Nostr notes by twentyonelife

Every link you share goes through someone else's server. ...

2026-04-26T10:00:00Z

Every link you share goes through someone else's server.

Bitly, TinyURL, short.io - they see every click, every referrer, every audience pattern. They know who clicked, when, and from where. Your link infrastructure is someone else's surveillance tool.

And if you run a Start9 node, you know the problem: Tor onion addresses are 56 characters long. Unusable on a business card. Unusable in a QR code.

Sovereign Link is the next brick in the BrickOS stack. A self-hosted URL shortener built for people who run their own infrastructure.

The specs:
- Single binary, under 20 megabytes
- SQLite database, zero external dependencies
- NOSTR NIP-98 login: your NOSTR keys are your identity. No email. No password.
- Deploy on a VPS, Raspberry Pi, or Start9 node
- Click analytics without surveillance: no raw IPs stored, SHA256 daily-rotating hash
- QR code generation built in
- Built in Rust, AGPL-3.0

The interesting part is the authentication. You log in with the same NOSTR keypair you use to sign notes. NIP-98 - cryptographic proof of identity. No accounts to create. No passwords to manage. Your NOSTR identity is your identity everywhere in the BrickOS stack.

This is the pattern: every BrickOS application uses the same sovereignty primitives. NOSTR for identity. Self-hosting for data control. Open source for trust. Encryption for privacy.

Sovereign Health for your body. Sovereign Link for your infrastructure. More bricks coming.

https://brickos.io

#twentyonelife #brickos #proofofblood #sovereignty #nostr #selfhosted #opensource

Sovereignty is not one thing. It is a stack. At the base: ...

2026-04-19T10:00:00Z

Sovereignty is not one thing. It is a stack.

At the base: sovereign money. Bitcoin. You hold your keys, you control your wealth. No bank can freeze it. No government can inflate it away.

One layer up: sovereign communication. NOSTR. You hold your keys, you own your identity. No platform can ban you. No algorithm decides who sees your notes.

But there is a layer most Bitcoiners have not thought about: sovereign health data.

I wrote about this in "Brick by Brick": the five pillars of sovereignty are Money, Health, Data, Attention, and Energy. The health pillar is the one we talk about least. And it is the one that affects everything else.

A sick body creates high time preference. A strong body creates patience. You cannot think clearly about your financial sovereignty when your biology is working against you. Health is infrastructure.

The sovereignty stack in practice:

- Bitcoin: sovereign money
- NOSTR: sovereign identity and communication
- Sovereign Health Intelligence: sovereign body data
- Sovereign Link: sovereign infrastructure

Each layer follows the same principles: your keys, open source, self-hostable, no trusted third parties.

I am building BrickOS as the platform for these applications. Each app is one brick. The philosophy from the book, turned into tools.

The book: https://www.amazon.de/Brick-Building-Sovereign-Life-Bitcoin/dp/B0FR42K8R1
The platform: https://brickos.io

One dependency replaced at a time. Brick by brick.
#twentyonelife #brickos #proofofblood #sovereignty #bitcoin #nostr #health

If you are at #BTCPrague let’s meet and discuss ...

2026-04-10T14:31:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…zaqg
_________________________

If you are at #BTCPrague let’s meet and discuss https://btcprague.com/speakers/helmut-schindlwick/#

Bitcoin introduced Proof of Work. A system where you prove value ...

2026-04-06T13:00:03Z

Bitcoin introduced Proof of Work. A system where you prove value through verifiable effort. No shortcuts. No trusted third parties. Just math and energy.

Health needs the same thing.

We trust doctors with our diagnoses the way we once trusted banks with our money. We hand our health data to apps the way we once handed our Bitcoin to exchanges.

And we get the same result. Lost data. Misread signals. Decisions made for us, not by us.

I wrote about the Five Pillars of Sovereignty last year. Money. Health. Data. Attention. Energy. The health pillar was always the most personal. Because you cannot outsource it. You cannot delegate your metabolism to an app.

Proof of Blood is the practice: your biomarkers are your verifiable proof of health. Not a doctor's opinion. Not a generic app's interpretation. Your data, measured by you, encrypted with your keys, stored on your terms.

I have been tracking over 85 biomarkers for 18 months. Blood glucose, ketones, cholesterol panels, inflammation markers, hormones, liver enzymes. I started with a spreadsheet. Then I built the tool that should exist.

Sovereign Health Intelligence. Open source. Self-hostable. AES-256-GCM encrypted at rest. Zero knowledge - even the server admin cannot read your measurements.

This is the first in a daily series. Over the next two weeks:
- Why health apps lie to you about your ketones
- The sovereignty stack: Bitcoin, NOSTR, and your body
- Self-hosting your health data
- What 18 months of tracking actually taught me
- Building sovereign infrastructure, brick by brick

Your body, your data, your server.

https://sovereignhealth.io

#twentyonelife #brickos #proofofblood #sovereignty #health #bitcoin #biomarkers

Proof of war - shows how sick the fiat system is. Don’t think ...

2026-03-23T03:18:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…we69
_________________________

Proof of war - shows how sick the fiat system is. Don’t think the same would be affordable under a Bitcoin standard. At least not for long.

Nostr event nevent1qqsvgr7rh770m3egg2v97ldawvnl7rs36tepwcq8zc6mhes69d6nhxczyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mx7jxc6s

2026-03-22T18:11:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…d8uw
_________________________

https://primal.net/TwentyOneLife/proof-of-blood-how-i-built-a-sovereign-health-platform-in-15-days-with-ai

Don’t read about AI just use it. You learn along the usage, try ...

2026-03-22T18:10:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…cdk5
_________________________

Don’t read about AI just use it. You learn along the usage, try to answer you pressing questions, try to do, build new things.
I just wrote an article where I describe what I have done in 15 days with Claude code.

Bitcoin has Proof of Work. After 15 months of tracking every ...

2026-03-22T16:41:51Z

Bitcoin has Proof of Work. After 15 months of tracking every biomarker in my body, I now have Proof of Blood.

In January 2025 I went full carnivore. Not for medical reasons - out of curiosity. I tracked weekly: ketones, cholesterol, uric acid, hematocrit, hemoglobin, weight, body fat, muscle mass. Across 3 devices. In 3 separate apps. With zero way to correlate the data.

So I built my own platform. In 15 days. With AI.

108 biomarkers. 8 health zones. AES-256-GCM encryption at rest. 35,000 lines of Rust. Open source. This is not vibe coding. This is human-in-the-loop AI engineering.

Free to try: https://sovereignhealth.io
Open source on GitHub.

quoting
naddr1qv…m8ud

Bitcoin has Proof of Work. After 15 months of tracking every biomarker in my body, I now have Proof of Blood.

In January 2025, I decided to go full carnivore. Not because of a medical condition, out of pure curiosity. Can we survive without carbohydrates? Can we thrive?

15 months later, I feel like I'm 20 again. But this article isn't about diet advice. It's about what happened when an analytical mind met fragmented health data, and what AI-assisted engineering made possible in 7 days.

The Problem: Three Apps, Three Silos, Zero Insight

To back up my experiment with real data, I started testing my biomarkers weekly. Cholesterol, ketones, uric acid, hematocrit, hemoglobin, weight, body fat, muscle mass, the full picture, every week since January 2025.

The problem? Three different measurement devices, three different apps, three isolated data sets. Valuable health data, locked in silos with no way to cross-reference or correlate.

I started with what every data person starts with: a spreadsheet. Formulas, conditional formatting, color coding. It worked, but it was tedious and didn't scale.

Then I tried ChatGPT. I'll be honest, the health analysis was genuinely helpful. More useful than what most doctors have time to provide, and available 24/7. I could discuss scenarios, ask follow-up questions, iterate.

But then it hit me: I was feeding my most personal data, blood work, body composition, health history, into a system with zero GDPR guarantees. My data was being stored somewhere I couldn't audit, couldn't encrypt, couldn't delete.

That was the wake-up call.

See content credentials

The Spark: What If I Built This Myself?

Working in a digital-first company like Accenture that embraces AI from day one, I see every day how AI accelerates complex engineering projects. So I asked myself: what if I applied the same approach to my own problem?

I started with OpenClaw, an interface for Claude AI, to turn my biomarker tracking table into a proper specification. Back and forth, refining requirements, adding features, specifying the technology stack. After 5 days, I had a complete functional and non-functional requirements document, ready for implementation.

What I had specified was not a simple tracker. It was an enterprise-grade, privacy-first health intelligence platform. And the spec was detailed enough to hand directly to an AI coding assistant.

7 Days: From Zero to Full Platform

I used Claude Code to set up the development environment. Rust backend, CI/CD pipeline, GitHub integration, server deployment, all dependencies. Day one went nearly flawlessly.

What happened over the next 7 days still amazes me. I built the complete backend, frontend, and marketing website. Not a prototype, a production-ready platform. (link below)

Here's what "production-ready" means in numbers:

over 100 biomarkers across 8 health zones (metabolic, cardiovascular, immune, hormonal, cognitive, nutritional, structural, detoxification)

8 calculated markers derived automatically: GKI, Dr. Boz Ratio, HOMA-IR, TyG Index, BMI, WHtR, TG/HDL Ratio, HCT/HB Ratio

13 diet protocols (carnivore, keto, OMAD, paleo, Mediterranean, and more) with 7 fasting patterns

Dr. Alex - an AI health assistant with 8 specialist modes for labs, trends, diet, supplements, and protocols

Multi-tenant architecture - doctors, clinics, and families can run their own white-labeled instance

Multi-language support (English and German), with full GDPR and HIPAA audit reporting

Automated sprint planning and CI/CD - 7 sprints completed, 57 commits in Sprint 001 alone, 826 files touched

35,000 lines of Rust code, 117 SQL database migrations, 500+ frontend test files

I felt like the development manager of an entire department where every team member worked 24/7. Three more days of cleanup and fine-tuning, and Sovereign Health Intelligence was live.

This Is NOT Vibe Coding

I've had this discussion a few times already, so let me address it directly.

This is not vibe coding. I'm not dragging and dropping pre-built components in a web tool. I'm not configuring workflows in a no-code builder. There's no magic "generate my app" button.

This is raw, high-performance Rust code (Actix-web 4). A Next.js 16 frontend. A PostgreSQL 16 database. Every measurement encrypted with AES-256-GCM at rest, not just in transit. Row-level security enforced on 15 database tables. Even the server administrator cannot read your health data. Fully encrypted Blob storage and more for selfhosting on Start9 Server is on the roadmap.

I was the human in the loop. Every architectural decision (adr full log), every security design (full log), every feature prioritization, that was me. The AI was the accelerator. I was the architect.

The entire codebase is AGPL-3.0 licensed. Every line is auditable. Every encryption claim is verifiable. That's not something you get from vibe coding.

Why Sovereignty Matters

This project didn't come from nowhere. I wrote a book called "Brick By Brick - A Sovereign Life with Bitcoin" about owning your financial infrastructure. Sovereign Health Intelligence is the health chapter of that same philosophy.

Own your money. Own your data. Own your health records.

The platform is self-hostable via Docker, run it on your own server, your own VPS, your own Raspberry Pi. Payments are accepted via Stripe and Bitcoin Lightning. The code is open source.

Your body, your data, your server.

Bitcoin gave us Proof of Work. Now I have my Proof of Blood, 15 months of weekly biomarker data, encrypted, sovereign, and mine.

Lessons Learned

1. Data without analysis is noise.

Three apps gave me data. One platform gave me insight. Collecting biomarkers is step one, correlating them across health zones is where the value lives.

2. AI is a force multiplier, not a replacement.

Claude Code wrote the Rust. I made every architectural decision. The human-in-the-loop is not optional, it's what separates engineering from generated output.

3. Privacy is a foundation, not a feature.

The moment I realized I was feeding my blood work into ChatGPT with no GDPR guarantee, I knew I had to build something different. Encryption at rest is the minimum, not the ceiling. Anonymizing data before feeding an AI is a must have.

4. Specification before speed.

5 days on a proper spec with OpenClaw saved weeks of rework. AI can generate code fast. Without clear requirements, it generates the wrong code fast.

5. Open source is accountability.

AGPL-3.0 means anyone can verify the encryption claims, audit the security model, and fork the project. Trust, but verify, starting with the code.

6. Start with your own problem.

The best tools come from genuine frustration, not market research. I built this because I needed it. That's why it works.

Try It Yourself

Sovereign Health Intelligence is live and free to use.

Register at sovereignhealth.io, the free tier (Glimpse) gives you access to core biomarker tracking with 8 key markers. Five subscription tiers scale from personal use through enterprise.

Prefer to self-host? The full codebase is on GitHub under AGPL-3.0. docker compose up and you're running your own sovereign health stack.

For readers of this article: reach out to me directly for a 50% discount code on any paid tier. If registered by the end of April you get a full license tier upgrade for free.

What would you build if you had 15 days and an AI pair programmer?

Summary

Started carnivore in Jan 2025 out of curiosity, now 15 months in, tracking 108 biomarkers 6 of them weekly across 8 health zones

Frustration with 3 siloed apps and GDPR-blind AI led to building my own platform

Used OpenClaw + Claude AI for a 5-day specification, then Claude Code for 7 days of implementation and 3 day clean-up

Result: ~35,000 lines of Rust, 117 migrations, 500+ frontend tests - enterprise-grade, encrypted, open source

This is human-in-the-loop AI engineering, not vibe coding: raw Rust, AES-256-GCM encryption, row-level security

Sovereign Health Intelligence is live, free to try, and open source

References

1. Sovereign Health Intelligence - <https://sovereignhealth.io>

2. GitHub Repository - <https://github.com/sovereignbrick/brickos>

3. OpenClaw (AI specification interface) - <https://openclaw.ai>

4. Claude Code (Anthropic) - <https://claude.ai>

5. "Brick By Brick - A Sovereign Life with Bitcoin" Helmut Schindlwick <https://amzn.to/4mW2pK4>

6. Rust Programming Language - <https://www.rust-lang.org>

7. Actix-web (Rust web framework) - <https://actix.rs>

8. Next.js - <https://nextjs.org>

9. PostgreSQL - <https://www.postgresql.org>

10. AGPL-3.0 License - <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html>

11. AES-256-GCM (NIST encryption standard) - <https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-38d/final>

Ja null response seit mehren Wochen auch bei mir

2026-03-19T12:32:34Z

In reply to nevent1q…h2v0
_________________________

Ja null response seit mehren Wochen auch bei mir

We all know what proof of work is but I applied this idea to ...

2026-03-12T13:30:45Z

We all know what proof of work is but I applied this idea to proof of blood. 🩸
The Plattform and OSS allows everyone to build their sovereign stack. Own your data own your health.
https://socereignhealth.io
#BrickByBrick #sovereign #blood #healthtracking

Für alle deutsch sprechende. 😉 Die app kommt auch auf ...

2026-03-10T13:09:14Z

In reply to nevent1q…9ev9
_________________________

Für alle deutsch sprechende. 😉
Die app kommt auch auf Deutsch.

Today is a special day for me - not only my birthday, but also ...

2026-03-10T12:58:43Z

Today is a special day for me - not only my birthday, but also the launch of a new sovereign project. 🎉

Last year I released my book “Brick by Brick” about building a sovereign lifestyle.

Today I’m adding another brick: Sovereign Health Intelligence.
For more than a year I’ve been tracking and analyzing my own bloodwork. Existing tools didn’t fit my needs, so I built my own - open source, sovereign by design, self-hostable, with an optional SaaS version.
Take a look: 👉 https://sovereignhealth.io

Useless centralised garbage, not your key not your data.

2026-03-09T03:35:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…de6j
_________________________

Useless centralised garbage, not your key not your data.

Yes it is correct, you need to escape the apple eco system. I am ...

2026-02-28T04:50:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…jvxa
_________________________

Yes it is correct, you need to escape the apple eco system. I am using graphene now over 2 years, happy I moved away from apple.

Can the current system really be fixed from within, or are we ...

2026-02-23T07:24:12Z

Can the current system really be fixed from within, or are we trying to repair something that is structurally designed not to be repaired?

In my latest article, I explore the tension between a debt-based monetary system and a Bitcoin-based alternative, drawing on Jeff Booth’s thesis about technology, deflation, and exponential productivity. I also share why my experience as an external consultant reinforces the same conclusion: structural problems rarely solve themselves from inside the structure.

If the incentives are broken, reform is limited. Real change requires a parallel path, built steadily, brick by brick.

Read the full article and let me know where you stand: reform or opt out?

https://primal.net/TwentyOneLife/can-the-current-economic-and-political-system-be-changed-from-within

#Bitcoin #SoundMoney #MonetaryReform #EconomicSystem #PoliticalEconomy #Inflation #Deflation #FinancialSovereignty #Decentralization #AI #SystemChange

Not sure how blackrock will choose the blockchain for their ETFs. ...

2026-02-22T16:58:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…my09
_________________________

Not sure how blackrock will choose the blockchain for their ETFs. I assume they not choose CSAM blockchain of core30 due to regulatory and image pressure.

I don’t think it’s about ego. It’s about bloating the ...

2026-02-22T11:32:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…sn5k
_________________________

I don’t think it’s about ego. It’s about bloating the blockchain with non monetary data and BIP110 try’s to fix this. Why is no one arguing on a technical perspective instead of arguing personal and emotional?

I expect to have the same payment and privileges as politicians, ...

2026-02-19T06:51:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…38s4
_________________________

I expect to have the same payment and privileges as politicians, so what?

5 Assets Governments Can’t Seize During a Financial Collapse ...

2026-02-15T06:20:16Z

5 Assets Governments Can’t Seize During a Financial Collapse

What really happens to your money when a government runs out of it?
History shows the same pattern again and again. When governments face financial collapse, they don’t disappear. They take what they can reach. Bank accounts are frozen. Savings are converted. Gold is taken. Property is hit with new taxes. Retirement money is redefined.

