Time Chain

Bitcoiner, Linux user and
freedom defender.

Public Key

npub1slr8a8f2n0uhmvdas3xer4m9edhce659drjrk00haft52xjr8a9smlqkhv

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsg03n7n54fh7takx7cgnv36ajukmuva2zk3epm8hm75469rfpn7jcppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5qs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsq32amnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpzfmhxw309a3ksetnw3h82ap6xvenqvqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpds22q3fs

Publishing to

nostr.bitcoiner.social

Author Public Key

npub1slr8a8f2n0uhmvdas3xer4m9edhce659drjrk00haft52xjr8a9smlqkhv

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-06-30 00:10:50 UTC

- reply

https://youtu.be/dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-06-27 01:21:25 UTC

- reply

https://s2f.hamal.nl/images/alltimeprice.png
580k by 2030 gang here.

2026-06-26 11:05:00 UTC

- reply

So far you thesis is playing out well. I have been in preffered stocks for a long time and over 15 year periods you marginally beat T-Bills and have a lot more volatility. I suspect these will be the same despite the high yield. I don't think a 25% drawdown on a stock that pays 11.5% is a big deal, but I agree that people were led to believe this is like a money market fund and I would bet they are devastated.

2026-06-17 01:38:19 UTC

- reply

In my studies on the history of money and banking the Belle Epoc was dominated by consoles very similar to the preferred offerings of Strategy. The only difference is that governments were paying a small yield on gold backed bank credit. This was an ideal inheritance and was particularly noted in Jane Austen novels.
My sincere question is "why is this a bad thing?" Hal Finney mentioned custodians and bitcoin banks as near preference both for spending, storing and issuing credit :
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the 'high-powered money' that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash."
Bitcoin is an Electronic Cash System. It cannot be rehypothecated within the system and those who layer on top do so with additional risks and rewards. Bitcoin at the base layer, even if a custodian holds a large percentage for intermediaries, cannot be broken within the system of peer to peer connected nodes.
Why should we hold a hard line view that is against Finney's understanding of an inevitable future? Why should we not embrace savings alongside investment? Sound savings building sound investment sounds like the capitalism most are after in this space.

2026-06-12 09:48:43 UTC

- reply

Michael Saylor - "We will never sell the bitcoin"
Phong Lee whispers in his ear - "If we never sell it then the preferred offerings can never rise above junk status and exclusively selling MSTR when mNAV is below 1.22 is dillutive"
Michael Saylor - "We will sell less bitcoin than we buy"

2026-06-11 10:38:04 UTC

- reply

Matt,
Your content is always spot on when dissecting frauds/scams/spams. However, I will have to disagree with this assessment of Strategy, it's calculation of mNAV and its securities offerings.
To be clear, I do not conflate stocks with bitcoin. I do not think that Strategy has eliminated the risk from bitcoin exposure. In fact, I think the opposite. Strategy is a company that exposes investors to different kinds of custodial risk, whereas bitcoin only has a few. Bitcoin mostly has volatility and a small chance technical mishaps and cultural irrelevance.
Coinbase holding a lot of bitcoin is not a threat to bitcoin the same way OGs or billionaires are not a threat.
mNAV should be based on enterprise value because 100% of all the bitcoin belong to MSTR common stock holders.
Capitalists buy stocks. Capitalists hold sound money. Capitalists often include land in their personal and business operations.
I understand that public equities have been mostly corrupted, and that is one of the major reasons for Satoshi's creation to be released during the heart of the GFC. Most Capitalists include sound money in their portfolio ... it is not an exclusive obligation aa a bitcoiner nor as a capitalist.

2026-06-07 02:07:57 UTC

- reply

Is this a Hoskinson moment?

2026-06-04 23:06:34 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is money for those who wish to use it as such. I use it as a peer to peer electronic cash system. It was birthed in the heart of the GFC where bailouts socialized losses and privatized profits. Satoshi as a free market thinker created a bank account with zero inflation that is as complex as running a BitTorrent client.
It happens to be a great way to save your money for the future because scarcity does matter for savings, and permissionless transactions matter for freedom.
As a free market thinker, I see nothing wrong with what Saylor is doing. He is trying to restore the financing mechanism that built the railroads of the US during the Industrial Revolution and was destroyed by taxes and inflation in the 20th century. He has created a custodial bitcoin onramp for people/institutions who never ran BitTorrent let alone their own private keys with Bitcoin... and they never will.
I do, I have, and I will because repeating the GFC is not fair to those who wish not to participate in fiat socialism.
Saylor has never taken TARP funds for a promised bonus, and has no intention of breaking the protocol with spam. Bitcoin is a fantastic cash system powered by a cash that can't be debated.
The user interface mimics a bank account which gold does not do and transactions can settle globally in a matter of minutes and with permanent finality in under 1 hour. As a peer to peer electronic cash system we need to get back to the basics and appreciate it for what it is trying to accomplish.

