Yes! Buy Bitcoin and pray!
Pray that Congress does not act on porn entering the blockchain every week.
Warren et al would love an excuse to heavily regulate.
Thanks Gloria and Core for giving the bureaucrats lots of ammo!
This thinking is silly. There are 3.5million spam images in the chain. This quirky developer theory about encodings isn't making sense to most users. But that's ok people can be helpful and help you address your perceived risks, with local policy or node code changes.
There is no silly thinking. Stop it. This attitude caused the current community split.
@ Knots and @ Core, we move on. Run your nodes with the filters you want.
@ Core, learn to listen. Don't push ineffective tho highly controversial changes because you are "smart".
Core's steadfast support of SPAM and Porn is absurd!
Core's reluctance to acknowledging their v30 mistake says it all.
Core can't fix v30 because it was likely a VC requested favor?
Evidence points to Core being a VC captive, nasty sabotage?
Bitcoin is Money!
Knots + BIP-444!
They don't support SPAM nor Porn. They are just too "smart" to understand what are controversial changes and why they should not do them. What they did is also ineffective because Citrea will not even use OP_RETURN since the other spam channels are cheaper.
They can, but will they? @citrea_xyz, will you use OP_RETURN? I think they won't, so the controversial change was completely unnecessary.
Does it need a full blown open OP_RETURN? No it does not. Was it just pushed through because you are all just "too smart to get it"? Yes it was.
Does anyone have a *real* use case for more than 83 bytes (or at the extreme outside 192 bytes)?
Other than silly (or dangerous) pics I don't see the need for 100KB!
Why is Core so adamant about 100KB?
Why not v31, simply roll back to (semi-original) 83 bytes?
I just explained 256b to @MalachiRevolts. Did you not read. And explained why 100kb is logical. Why not change it to 83b or 0b ... Obviously because it was an incentive bug that needed fixing. All that does is reintroduce or make worse the incentive bug, and doesn't prevent bitVM
100k is illogical, core Devs are overdue some corrective actions!
At this stage their ego needs to face reality and running knots is an excellent alternative pushing through BIP444 to exclude spam transactions at the consensus level!
The soft fork solves this neatly!
you are incorrect, it's fully logical for reasons elaborated at length. the soft-fork is highly risky, "temporary emergency soft-fork" is IMO very unlikely to get consensus. running knots is a moderately risky alternative because it has 40k lines of little reviewed code. and
This change was logical but a strategically dumb move at the same time. Good luck winning trust back for Core. You all failed to take all aspects in perspective.
Looking at my connected nodes.. it's in line with coindance. They lost about 21% hard factual trust.
I absolutely hope it's a nothing-burger.
We have over $2 trillion of hard earned money stored on Bitcoin!
If there is *any* scandal or loss of trust, the value of Bitcoin could plummet.
There are major detractors of Bitcoin:
Banking lobby, gold bugs, and many in Congress.
And when the drama was on, they should've taken a step back instead of going full autistic, hiding comments, deleting threads, locking threads, minimizing the concerns.. you know all the bad stuff that breaks trust.
i'd say @bitschmidty and @murchandamus are doing a pretty good job of explaining things and stepped up to reduce scope for future misunderstanding or wedge issues getting out of all proportion.
Adam,
Have @LukeDashjr and @GrassFedBitcoin and @NickSzabo4 agreed (at least to some degree) with how things are going as of today?
From your perspective, have those stalwarts expressed any degree of satisfaction that the community, as a whole, is now on the right track?
Many of us ordinary folk are nervous, $2 trillion of market cap at risk.
Not at all on this end. People who are so profoundly ignorant about the threat environment are hardly in a position to "communicate" to those of us who understand the threat environment.
@adam3us you've worked closely with Mike and Greg at Blockstream. But please also hear community voices like Nick's. This is about attack surface and worst-case planning. You mentioned Core not wanting to lose face. Support some compromise like restoring the 160B default in 30.1.
As usual you grossly mischaracterize my position instead of actually quoting me or showing even a modicum of understanding of what I have said.
What a dishonest vile piece of rat shit your are.
Nov 6, 2025 · 3:32 PM UTC