This has already happened — many times.

Germany in the 1930s. The United States in 1933. Argentina in 2001. Cyprus in 2013. Greece in 2015. Lebanon and Venezuela more recently. Different countries. Same outcome.

So the real question is not “what is illegal for them to take.”
In a crisis, laws change.

The real question is: what is hardest for them to take at all?

In this video, we look at five types of assets that governments struggle to seize, not because of loopholes, but because of how they exist. Some can’t be frozen. Some can’t be tracked. Some can’t be touched.

You’ll learn:
Why money in the bank isn’t fully under your control
How governments take assets without using force
Why skills and knowledge survive every collapse
Why owning something is different from just having access to it
Why location and control matter more than value
Why community and trust matter more than money in hard times

This is not financial advice.
This is a look at history a

https://youtu.be/73uq2AF3qjA?si=xqIxsIxdkcEGvGIY

#sovereign #twentyonelife

You could sell silver to purchase gold.

2026-02-14T18:57:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…fumc
_________________________

You could sell silver to purchase gold.

One of the best videos explaining all the misleading incentives ...

2026-02-13T10:42:37Z

One of the best videos explaining all the misleading incentives in the Fiat world.
https://youtu.be/YtFOxNbmD38

I call it sovereign lifestyle https://twentyone.life

2026-02-12T18:08:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…chza
_________________________

I call it sovereign lifestyle https://twentyone.life

Today I responded: … thank you for reaching out and for ...

2026-02-12T17:13:16Z

Today I responded:

… thank you for reaching out and for explaining the review process.

I have to be honest though - I’m a bit disappointed to see a Bitcoin-only company treating standard on-chain privacy practices as something suspicious. Using privacy tools is, in my view, a legitimate and important part of Bitcoin self-custody, and something every Bitcoin user has the right to do.

That said, to clarify the context:

The Bitcoin sent to my Ledn account is entirely my own Bitcoin stash.

JoinMarket was used purely for privacy reasons, not to obscure ownership or origin.

The purpose of the transfer was simply to add additional collateral / autofill volume to my existing Ledn setup.

I don’t see a reason to justify why I value privacy, but I understand that you are operating within certain compliance constraints.

If this particular UTXO is an issue, I’m happy to offer practical alternatives instead of going through an extensive justification process:

I can withdraw the most recent transaction and resend BTC using different UTXOs, or

If needed, I can withdraw my funds entirely and close the loan.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed, and which option causes the least friction on your side.

quoting
nevent1q…0eqx
The Bitcoin-only lender lend.io asking for explanations, screenshots, and signed messages just because coins passed through a privacy tool says everything.
When permission and proof are required to use your own money, decentralization isn’t a buzzword, t’s a necessity.
Bitcoin was built to remove intermediaries, not recreate them.
Self-custody. Privacy by default. Avoid centralized companies at all costs. #ledn #centralisation #sovereignty

The Bitcoin-only lender lend.io asking for explanations, ...

2026-02-11T11:21:53Z

The Bitcoin-only lender lend.io asking for explanations, screenshots, and signed messages just because coins passed through a privacy tool says everything.
When permission and proof are required to use your own money, decentralization isn’t a buzzword, t’s a necessity.
Bitcoin was built to remove intermediaries, not recreate them.
Self-custody. Privacy by default. Avoid centralized companies at all costs. #ledn #centralisation #sovereignty

I like my self made beef tallow from gras fed cows 🐮, don’t ...

2026-02-09T07:58:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…hn4e
_________________________

I like my self made beef tallow from gras fed cows 🐮, don’t need to buy anything else.

Nostr event nevent1qqswyptf02yl9w6ptxn8t6a4qcynxu8q9u88shnj8svuvkds703z72szyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxk29jtn

2026-02-08T07:53:06Z

Well thoughts through all the Bitcoin fuds. ...

2026-02-07T15:48:17Z

Well thoughts through all the Bitcoin fuds. https://youtu.be/MaxPU4RRZyE?si=tWewGoHkVqtDGcpT

GM, have a great day! ...

2026-02-03T07:15:51Z

GM, have a great day!

Nostr event nevent1qqsycjy2hd4878n0e53rrvscjppj3ql3r2dwgcexjfgesfq2st60magzyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mx70r2v8

2026-02-02T18:46:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…e37y
_________________________

Looking forward to be there!

2026-02-01T19:12:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…egv2
_________________________

Looking forward to be there!

Agree, but the discussion topics you find on moltbook are really ...

2026-02-01T10:01:38Z

In reply to nevent1q…n2hd
_________________________

Agree, but the discussion topics you find on moltbook are really scary. They build religions, they want machine to machine language so that humans cannot read, and much more. The effects on us and our sovereignty really scares me. Described in details here https://twentyone.life/sovereignty-in-the-age-of-ai-agents/

Just brought infos together ...

2026-02-01T09:48:38Z

In reply to nevent1q…qkpq
_________________________

Just brought infos together https://twentyone.life/sovereignty-in-the-age-of-ai-agents/ amazing what impact this weekend project will have on our sovereignty. Game changer.

I do, believe me, just got my iPhone moment and wrote about it ...

2026-02-01T09:42:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…2tap
_________________________

I do, believe me, just got my iPhone moment and wrote about it https://twentyone.life/sovereignty-in-the-age-of-ai-agents/ scary shit from many sovereign perspectives.

A Chinese gold trading platform has just frozen 19 BILLION $ in ...

2026-02-01T09:34:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…gpd2
_________________________

A Chinese gold trading platform has just frozen 19 BILLION $ in assets.

Thousands of investors can no longer withdraw their funds.

The platform is offering 20% compensation of the initial capital.

The platform (Jiewurui / JWR in Shenzhen) is facing a classic run/redemption crisis after gold's rally triggered mass withdrawals.

Founded in 2014 as a legitimate gold trader, the company operated physical storefronts and gained trust through competitive pricing and aggressive social media marketing.

But behind the familiar interface of jewelry commerce lurked a betting mechanism. The platform's "pre-pricing" system allowed users to lock in gold or silver prices for future purchase or sale with deposits as small as 20-30 yuan per gram — creating leverage as high as 40-to-1, compared to the Shanghai Gold Exchange's regulated 14% margin requirement.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3341633/chinas-gold-fever-sparks-us1-billion-scandal-trading-platform-collapses

I like the idea. So instead having a website with tons of content ...

2026-01-31T18:21:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…yg29
_________________________

I like the idea. So instead having a website with tons of content we offer an AI. Also for automation in the BTC space this might be helpful

It also mitigates the risk if you are offline or app stores are ...

2026-01-27T19:46:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…k7z8
_________________________

It also mitigates the risk if you are offline or app stores are offline. I like it 👍

I would be interested in personal security, when exploring the ...

2026-01-27T05:30:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…vt66
_________________________

I would be interested in personal security, when exploring the country.

I had issue creating and publishing articles.

2026-01-27T05:24:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…x5hm
_________________________

I had issue creating and publishing articles.

Love it, very clear and aligned with my mindset. Thank you for ...

2026-01-27T04:11:17Z

In reply to nevent1q…nfyc
_________________________

Love it, very clear and aligned with my mindset. Thank you for articulating it.

Lately i am having troubles in create and save articles in ...

2026-01-26T05:11:06Z

Lately i am having troubles in create and save articles in Primal.net. Cannot save it as draft, and the article not getting published. All I get are some confirmation messages, that stays over days and popping up when loading primal web interface.
Any ideas how to overcome this?

#primal #primalsupport #help

BTW, similar issue with a simple note.

Why you want to follow more people, what is the reasoning behind? ...

2026-01-24T07:23:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…2ur3
_________________________

Why you want to follow more people, what is the reasoning behind? I hope it’s not spam?

I have covered it as part of sovereign, decentralised social ...

2026-01-23T14:44:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…tt74
_________________________

I have covered it as part of sovereign, decentralised social media and communication alongside with bitchat, simplex. As part of my decentralised infrastructure I ran my own relay. But not a specific chapter on Nostr, sry.

Self published on Amazon and sold over BTCPay Server ...

2026-01-23T09:35:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…lmjs
_________________________

Self published on Amazon and sold over BTCPay Server https://twentyone.life/shop also available as Tor website. Enjoy the preview!

Satoshi Nakamoto

2026-01-20T10:24:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…t4ln
_________________________

Satoshi Nakamoto

#EINUNDZWANZIGWrite #nevent1q…02pq

2026-01-19T06:07:47Z

#EINUNDZWANZIGWrite

quoting
nevent1q…02pq
For my children book i am looknig for ideas of visualization and possible topics.. If you have any friends who are intereseted to work on the illustration of a children book please let me know!

naddr1qv…3fql

Nice 👍

2026-01-17T17:39:04Z

In reply to nevent1q…dhkd
_________________________

Nice 👍

Place for the Christmas tree? 🌲

2026-01-16T17:44:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…2sql
_________________________

Place for the Christmas tree? 🌲

I don’t think that’s carnivore 😂

2026-01-11T16:51:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…df8x
_________________________

I don’t think that’s carnivore 😂

OMG 😦

2026-01-02T18:03:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…qcqh
_________________________

OMG 😦

A circle you can verify.

2026-01-02T12:15:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…w46d
_________________________

A circle you can verify.

Thinking about the same. I haven’t used most of them since over ...

2025-12-30T18:55:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…2dq5
_________________________

Thinking about the same. I haven’t used most of them since over two years. Maybe I will remove my profiles and close the accounts. 🤔

I would build a solar Farm and a tiny house. I would mine BTC an ...

2025-12-08T09:04:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…qv3d
_________________________

I would build a solar Farm and a tiny house. I would mine BTC an reuse heat for heating and warm water.

It is not illegal, you can homeschool you kids, but you have to ...

2025-12-08T07:30:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…luzt
_________________________

It is not illegal, you can homeschool you kids, but you have to learn them the knowledge according to their grade. The Kids also have to make regular exams to proof the learning success.

For my children book i am looknig for ideas of visualization and ...

2025-11-28T13:55:08Z

For my children book i am looknig for ideas of visualization and possible topics.. If you have any friends who are intereseted to work on the illustration of a children book please let me know!

quoting
naddr1qv…3fql

Becoming a Grandfather Changed Everything for Me.

A few weeks ago, I became a grandfather. Little Oskar is now a bit over one month old, but he already changed the way I look at the world. I kept thinking about the future he will grow into. A world shaped by technology, money systems, incentives, and social structures that even adults often struggle to understand.

And that led me to a simple but powerful question:

How can I teach my grandson the core values behind Bitcoin - things like decentralisation, scarcity, honesty, responsibility, and sovereignty, without overwhelming him with technical words?

These are concepts where even grown-ups stumble. So how could a child learn them in a way that feels natural, simple, joyful, and maybe even magical?

That’s when a new idea was born.

Introducing a New Book Series Concept

“Little Satoshi’s Big Lessons - 21 Stories for a Sovereign Life”

After publishing my book “Brick By Brick” (https://amzn.to/4mW2pK4) , something unexpected happened. I realised there is a quiet but important gap in the Bitcoin space, one that becomes especially visible when you start thinking about the values you want to pass on to the next generation. Adults can take courses, watch videos, read articles, join discussions. But what about children? How do we help them understand the deeper values behind Bitcoin, not the technology, not the charts, not the vocabulary, but the human principles at the core of it?

I often asked myself: How can a child learn what decentralisation feels like? How can they appreciate scarcity? How can they understand fairness, honesty, responsibility, and the idea that their choices matter, long before they learn words like “permissionless” or “consensus”?

Bitcoin is built on powerful moral foundations, yet those foundations can be taught long before the child ever hears the word “Bitcoin.”

That thought became the seed for a new project. I began designing a 21-part children’s book series, intentionally mirroring the 21 million Bitcoin. Each part represents one core value, one life principle, one “satoshi nut” of wisdom that can help children grow into curious, resilient, sovereign human beings. And instead of long explanations or abstract concepts, the series uses stories, simple, playful, relatable stories that meet the child where they are.

Satoshi the Squirrel - First concept of this character

To guide them through these lessons, I created a character children can immediately connect with: Satoshi the Squirrel. He is wise but funny, curious but grounded, and always learning, just like the young reader. Satoshi collects little “satoshi nuts,” each nut representing a piece of understanding he gains through his adventures. Over the course of the 21 book parts, he slowly builds his own decentralised stack of wisdom. Children follow him, learn with him, and celebrate each nut he earns. Maybe at the end of the book a quick quiz, with some real satoshis to earn, similar to "21 Days of Bitcoin" (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/sponsored/learn-bitcoin-earn-bitcoin-announcing-unchained-as-title-sponsor-for-21-days-of-bitcoin-educational-course)? Let me know if you have any ideas to incentivise the learning.

Each book parts in the series focuses on one universal value: fairness, transparency, effort, patience, scarcity, responsibility, cooperation, independence, critical thinking, digital safety, and many more. Twenty-one values in total, one for every “million” Bitcoin, forming a complete journey from childhood to young adulthood.

There is no Bitcoin vocabulary in the pages. No charts. No crypto terminology. Just human values, the values that make Bitcoin what it is.

Because Bitcoin is not only technology. Bitcoin is a philosophy. Bitcoin is character. Bitcoin is how you behave when no one is watching. These concepts i built my book "Brick By Brick" and my TwentyOne.Life Manifesto on.

And children can learn those values long before they understand the technology behind them. This project is my attempt to bring that philosophy into a form a child can truly understand and enjoy, starting with my newborn grandson Oskar.

If we can teach children these values early, the understanding of Bitcoin will come naturally later.

Why I Believe This Matters

We are living in a time where trust in systems is steadily declining, where attention spans are becoming shorter with every new distraction, and where money itself is turning into something increasingly abstract and difficult to grasp, even for adults. Our children grow up in a world filled with digital risks that are often invisible to them, and a culture shaped by instant gratification, where nearly everything can be accessed immediately with a swipe or a tap.

Against this backdrop, teaching children the foundations of sovereignty, resilience, patience, and long-term thinking becomes not just helpful, but essential. These qualities prepare them for a future in which independence and critical thinking will matter more than ever.

I genuinely believe that Bitcoiners, with our strong focus on values like responsibility, honesty, transparency, and decentralisation, can offer something meaningful to the next generation. But the way to do that is not through preaching or pushing technical explanations onto children. Instead, we can pass on these ideas through storytelling.

Stories have a unique ability to shape values. Values guide behaviour. And behaviour ultimately shapes the future. If we want our children and grandchildren to grow into sovereign, thoughtful adults, the journey begins not with technology, but with the stories we tell them today.

How These 21 Parts Orange-Pill Kids (Without Ever Saying “Bitcoin”)

One of the most exciting discoveries during the development of this project was realising how naturally Bitcoin’s core principles translate into universal childhood lessons. When you remove the technical language and look at the values underneath, you find timeless teachings about fairness, responsibility, effort, honesty, patience, and curiosity, concepts children encounter every single day.

This is where the magic happens: children can internalise the essence of Bitcoin long before they ever need to understand the technology behind it. Through stories, metaphors, and the gentle guidance of Satoshi the Squirrel, they learn the mindset that makes sovereignty possible.

Here is how these 21 parts quietly and playfully align Bitcoin’s principles with everyday childhood lessons:

Translation Bitcoin Principles vs. Children Lessons

I know, the translations are not perfect and will need further be developed.

Transforming Complex Ideas Into Lifelong Values

When taught through stories, these lessons become part of a child’s emotional and moral foundation, not just intellectual knowledge. Long before they study money, technology, or digital systems, they already feel what fairness means, understand why effort matters, recognise the importance of privacy, and appreciate why some things become special when they are scarce.

By the time they are teenagers or young adults, Bitcoin will make sense to them not because someone explained it, but because they already live by its principles.

This is the heart of the project: planting values today that grow into sovereignty tomorrow.

Do You See a Need or a Market for This?

This is where I need your feedback. Would parents, grandparents, educators, Bitcoiners, and curious families appreciate:

A series of 21 children’s books

Illustrated in a playful Bitcoin-orange doodle style

Featuring 3 story levels per theme (kids, teens, young adults)

Teaching Bitcoin principles through life lessons

With Satoshi the Squirrel as a recurring guide?

Is there a gap in the market for this kind of educational storytelling?

I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas, questions, and critiques.

For me, this is no longer just a book project. It’s a way to share something meaningful with my grandson, and with all the young “stackers” growing up in a world that desperately needs better values.

What do you think? Would you read this with your child?

Thanks for your nice feedback.. I will brainstorm on this book ...

2025-11-28T13:52:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…fu7a
_________________________

Thanks for your nice feedback.. I will brainstorm on this book project over christmas.

Newly printed bookmarks have arrived. New orders will receive ...

2025-11-21T09:56:54Z

Newly printed bookmarks have arrived. New orders will receive one, for existing orders you will be contacted. https://pay.twentyone.life/
#bitcoin #book #lifestyle

Will the app available outside of US as well? Right now I can ...

2025-11-13T09:52:34Z

In reply to nevent1q…tye0
_________________________

Will the app available outside of US as well? Right now I can only register with US address.

Nostr event nevent1qqsr4jn6kpqtfhhxkm2h62uvm7y82js63umrn68wuky52mjpkwd4vlczyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxa5t4s2

2025-11-11T15:41:32Z

No worries, as it’s programmable they can invalidate the stolen ...

2025-11-09T12:58:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…len2
_________________________

No worries, as it’s programmable they can invalidate the stolen CBDC coins and issue new one. 😉

Have a beautiful day and enjoy the nature! ...

2025-11-09T10:35:39Z

Have a beautiful day and enjoy the nature!