2026-05-27 02:47:54 UTC

- reply

I fully agree that in order for bitcoin to succeed it must be spent. Imagine if Lazlo never spent his bitcoin. Perhaps it would never have taken off. The US Dollar has value in the Eurodollar/Petrodollar system because it is spent into the global trade networks. If we spend bitcoin into the system, there will be more users and more will ultimately be held. Hoarding alone as a store of value will hit a wall when speculation dries up.
That being said...where can I spend my bitcoin? Not a lot has changed since Lazlo.

2026-05-27 02:26:49 UTC

- reply

This what happens to you when you shitcoin

2026-05-25 11:42:53 UTC

- reply

All true. But MSTR and preferred offerings are not bitcoin. They are certainly not bitcoin in self custody. The point that I am trying to make is people are free to take equity risk. There are many layers of risk with Equities such as currency risk, poor management risk, lousy business model risk, leverage risk, and a host of other risks baked in. Bitcoin just needs to keep existing g and be relevant.

2026-05-24 13:30:19 UTC

- reply

I really enjoyed the BIP-110 and spam/scam content. Saylor's equity offerings are not a threat to the protocol so I am less in bashing a company that holds bitcoin trying to come up with ways to give investors of equities more choice, especially in the bank heavy preffered sector. While you reference rehypothecation as a legitimate threat, there is no credible indication that what Strategy is doing with it's holdings lead to that because there is no lending of bitcoin. There is only fiat revenue (preffered stock) and a company risk added to bitcoin (common stock). Not seeing this as a threat at the protocol layer.
All that said. Why are we walking away from BIP-110 material when that is supposed to be the only fix to our current dilemma?

2026-05-17 18:48:59 UTC

- reply

Not clear why there is so much Strategy hate. Locking up 4 or 5 BTC for 1 BTC worth of STRC to pay it back in monthly installments forever is a risk that some people want to take. It isn't bitcoin and doesn't pretend to be and it isn't a threat to bitcoin either. The spam wars and the quantum FUD are worth far more of our time and attention because now we could be messing with the protocol.

2026-04-28 03:18:55 UTC

- reply

I think it is genius. If my friend had the creditworthiness and market liquidity for the debt where I can confidently trade the principal value at par in the free and open market, then I would take the deal.

2026-04-11 23:43:34 UTC

- reply

That article is clearly pumping BSTR. The C/C++ coding style should be looked at more than coincidences in mutual interest.

2026-03-31 17:41:58 UTC

- reply

Quantum is no real threat. Anyone who says otherwise has a shitcoin or ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

2026-03-29 03:13:57 UTC

- reply

I couldn't agree more. It is no coincidence that the top was put in when Core released a broken version. They deliberately harmed the protocol and the market reflects that damage. BIP-110 is the best and probably only way to fix the damage that was done.

2026-03-23 10:48:13 UTC

- reply

It helps those of us with children. With Iran in its current form the world will be an unsafe terrorist laden shithole in 20 - 30 years. The only part of my taxes I am happy to part with and is arguably the only thing the government is authorized to do.

2026-03-21 21:43:15 UTC

- reply

I am sick of influencers. They are all cons that provide little, if any, value to society. Kinda like government.

2026-03-20 22:41:40 UTC

- reply

To increase confidence in the BIP-110 node percentage I recommend running over clearnet with port 8333 forwarded on your router. Even well resourced attackers would have a hard time goosing those numbers.

2026-03-20 11:45:53 UTC

- reply

The metaberse was always a front. He wanted the company to change the name to Meta as in metadata but that would have longterm reputation risk. The $80 billion wasn’t squandered, it just gave the company the ability to create a toxic name out of a toxic practice in plain sight without anyone being the wiser.

