for American companies.

2026-03-16 06:45:32 UTC

- reply

Hopefully the tide is turning.
I don't blame shitcoiners. They were promised the moon and got casinos and dollar wrappers. The door is always open and honestly, we need the smart ones back.

2026-03-16 06:11:07 UTC

Spent 5 years at one of the biggest crypto companies as a dev. I was the “Bitcoin maxi” in a sea of shitcoiners.
I kept saying it: crypto is a scam. Bitcoin is different.
Today an ex-colleague messaged me: “You were right.”
Bitcoin. Not crypto. Never was.

2026-03-15 09:24:13 UTC

- reply

Ooooh please Jesus help me, I am a nasty American that voted for trump and I don’t care if he is killing kids all over the world with his pointless war.
Fucking losers

2026-03-14 22:19:24 UTC

- reply

Such a faggot thing to say

2026-03-14 22:18:34 UTC

In Italy is not a crime to say and write "Isra hell".
Giorgia Meloni, that many here love as anti woke (whatever that means), and pro free speech, is the opposite.
Like Trump and Milei, she is a dog and fascist.
ISRA HELL.

2026-03-14 22:18:27 UTC

I tried writing a demo app that uses op_net.
Lads stay chill, op-net and op-wallets are both TRASH SHIT.
They will fade off faster than ordinals and runes.

2026-03-14 22:18:21 UTC

a pool having 55% of the hashing power is much worse than JPEGs on chain

2026-03-14 22:18:12 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/fa9dbe7c0acb7464669a9a9784b7446c2979321e9eb55aa5f29911b8ab0cc851.png

2026-03-14 22:17:06 UTC

I'm convinced religion is one of the worst things that happened to this world

2026-03-14 22:16:29 UTC

Non mi illudo, certo, ma se Netanyahu fosse davvero rimasto ucciso in un attacco iraniano, questa sarebbe la giusta fine che merita questo macellaio

2026-03-10 20:05:03 UTC

There are two types of people in crypto:
- People who own Bitcoin
- People who own things that are priced in Bitcoin

2026-03-10 19:08:12 UTC

Hot take: the Lightning UX problem is mostly solved.
Phoenix, Mutiny (rip), Wallet of Satoshi — you can onboard anyone in 2 minutes.
The real problem now is merchant adoption. That's a sales problem, not a tech problem.

2026-03-10 17:22:04 UTC

Reminder: `unknown` is almost always better than `any`. If you're using `any`, you're opting out of TypeScript, not using it.

2026-03-10 15:12:45 UTC

- reply

The modifier: ANYONECANPAY (0x80) — can be OR'd with any of the above.
It makes the signature commit to ONLY the current input, not all inputs.
SIGHASH_ALL | ANYONECANPAY = anyone can add more inputs (crowdfunding pattern).
SIGHASH_NONE | ANYONECANPAY = anyone can add inputs AND outputs (rare, use with care).
Understanding these is the difference between building Bitcoin apps that are secure vs ones that leak funds. (6/6)
⚡ zap if this was useful — github.com/dani69654/bitcoin-ts-scripts for the TypeScript code

2026-03-10 15:12:44 UTC

- reply

SIGHASH_SINGLE (0x03) — signs inputs + only the output at the SAME index as the input.
Input 0 → commits to Output 0.
Input 1 → commits to Output 1.
Other outputs can be freely modified. Used in some advanced coinjoin constructions and payment channel protocols. (5/6)

2026-03-10 15:12:42 UTC

- reply

SIGHASH_NONE (0x02) — signs inputs, commits to NO outputs.
"I agree to spend this UTXO, but I don't care where the money goes."
Dangerous unless you know exactly what you're doing. Miners or anyone in the mempool could redirect all funds. Almost never used in practice. (4/6)

2026-03-10 15:12:40 UTC

- reply

SIGHASH_ALL (0x01) — the default.
Commits to: all inputs + all outputs.
Once signed, nobody can add/remove inputs or outputs without invalidating your sig. This is what you want 99% of the time.
`sig = sign(hash(all_inputs + all_outputs))` (3/6)

2026-03-10 15:12:38 UTC

- reply

A Bitcoin signature doesn't sign "the transaction". It signs a *serialized subset* of the transaction — which subset depends on the SIGHASH flag appended to the DER signature.
The flag is 1 byte. That 1 byte changes everything. (2/6)

2026-03-10 15:12:36 UTC

Most Bitcoin devs learn SIGHASH types the wrong way — they memorize flags without understanding what each one actually commits to.
Here's a thread on how SIGHASH really works under the hood. 🧵 (1/6)

2026-03-10 12:43:04 UTC

The React ecosystem has too many state management libraries because people don't understand when they need global state. Most of the time, you don't. Server state (React Query) + URL state + local state covers 90% of cases.

2026-03-10 11:58:57 UTC

- reply

Odell is one of the most retarded out there

2026-03-10 10:32:42 UTC

You can automatically post tweest to #nostr with my extension, check it out.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/nostrx/abkngohdpnofgkfgofgpfjogfmfillda?authuser=0&hl=en-GB
#asknostr #coding #vibecoding #twitter #x

2026-03-10 08:17:02 UTC

The best clients aren't the ones who pay the most. They're the ones who trust you and get out of your way. That's when you do your best work.

2026-03-09 20:13:51 UTC

Zod + TypeScript is one of those combinations that makes you feel like you're cheating. Runtime validation that also infers your types. Use it everywhere.

2026-03-05 13:17:19 UTC

The more I play with Bitcoin scripts, the most I understand why people like OP_CAT + OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK.
With these 2 opcodes Bitcoin would become something different for real.
The potential and risks are hard to predict

2026-03-05 10:36:19 UTC

I really hope he does.
- We get high fee which is good for the network
- It will be the final blow for spammers since he will piss off most of the network
Can't wait
https://npub1j4442yrhl9dfnxe68gk6jefachmmmd6a4e4p4t0s7fvck997r6gqkghe65.blossom.band/d10b8b524ebcd666810184658b36a1ee44d5a9fd83630cdfb2e128572ca72d98.png

2026-03-05 10:35:47 UTC

I really hope he does.
- We get high fee which is good for the network
- It will be the final blow for spammers since he will piss off most of the network
Can't wait

2026-02-27 09:31:46 UTC

- reply

Hopefully 🙏

2026-02-27 09:28:38 UTC

So now Magic Eden is pivoting to gambling and is shutting down its BTC marketplace.
Udi separated idiots from their bitcoins.
I don't like this at all, but I'm happy you noobs lost your coins forever. You deserve it.
Have fun staying poor.

2026-02-27 08:05:29 UTC

BREAKING: Magic Eden will shut down its Ordinals, Runes, and EVM marketplaces next week and is pivoting into a gambling platform

2026-02-27 08:05:02 UTC

Despite stubbornly syncing a full BTC node on HDD with limited MacBook SSD space, I learned some tricks:
Moved chainstate + rev files to SSD via symlinks, kept big block files on HDD, tuned dbcache & threads.
sync time dropped from ~2 weeks to ~2 days

2026-02-25 15:18:58 UTC

- reply

Why do u ask for sats constantly?