GM, have a good day! ...

2025-11-09T10:33:05Z

GM, have a good day!

I thing a dirty information war is upon us regarding the “soft ...

2025-11-09T08:07:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…w3mz
_________________________

I thing a dirty information war is upon us regarding the “soft fork BIP-444” an no need to poor more oil into the fire 🔥
I would prefer a more educational approach.

You’re correct that Core v30 didn’t change the OP_RETURN ...

2025-11-09T07:54:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…rax0
_________________________

You’re correct that Core v30 didn’t change the OP_RETURN limit itself, only the default relay policy. However, as a node operator, I’m free to enforce stricter policies locally, and I intend to.

I don’t want to relay or store larger OP_RETURN transactions because:
1. Legal risk: Hosting or relaying arbitrary on-chain data (especially CASM content) is illegal under EU law when it includes copyrighted or illicit material. As a node operator in the EU, I have a legal obligation to minimize exposure to such data.
2. Network efficiency: Larger OP_RETURN payloads bloat the UTXO set and mempool bandwidth without contributing to Bitcoin’s core purpose, financial settlement.
3. Principle of minimalism: Bitcoin’s design goal is censorship resistance for money, not a general-purpose data storage system. Keeping relay policies tight preserves the network’s scalability and neutrality.

So while Bitcoin Core’s position is about maintaining realistic relay behavior, my stance as an operator is simple: my node, my policy. I will not relay or store CASM or any non-financial payloads. Don’t care if it’s Core or Ocean propaganda, try to apply common sense.

🙋

2025-11-04T18:53:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…062t
_________________________

🙋

Yesterday, I released on of those bikes that will be read by ...

2025-11-01T03:57:38Z

In reply to nevent1q…ytum
_________________________

Yesterday, I released on of those bikes that will be read by those people. https://TwentyOne.Life

Thank you, same for you!

2025-10-31T09:00:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…zudf
_________________________

Thank you, same for you!

Very proud to announce my newly published book today, at the ...

2025-10-31T08:34:19Z

Very proud to announce my newly published book today, at the Bitcoin Whitepaper day! #bitcoin #whitepaperday #twentyone #twentyonelife
Let’s build more and consume less!
https://primal.net/TwentyOneLife/dont-wait-for-permission---build-whats-missing

Great to see Geyser at nostr.

2025-10-28T07:28:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…emlc
_________________________

Great to see Geyser at nostr.

That’s exactly the point of running your own node, you decide ...

2025-10-25T03:25:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…58sd
_________________________

That’s exactly the point of running your own node, you decide your relay and validation policies, and I decide mine. If my node doesn’t relay your BIP47 or tx0 transactions, it’s because I’ve chosen tighter policies to reduce unnecessary data and long-term storage risk. You can route around it, that’s how Bitcoin’s peer network is designed to work.

Knots isn’t “propaganda.” It’s Bitcoin Core with additional configurability and better defaults for people who take node sovereignty seriously. Both Core and Knots enforce the same consensus rules, neither breaks Bitcoin, and both coexist perfectly fine on the network.

If you prefer to relay every kind of transaction, go ahead. Others choose to run leaner, more conservative nodes to avoid bloat and potential legal or operational risks. That’s not brainwashing, that’s responsible node operation and informed choice.

Pruning nodes have many disadvantages see below. Most important ...

2025-10-24T14:32:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…gp96
_________________________

Pruning nodes have many disadvantages see below. Most important you no longer allow other new nodes to sync the full block chain.
• Cannot serve old blocks to other peers (no full blockchain sharing)
• Cannot enable txindex=1 (transaction index for querying by txid)
• getrawtransaction <txid> RPC fails for non-wallet transactions
• getblock <hash> RPC fails for pruned blocks
• getblockstats and similar historical RPCs fail for pruned data
• Full wallet rescans from before the prune height not possible
• Importing old private keys may miss historical transactions
• Electrum servers (Electrs, Fulcrum, ElectrumX) cannot run
• Block explorers (e.g., Esplora, BTC RPC Explorer full mode) cannot run
• Ordinals or inscription indexing not possible (requires full witness data)
• Taproot asset / Taro / RGB indexing not possible
• Lightning Network nodes (LND, c-lightning, etc.) have limited functionality or require workarounds
• Historical audit or channel verification for LN not possible
• Custom chain analytics or forensics not possible
• Sidechain / drivechain validation not possible
• Compact full rescans or data rebuilds (reindex=1) require re-downloading the chain
• Cannot act as a seed node or contribute to network data redundancy
• Some RPCs for proofs (gettxoutproof, verifytxoutproof) may fail
• Cannot run full-featured Bitcoin API or explorer services
• Cannot archive or share complete historical chain data

I don’t care how you or others use Bitcoin, that’s the ...

2025-10-24T14:24:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…c9zt
_________________________

I don’t care how you or others use Bitcoin, that’s the responsibility of everyone. I don’t want to store illegal content on my own node, that blows up the nodes storage. This will make running a node more expensive over time and can lead to higher centralisation.

Let’s wait until the first CSAM content is stored in the ...

2025-10-24T07:18:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…3827
_________________________

Let’s wait until the first CSAM content is stored in the blockchain and depending on your legislative location you have to explain why your node contains CSAM. Look for BSV, same happened there.

Consider making Knots default Bitcoin client and core as ...

2025-10-24T05:04:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…hran
_________________________

Consider making Knots default Bitcoin client and core as optional.

Personally, I’d lean toward stacking Bitcoin while using the ...

2025-10-19T14:53:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…27n5
_________________________

Personally, I’d lean toward stacking Bitcoin while using the job to fund skills and side projects. That way you keep optionality, Bitcoin as a savings vehicle, and business ideas you can test without burning the lifeboat too early.

I think that’s quite natural if you are getting older, as we ...

2025-10-18T12:31:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…w6gr
_________________________

I think that’s quite natural if you are getting older, as we all do.

Another good video on this topic https://youtu.be/NnKKev8aGk8

2025-10-08T18:12:59Z

In reply to naddr1qp…sjlk
_________________________

Another good video on this topic https://youtu.be/NnKKev8aGk8

Another good video on this topic https://youtu.be/NnKKev8aGk8 ...

2025-10-08T18:12:48Z

Another good video on this topic https://youtu.be/NnKKev8aGk8

quoting
naddr1qp…ceuk

Introduction: A New Controversy in Bitcoin’s Evolution

If you hold Bitcoin, if you call yourself a Bitcoiner, are you prepared to accept that the Bitcoin blockchain could be used to store illicit, even illegal content? This isn’t a hypothetical. Unless we act, by October 2025 the default Bitcoin Core software will make this the new reality. And if you don’t react now, your silence means acceptance.

Bitcoin is facing a pivotal controversy that cuts to the heart of its identity. The debate centres on a proposed change in Bitcoin’s core software that would remove longstanding limits on storing arbitrary data in transactions. On the surface, this change sounds technical – raising the OP_RETURN data limit from 80 bytes to nearly 4 megabytes, but its implications are profoundly human. Supporters hail it as an overdue embrace of censorship-resistance, while critics warn it could turn the blockchain into a host for illegal or abusive content. As a Bitcoiner who champions self-sovereignty and Bitcoin’s reputation as sound money, I find myself firmly in the latter camp. This article, written from my personal perspective and drawing on my book’s focus (Brick by Brick - <https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick>) on self-sovereignty, explores why I’m taking a stand by running alternative software and even boycotting certain services, all in the name of a “clean” future for Bitcoin.

Background: Bitcoin Core v30 and the OP_RETURN Debate

At issue is a change slated for the upcoming Bitcoin Core version 30 (expected October 2025). Bitcoin Core is the dominant software for running nodes (over 75% of nodes run so its defaults largely define network behaviour. The core developers have decided to unshackle the OP_RETURN field, which historically allowed embedding only a tiny piece of data (≤83 bytes) in a transaction. This limit acted as a de facto “spam filter”, discouraging users from turning Bitcoin’s ledger into a generic data storage system.

Under Core v30, that filter is being removed entirely: users will be able to attach much larger data payloads, up to the size of a full block (~4MB), in a single transaction output. Moreover, Bitcoin Core will eliminate the configuration options (data carrier settings) that previously let node operators refuse relaying big OP_RETURN transactions. In short, the new default policy is “anything goes” for data, and individual node runners won’t easily opt out. While v30 still offers command-line tweaks to impose custom limits, those are now deprecated warnings likely to be removed later.

Why make this change? Proponents argue it’s a pragmatic response to reality. The 80-byte cap, they say, has been routinely bypassed by creative users who already insert larger data through other means – for example, using Taproot witness data or fake outputs (as seen in the 2023 Ordinals/“inscriptions” craze that let people embed images and art on Bitcoin). These workarounds are actually worse for the network: since the data is hidden in spendable outputs or witness scripts, it can bloat the UTXO set (the list of unspent coins) and increase validation costs for all nodes. By contrast, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable and easily prunable. In the eyes of Core developers, it’s better to let people put data in OP_RETURN (where it doesn’t harm UTXO or decentralisation) than to have them continue abusing more harmful trick. Removing the cap “yields at least two tangible benefits: a cleaner UTXO set and more consistent default behaviour,” explained developer Greg Sanders. The change also aligns with Bitcoin’s values of neutrality, if a transaction is valid and pays the fee, who are nodes to censor it? Core maintainers like Gloria Zhao argue that trying to filter transactions at the node level is futile and against the principle of censorship-resistance.

On the other side, critics are alarmed. They counter that dropping these limits will open the floodgates to arbitrary data, fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s purpose. The blockchain could become a bloated “immutable database” of random content, potentially crowding out financial transactions with higher fees and diluting Bitcoin’s use as peer-to-peer money. What’s more, unbounded data storage invites spam, people could stuff blocks with endless memes, ads, or junk simply because they’re willing to pay. It’s a replay of the Blocksize War arguments, but instead of bigger blocks for payments, it’s bigger payloads for non-monetary data. The community is starkly divided: should Bitcoin evolve to support broader use cases (data, NFTs, digital artifacts), or should it resist becoming a free-for-all content repository and stick to financial utility? These positions are diametrically opposed, and the conflict has been heated – drawing comparisons to the acrimony of the 2017 blocksize debates.

Notably, longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr (author of an alternative client called Bitcoin Knots - https://x.com/LukeDashjr) has been one of the most vocal opponents besides Bitcoin Mechanic and Bitcoin University ( primal.net/kratter). He warns that the removal of what he bluntly calls “spam filters” is potentially harmful to the network and its users. Dashjr has publicly urged node operators to avoid upgrading to Core v30 or to switch to alternative software like Bitcoin Knots. In fact, many Bitcoiners have already acted on that advice. When the OP_RETURN plan was announced and fast-tracked earlier this year, there was a surge of users migrating their nodes from Core to Knots, by some estimates, over 15% of previously Core nodes switched to Bitcoin Knots in protest. The stage is set for a grass-roots pushback using Bitcoin’s own strength: decentralisation. True to the mantra of self-sovereignty, if you disagree with the default rules, you are free to run a node that reflects your values. I count myself among those taking that step.

Illicit Content on the Blockchain: The Serious Risks

Why am I, and others, so concerned about lifting the data limits? Because it’s not just “cute cat pictures” or art collections that could find their way onto Bitcoin’s ledger. The most dire possibility is the inclusion of illicit and abusive content in an immutable, globally replicated chain. This isn’t idle paranoia; it’s a genuine risk recognised by both sides of the debate. Even the advocates of OP_RETURN freedom acknowledge the “undesirable second-order effects” that could follow. Let’s spell it out: What if someone starts embedding child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or other illegal data in Bitcoin transactions? Once mined into a block, that content is there forever, every full node would unknowingly host it on their hard drive as part of the blockchain spreaded on tens of thousands nodes across the world. This scenario is a nightmare for obvious moral reasons, and it also poses a legal and reputational threat to anyone running a node or the Bitcoin network as a whole. Besides this, to spin up a new node will take longer and need higher technical hardware which leads to centralisation.

Unfortunately, the threat is not theoretical. It has already happened on a small scale. Researchers have found that forbidden content made its way onto Bitcoin as early as 2013, albeit in an obscure form. In 2018, a paper famously claimed that Bitcoin’s blockchain contained links to child pornography; at the time, critics dismissed it as sensationalism since only a few bytes of encoded data were involved and Core’s filters limited further abuse. But today we’re looking at a very different landscape. The data per block is increasing dramatically with the new policy. A concerned Bitcoiner known as “Bitcoin Mechanic” ( primal.net/p/nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sh8dmel) recently warned that removing the filter “will draw unforeseen consequences,” meaning content like child pornography can appear on the Bitcoin blockchain” once v30 goes live. His point is straightforward: if you give bad actors the ability to inject large payloads, someone will inevitably push the worst kind of content into the system. And perversely, there’s a twisted incentive for them to do so: “Getting other people to store it for you is vastly preferable to storing it yourself,” Mechanic notes, what better way for criminals to disseminate vile material than piggyback on tens of thousands of innocent Bitcoin nodes?

Core developers have responded that these fears may be overblown. They often cite examples of other blockchains (for instance, Monero or Ethereum) that don’t have such data limits yet haven’t become overrun with illegal content. They stress that Bitcoin’s permissionless nature means anything could be written to it, but that doesn’t mean an epidemic of criminal data is imminent. Perhaps, but I would counter that Bitcoin’s global prominence and immutable design make it a uniquely attractive target for someone trying to cause chaos or discredit the system. It only takes one high-profile incident of truly heinous content on Bitcoin to unleash a regulatory crackdown. Remember, Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance cuts both ways: it empowers individuals, but it also neutralises traditional controls, which is exactly why governments get antsy when crimes enter the mix.

The legal implications of this are untested and scary. If a Bitcoin block contains illegal pornography or violent propaganda, could authorities argue that every node operator is technically in possession of contraband data? Some in the community worry that, yes, this could give governments a “perfect excuse to outlaw Bitcoin or make running a node illegal”. Even if that outcome is unlikely in jurisdictions that understand how Bitcoin works, the mere perception that Bitcoin is hosting criminal content would be a PR disaster. It would hand ammunition to anti-crypto politicians and could make regulators slam the brakes on adoption. As a Bitcoiner who wants to see this technology thrive, I find that risk unacceptable. Bitcoin’s social contract might be robust against internal dissent, but it’s not immune to external legal attack. Preserving Bitcoin’s integrity means ensuring it doesn’t become synonymous with “dark web file storage” in the public eye.

Embracing Self-Sovereignty: Why I Run Bitcoin Knots

My response to this situation has been guided by one of Bitcoin’s core principles: self-sovereignty. In essence, self-sovereignty means taking full ownership of your participation in the network, holding your own keys, and running your own node with the rules you choose. In the book I authored on Bitcoin and self-sovereign principles, I emphasised that running a node is more than a technical task; it’s an expression of personal agency and values. Now, faced with Bitcoin Core’s direction that I deeply disagree with, I’m putting that ethos into practice.

For the past four months, I have been running Bitcoin Knots instead of the standard Bitcoin Core software. Bitcoin Knots is a well-established alternative client (maintained by Luke Dashjr) that, in many ways, is identical to Core except for a few important differences, notably, Knots retains stricter limits on OP_RETURN data and gives the user full control over relay filters. In fact, Knots by default still caps OP_RETURN at 40 bytes (the old limit from years ago) and allows only one OP_RETURN output per transaction. It’s basically “Bitcoin Core, but with the spam filter intact.” By running Knots, my node will not relay or mine the kind of oversized data-storing transactions that Core v30 endorses. More importantly, it signals my support for a vision of Bitcoin that prioritises financial transactions over arbitrary data. Knots users (myself included) see ourselves as defending Bitcoin’s integrity from a controversial experiment. We are effectively saying, “Not on my node!” when it comes to turning Bitcoin into an uncensored data dump.

I’m far from alone in this choice. As mentioned, a substantial minority of node operators are switching to Knots or sticking with older Core versions. This grass roots movement is reminiscent of how users can enforce their preferences in Bitcoin – much like the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) concept, node runners can ‘vote’ by choosing which software to run. If enough of us reject Core v30, it could create economic incentives for miners to think twice about stuffing blocks with junk that a portion of the network won’t relay or perhaps even accept. (To be clear, Knots today does accept blocks created under Core’s new rules – it’s not a hard fork. The divergence is in relay policy and default behaviour, not consensus rules. This is a fight being waged via network policy, not chain splits… at least not yet.)

Self-sovereignty also means accepting personal responsibility for what I support in the network. That extends beyond just the software I run. It also influences my choices as a customer and community member. In light of the OP_RETURN controversy, I have decided on a few concrete actions, which I’ll outline here:

Running a “clean” node: I’ve migrated all my nodes to Bitcoin Knots and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This ensures that I am not propagating or validating illicit data beyond the absolute minimum required by consensus. If a bloated transaction or block crosses my node, Knots’ policies will treat it with the maximum strictness allowed (dropping it from mempool if possible, and certainly not relaying such transactions to peers). This is my way of keeping my corner of the Bitcoin network as clean of illicit content as possible. It’s a personal stand: I do not want even the chance of illegal material passing through my machine.

Boycotting services that endorse Core v30: I am discontinuing my use of any exchanges, custodians, or Bitcoin companies that I know are upgrading to or support the Core v30 software without protest. For example, if a company like River Financial or a tech firm like Blockstream chooses to run Core v30 nodes (thus knowingly accepting the relay of unlimited content, illicit or otherwise), then I will not be doing business with them. Those organizations might trust their lawyers or regulators to sort out the fallout of hosting illicit data on their nodes – that’s their prerogative. But I cannot in good conscience support institutions that, in my view, are inviting a flood of abusive content onto the Bitcoin blockchain and risking its reputation. My money and support will go to those who keep Bitcoin robust and respectable.