2026-03-17 02:50:43 UTC

- reply

Running a node must be inexpensive for bitcoin to survive. With the rising cost of SSDs, storage is becoming a real issue, but I agree with Matt that RAM and bandwidth, etc are primarily the most important and make node operation an elite endeavor. Destroy this attack vector and center all arguments around the cost to operate a node.

2026-03-12 18:10:29 UTC

- reply

Totally agree. The only slippery slope is doing nothing while spam is flooding the chain. Gotta Rug the Spammers with BIP-110.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-03-12 14:46:36 UTC

- reply

Maybe both?

2026-03-12 12:11:17 UTC

- reply

All facts. Nodes must run the show. BIP-110 brings that back into alignment.

2026-03-08 00:28:31 UTC

- reply

That X comment only confirms what I have said all along. There is no legitimate market for jpegs on bitcoin. This is VC spammers trying to create a bitcoin "OpenSea" with high asymmetric return from a few niche suckers. They are running scared now that they understand how effective BIP-110 will be. Pure genius in design. The timing is perfection.

2026-03-06 19:59:19 UTC

- reply

Excellent site. He does a fantastic job of illustrating the spam attacks on multiple dimensions. Proof of work at its best.
Ivan Pustogarov in 2015 explained that running bitcoin over tor introduces risk to the network. It is true that you don't have to open port 8333 on your router with tor, but depending on another node network for uptime (only 8,000 to 10,000 tor relays worldwide) gives me some pause on weighing privacy pros and cons. However, with rising spam (and potentially illegal content) on the network, clearnet may pose an even greater risk in the future.
Not spreading FUD on network configuration or anything, just objectively analyzing the security and privacy tradeoffs. Your node, your rules. Your keys, your coins.

2026-03-06 13:00:16 UTC

- reply

I wish there was BIP that could rug "influencers". @nprofile…fg9w would make that list. Empty shells pretending to know what they are talking about.

2026-03-06 12:55:38 UTC

- reply

Isn't this the exact opposite position of Ivan Pustogarov from 2015?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gd5NZvsyAfw&pp=ygUWQml0Y29pbiBvdmVyIHRvciByaXNrcw%3D%3D

2026-03-06 10:38:14 UTC

- reply

Tone offers nothing to the table. He has a surface level understanding of basic principles and is completely wrong on a host of issues. Why do bitcoiners listen to this clown?

2026-03-04 04:23:44 UTC

- reply

But can they?
It has been Bitcoin Core's job to eradicate security vulnerabilities that threaten the network and they have been poor stewards to that end.
This is why we need BIP-110. We need to stop relying on a co-opted development team and start treated bitcoin for what it was always intended to be.

2026-03-03 17:59:54 UTC

- reply

Excellent video. All 4 on the list are security vulnerabilities that we need to eradicate. BIP-110 is needed to finally put this long standing concern to rest.

2026-03-01 09:45:58 UTC

- reply

Government has only one role, which is to keep its citizens safe from aggressors foreign and domestic. Finally, the US government did something useful with its citizens tax dollars. Now, if we can only get it to stop using the printing press... 🤔

2026-02-28 03:11:32 UTC

- reply

Miners are employees of the network. The network is controlled by nodes because node runners own the land where bitcoin lives. The miners are but serfs on the land. The extra fees from spam dust are not a strong enough incentive when only a couple of miners have the spam profitting VC firms backing them. When other miners can easily get more blocks and coinbase on a clean chain they switch over and leave the spam blocks to die.

2026-02-27 20:57:01 UTC

- reply

The part about the government censorship really leaves my head scratching. Wasn't Satoshi concerned about WikiLeaks?
In any case, what if it is I, and not the government, who is concerned about relaying images rather than legitimate transactions? Isn't it my node? That is not addressed in this piece.