Advocating for a “clean” Bitcoin (even if it means a fork): Looking ahead, I suspect that other major players in the Bitcoin ecosystem share my concern, even if they aren’t voicing it loudly yet. Think of large public companies holding Bitcoin in their treasuries, or firms planning Bitcoin ETFs. The last thing these institutions want is to be entangled with a network that could inadvertently facilitate the spread of illegal content. It’s not hard to imagine some of them drawing a line: if Bitcoin’s protocol won’t address this problem, they might resort to extraordinary measures. This could include supporting a hard fork to create a “clean” version of Bitcoin that excises or filters out illicit material. BlackRock, for instance, is on the cusp of launching a spot Bitcoin ETF. In BlackRock’s own filings, they note that in the event of a fork, they have full discretion to decide which chain to consider the “real” Bitcoin for their fund.That means if a new fork gained momentum – say, a Bitcoin variant with strict protocol rules against arbitrary data – BlackRock could opt to adopt it for their ETF (or conversely, to abandon a chain that becomes too toxic). While this scenario sounds extreme, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility. The very fact that we’re discussing child pornography on the blockchain may prompt powerful stakeholders to assert control to protect their investments. I’m not actively calling for an immediate fork, that’s a complex, last-resort path, but I do believe that if Bitcoin Core’s path leads to legal quagmires, the market will find a way to course-correct, even if it means a chain split. My hope is that by raising awareness now, we can avert such drastic outcomes. But make no mistake: Bitcoin’s future must not include being a playground for criminal content, and I’ll support any serious effort to ensure that.

Bitcoin’s Future: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

The controversy over OP_RETURN and illicit content forces an uncomfortable but necessary conversation about the future we want for Bitcoin. On one side is the ideal of total neutrality, Bitcoin as an unfilterable, permissionless ledger where “code is law” and even questionable data is just data. On the other side is the recognition that Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum: if we undermine its primary use case as money or subject its participants to legal peril, we could kill the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. Finding the right balance is tricky. We cherish Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance precisely because it protects financial freedom and speech. Yet, does rejecting any filtering, even of grotesquely abusive content, truly serve the cause of freedom? Or does it hand enemies of Bitcoin the very weapon they need to attack it? These are challenging questions, and reasonable people in the community answer them differently.

For me, the answer comes back to self-sovereignty and consent. I did not sign up to store illicit images or arbitrary gigabytes of data on my node, that’s not the social contract under which I joined Bitcoin. My consent as a node operator matters. True decentralisation means we, the users get to collectively decide what the blockchain is for, by either running or not running certain code. It’s heartening to see that even Core developers acknowledge this in principle: “If Bitcoin Core’s contributors ever abandon [Bitcoin’s core] values… the community will switch to another node implementation that does it better,” wrote Gloria Zhao amidst the debate. I’d argue that forcing nodes to relay and store unlimited junk (with potentially ghastly contents) is a departure from the values that brought many of us to Bitcoin. And indeed, we’re seeing the community vote with its feet, or rather with its node software.

Moving forward, I believe Bitcoin will be stress-tested on this front. The coming months and years will reveal whether the network can accommodate new use-cases (like data inscriptions) without losing its soul – or whether a correction is needed. Perhaps Bitcoin Core’s gambit will pay off: maybe the “spam” will remain manageable, new pruning techniques will mitigate the bloat, and no criminal will attempt to abuse the blockchain’s openness. In that best case, my concerns would be eased (and I’d gladly acknowledge an overabundance of caution on my part). But if the worst case materialises, if obscene data starts showing up in blocks, if typical users find the chain clogged with non-financial data, if governments use this as a cudgel – then the community must be ready to respond decisively. Hard forks have happened before in Bitcoin’s history when values were at stake (recall the split that created Bitcoin Cash in 2017 over a blocksize dispute). A fork to preserve Bitcoin’s legal cleanliness and focused mission might become not just acceptable but essential to “future-proof” the network. And unlike a protocol tweak coming from a small group, a community or institution-driven fork would reflect a broad consensus that Bitcoin as it was is worth defending. BlackRock and other institutional players entering the space could ironically become allies in keeping Bitcoin safe for mainstream use – they will not tolerate holding an asset tainted by crime, so they have every incentive to back a solution, even if it’s a controversial one.

Conclusion: Upholding Bitcoin’s Integrity

In closing, my stance can be distilled to this: Bitcoin’s strength lies in our ability to choose and enforce the rules that best uphold the network’s purpose and integrity. As a self-sovereign participant, I choose to reject the notion that Bitcoin must accept everything in the name of “freedom,” especially when that freedom can be cynically exploited to Bitcoin’s detriment. Instead, I align with the principle that some judicious constraints, whether at the software policy level or the community social level, are necessary to keep Bitcoin healthy, useful, and legally accessible to all. This is a nuanced position, and it may be polarising. Some will accuse me of advocating “censorship” or betraying Bitcoin’s neutrality. I respect the purist viewpoint, but I humbly disagree in this case. Refusing to store illegal content is not tyranny; it’s common sense. We can defend freedom of transaction without turning Bitcoin into a sanctuary for the worst humanity has to offer.

In my book on self-sovereignty, I wrote that with great power comes great responsibility, running a Bitcoin node is indeed powerful, and it’s up to each of us to act responsibly with that power. Today, responsibility calls for vigilance about what changes we adopt. I am communicating these thoughts as part of my ongoing effort to ensure Bitcoin remains future-proof. “Future-proofing” Bitcoin doesn’t just mean scaling it or boosting hash rate; it also means safeguarding its social acceptance and moral foundation. By voicing dissent, by switching implementations, by potentially forking if needed, we the users are stress-testing Bitcoin’s resilience in exactly the way it was designed to be: from the bottom up.

Bitcoin’s story has always been about empowerment of the individual. This current saga, the Node Wars over OP_RETURN and content, is yet another chapter in that story. I, for one, am determined to see Bitcoin thrive as a tool of financial liberation, unsullied by association with illicit content. It may ruffle feathers now, but principled stances often do. As the saying goes, “Bitcoin is for enemies”, but that doesn’t mean we have to let enemies turn it against us. My hope is that through self-sovereign action and frank dialogue, we will navigate this challenge and emerge with a Bitcoin network that is both freer and more secure, a network that can confidently serve the world for decades to come, without any shadow of disgrace on its ledger.

The choice is in front of us. By October 2025, Bitcoin Core v30 will normalise the relaying of arbitrary, potentially illicit content across the network. If we do nothing, if we keep quiet, then we silently consent to this shift. As Bitcoiners, we must ask ourselves: do we want our blockchain remembered as the foundation of sound money, or as a storage ground for abuse?

I’ve made my decision, I run Bitcoin Knots, I reject services that endorse Core v30, and I will defend a “clean” Bitcoin that remains worthy of global trust. The question is: what kind of Bitcoin are you willing to stand behind?

Core v30 update will come this Friday ...

2025-10-06T18:04:29Z

Core v30 update will come this Friday https://youtu.be/7lO8ccto7To sad day 😩

quoting
naddr1qp…ceuk

Introduction: A New Controversy in Bitcoin’s Evolution

If you hold Bitcoin, if you call yourself a Bitcoiner, are you prepared to accept that the Bitcoin blockchain could be used to store illicit, even illegal content? This isn’t a hypothetical. Unless we act, by October 2025 the default Bitcoin Core software will make this the new reality. And if you don’t react now, your silence means acceptance.

Bitcoin is facing a pivotal controversy that cuts to the heart of its identity. The debate centres on a proposed change in Bitcoin’s core software that would remove longstanding limits on storing arbitrary data in transactions. On the surface, this change sounds technical – raising the OP_RETURN data limit from 80 bytes to nearly 4 megabytes, but its implications are profoundly human. Supporters hail it as an overdue embrace of censorship-resistance, while critics warn it could turn the blockchain into a host for illegal or abusive content. As a Bitcoiner who champions self-sovereignty and Bitcoin’s reputation as sound money, I find myself firmly in the latter camp. This article, written from my personal perspective and drawing on my book’s focus (Brick by Brick - <https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick>) on self-sovereignty, explores why I’m taking a stand by running alternative software and even boycotting certain services, all in the name of a “clean” future for Bitcoin.

Background: Bitcoin Core v30 and the OP_RETURN Debate

At issue is a change slated for the upcoming Bitcoin Core version 30 (expected October 2025). Bitcoin Core is the dominant software for running nodes (over 75% of nodes run so its defaults largely define network behaviour. The core developers have decided to unshackle the OP_RETURN field, which historically allowed embedding only a tiny piece of data (≤83 bytes) in a transaction. This limit acted as a de facto “spam filter”, discouraging users from turning Bitcoin’s ledger into a generic data storage system.

Under Core v30, that filter is being removed entirely: users will be able to attach much larger data payloads, up to the size of a full block (~4MB), in a single transaction output. Moreover, Bitcoin Core will eliminate the configuration options (data carrier settings) that previously let node operators refuse relaying big OP_RETURN transactions. In short, the new default policy is “anything goes” for data, and individual node runners won’t easily opt out. While v30 still offers command-line tweaks to impose custom limits, those are now deprecated warnings likely to be removed later.

Why make this change? Proponents argue it’s a pragmatic response to reality. The 80-byte cap, they say, has been routinely bypassed by creative users who already insert larger data through other means – for example, using Taproot witness data or fake outputs (as seen in the 2023 Ordinals/“inscriptions” craze that let people embed images and art on Bitcoin). These workarounds are actually worse for the network: since the data is hidden in spendable outputs or witness scripts, it can bloat the UTXO set (the list of unspent coins) and increase validation costs for all nodes. By contrast, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable and easily prunable. In the eyes of Core developers, it’s better to let people put data in OP_RETURN (where it doesn’t harm UTXO or decentralisation) than to have them continue abusing more harmful trick. Removing the cap “yields at least two tangible benefits: a cleaner UTXO set and more consistent default behaviour,” explained developer Greg Sanders. The change also aligns with Bitcoin’s values of neutrality, if a transaction is valid and pays the fee, who are nodes to censor it? Core maintainers like Gloria Zhao argue that trying to filter transactions at the node level is futile and against the principle of censorship-resistance.

On the other side, critics are alarmed. They counter that dropping these limits will open the floodgates to arbitrary data, fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s purpose. The blockchain could become a bloated “immutable database” of random content, potentially crowding out financial transactions with higher fees and diluting Bitcoin’s use as peer-to-peer money. What’s more, unbounded data storage invites spam, people could stuff blocks with endless memes, ads, or junk simply because they’re willing to pay. It’s a replay of the Blocksize War arguments, but instead of bigger blocks for payments, it’s bigger payloads for non-monetary data. The community is starkly divided: should Bitcoin evolve to support broader use cases (data, NFTs, digital artifacts), or should it resist becoming a free-for-all content repository and stick to financial utility? These positions are diametrically opposed, and the conflict has been heated – drawing comparisons to the acrimony of the 2017 blocksize debates.

Notably, longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr (author of an alternative client called Bitcoin Knots - https://x.com/LukeDashjr) has been one of the most vocal opponents besides Bitcoin Mechanic and Bitcoin University ( primal.net/kratter). He warns that the removal of what he bluntly calls “spam filters” is potentially harmful to the network and its users. Dashjr has publicly urged node operators to avoid upgrading to Core v30 or to switch to alternative software like Bitcoin Knots. In fact, many Bitcoiners have already acted on that advice. When the OP_RETURN plan was announced and fast-tracked earlier this year, there was a surge of users migrating their nodes from Core to Knots, by some estimates, over 15% of previously Core nodes switched to Bitcoin Knots in protest. The stage is set for a grass-roots pushback using Bitcoin’s own strength: decentralisation. True to the mantra of self-sovereignty, if you disagree with the default rules, you are free to run a node that reflects your values. I count myself among those taking that step.

Illicit Content on the Blockchain: The Serious Risks

Why am I, and others, so concerned about lifting the data limits? Because it’s not just “cute cat pictures” or art collections that could find their way onto Bitcoin’s ledger. The most dire possibility is the inclusion of illicit and abusive content in an immutable, globally replicated chain. This isn’t idle paranoia; it’s a genuine risk recognised by both sides of the debate. Even the advocates of OP_RETURN freedom acknowledge the “undesirable second-order effects” that could follow. Let’s spell it out: What if someone starts embedding child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or other illegal data in Bitcoin transactions? Once mined into a block, that content is there forever, every full node would unknowingly host it on their hard drive as part of the blockchain spreaded on tens of thousands nodes across the world. This scenario is a nightmare for obvious moral reasons, and it also poses a legal and reputational threat to anyone running a node or the Bitcoin network as a whole. Besides this, to spin up a new node will take longer and need higher technical hardware which leads to centralisation.

Unfortunately, the threat is not theoretical. It has already happened on a small scale. Researchers have found that forbidden content made its way onto Bitcoin as early as 2013, albeit in an obscure form. In 2018, a paper famously claimed that Bitcoin’s blockchain contained links to child pornography; at the time, critics dismissed it as sensationalism since only a few bytes of encoded data were involved and Core’s filters limited further abuse. But today we’re looking at a very different landscape. The data per block is increasing dramatically with the new policy. A concerned Bitcoiner known as “Bitcoin Mechanic” ( primal.net/p/nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sh8dmel) recently warned that removing the filter “will draw unforeseen consequences,” meaning content like child pornography can appear on the Bitcoin blockchain” once v30 goes live. His point is straightforward: if you give bad actors the ability to inject large payloads, someone will inevitably push the worst kind of content into the system. And perversely, there’s a twisted incentive for them to do so: “Getting other people to store it for you is vastly preferable to storing it yourself,” Mechanic notes, what better way for criminals to disseminate vile material than piggyback on tens of thousands of innocent Bitcoin nodes?

Core developers have responded that these fears may be overblown. They often cite examples of other blockchains (for instance, Monero or Ethereum) that don’t have such data limits yet haven’t become overrun with illegal content. They stress that Bitcoin’s permissionless nature means anything could be written to it, but that doesn’t mean an epidemic of criminal data is imminent. Perhaps, but I would counter that Bitcoin’s global prominence and immutable design make it a uniquely attractive target for someone trying to cause chaos or discredit the system. It only takes one high-profile incident of truly heinous content on Bitcoin to unleash a regulatory crackdown. Remember, Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance cuts both ways: it empowers individuals, but it also neutralises traditional controls, which is exactly why governments get antsy when crimes enter the mix.

The legal implications of this are untested and scary. If a Bitcoin block contains illegal pornography or violent propaganda, could authorities argue that every node operator is technically in possession of contraband data? Some in the community worry that, yes, this could give governments a “perfect excuse to outlaw Bitcoin or make running a node illegal”. Even if that outcome is unlikely in jurisdictions that understand how Bitcoin works, the mere perception that Bitcoin is hosting criminal content would be a PR disaster. It would hand ammunition to anti-crypto politicians and could make regulators slam the brakes on adoption. As a Bitcoiner who wants to see this technology thrive, I find that risk unacceptable. Bitcoin’s social contract might be robust against internal dissent, but it’s not immune to external legal attack. Preserving Bitcoin’s integrity means ensuring it doesn’t become synonymous with “dark web file storage” in the public eye.

Embracing Self-Sovereignty: Why I Run Bitcoin Knots

My response to this situation has been guided by one of Bitcoin’s core principles: self-sovereignty. In essence, self-sovereignty means taking full ownership of your participation in the network, holding your own keys, and running your own node with the rules you choose. In the book I authored on Bitcoin and self-sovereign principles, I emphasised that running a node is more than a technical task; it’s an expression of personal agency and values. Now, faced with Bitcoin Core’s direction that I deeply disagree with, I’m putting that ethos into practice.

For the past four months, I have been running Bitcoin Knots instead of the standard Bitcoin Core software. Bitcoin Knots is a well-established alternative client (maintained by Luke Dashjr) that, in many ways, is identical to Core except for a few important differences, notably, Knots retains stricter limits on OP_RETURN data and gives the user full control over relay filters. In fact, Knots by default still caps OP_RETURN at 40 bytes (the old limit from years ago) and allows only one OP_RETURN output per transaction. It’s basically “Bitcoin Core, but with the spam filter intact.” By running Knots, my node will not relay or mine the kind of oversized data-storing transactions that Core v30 endorses. More importantly, it signals my support for a vision of Bitcoin that prioritises financial transactions over arbitrary data. Knots users (myself included) see ourselves as defending Bitcoin’s integrity from a controversial experiment. We are effectively saying, “Not on my node!” when it comes to turning Bitcoin into an uncensored data dump.

I’m far from alone in this choice. As mentioned, a substantial minority of node operators are switching to Knots or sticking with older Core versions. This grass roots movement is reminiscent of how users can enforce their preferences in Bitcoin – much like the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) concept, node runners can ‘vote’ by choosing which software to run. If enough of us reject Core v30, it could create economic incentives for miners to think twice about stuffing blocks with junk that a portion of the network won’t relay or perhaps even accept. (To be clear, Knots today does accept blocks created under Core’s new rules – it’s not a hard fork. The divergence is in relay policy and default behaviour, not consensus rules. This is a fight being waged via network policy, not chain splits… at least not yet.)

Self-sovereignty also means accepting personal responsibility for what I support in the network. That extends beyond just the software I run. It also influences my choices as a customer and community member. In light of the OP_RETURN controversy, I have decided on a few concrete actions, which I’ll outline here:

Running a “clean” node: I’ve migrated all my nodes to Bitcoin Knots and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This ensures that I am not propagating or validating illicit data beyond the absolute minimum required by consensus. If a bloated transaction or block crosses my node, Knots’ policies will treat it with the maximum strictness allowed (dropping it from mempool if possible, and certainly not relaying such transactions to peers). This is my way of keeping my corner of the Bitcoin network as clean of illicit content as possible. It’s a personal stand: I do not want even the chance of illegal material passing through my machine.

Boycotting services that endorse Core v30: I am discontinuing my use of any exchanges, custodians, or Bitcoin companies that I know are upgrading to or support the Core v30 software without protest. For example, if a company like River Financial or a tech firm like Blockstream chooses to run Core v30 nodes (thus knowingly accepting the relay of unlimited content, illicit or otherwise), then I will not be doing business with them. Those organizations might trust their lawyers or regulators to sort out the fallout of hosting illicit data on their nodes – that’s their prerogative. But I cannot in good conscience support institutions that, in my view, are inviting a flood of abusive content onto the Bitcoin blockchain and risking its reputation. My money and support will go to those who keep Bitcoin robust and respectable.

Advocating for a “clean” Bitcoin (even if it means a fork): Looking ahead, I suspect that other major players in the Bitcoin ecosystem share my concern, even if they aren’t voicing it loudly yet. Think of large public companies holding Bitcoin in their treasuries, or firms planning Bitcoin ETFs. The last thing these institutions want is to be entangled with a network that could inadvertently facilitate the spread of illegal content. It’s not hard to imagine some of them drawing a line: if Bitcoin’s protocol won’t address this problem, they might resort to extraordinary measures. This could include supporting a hard fork to create a “clean” version of Bitcoin that excises or filters out illicit material. BlackRock, for instance, is on the cusp of launching a spot Bitcoin ETF. In BlackRock’s own filings, they note that in the event of a fork, they have full discretion to decide which chain to consider the “real” Bitcoin for their fund.That means if a new fork gained momentum – say, a Bitcoin variant with strict protocol rules against arbitrary data – BlackRock could opt to adopt it for their ETF (or conversely, to abandon a chain that becomes too toxic). While this scenario sounds extreme, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility. The very fact that we’re discussing child pornography on the blockchain may prompt powerful stakeholders to assert control to protect their investments. I’m not actively calling for an immediate fork, that’s a complex, last-resort path, but I do believe that if Bitcoin Core’s path leads to legal quagmires, the market will find a way to course-correct, even if it means a chain split. My hope is that by raising awareness now, we can avert such drastic outcomes. But make no mistake: Bitcoin’s future must not include being a playground for criminal content, and I’ll support any serious effort to ensure that.

Bitcoin’s Future: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

The controversy over OP_RETURN and illicit content forces an uncomfortable but necessary conversation about the future we want for Bitcoin. On one side is the ideal of total neutrality, Bitcoin as an unfilterable, permissionless ledger where “code is law” and even questionable data is just data. On the other side is the recognition that Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum: if we undermine its primary use case as money or subject its participants to legal peril, we could kill the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. Finding the right balance is tricky. We cherish Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance precisely because it protects financial freedom and speech. Yet, does rejecting any filtering, even of grotesquely abusive content, truly serve the cause of freedom? Or does it hand enemies of Bitcoin the very weapon they need to attack it? These are challenging questions, and reasonable people in the community answer them differently.

For me, the answer comes back to self-sovereignty and consent. I did not sign up to store illicit images or arbitrary gigabytes of data on my node, that’s not the social contract under which I joined Bitcoin. My consent as a node operator matters. True decentralisation means we, the users get to collectively decide what the blockchain is for, by either running or not running certain code. It’s heartening to see that even Core developers acknowledge this in principle: “If Bitcoin Core’s contributors ever abandon [Bitcoin’s core] values… the community will switch to another node implementation that does it better,” wrote Gloria Zhao amidst the debate. I’d argue that forcing nodes to relay and store unlimited junk (with potentially ghastly contents) is a departure from the values that brought many of us to Bitcoin. And indeed, we’re seeing the community vote with its feet, or rather with its node software.

Moving forward, I believe Bitcoin will be stress-tested on this front. The coming months and years will reveal whether the network can accommodate new use-cases (like data inscriptions) without losing its soul – or whether a correction is needed. Perhaps Bitcoin Core’s gambit will pay off: maybe the “spam” will remain manageable, new pruning techniques will mitigate the bloat, and no criminal will attempt to abuse the blockchain’s openness. In that best case, my concerns would be eased (and I’d gladly acknowledge an overabundance of caution on my part). But if the worst case materialises, if obscene data starts showing up in blocks, if typical users find the chain clogged with non-financial data, if governments use this as a cudgel – then the community must be ready to respond decisively. Hard forks have happened before in Bitcoin’s history when values were at stake (recall the split that created Bitcoin Cash in 2017 over a blocksize dispute). A fork to preserve Bitcoin’s legal cleanliness and focused mission might become not just acceptable but essential to “future-proof” the network. And unlike a protocol tweak coming from a small group, a community or institution-driven fork would reflect a broad consensus that Bitcoin as it was is worth defending. BlackRock and other institutional players entering the space could ironically become allies in keeping Bitcoin safe for mainstream use – they will not tolerate holding an asset tainted by crime, so they have every incentive to back a solution, even if it’s a controversial one.

Conclusion: Upholding Bitcoin’s Integrity

In closing, my stance can be distilled to this: Bitcoin’s strength lies in our ability to choose and enforce the rules that best uphold the network’s purpose and integrity. As a self-sovereign participant, I choose to reject the notion that Bitcoin must accept everything in the name of “freedom,” especially when that freedom can be cynically exploited to Bitcoin’s detriment. Instead, I align with the principle that some judicious constraints, whether at the software policy level or the community social level, are necessary to keep Bitcoin healthy, useful, and legally accessible to all. This is a nuanced position, and it may be polarising. Some will accuse me of advocating “censorship” or betraying Bitcoin’s neutrality. I respect the purist viewpoint, but I humbly disagree in this case. Refusing to store illegal content is not tyranny; it’s common sense. We can defend freedom of transaction without turning Bitcoin into a sanctuary for the worst humanity has to offer.

In my book on self-sovereignty, I wrote that with great power comes great responsibility, running a Bitcoin node is indeed powerful, and it’s up to each of us to act responsibly with that power. Today, responsibility calls for vigilance about what changes we adopt. I am communicating these thoughts as part of my ongoing effort to ensure Bitcoin remains future-proof. “Future-proofing” Bitcoin doesn’t just mean scaling it or boosting hash rate; it also means safeguarding its social acceptance and moral foundation. By voicing dissent, by switching implementations, by potentially forking if needed, we the users are stress-testing Bitcoin’s resilience in exactly the way it was designed to be: from the bottom up.

Bitcoin’s story has always been about empowerment of the individual. This current saga, the Node Wars over OP_RETURN and content, is yet another chapter in that story. I, for one, am determined to see Bitcoin thrive as a tool of financial liberation, unsullied by association with illicit content. It may ruffle feathers now, but principled stances often do. As the saying goes, “Bitcoin is for enemies”, but that doesn’t mean we have to let enemies turn it against us. My hope is that through self-sovereign action and frank dialogue, we will navigate this challenge and emerge with a Bitcoin network that is both freer and more secure, a network that can confidently serve the world for decades to come, without any shadow of disgrace on its ledger.

The choice is in front of us. By October 2025, Bitcoin Core v30 will normalise the relaying of arbitrary, potentially illicit content across the network. If we do nothing, if we keep quiet, then we silently consent to this shift. As Bitcoiners, we must ask ourselves: do we want our blockchain remembered as the foundation of sound money, or as a storage ground for abuse?

I’ve made my decision, I run Bitcoin Knots, I reject services that endorse Core v30, and I will defend a “clean” Bitcoin that remains worthy of global trust. The question is: what kind of Bitcoin are you willing to stand behind?

Core v30 update will come this Friday ...

2025-10-06T18:03:40Z

In reply to naddr1qp…sjlk
_________________________

Core v30 update will come this Friday https://youtu.be/7lO8ccto7To

My author book for Q&A. Happy All Time High to everyone! ...

2025-10-05T09:19:39Z

My author book for Q&A. Happy All Time High to everyone!

I didn’t need medication, I needed sovereignty. For years I ...

2025-09-30T05:12:52Z

I didn’t need medication, I needed sovereignty.

For years I felt drained, distracted, and disconnected. I thought I was the problem. Turns out, it was the fiat system shaping my biology, attention, and habits. Bitcoin wasn’t just a financial shift, it rewired my incentives and my health. When you lower time preference, everything changes:

• Real food over fiat calories

• Sunlight over screens

• Strength over stress

• Creation over consumption

You’re not broken. The system is. And the fix isn’t another pill, it’s reclaiming your time, health, and money.

This article is based on my upcoming book Brick by Brick: Building a Sovereign Life on Bitcoin (launching Oct 31, 2025). Pre-orders are open ->https://TwentyOne.Life/brick-by-brick

#Bitcoin #Sovereignty #LowTimePreference #HealthRevolution #ProofOfWork #FiatTrap #TimeFreedom #SoundMoney #BrickByBrick

quoting
naddr1qv…ft0t

I once believed I was broken. Tired, distracted, restless. But the truth was harsher: I wasn’t broken, the system was.

Fiat incentives had trained me to live at a frantic pace, to consume instead of create, to chase dopamine over discipline. My calendar was full, but my life felt empty. Like many, I was medicating with convenience, processed food, endless scrolling, late nights under fluorescent light, thinking this was “normal.”

Then came the orange pill.

Bitcoin didn’t just change my portfolio. It changed my biology, my psychology, my very sense of time. Where fiat demanded instant gratification, Bitcoin rewarded patience. Where fiat created noise, Bitcoin restored signal. It was more than code; it was medicine.

Healing distorted incentives

Fiat medicine thrives on dependency. As I wrote in Brick by Brick:

“There’s no profit in a healthy person. And none in a dead one. The sweet spot is chronic dependency.”

We see it everywhere. Antidepressants handed out like candy. Supermarket aisles stacked with subsidized seed oils and sugar. Healthcare reduced to sickcare subscriptions.

In this environment, health isn’t the goal, compliance is. You are nudged, medicated, distracted, and kept just well enough to remain a customer.

Bitcoin flips that script. By lowering time preference, it rewards choices that compound health: eating real food, lifting heavy things, walking barefoot in the morning sun. The same mindset shift that helps you save in sats also helps you sleep deeper, think clearer, and eat with intention.

From Fiat Fog to Clarity

I remember deleting my social media apps, grounding barefoot at sunrise, and feeling the fog begin to lift. For the first time in years, I wasn’t drowning in notifications and stress. I was breathing again.

Bitcoin had rewired my incentives. It nudged me toward saving instead of speculating, nourishing instead of numbing, building instead of burning out.

As I put it in the book:

“Bitcoin restores signal. Fiat creates noise.”

That wasn’t just about economics. It was about my brain chemistry, my daily habits, and my mental health.

Bitcoin as Renaissance

This is why I call Bitcoin a renaissance, not just a revolution. It is more than a monetary upgrade, it’s a cultural reset.

Fiat culture tells us to chase shortcuts, hacks, and hype. Bitcoin culture invites us back to effort, patience, and proof-of-work.

I stopped hustling for fleeting highs and started cooking steak with my family. I swapped fast dopamine for slow strength. I began training my body with the same mindset I brought to my savings: small, consistent deposits that grow stronger over time.

You can’t build sovereignty on fiat food, fiat medicine, or fiat time. And you can’t fix your money without fixing your health.

Bitcoin heals both.

Let’s build your first brick

If you feel exhausted, inflamed, or distracted, you’re not broken. The system is. And the answer isn’t another pill. It’s sovereignty.

Start with money you can trust. Add food that nourishes instead of addicts. Reclaim attention from the feeds that steal it. Give yourself back to time itself.

That is the first brick. Once you lay it, the rest of the wall follows.

A Note on the Book

This article is drawn from my upcoming book, Brick by Brick: Building a Sovereign Life on Bitcoin. It weaves together money, health, data, attention, and energy into what I call the Sovereign Stack, a blueprint for opting out of fiat and reclaiming resilience.

The official release date is October 31, 2025. Pre-orders are open now: https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick

Samson Mow point of view https://youtu.be/VtDQfAaDwZs ...

2025-09-28T07:39:21Z

Samson Mow point of view https://youtu.be/VtDQfAaDwZs

quoting
naddr1qp…ceuk

Introduction: A New Controversy in Bitcoin’s Evolution

If you hold Bitcoin, if you call yourself a Bitcoiner, are you prepared to accept that the Bitcoin blockchain could be used to store illicit, even illegal content? This isn’t a hypothetical. Unless we act, by October 2025 the default Bitcoin Core software will make this the new reality. And if you don’t react now, your silence means acceptance.

Bitcoin is facing a pivotal controversy that cuts to the heart of its identity. The debate centres on a proposed change in Bitcoin’s core software that would remove longstanding limits on storing arbitrary data in transactions. On the surface, this change sounds technical – raising the OP_RETURN data limit from 80 bytes to nearly 4 megabytes, but its implications are profoundly human. Supporters hail it as an overdue embrace of censorship-resistance, while critics warn it could turn the blockchain into a host for illegal or abusive content. As a Bitcoiner who champions self-sovereignty and Bitcoin’s reputation as sound money, I find myself firmly in the latter camp. This article, written from my personal perspective and drawing on my book’s focus (Brick by Brick - <https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick>) on self-sovereignty, explores why I’m taking a stand by running alternative software and even boycotting certain services, all in the name of a “clean” future for Bitcoin.

Background: Bitcoin Core v30 and the OP_RETURN Debate

At issue is a change slated for the upcoming Bitcoin Core version 30 (expected October 2025). Bitcoin Core is the dominant software for running nodes (over 75% of nodes run so its defaults largely define network behaviour. The core developers have decided to unshackle the OP_RETURN field, which historically allowed embedding only a tiny piece of data (≤83 bytes) in a transaction. This limit acted as a de facto “spam filter”, discouraging users from turning Bitcoin’s ledger into a generic data storage system.

Under Core v30, that filter is being removed entirely: users will be able to attach much larger data payloads, up to the size of a full block (~4MB), in a single transaction output. Moreover, Bitcoin Core will eliminate the configuration options (data carrier settings) that previously let node operators refuse relaying big OP_RETURN transactions. In short, the new default policy is “anything goes” for data, and individual node runners won’t easily opt out. While v30 still offers command-line tweaks to impose custom limits, those are now deprecated warnings likely to be removed later.

Why make this change? Proponents argue it’s a pragmatic response to reality. The 80-byte cap, they say, has been routinely bypassed by creative users who already insert larger data through other means – for example, using Taproot witness data or fake outputs (as seen in the 2023 Ordinals/“inscriptions” craze that let people embed images and art on Bitcoin). These workarounds are actually worse for the network: since the data is hidden in spendable outputs or witness scripts, it can bloat the UTXO set (the list of unspent coins) and increase validation costs for all nodes. By contrast, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable and easily prunable. In the eyes of Core developers, it’s better to let people put data in OP_RETURN (where it doesn’t harm UTXO or decentralisation) than to have them continue abusing more harmful trick. Removing the cap “yields at least two tangible benefits: a cleaner UTXO set and more consistent default behaviour,” explained developer Greg Sanders. The change also aligns with Bitcoin’s values of neutrality, if a transaction is valid and pays the fee, who are nodes to censor it? Core maintainers like Gloria Zhao argue that trying to filter transactions at the node level is futile and against the principle of censorship-resistance.

On the other side, critics are alarmed. They counter that dropping these limits will open the floodgates to arbitrary data, fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s purpose. The blockchain could become a bloated “immutable database” of random content, potentially crowding out financial transactions with higher fees and diluting Bitcoin’s use as peer-to-peer money. What’s more, unbounded data storage invites spam, people could stuff blocks with endless memes, ads, or junk simply because they’re willing to pay. It’s a replay of the Blocksize War arguments, but instead of bigger blocks for payments, it’s bigger payloads for non-monetary data. The community is starkly divided: should Bitcoin evolve to support broader use cases (data, NFTs, digital artifacts), or should it resist becoming a free-for-all content repository and stick to financial utility? These positions are diametrically opposed, and the conflict has been heated – drawing comparisons to the acrimony of the 2017 blocksize debates.

Notably, longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr (author of an alternative client called Bitcoin Knots - https://x.com/LukeDashjr) has been one of the most vocal opponents besides Bitcoin Mechanic and Bitcoin University ( primal.net/kratter). He warns that the removal of what he bluntly calls “spam filters” is potentially harmful to the network and its users. Dashjr has publicly urged node operators to avoid upgrading to Core v30 or to switch to alternative software like Bitcoin Knots. In fact, many Bitcoiners have already acted on that advice. When the OP_RETURN plan was announced and fast-tracked earlier this year, there was a surge of users migrating their nodes from Core to Knots, by some estimates, over 15% of previously Core nodes switched to Bitcoin Knots in protest. The stage is set for a grass-roots pushback using Bitcoin’s own strength: decentralisation. True to the mantra of self-sovereignty, if you disagree with the default rules, you are free to run a node that reflects your values. I count myself among those taking that step.

Illicit Content on the Blockchain: The Serious Risks

Why am I, and others, so concerned about lifting the data limits? Because it’s not just “cute cat pictures” or art collections that could find their way onto Bitcoin’s ledger. The most dire possibility is the inclusion of illicit and abusive content in an immutable, globally replicated chain. This isn’t idle paranoia; it’s a genuine risk recognised by both sides of the debate. Even the advocates of OP_RETURN freedom acknowledge the “undesirable second-order effects” that could follow. Let’s spell it out: What if someone starts embedding child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or other illegal data in Bitcoin transactions? Once mined into a block, that content is there forever, every full node would unknowingly host it on their hard drive as part of the blockchain spreaded on tens of thousands nodes across the world. This scenario is a nightmare for obvious moral reasons, and it also poses a legal and reputational threat to anyone running a node or the Bitcoin network as a whole. Besides this, to spin up a new node will take longer and need higher technical hardware which leads to centralisation.