2026-02-27 18:06:06 UTC

- reply

A Bitcoin Node Runner’s 7 Rules for Self-Sovereignty
1. Nodes enforce the rules.
Bitcoin’s consensus is enforced by nodes — not miners, not developers, not companies. If you don’t run a node, you are trusting someone who does.
2. Lightweight is not optional — it is the defense.
Bitcoin was engineered so ordinary people can verify it. If running a node becomes expensive or complex, decentralization erodes. Accessibility is a security model.
3. Raising node costs weakens the network.
Any proposal that materially increases hardware, bandwidth, or storage requirements must be treated as a potential centralizing force. The base layer exists for secure monetary settlement — nothing more.
4. Bitcoin is a protocol, not an industry.
There is no “Bitcoin industry” to protect. There is only a protocol individuals use to store and transfer value. Changes that serve corporate or non-monetary agendas over monetary integrity undermine the system.
5. Stewardship requires action.
If someone claims to defend Bitcoin’s monetary purpose but tolerates base-layer expansion that threatens decentralization, their incentives deserve scrutiny.
6. Open source is part of sovereignty.
Bitcoin is open-source software. Running it on proprietary systems introduces dependence. Sovereignty and closed platforms do not align.
7. Convenience is not sovereignty.
Corporate-packaged node solutions, auto-update containers, and “one-click” systems may reduce friction — but they increase trust assumptions. Real sovereignty means minimizing reliance on third parties.

2026-02-27 18:05:24 UTC

- reply

2026-02-27 12:46:46 UTC

- reply

What is a Bitcoin company? Are there BitTorrent companies?

2026-02-27 05:19:16 UTC

2026-02-25 18:40:06 UTC

- reply

It is not about purity. It is about sovereignty. What are the arguments for why I should run Core on my $85 Lenovo? Shouldn't I be free to run an implementation that doesn't clog up my ram or drive with gamified spam? Isn't bitcoin FOSS? I don't care if someone wants to have a clogged mempool and relay VC garbage but why should I not have a choice? If the argument is obvious, the convince a pleb like me to run Core.

2026-02-25 17:22:53 UTC

- reply

There are way too many weak arguments by Odell. It is easy for him to "stay humble and stack sats" while he collects "bitcoin industry" revenue to pay his expenses. There is no bitcoin industry the same way the BitTorrent protocol is not an industry. It is FOSS, and those who seek revenue from "developing" or "programming" it are an attack vector.

2026-02-24 11:47:25 UTC

Satoshi never called bitcoin programmable money. It was always an "electronic cash system".
This means it replaces your bank account (store of value), can be transferred at any time peer-to-peer (medium of exchange), and is secure and profitable enough to occupy a majority stake in your net worth (thus becoming a unit of account).
It is time to retire stupid phrases like "programmable money".

2026-02-24 11:41:44 UTC

- reply

There no other use cases. VC firms are spamming the network with garbage trying to hack it into an "OpenSea" style project. They are attacking bitcoin and Core will not stop it willingly. Rug the Spammers.

2026-02-23 19:31:50 UTC

Learn the Scam, and Rug the Spammers
1. VC firms salivate over the success of NFTs on Ethereum's OpenSea.
2. Capital outlays worth a few hundred Bitcoin can be divided into tens of millions of spamdust that can be attached to an AI generated worthless JPEG.
3. Half of the VC capital goes to pay miners which is either sunk cost or recuperated through investment in spam mining pools.
4. If the "Bitcoin OpenSea" projects fail, but Bitcoin rallies by multiples, then the coins can be recuperated and UTXO set will shrink to normal. This recuperation allows VC capital to have a "heads I win, tails I don't lose" approach. (Best case scenario)
5. If the projects succeed, UTXO set will stay permanently bloated as many worthless JPEGs attached to dust transactions will continue exist. These will serve to pretend to have a broad and vibrant digital art gallery giving "value" to a few choice pieces.
6. You only need a few JPEGs to have radical value for the Scam to pay off handsomely.
Run Bitcoin Knots with BIP-110 and Rug the Spammers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-02-23 14:53:05 UTC

- reply

Your article fails to address that a chain split is not a bug but a feature. Ideally there would be no chain split but for real bitcoiners our transactions will be on both chains. Only jpeggers and UTXO dust peddlers would be negatively impacted ... which is the whole point of the softfork. If the chain does not get the traction it properly deserves then so be it. My node will be leaner. My enforcement of the bitcoin rules will be closer to its origins and if successful, we Rug the Spammers.
Bitcoin doesn't get its credibility from noncontentious culture. Remember the block size wars? Bitcoin gets its credibility because there is only one true chain. BIP-110 is asymmetry for real bitcoiners. We lose nothing and VC capital freeloading on nodes and corrupt miners can no longer abuse the commons.
Since Core v.30 Bitcoin has lost over half its value. I don't think it is coincidence in timing. The VCs and the miners they support need spam to stay in business. Block reward is everything and they will unplug with each halving or hack their way into getting more fees. Rug these assholes by bringing bitcoin back to its origins.

2026-02-23 11:56:34 UTC

- reply

If your opinions are not tied down by investors, then why is there no serious discussion for why BIP-110 is bad? Calling a softfork that fixes a problem one client on a protocol created is not an attack on bitcoin.

2026-02-21 22:20:17 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin runs on FOSS. There are too many businesses trying to profit from bitcoin without actually acquiring any. VC are turning their investment capital into spam dust hoping for radical asymmetry modeled from OpenSea. The VC transactions are financing miners who will be exiting stage left with each halving.
Odell blasts Strategy for accummulating BTC, but not business actors making actual protocol changes and hacks that put bitcoin at risk. The Core vs Knots "debate" is corporate VC stonewalling to the max. All this AI generated filth (Runes and other stupid shit) is not good for nodes. The backed up sewer mempool and a UTXO bloat on its way to 90% spam does not seem to be an issue worthy of discussion to these people.
There is only one simple solution, which is to follow Szabo and Rug the Spammers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-02-19 20:51:35 UTC

- reply

I would add that mining is not an industry. They are employees of the network and they are only profitable at current hashrate while there is still coinbase to be earned. Over the next decade many will unplug.

2026-02-19 18:47:57 UTC

- reply

You can also update on a regular install using this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-02-19 03:33:30 UTC

- reply

Run a node for less than $100 by running a pruned node. Electrum and Lightning are overrated in my opinion. Do IBD once, make backup snapshots, and you never need to again.
Verify your wallet whenever you feel like it with:
bitcoin-cli gettxout <txid> <vout>
My node, my rules. But no matter how you choose to run it ... make sure it is Knots with BIP-110. Game theory is on OUR side.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-02-15 22:57:44 UTC

- reply

Running Knots has a lighter mempool and feels more in tune with Bitcoin philosophy/history. This data storage use case feels uncomfortable and dangerous.

2026-02-15 22:53:26 UTC

- reply

It is not about saving bitcoin from spam. It is about not storing, relaying g or promoting it.

2026-02-15 20:04:54 UTC

- reply

All it takes is one controversial image.

2026-02-15 15:31:14 UTC

- reply

Rationalizing this as a scheme that is "cooked up" is failure to recognize that people are genuinely concerned about spam and the op_return fiasco. My pruned snapshot from 2023 is 5 gb and is now 12 gb. The spam debate is real, grassroots, and node runners have the right to be concerned and take whatever action is needed when the conventional maintainers are derelict in their duty to protect node runner interests. We need UTXO combining and every wallet a node or able to connect to a trusted node. Spam is taking us away from that goal.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYA9vYa0iwQ

2026-02-14 16:35:59 UTC

- reply

Its not monetary if it will never be combined. Bitcoin was not designed to hold endless UTXOS forever. There cannot be 2.1 quadrillion UTXOs and we should not try. Combining is necessary for money. Spam inhibits that.

2026-02-14 16:20:14 UTC

- reply

I don't think bitcoin is "doomed". I think it sucks. I got into bitcoin when it was good. Spam is lame and its supporters and apologists are compromising the best monetary network the world has ever seen. It may become existential when 90% of the UTXO set is spam dust.

2026-02-14 15:29:54 UTC

- reply

Socially attack? Consensus on bitcoin being a monetary network sets it back before the real attack began with Taproot shenanigans. My money is on the line and I won't let "maintainers" continue to be derelict in their duty by inviting spam and destroying the price of Bitcoin.

2026-02-14 14:16:52 UTC

- reply

Because it is a juvenile proposal. Most serious monetary bitcoiners despise gambling. Our conviction does not come from "winning" someone's bitcoin, rather it comes from keeping what we have earned in a world full of economic NPCs and fiat debasement.

2026-02-13 03:43:15 UTC

- reply

Great material. Although a pruned node as "castrated" is a fairly strong position. Pruned nodes make snapshots and never have to do IBD again. The white paper included pruning for a reason and in the long, long run all nodes will eventually be pruned. Electrum servers and lightning channels are "extensions to" not "features of" bitcoin. Totally optional by providing enhancements and features such as block explorers and light client connectivity, but not a requirement.