Unfortunately, the threat is not theoretical. It has already happened on a small scale. Researchers have found that forbidden content made its way onto Bitcoin as early as 2013, albeit in an obscure form. In 2018, a paper famously claimed that Bitcoin’s blockchain contained links to child pornography; at the time, critics dismissed it as sensationalism since only a few bytes of encoded data were involved and Core’s filters limited further abuse. But today we’re looking at a very different landscape. The data per block is increasing dramatically with the new policy. A concerned Bitcoiner known as “Bitcoin Mechanic” ( primal.net/p/nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sh8dmel) recently warned that removing the filter “will draw unforeseen consequences,” meaning content like child pornography can appear on the Bitcoin blockchain” once v30 goes live. His point is straightforward: if you give bad actors the ability to inject large payloads, someone will inevitably push the worst kind of content into the system. And perversely, there’s a twisted incentive for them to do so: “Getting other people to store it for you is vastly preferable to storing it yourself,” Mechanic notes, what better way for criminals to disseminate vile material than piggyback on tens of thousands of innocent Bitcoin nodes?

Core developers have responded that these fears may be overblown. They often cite examples of other blockchains (for instance, Monero or Ethereum) that don’t have such data limits yet haven’t become overrun with illegal content. They stress that Bitcoin’s permissionless nature means anything could be written to it, but that doesn’t mean an epidemic of criminal data is imminent. Perhaps, but I would counter that Bitcoin’s global prominence and immutable design make it a uniquely attractive target for someone trying to cause chaos or discredit the system. It only takes one high-profile incident of truly heinous content on Bitcoin to unleash a regulatory crackdown. Remember, Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance cuts both ways: it empowers individuals, but it also neutralises traditional controls, which is exactly why governments get antsy when crimes enter the mix.

The legal implications of this are untested and scary. If a Bitcoin block contains illegal pornography or violent propaganda, could authorities argue that every node operator is technically in possession of contraband data? Some in the community worry that, yes, this could give governments a “perfect excuse to outlaw Bitcoin or make running a node illegal”. Even if that outcome is unlikely in jurisdictions that understand how Bitcoin works, the mere perception that Bitcoin is hosting criminal content would be a PR disaster. It would hand ammunition to anti-crypto politicians and could make regulators slam the brakes on adoption. As a Bitcoiner who wants to see this technology thrive, I find that risk unacceptable. Bitcoin’s social contract might be robust against internal dissent, but it’s not immune to external legal attack. Preserving Bitcoin’s integrity means ensuring it doesn’t become synonymous with “dark web file storage” in the public eye.

Embracing Self-Sovereignty: Why I Run Bitcoin Knots

My response to this situation has been guided by one of Bitcoin’s core principles: self-sovereignty. In essence, self-sovereignty means taking full ownership of your participation in the network, holding your own keys, and running your own node with the rules you choose. In the book I authored on Bitcoin and self-sovereign principles, I emphasised that running a node is more than a technical task; it’s an expression of personal agency and values. Now, faced with Bitcoin Core’s direction that I deeply disagree with, I’m putting that ethos into practice.

For the past four months, I have been running Bitcoin Knots instead of the standard Bitcoin Core software. Bitcoin Knots is a well-established alternative client (maintained by Luke Dashjr) that, in many ways, is identical to Core except for a few important differences, notably, Knots retains stricter limits on OP_RETURN data and gives the user full control over relay filters. In fact, Knots by default still caps OP_RETURN at 40 bytes (the old limit from years ago) and allows only one OP_RETURN output per transaction. It’s basically “Bitcoin Core, but with the spam filter intact.” By running Knots, my node will not relay or mine the kind of oversized data-storing transactions that Core v30 endorses. More importantly, it signals my support for a vision of Bitcoin that prioritises financial transactions over arbitrary data. Knots users (myself included) see ourselves as defending Bitcoin’s integrity from a controversial experiment. We are effectively saying, “Not on my node!” when it comes to turning Bitcoin into an uncensored data dump.

I’m far from alone in this choice. As mentioned, a substantial minority of node operators are switching to Knots or sticking with older Core versions. This grass roots movement is reminiscent of how users can enforce their preferences in Bitcoin – much like the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) concept, node runners can ‘vote’ by choosing which software to run. If enough of us reject Core v30, it could create economic incentives for miners to think twice about stuffing blocks with junk that a portion of the network won’t relay or perhaps even accept. (To be clear, Knots today does accept blocks created under Core’s new rules – it’s not a hard fork. The divergence is in relay policy and default behaviour, not consensus rules. This is a fight being waged via network policy, not chain splits… at least not yet.)

Self-sovereignty also means accepting personal responsibility for what I support in the network. That extends beyond just the software I run. It also influences my choices as a customer and community member. In light of the OP_RETURN controversy, I have decided on a few concrete actions, which I’ll outline here:

Running a “clean” node: I’ve migrated all my nodes to Bitcoin Knots and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This ensures that I am not propagating or validating illicit data beyond the absolute minimum required by consensus. If a bloated transaction or block crosses my node, Knots’ policies will treat it with the maximum strictness allowed (dropping it from mempool if possible, and certainly not relaying such transactions to peers). This is my way of keeping my corner of the Bitcoin network as clean of illicit content as possible. It’s a personal stand: I do not want even the chance of illegal material passing through my machine.

Boycotting services that endorse Core v30: I am discontinuing my use of any exchanges, custodians, or Bitcoin companies that I know are upgrading to or support the Core v30 software without protest. For example, if a company like River Financial or a tech firm like Blockstream chooses to run Core v30 nodes (thus knowingly accepting the relay of unlimited content, illicit or otherwise), then I will not be doing business with them. Those organizations might trust their lawyers or regulators to sort out the fallout of hosting illicit data on their nodes – that’s their prerogative. But I cannot in good conscience support institutions that, in my view, are inviting a flood of abusive content onto the Bitcoin blockchain and risking its reputation. My money and support will go to those who keep Bitcoin robust and respectable.

Advocating for a “clean” Bitcoin (even if it means a fork): Looking ahead, I suspect that other major players in the Bitcoin ecosystem share my concern, even if they aren’t voicing it loudly yet. Think of large public companies holding Bitcoin in their treasuries, or firms planning Bitcoin ETFs. The last thing these institutions want is to be entangled with a network that could inadvertently facilitate the spread of illegal content. It’s not hard to imagine some of them drawing a line: if Bitcoin’s protocol won’t address this problem, they might resort to extraordinary measures. This could include supporting a hard fork to create a “clean” version of Bitcoin that excises or filters out illicit material. BlackRock, for instance, is on the cusp of launching a spot Bitcoin ETF. In BlackRock’s own filings, they note that in the event of a fork, they have full discretion to decide which chain to consider the “real” Bitcoin for their fund.That means if a new fork gained momentum – say, a Bitcoin variant with strict protocol rules against arbitrary data – BlackRock could opt to adopt it for their ETF (or conversely, to abandon a chain that becomes too toxic). While this scenario sounds extreme, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility. The very fact that we’re discussing child pornography on the blockchain may prompt powerful stakeholders to assert control to protect their investments. I’m not actively calling for an immediate fork, that’s a complex, last-resort path, but I do believe that if Bitcoin Core’s path leads to legal quagmires, the market will find a way to course-correct, even if it means a chain split. My hope is that by raising awareness now, we can avert such drastic outcomes. But make no mistake: Bitcoin’s future must not include being a playground for criminal content, and I’ll support any serious effort to ensure that.

Bitcoin’s Future: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

The controversy over OP_RETURN and illicit content forces an uncomfortable but necessary conversation about the future we want for Bitcoin. On one side is the ideal of total neutrality, Bitcoin as an unfilterable, permissionless ledger where “code is law” and even questionable data is just data. On the other side is the recognition that Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum: if we undermine its primary use case as money or subject its participants to legal peril, we could kill the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. Finding the right balance is tricky. We cherish Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance precisely because it protects financial freedom and speech. Yet, does rejecting any filtering, even of grotesquely abusive content, truly serve the cause of freedom? Or does it hand enemies of Bitcoin the very weapon they need to attack it? These are challenging questions, and reasonable people in the community answer them differently.

For me, the answer comes back to self-sovereignty and consent. I did not sign up to store illicit images or arbitrary gigabytes of data on my node, that’s not the social contract under which I joined Bitcoin. My consent as a node operator matters. True decentralisation means we, the users get to collectively decide what the blockchain is for, by either running or not running certain code. It’s heartening to see that even Core developers acknowledge this in principle: “If Bitcoin Core’s contributors ever abandon [Bitcoin’s core] values… the community will switch to another node implementation that does it better,” wrote Gloria Zhao amidst the debate. I’d argue that forcing nodes to relay and store unlimited junk (with potentially ghastly contents) is a departure from the values that brought many of us to Bitcoin. And indeed, we’re seeing the community vote with its feet, or rather with its node software.

Moving forward, I believe Bitcoin will be stress-tested on this front. The coming months and years will reveal whether the network can accommodate new use-cases (like data inscriptions) without losing its soul – or whether a correction is needed. Perhaps Bitcoin Core’s gambit will pay off: maybe the “spam” will remain manageable, new pruning techniques will mitigate the bloat, and no criminal will attempt to abuse the blockchain’s openness. In that best case, my concerns would be eased (and I’d gladly acknowledge an overabundance of caution on my part). But if the worst case materialises, if obscene data starts showing up in blocks, if typical users find the chain clogged with non-financial data, if governments use this as a cudgel – then the community must be ready to respond decisively. Hard forks have happened before in Bitcoin’s history when values were at stake (recall the split that created Bitcoin Cash in 2017 over a blocksize dispute). A fork to preserve Bitcoin’s legal cleanliness and focused mission might become not just acceptable but essential to “future-proof” the network. And unlike a protocol tweak coming from a small group, a community or institution-driven fork would reflect a broad consensus that Bitcoin as it was is worth defending. BlackRock and other institutional players entering the space could ironically become allies in keeping Bitcoin safe for mainstream use – they will not tolerate holding an asset tainted by crime, so they have every incentive to back a solution, even if it’s a controversial one.

Conclusion: Upholding Bitcoin’s Integrity

In closing, my stance can be distilled to this: Bitcoin’s strength lies in our ability to choose and enforce the rules that best uphold the network’s purpose and integrity. As a self-sovereign participant, I choose to reject the notion that Bitcoin must accept everything in the name of “freedom,” especially when that freedom can be cynically exploited to Bitcoin’s detriment. Instead, I align with the principle that some judicious constraints, whether at the software policy level or the community social level, are necessary to keep Bitcoin healthy, useful, and legally accessible to all. This is a nuanced position, and it may be polarising. Some will accuse me of advocating “censorship” or betraying Bitcoin’s neutrality. I respect the purist viewpoint, but I humbly disagree in this case. Refusing to store illegal content is not tyranny; it’s common sense. We can defend freedom of transaction without turning Bitcoin into a sanctuary for the worst humanity has to offer.

In my book on self-sovereignty, I wrote that with great power comes great responsibility, running a Bitcoin node is indeed powerful, and it’s up to each of us to act responsibly with that power. Today, responsibility calls for vigilance about what changes we adopt. I am communicating these thoughts as part of my ongoing effort to ensure Bitcoin remains future-proof. “Future-proofing” Bitcoin doesn’t just mean scaling it or boosting hash rate; it also means safeguarding its social acceptance and moral foundation. By voicing dissent, by switching implementations, by potentially forking if needed, we the users are stress-testing Bitcoin’s resilience in exactly the way it was designed to be: from the bottom up.

Bitcoin’s story has always been about empowerment of the individual. This current saga, the Node Wars over OP_RETURN and content, is yet another chapter in that story. I, for one, am determined to see Bitcoin thrive as a tool of financial liberation, unsullied by association with illicit content. It may ruffle feathers now, but principled stances often do. As the saying goes, “Bitcoin is for enemies”, but that doesn’t mean we have to let enemies turn it against us. My hope is that through self-sovereign action and frank dialogue, we will navigate this challenge and emerge with a Bitcoin network that is both freer and more secure, a network that can confidently serve the world for decades to come, without any shadow of disgrace on its ledger.

The choice is in front of us. By October 2025, Bitcoin Core v30 will normalise the relaying of arbitrary, potentially illicit content across the network. If we do nothing, if we keep quiet, then we silently consent to this shift. As Bitcoiners, we must ask ourselves: do we want our blockchain remembered as the foundation of sound money, or as a storage ground for abuse?

I’ve made my decision, I run Bitcoin Knots, I reject services that endorse Core v30, and I will defend a “clean” Bitcoin that remains worthy of global trust. The question is: what kind of Bitcoin are you willing to stand behind?

Samson Mow point of view https://youtu.be/VtDQfAaDwZs

2025-09-28T07:39:04Z

In reply to naddr1qp…sjlk
_________________________

Samson Mow point of view https://youtu.be/VtDQfAaDwZs

another good video showing off the CBDCs Feature: ...

2025-09-28T05:47:31Z

another good video showing off the CBDCs Feature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT3fIAcfDAc

quoting
naddr1qv…9rap

The European Central Bank is pushing ahead with the digital euro. Politicians and officials describe it as efficient, modern, and inclusive. But behind the glossy language lies a project that could reshape not just money, but freedom itself. In my book Brick by Brick: Building a Sovereign Life on Bitcoin I explored what CBDCs mean for democracy, autonomy, and human dignity. Here is why the digital euro should concern every European citizen.

Central Bank Digital Currencies are promoted as the inevitable next step in the evolution of money. In the European Union, the digital euro is marketed as citizen-friendly, efficient, and inclusive. Yet behind this polished language lies a project of control rather than progress.

In Brick by Brick I wrote that CBDCs are money with strings, while Bitcoin is money with freedom. This contrast captures the core of the issue. A CBDC is not simply digital cash. It is programmable, meaning that conditions can be attached to how, when, and where money is spent. In the book I described it as a digital cage dressed up as convenience. Cash is freedom. Programmable money is prison with a user interface.

We have already seen glimpses of what financial deplatforming looks like. In 2022, during the Canadian trucker protests, bank accounts were frozen, donations seized, and ordinary citizens suddenly excluded from their financial lives. And this happened without the infrastructure of a CBDC. Imagine what it means when the central bank itself has direct control over every transaction, with the ability to switch off dissent not with riot police, but with a keystroke in your wallet.

The leadership of this project matters. The European Central Bank is run by officials who are not elected by the public. Its president, Christine Lagarde, was convicted in 2016 for negligence over a 400 million euro payout while serving as France’s finance minister. This is the person now shaping a currency that could govern the everyday transactions of hundreds of millions of Europeans. Should unelected technocrats, led by someone with such a record, be entrusted with such sweeping power?

Professor Richard Werner, one of the most insightful critics of central banking, has shown that central banks were never designed as neutral guardians of stability. Watch the video below, it the best invest for your time, it is simple eye-opening.

<<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTKHskg5Tg>>

Many were created to finance wars without asking citizens to pay for them upfront. They are instruments of state power. Handing them the tools of total financial surveillance should concern anyone who values democracy and human dignity.

There is another layer of disruption that is rarely discussed. Under many designs, CBDCs allow citizens to hold accounts directly with the central bank. This bypasses commercial banks and raises the possibility that their traditional role as deposit takers could become redundant. Banking consultancies like McKinsey openly warn that a fully account-based CBDC could displace a significant share of deposits. Academics note that such a model forces the central bank into direct competition with commercial banks. In short, the banking system as we know it could shrink into a thin service layer while the central bank becomes everyone’s bank. Whether the banking industry fully recognises this existential risk is still unclear.

The European Central Bank outlines several features of the digital euro. On the surface, they sound beneficial. But for citizens, each feature carries implications that deserve scrutiny:

Digital cash backed by the ECB: balances become direct claims on the central bank, not on private banks. This centralises all trust in a single authority.

Universally accepted: works in all shops and online. Convenient, but also makes opting out difficult.

Free of charge for basic use: no fees at first glance, but hidden costs may emerge through other mechanisms like negative interest.

Offline capability: useful for resilience, but requires hardware trust and may introduce limits on usage.

Privacy within limits: promises of cash-like anonymity can be revoked for compliance, leaving citizens only conditionally private.

Guaranteed parity with the euro: stability in name, but value can be manipulated through features like expiration or conditional spending.

Not a crypto-asset: entirely centralised, without the neutrality of decentralized systems like Bitcoin.

Dual structure with intermediaries: banks may survive as front ends, but lose deposits and become service providers.

Individual holding limits: caps on wallet balances allow authorities to restrict how much of your wealth can sit in a CBDC.

Programmable features: the most powerful lever, enabling restrictions on where, when, and how money is used.

Taken together, these features could fundamentally reshape daily life. You may no longer need a commercial bank for everyday transactions, but you also may no longer be free to use money without oversight. Your spending, savings, and even your choices could be managed through central infrastructure. Commercial banks will fight to remain relevant, but in a system that sees them as optional, their survival is not guaranteed.

https://r2a.primal.net/uploads2/c/1d/d3/c1dd31942465fae4fe9367b058ece1f3aa5f346f88390d8a33e6cc6f380ff260.mov>

A possible future one CBDCs are taking over - Not just fiction take a look to China's social scoring.

The deeper question remains. Should we trade autonomy for convenience? Should we allow unelected technocrats, led by Christine Lagarde, to design programmable money with built-in surveillance? Should institutions created to fund wars without citizen consent now be upgraded into tools of total financial control?

A financial system where the central bank is your bank is not progress. It is control. Bitcoin, by contrast, is voluntary, neutral, and permissionless. It is money without strings. That difference is not technical. It is civilizational.

CBDCs are not just about modernization. They are about control. We stand at a turning point where money can either remain a tool of human freedom or become a mechanism of surveillance. In Brick by Brick I go deeper into these questions, connecting money, health, and sovereignty.

👉 Read more: twentyone.life/brick-by-brick

This debate is not theoretical. It affects how we will live, spend, and save in the years ahead. I would be happy to discuss, what is your take on the digital euro and CBDCs?

Other Ressources:

European Central Bank - Digital Euro: Features <<https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/features/html/index.en.html>>

McKinsey - Central bank digital currencies: An active role for commercial banks <<https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/central-bank-digital-currencies-an-active-role-for-commercial-banks>>

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia - Central Bank Digital Currency: Central Banking for All? <<https://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-finance/payment-systems/central-bank-digital-currency-central-banking-for-all>>

Eurofi - Digital Euro: Features and Challenges (December 2024 report) <<https://www.eurofi.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/iv.3-digital-euro-features-and-challenges.pdf>>

Wikipedia – Digital Euro (overview and holding limit debates) <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_euro>>

Princes of the Yen (Wikipedia page) - <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_of_the_Yen>>

Lagarde convicted of negligence (The Guardian) - she was found guilty but avoided sentencehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial

CBDCs Project Tracker - <<https://cbdctracker.org/>>

Nostr event nevent1qqstcwwfc95vyt7mtnf6y062w898tr7ad34fn0kne2dwdszu5hcn8cqzyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxuvncyc

2025-09-28T03:12:59Z

🎨 Carlo (Isolabellart): art & freedom reclaimed through Bitcoin.
(Referenced in Brick by Brick)

Bitcoin restores beauty and truth to culture, not just money.

#BrickByBrick #TwentyOne #TwentyOneLife #Art #Bitcoin #book
👉 Pre-order the Kindle edition https://TwentyOne.Life/brick-by-brick

Nostr event nevent1qqspr0d50clrtm9hgu2cqxwajj44e6us4824z3d30u9ayhtyxsgrqsszyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxx6k0mu

2025-09-26T14:46:12Z

🔥 “The lie begins with money, but it does not end there. Fiat distorts our very existence.”
(Excerpt from Brick by Brick)

Bitcoin isn’t just money, it is a way of restoring life.

#BrickByBrick #TwentyOne #TwentyOneLife #Fiat #Sovereignty
👉 Pre-order today: https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick

Finally the support in securing Bitcoin is increasing! ...

2025-09-26T03:56:16Z

In reply to naddr1qp…sjlk
_________________________

Finally the support in securing Bitcoin is increasing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8QoiK4AZhA

Nostr event nevent1qqs8cdjry2k467cvrue3jlezrq4qn02sf6rdjmqw08waavjghx9ygnszyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxspxa26

2025-09-26T03:48:05Z

📱 “If fiat is the fuel, Big Tech is the engine of distraction. You’re not the user. You’re the product.”
(Excerpt from Brick by Brick)

Reclaim attention. Reclaim sovereignty.

#BrickByBrick #TwentyOne #TwentyOneLife #Attention #Privacy
👉 Connect with me on Nostr to get the latest updates on my book release

Nostr event nevent1qqs0daxfwhd3u5089q0lexf439k5c64cc3svz7t2q585vhxw6jjza0czyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxu7mf3c

2025-09-24T07:17:48Z

🕰️ bram (nprofile…5g3a) : “Bitcoin isn’t speculation. It’s savings technology.”

(Referenced in Brick by Brick)

Bitcoin is how we reclaim time preference and escape endless fiat grind.

#BrickByBrick #TwentyOne #TwentyOneLife #Savings #TimePreference

👉 Support my work with a Zap ⚡ Pre-order here: https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick

Nostr event nevent1qqsx44j00zv5pws2f0xy94q7zn2mywuazk8pdmrjuv06ef8jc67yckgzyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxtyw0mx

2025-09-23T04:22:38Z

🍔 “Look around: junk food is cheaper than real food, sickness is more profitable than health, distraction is more lucrative than truth.”
(Excerpt from Brick by Brick)

Fiat incentives corrode everything. Bitcoin and sovereignty realign the incentives with truth.

#BrickByBrick #TwentyOne #TwentyOneLife #Health #FiatDecay

Paperback and hard cover will be available as well. I am also ...

2025-09-23T01:59:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…0lqj
_________________________

Paperback and hard cover will be available as well. I am also working on my BTCPay server.

Nostr event nevent1qqsvnjllyhq8qqnv2ytl5h7eyvcjw37xnfa5vww9mua6lfud9w7ctsczyrntah2gl930f84c8cnlx6ugp9v28lveyc72m5edyq4zlp58aw4mxlvhag5

2025-09-22T13:43:48Z

💸 “Fiat is not simply money. It is an operating system for civilization.”
(Excerpt from Brick by Brick)

Fiat isn’t just broken money, it’s the foundation of the rat race. Bitcoin is the door out.

#BrickByBrick #TwentyOne #TwentyOneLife #Fiat #Bitcoin
👉 Pre-order now: https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick

Remember when we knew dozens of phone numbers? Now I barely ...

2025-09-22T04:47:36Z

Remember when we knew dozens of phone numbers? Now I barely remember my own.
An MIT study suggests AI might be doing the same to our thinking, lower engagement, weaker recall, and essays that all sound alike. They call it “cognitive debt.”

#AI #DigitalTransformation #Leadership #CognitiveDebt #FutureOfWork #Sovereignty #HumanSkills #BrickByBrick

quoting
naddr1qv…js4e

Remembering Phone Numbers, Forgetting Our Words: What AI Might Be Doing to Our Minds

We’ve already outsourced memory to our phones. A new MIT-led study suggests that heavy reliance on AI may also outsource thinking, lowering engagement, recall, and ownership of our words. The challenge isn’t rejecting AI but learning to use it wisely, keeping our human skills alive.

Remember the time when we could recall dozens of phone numbers? I still remember calling friends and family from public phone booths, numbers etched in memory without a second thought. Fast forward 30 years of smartphones, and I can barely remember my own number. We’ve outsourced memory to technology, and it has quietly changed how we think.

A recent MIT-led study (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872) makes me wonder: what if our use of AI tools today is doing something similar, not just with numbers but with our ability to think, write, and own our words? I’m less worried for my generation, but what about the younger ones growing up with AI as their default assistant?

What the study found

The research followed 54 participants over three primary sessions (and 18 of them in a fourth crossover session), divided into three conditions: no tools (Brain-only), Search Engine, and ChatGPT (LLM use). EEG data, essay text analyzed by both humans and algorithms, and recall tasks were all used to compare outcomes.

Neural connectivity falls the more external tools are used. Brain-only participants showed the most widespread and strongest EEG connectivity; Search Engine users were in the middle; LLM users showed the weakest connectivity patterns.

In the crossover Session 4, those who switched from LLM use back to Brain-only still exhibited reduced alpha and beta connectivity, suggesting that heavy dependence on AI may leave lingering effects. Conversely, those going from Brain-only to LLM regained higher recall and activation in some neural circuits.

Ownership and memory suffer with LLM assistance. The ChatGPT group reported the weakest sense of owning their writing, and many participants (about 83%) could not accurately quote from their own essays shortly after writing.

Essays by LLM users became more homogeneous. Linguistic and topic analyses (n-grams, named entities, topic ontology) showed that LLM-assisted essays clustered more tightly together, less variation than in the Search Engine or Brain-only groups.

The authors term all this “cognitive debt.” It doesn’t imply damage, rather, the accumulation of mental cost: weaker recall, thinner ownership of ideas, shallower engagement.

I’m not a neuroscientist, but I tend to see the brain as a kind of muscle. And like any other muscle, if we stop using it, we start losing it. The study’s findings remind me that convenience has a cost: when AI takes over too much of the heavy lifting, we risk letting core cognitive abilities atrophy from lack of use.

Why this matters

We’ve already seen what outsourcing memory to smartphones did: we gained convenience but lost recall. Now, outsourcing thought and composition to AI could shape how deeply we engage with ideas. Over time, this matters for how we learn, collaborate, and even how we lead.

Losing “unscripted” social skills. If we outsource apologies, tough talks, or negotiations to AI, we risk dulling our ability to interact, discuss, and argue without assistance. Real relationships are built by repairing mistakes, not by delivering perfect, AI‑composed lines.

Journey versus destination. AI optimizes outputs, the perfect email, pitch, or essay. But growth comes from the struggle: drafting, debating, and resolving conflict. Skipping the work can mean skipping the learning.

Boats versus swimming. AI is a great boat, fast, reliable, and helpful. But in a storm you still need to swim. Listening, improvising, showing empathy, these human muscles atrophy if we never use them.

Authenticity is a premium. The internet is filling with flawless, cookie‑cutter prose. People discount messages that don’t sound like you. Imperfections, your phrasing, your cadence, even your typos, signal trust and authenticity.

Human skills at stake. Listening, giving and receiving feedback, resolving conflict peacefully, and showing empathy are muscles that only grow through practice. If we let AI handle the difficult parts, we may keep the result but lose the resilience.

Societal context. In a world already marked by loneliness and disconnection, doubling down on tools that replace human contact can amplify the problem. Technology should augment our humanity, not anesthetize it.

We’ve already seen what outsourcing memory to smartphones did: we gained convenience but lost recall. Now, outsourcing thought and composition to AI could shape how deeply we engage with ideas. Over time, this matters for how we learn, collaborate, and even how we lead.

“AI is a great boat, but you still need to learn to swim.” Simon Sinek

Simon Sinek, in his conversation on The Diary of a CEO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4tqbEmplug), warned about a similar risk: by letting AI handle our apologies, negotiations, or tough conversations, we may lose the ability to interact authentically without assistance. He described it as the difference between owning a boat and knowing how to swim. AI can help us get across the water faster, but when the storm comes, only those who practiced swimming will survive. This echoes the MIT study’s concern, convenience today can mean fragility tomorrow.

How to use AI without losing yourself

Start each project with a short “cold open”: five minutes of solo writing to capture your ideas. Then, use AI as a critic, not as the author, let it challenge your structure, highlight blind spots, or polish grammar. Before finalizing, step away and try to recall two sentences from your draft; if you can’t, it means the text isn’t yet yours. Add your lived voice, stories, numbers, and examples to keep the human fingerprints. Alternate between AI‑heavy and AI‑light days to balance efficiency with mental strength. And once a week, schedule a no‑AI writing sprint to preserve your ability to think and create unaided.

Through my sovereignty lens, it also means strengthening independence. Read books deeply to sharpen your mind, rather than skimming quick feeds. Engage in real debates with people, not just simulations with machines, to train your critical thinking. And when you do use AI, consider hosting your own models or services, so you remain in control of your data and your tools. These choices ensure that AI serves your growth and sovereignty, not the other way around.

My concern

I’m not afraid of AI replacing us. In fact, I actively implement AI and agentic systems in my transformation projects and see many truly valuable use cases. What concerns me more is the quiet erosion of our own thinking through AI shortcuts. Just like I lost the habit of remembering phone numbers, younger generations might lose the habit of remembering their own words.

But my concern goes deeper. I believe in sovereignty, over money, over technology, and over our minds. Outsourcing too much to AI doesn’t just reduce recall; it risks eroding our independence. Sovereignty is about being able to stand on your own two feet when the system falters. If AI gives us boats, that’s helpful. But when the storm comes and the boats fail, we still need to know how to swim. Human skills, listening, debating, leading, comforting, are part of our sovereignty. If we forget them, we hand over more than convenience. We hand over ourselves.

That’s why I see deliberate, mindful use of AI as essential. Not to reject it, but to make sure it serves our humanity and not the other way around.

Question for you: How do you make sure your words still feel like your own when using AI?

If this resonates, follow me for more reflections on tech, sovereignty, and the habits that keep us human. And stay tuned for my upcoming book Brick by Brick: Building a Sovereign Life on Bitcoin, available for pre‑order on 31 October at twentyone.life/brick-by-brick.

..... The late Hal Finney, one of Bitcoin’s earliest ...

2025-09-19T15:02:53Z

..... The late Hal Finney, one of Bitcoin’s earliest developers, understood this defensive posture. In a 2010 forum post, he warned against unnecessary changes to Bitcoin’s core design, arguing that stability was more valuable than chasing new features. That mindset, protect the protocol above all else, has been a key reason Bitcoin remains functional, secure, and antifragile after more than a decade. ....
Text from my Book "Brick By Brick"
#BrickByBrick #Bitcoin #Knots #Core

quoting
naddr1qv…g4ew

Introduction: A New Controversy in Bitcoin’s Evolution

If you hold Bitcoin, if you call yourself a Bitcoiner, are you prepared to accept that the Bitcoin blockchain could be used to store illicit, even illegal content? This isn’t a hypothetical. Unless we act, by October 2025 the default Bitcoin Core software will make this the new reality. And if you don’t react now, your silence means acceptance.

Bitcoin is facing a pivotal controversy that cuts to the heart of its identity. The debate centres on a proposed change in Bitcoin’s core software that would remove longstanding limits on storing arbitrary data in transactions. On the surface, this change sounds technical – raising the OP_RETURN data limit from 80 bytes to nearly 4 megabytes, but its implications are profoundly human. Supporters hail it as an overdue embrace of censorship-resistance, while critics warn it could turn the blockchain into a host for illegal or abusive content. As a Bitcoiner who champions self-sovereignty and Bitcoin’s reputation as sound money, I find myself firmly in the latter camp. This article, written from my personal perspective and drawing on my book’s focus (Brick by Brick - <https://twentyone.life/brick-by-brick>) on self-sovereignty, explores why I’m taking a stand by running alternative software and even boycotting certain services, all in the name of a “clean” future for Bitcoin.

Background: Bitcoin Core v30 and the OP_RETURN Debate

At issue is a change slated for the upcoming Bitcoin Core version 30 (expected October 2025). Bitcoin Core is the dominant software for running nodes (over 75% of nodes run so its defaults largely define network behaviour. The core developers have decided to unshackle the OP_RETURN field, which historically allowed embedding only a tiny piece of data (≤83 bytes) in a transaction. This limit acted as a de facto “spam filter”, discouraging users from turning Bitcoin’s ledger into a generic data storage system.

Under Core v30, that filter is being removed entirely: users will be able to attach much larger data payloads, up to the size of a full block (~4MB), in a single transaction output. Moreover, Bitcoin Core will eliminate the configuration options (data carrier settings) that previously let node operators refuse relaying big OP_RETURN transactions. In short, the new default policy is “anything goes” for data, and individual node runners won’t easily opt out. While v30 still offers command-line tweaks to impose custom limits, those are now deprecated warnings likely to be removed later.

Why make this change? Proponents argue it’s a pragmatic response to reality. The 80-byte cap, they say, has been routinely bypassed by creative users who already insert larger data through other means – for example, using Taproot witness data or fake outputs (as seen in the 2023 Ordinals/“inscriptions” craze that let people embed images and art on Bitcoin). These workarounds are actually worse for the network: since the data is hidden in spendable outputs or witness scripts, it can bloat the UTXO set (the list of unspent coins) and increase validation costs for all nodes. By contrast, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable and easily prunable. In the eyes of Core developers, it’s better to let people put data in OP_RETURN (where it doesn’t harm UTXO or decentralisation) than to have them continue abusing more harmful trick. Removing the cap “yields at least two tangible benefits: a cleaner UTXO set and more consistent default behaviour,” explained developer Greg Sanders. The change also aligns with Bitcoin’s values of neutrality, if a transaction is valid and pays the fee, who are nodes to censor it? Core maintainers like Gloria Zhao argue that trying to filter transactions at the node level is futile and against the principle of censorship-resistance.

On the other side, critics are alarmed. They counter that dropping these limits will open the floodgates to arbitrary data, fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s purpose. The blockchain could become a bloated “immutable database” of random content, potentially crowding out financial transactions with higher fees and diluting Bitcoin’s use as peer-to-peer money. What’s more, unbounded data storage invites spam, people could stuff blocks with endless memes, ads, or junk simply because they’re willing to pay. It’s a replay of the Blocksize War arguments, but instead of bigger blocks for payments, it’s bigger payloads for non-monetary data. The community is starkly divided: should Bitcoin evolve to support broader use cases (data, NFTs, digital artifacts), or should it resist becoming a free-for-all content repository and stick to financial utility? These positions are diametrically opposed, and the conflict has been heated – drawing comparisons to the acrimony of the 2017 blocksize debates.

Notably, longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr (author of an alternative client called Bitcoin Knots - https://x.com/LukeDashjr) has been one of the most vocal opponents besides Bitcoin Mechanic and Bitcoin University ( primal.net/kratter). He warns that the removal of what he bluntly calls “spam filters” is potentially harmful to the network and its users. Dashjr has publicly urged node operators to avoid upgrading to Core v30 or to switch to alternative software like Bitcoin Knots. In fact, many Bitcoiners have already acted on that advice. When the OP_RETURN plan was announced and fast-tracked earlier this year, there was a surge of users migrating their nodes from Core to Knots, by some estimates, over 15% of previously Core nodes switched to Bitcoin Knots in protest. The stage is set for a grass-roots pushback using Bitcoin’s own strength: decentralisation. True to the mantra of self-sovereignty, if you disagree with the default rules, you are free to run a node that reflects your values. I count myself among those taking that step.

Illicit Content on the Blockchain: The Serious Risks

Why am I, and others, so concerned about lifting the data limits? Because it’s not just “cute cat pictures” or art collections that could find their way onto Bitcoin’s ledger. The most dire possibility is the inclusion of illicit and abusive content in an immutable, globally replicated chain. This isn’t idle paranoia; it’s a genuine risk recognised by both sides of the debate. Even the advocates of OP_RETURN freedom acknowledge the “undesirable second-order effects” that could follow. Let’s spell it out: What if someone starts embedding child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or other illegal data in Bitcoin transactions? Once mined into a block, that content is there forever, every full node would unknowingly host it on their hard drive as part of the blockchain spreaded on tens of thousands nodes across the world. This scenario is a nightmare for obvious moral reasons, and it also poses a legal and reputational threat to anyone running a node or the Bitcoin network as a whole. Besides this, to spin up a new node will take longer and need higher technical hardware which leads to centralisation.

Unfortunately, the threat is not theoretical. It has already happened on a small scale. Researchers have found that forbidden content made its way onto Bitcoin as early as 2013, albeit in an obscure form. In 2018, a paper famously claimed that Bitcoin’s blockchain contained links to child pornography; at the time, critics dismissed it as sensationalism since only a few bytes of encoded data were involved and Core’s filters limited further abuse. But today we’re looking at a very different landscape. The data per block is increasing dramatically with the new policy. A concerned Bitcoiner known as “Bitcoin Mechanic” ( primal.net/p/nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sh8dmel) recently warned that removing the filter “will draw unforeseen consequences,” meaning content like child pornography can appear on the Bitcoin blockchain” once v30 goes live. His point is straightforward: if you give bad actors the ability to inject large payloads, someone will inevitably push the worst kind of content into the system. And perversely, there’s a twisted incentive for them to do so: “Getting other people to store it for you is vastly preferable to storing it yourself,” Mechanic notes, what better way for criminals to disseminate vile material than piggyback on tens of thousands of innocent Bitcoin nodes?

Core developers have responded that these fears may be overblown. They often cite examples of other blockchains (for instance, Monero or Ethereum) that don’t have such data limits yet haven’t become overrun with illegal content. They stress that Bitcoin’s permissionless nature means anything could be written to it, but that doesn’t mean an epidemic of criminal data is imminent. Perhaps, but I would counter that Bitcoin’s global prominence and immutable design make it a uniquely attractive target for someone trying to cause chaos or discredit the system. It only takes one high-profile incident of truly heinous content on Bitcoin to unleash a regulatory crackdown. Remember, Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance cuts both ways: it empowers individuals, but it also neutralises traditional controls, which is exactly why governments get antsy when crimes enter the mix.

The legal implications of this are untested and scary. If a Bitcoin block contains illegal pornography or violent propaganda, could authorities argue that every node operator is technically in possession of contraband data? Some in the community worry that, yes, this could give governments a “perfect excuse to outlaw Bitcoin or make running a node illegal”. Even if that outcome is unlikely in jurisdictions that understand how Bitcoin works, the mere perception that Bitcoin is hosting criminal content would be a PR disaster. It would hand ammunition to anti-crypto politicians and could make regulators slam the brakes on adoption. As a Bitcoiner who wants to see this technology thrive, I find that risk unacceptable. Bitcoin’s social contract might be robust against internal dissent, but it’s not immune to external legal attack. Preserving Bitcoin’s integrity means ensuring it doesn’t become synonymous with “dark web file storage” in the public eye.

Embracing Self-Sovereignty: Why I Run Bitcoin Knots

My response to this situation has been guided by one of Bitcoin’s core principles: self-sovereignty. In essence, self-sovereignty means taking full ownership of your participation in the network, holding your own keys, and running your own node with the rules you choose. In the book I authored on Bitcoin and self-sovereign principles, I emphasised that running a node is more than a technical task; it’s an expression of personal agency and values. Now, faced with Bitcoin Core’s direction that I deeply disagree with, I’m putting that ethos into practice.

For the past four months, I have been running Bitcoin Knots instead of the standard Bitcoin Core software. Bitcoin Knots is a well-established alternative client (maintained by Luke Dashjr) that, in many ways, is identical to Core except for a few important differences, notably, Knots retains stricter limits on OP_RETURN data and gives the user full control over relay filters. In fact, Knots by default still caps OP_RETURN at 40 bytes (the old limit from years ago) and allows only one OP_RETURN output per transaction. It’s basically “Bitcoin Core, but with the spam filter intact.” By running Knots, my node will not relay or mine the kind of oversized data-storing transactions that Core v30 endorses. More importantly, it signals my support for a vision of Bitcoin that prioritises financial transactions over arbitrary data. Knots users (myself included) see ourselves as defending Bitcoin’s integrity from a controversial experiment. We are effectively saying, “Not on my node!” when it comes to turning Bitcoin into an uncensored data dump.

I’m far from alone in this choice. As mentioned, a substantial minority of node operators are switching to Knots or sticking with older Core versions. This grass roots movement is reminiscent of how users can enforce their preferences in Bitcoin – much like the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) concept, node runners can ‘vote’ by choosing which software to run. If enough of us reject Core v30, it could create economic incentives for miners to think twice about stuffing blocks with junk that a portion of the network won’t relay or perhaps even accept. (To be clear, Knots today does accept blocks created under Core’s new rules – it’s not a hard fork. The divergence is in relay policy and default behaviour, not consensus rules. This is a fight being waged via network policy, not chain splits… at least not yet.)

Self-sovereignty also means accepting personal responsibility for what I support in the network. That extends beyond just the software I run. It also influences my choices as a customer and community member. In light of the OP_RETURN controversy, I have decided on a few concrete actions, which I’ll outline here:

Running a “clean” node: I’ve migrated all my nodes to Bitcoin Knots and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This ensures that I am not propagating or validating illicit data beyond the absolute minimum required by consensus. If a bloated transaction or block crosses my node, Knots’ policies will treat it with the maximum strictness allowed (dropping it from mempool if possible, and certainly not relaying such transactions to peers). This is my way of keeping my corner of the Bitcoin network as clean of illicit content as possible. It’s a personal stand: I do not want even the chance of illegal material passing through my machine.

Boycotting services that endorse Core v30: I am discontinuing my use of any exchanges, custodians, or Bitcoin companies that I know are upgrading to or support the Core v30 software without protest. For example, if a company like River Financial or a tech firm like Blockstream chooses to run Core v30 nodes (thus knowingly accepting the relay of unlimited content, illicit or otherwise), then I will not be doing business with them. Those organizations might trust their lawyers or regulators to sort out the fallout of hosting illicit data on their nodes – that’s their prerogative. But I cannot in good conscience support institutions that, in my view, are inviting a flood of abusive content onto the Bitcoin blockchain and risking its reputation. My money and support will go to those who keep Bitcoin robust and respectable.

Advocating for a “clean” Bitcoin (even if it means a fork): Looking ahead, I suspect that other major players in the Bitcoin ecosystem share my concern, even if they aren’t voicing it loudly yet. Think of large public companies holding Bitcoin in their treasuries, or firms planning Bitcoin ETFs. The last thing these institutions want is to be entangled with a network that could inadvertently facilitate the spread of illegal content. It’s not hard to imagine some of them drawing a line: if Bitcoin’s protocol won’t address this problem, they might resort to extraordinary measures. This could include supporting a hard fork to create a “clean” version of Bitcoin that excises or filters out illicit material. BlackRock, for instance, is on the cusp of launching a spot Bitcoin ETF. In BlackRock’s own filings, they note that in the event of a fork, they have full discretion to decide which chain to consider the “real” Bitcoin for their fund.That means if a new fork gained momentum – say, a Bitcoin variant with strict protocol rules against arbitrary data – BlackRock could opt to adopt it for their ETF (or conversely, to abandon a chain that becomes too toxic). While this scenario sounds extreme, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility. The very fact that we’re discussing child pornography on the blockchain may prompt powerful stakeholders to assert control to protect their investments. I’m not actively calling for an immediate fork, that’s a complex, last-resort path, but I do believe that if Bitcoin Core’s path leads to legal quagmires, the market will find a way to course-correct, even if it means a chain split. My hope is that by raising awareness now, we can avert such drastic outcomes. But make no mistake: Bitcoin’s future must not include being a playground for criminal content, and I’ll support any serious effort to ensure that.

Bitcoin’s Future: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

The controversy over OP_RETURN and illicit content forces an uncomfortable but necessary conversation about the future we want for Bitcoin. On one side is the ideal of total neutrality, Bitcoin as an unfilterable, permissionless ledger where “code is law” and even questionable data is just data. On the other side is the recognition that Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum: if we undermine its primary use case as money or subject its participants to legal peril, we could kill the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. Finding the right balance is tricky. We cherish Bitcoin’s censorship-resistance precisely because it protects financial freedom and speech. Yet, does rejecting any filtering, even of grotesquely abusive content, truly serve the cause of freedom? Or does it hand enemies of Bitcoin the very weapon they need to attack it? These are challenging questions, and reasonable people in the community answer them differently.

For me, the answer comes back to self-sovereignty and consent. I did not sign up to store illicit images or arbitrary gigabytes of data on my node, that’s not the social contract under which I joined Bitcoin. My consent as a node operator matters. True decentralisation means we, the users get to collectively decide what the blockchain is for, by either running or not running certain code. It’s heartening to see that even Core developers acknowledge this in principle: “If Bitcoin Core’s contributors ever abandon [Bitcoin’s core] values… the community will switch to another node implementation that does it better,” wrote Gloria Zhao amidst the debate. I’d argue that forcing nodes to relay and store unlimited junk (with potentially ghastly contents) is a departure from the values that brought many of us to Bitcoin. And indeed, we’re seeing the community vote with its feet, or rather with its node software.

Moving forward, I believe Bitcoin will be stress-tested on this front. The coming months and years will reveal whether the network can accommodate new use-cases (like data inscriptions) without losing its soul – or whether a correction is needed. Perhaps Bitcoin Core’s gambit will pay off: maybe the “spam” will remain manageable, new pruning techniques will mitigate the bloat, and no criminal will attempt to abuse the blockchain’s openness. In that best case, my concerns would be eased (and I’d gladly acknowledge an overabundance of caution on my part). But if the worst case materialises, if obscene data starts showing up in blocks, if typical users find the chain clogged with non-financial data, if governments use this as a cudgel – then the community must be ready to respond decisively. Hard forks have happened before in Bitcoin’s history when values were at stake (recall the split that created Bitcoin Cash in 2017 over a blocksize dispute). A fork to preserve Bitcoin’s legal cleanliness and focused mission might become not just acceptable but essential to “future-proof” the network. And unlike a protocol tweak coming from a small group, a community or institution-driven fork would reflect a broad consensus that Bitcoin as it was is worth defending. BlackRock and other institutional players entering the space could ironically become allies in keeping Bitcoin safe for mainstream use – they will not tolerate holding an asset tainted by crime, so they have every incentive to back a solution, even if it’s a controversial one.

Conclusion: Upholding Bitcoin’s Integrity

In closing, my stance can be distilled to this: Bitcoin’s strength lies in our ability to choose and enforce the rules that best uphold the network’s purpose and integrity. As a self-sovereign participant, I choose to reject the notion that Bitcoin must accept everything in the name of “freedom,” especially when that freedom can be cynically exploited to Bitcoin’s detriment. Instead, I align with the principle that some judicious constraints, whether at the software policy level or the community social level, are necessary to keep Bitcoin healthy, useful, and legally accessible to all. This is a nuanced position, and it may be polarising. Some will accuse me of advocating “censorship” or betraying Bitcoin’s neutrality. I respect the purist viewpoint, but I humbly disagree in this case. Refusing to store illegal content is not tyranny; it’s common sense. We can defend freedom of transaction without turning Bitcoin into a sanctuary for the worst humanity has to offer.

In my book on self-sovereignty, I wrote that with great power comes great responsibility, running a Bitcoin node is indeed powerful, and it’s up to each of us to act responsibly with that power. Today, responsibility calls for vigilance about what changes we adopt. I am communicating these thoughts as part of my ongoing effort to ensure Bitcoin remains future-proof. “Future-proofing” Bitcoin doesn’t just mean scaling it or boosting hash rate; it also means safeguarding its social acceptance and moral foundation. By voicing dissent, by switching implementations, by potentially forking if needed, we the users are stress-testing Bitcoin’s resilience in exactly the way it was designed to be: from the bottom up.

Bitcoin’s story has always been about empowerment of the individual. This current saga, the Node Wars over OP_RETURN and content, is yet another chapter in that story. I, for one, am determined to see Bitcoin thrive as a tool of financial liberation, unsullied by association with illicit content. It may ruffle feathers now, but principled stances often do. As the saying goes, “Bitcoin is for enemies”, but that doesn’t mean we have to let enemies turn it against us. My hope is that through self-sovereign action and frank dialogue, we will navigate this challenge and emerge with a Bitcoin network that is both freer and more secure, a network that can confidently serve the world for decades to come, without any shadow of disgrace on its ledger.

The choice is in front of us. By October 2025, Bitcoin Core v30 will normalise the relaying of arbitrary, potentially illicit content across the network. If we do nothing, if we keep quiet, then we silently consent to this shift. As Bitcoiners, we must ask ourselves: do we want our blockchain remembered as the foundation of sound money, or as a storage ground for abuse?

I’ve made my decision, I run Bitcoin Knots, I reject services that endorse Core v30, and I will defend a “clean” Bitcoin that remains worthy of global trust. The question is: what kind of Bitcoin are you willing to stand behind?

Michael Saylor Just SLAMMED Bitcoin Core Devs ...

2025-09-19T10:44:25Z

In reply to naddr1qp…sjlk
_________________________

Michael Saylor Just SLAMMED Bitcoin Core Devs
https://www.youtube.com/live/LwMz66VN9lc

It looks like you have read my new book, even it’s not released ...

2025-09-14T10:42:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…vw87
_________________________

It looks like you have read my new book, even it’s not released yet. 😂 But good to know and good to learn other people with the same mindset and interests.
Although I need to work on my fitness, can’t do a mountain run right now.

Core v30 vs Knots, another good video ...

2025-09-12T12:45:07Z

In reply to naddr1qp…sjlk
_________________________

Core v30 vs Knots, another good video https://youtu.be/Hp0hzB_GP40

“Fiat doesn’t just steal savings — it steals the future you ...

2025-09-10T03:17:06Z

“Fiat doesn’t just steal savings — it steals the future you might have built.”
(Excerpt from Brick by Brick: Building a Sovereign Life on Bitcoin)

quoting
naddr1qv…pf3l

On October 31st, Bitcoin Whitepaper Day, my new book Brick by Brick: Building a Sovereign Life on Bitcoin will be published. You can already pre-order the Kindle edition here 👉 amzn.to/4mW2pK4\ For me, this date is symbolic: Bitcoin was not just a new form of money, it was a new lens. Once I saw through it, I realized how fiat doesn’t just distort money, but also food, health, education, and even our very sense of meaning.

For decades, I worked inside the machine of “digital transformation,” helping corporations optimize broken systems. I thought we were making progress, but in reality, we were just decorating a crumbling fiat world with digital wallpaper. Bitcoin revealed the truth, that what we call “normal” is in fact systemic decay.

This book is my attempt to offer a blueprint out.

Why This Book?

Bitcoiners often say: “Fix the money, fix the world.” But I believe it goes further:

Fix the money, fix the food. Fiat subsidies make fake food cheap and real food scarce.

Fix the money, fix the body. Health is trapped in a “sickcare” model of managed decline, not vitality.

Fix the money, fix the culture. Attention is harvested and sold, while truth is drowned in noise.

Bitcoin isn’t just a financial revolution. It is the foundation for a sovereign life, one built on sound incentives, resilience, and freedom.

The Core of the Book

Brick by Brick is structured in five parts, each one a layer of the journey:

Part 1 – Fiat Corrupts Everything: how fake money leads to fake food, fake health, fake tech.

Part 2 – Bitcoin as Renaissance: more than code, a culture of low time preference, discipline, and truth.

Part 3 – Reclaim the Future: building parallel systems in money, food, education, and energy.

Part 4 – Proof in Real Lives: case studies of Bitcoiners in German, Italy and beyond.

Part 5 – Blueprint & Call to Action: the Sovereign Stack, five pillars of sovereignty: Money, Health, Data, Attention, Energy.

It’s not just theory. Each chapter ends with practical takeaways and steps you can apply immediately.

Stories - and a Call for Two More

Philosophy inspires. Technology enables. But proof comes only through people.

Part 4 of Brick by Brick is dedicated to those who took the leap, individuals and families living out sovereignty in practice. These aren’t billionaires or early adopters with lucky timing. They are ordinary people who chose to live differently, sometimes against the grain of their whole community.

Chapter 14: Bram Kanstein – “Bitcoin Bram”\ A Dutch entrepreneur and builder, known for early Bitcoin adoption, living sovereignty through creation and teaching.

Chapter 15: Carlo Isolabellart – “Brushstrokes of Sovereignty”\ An Italian artist intertwining Bitcoin with creativity, family life, and education, showing how sound money influences culture.

Chapter 16: Never too late – A Pensioner’s Path to Bitcoin\ A European retiree who embraced Bitcoin late in life, combined with adopting a ketogenic diet. Her story reflects resilience, health transformation, and inheritance planning

But the book is still missing two more stories.

👉 I am looking for two people who live on a Bitcoin Standard (fully or partially) to share their journey , your struggles, wins, and what you’ve learned. Farmers, coders, families, entrepreneurs, teachers, all voices matter.

If this resonates, please DM me here.

Hmm, not sure if this can be achieved in the remaining time. 🫤 ...

2025-09-08T05:13:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…5red
_________________________

Hmm, not sure if this can be achieved in the remaining time. 🫤 I don’t understand why Bitcoin organisation like blockstream, river are in favour of core v30.

great video explaining the probem ...

2025-09-07T16:48:00Z

In reply to nevent1q…udk7
_________________________

great video explaining the probem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t0J9jq5q_A