Nostr notes by Mischa

How to Capture Bitcoin Mining Make Bitcoin mining unprofitable ...

2026-09-06T06:28:10Z

How to Capture Bitcoin Mining

Make Bitcoin mining unprofitable through sustained price pressure and lower transaction fees. Buy up mining machines using debt, then continue operating the mining capacity at a loss until other mining operators are forced out of the market.

True, English is not my main language, but I rewrote it until it ...

2026-09-06T06:07:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…5522
_________________________

True, English is not my main language, but I rewrote it until it reflected the arguments I wanted to make.

I wouldn’t be so certain about that. Bitcoin is valuable ...

2026-09-05T20:19:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…3k6l
_________________________

I wouldn’t be so certain about that.

Bitcoin is valuable because it is decentralized, censorship-resistant, and supply-limited, and that is exactly what BIP110 prioritizes. In today’s Bitcoin ecosystem, mining is dominated by a small number of public mining pools.

Global tensions could increasingly create pressure to comply with censorship requirements, and publicly traded mining companies may find it particularly difficult to resist such pressure.

The security of the Bitcoin network is not determined solely by the amount of computational power securing it. It also depends on how many mining machines are actually available and how widely they are distributed among independent participants. If 100% of the machines were widely and independently distributed, the network would be much more resilient. But if only 70% of the available machines were operating while the remaining 30% were sitting on the market and could potentially be acquired by a single actor, the network would become more vulnerable to attack.

In that sense, a new coin using a different proof-of-work algorithm is not necessarily much less secure simply because it has less total hash power.

There is also the issue of custody in today’s Bitcoin. A very large amount of Bitcoin is held in custodial arrangements without any cryptographic guarantee that all of the underlying Bitcoin actually exists. Rehypothecation could create additional synthetic supply and put downward pressure on the price.

If a competing chain could demonstrate that its transactions cannot be censored, that it has a larger and more decentralized network of independently operated nodes, and that a greater percentage of its coins are held in self-custody, it could potentially lead to more transactions taking place directly on-chain. This would generate higher transaction fees. Higher fee revenue would give network protectors more money to continue doing so and make the network less dependent on publicly traded dept companies.

With all of these factors combined, such a chain would absolutely have a legitimate reason to exist.

In that scenario, it could serve as a kind of escape valve, a credible alternative for users if Bitcoin turns out to be more captured or centralized than it currently appears to be.

Do you have proof that no pool started mining on the BIP110 side ...

2026-08-21T05:29:26Z

Do you have proof that no pool started mining on the BIP110 side when mandatory signaling began? On your livestream, you said that Foundry miners weren’t getting any jobs. What if that was because they had switched sides? Foundry can’t afford to lose blocks, and by mining on Antpool’s side, they would have had over 50% of the hashrate. nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7txfg0n (nprofile…fg0n)

quoting
nevent1q…mhvp
If the first block during mandatory signaling had been a BIP110 block, I think there was a real possibility the network would have followed it.

Foundry wasn’t mining at the moment of the split, which is one reason the next block on both sides took so long. My speculation is that Foundry may initially have been on the BIP110 side. After seeing Antpool, the largest pool, mine on the other side, they may have stopped rather than risk mining against it, and then switched.

That’s what the BIP110 side got wrong. The whole concept was based on miners not wanting to risk a split, but they didn’t consider what would happen if the first block was on the other side. They assumed other miners would want to override it and mine a BIP110 block. But in this scenario, miners instead stop mining to avoid risking a split. So everything comes down to mandatory signaling. The more support there is, the higher the chance of mining on a given chain.

It’s not so simple. Your self-interest as a miner is to serve ...

2026-08-20T04:57:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…dvsk
_________________________

It’s not so simple. Your self-interest as a miner is to serve as many people as possible, as this results in a higher price and more fees. If you fork 20% off, even if it were possible not to, you’re somehow hurting yourself.

You can argue that there wasn’t enough capital or enough companies on the BIP110 side. And it’s true that, in that case, 20% wasn’t enough to change Bitcoin.

But if things were a little different, then sure, a minority could change Bitcoin.

It’s not proven that my theory is true, but I think it is quite ...

2026-08-19T18:37:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…fvdr
_________________________

It’s not proven that my theory is true, but I think it is quite possible.
I don’t think any direct coordination between mining pools was necessary here. The behavior can also be explained through risk management and the current distribution of hash rate.

The two largest pools together control more than 50% of the total hash rate. In such a situation, smaller pools have very little real influence. For them, it is rational to wait and observe how the dominant pools position themselves, rather than taking on significant risk themselves.

My assumption is that Foundry may have initially started on the BIP-110 side, but after Antpool’s decisive block reassessed the situation and moved toward the economically safer chain. As a large company with shareholders, the room for risky decisions is limited, especially when they could lead to substantial losses. This is also why soft forks generally work: a chain split is worse for everyone in Bitcoin, so miners are incentivized to converge on a single chain. However, in this case Antpool effectively triggered a split, and from that point on it became clear that one side would lose everything.

Foundry likely did not have the risk tolerance to continue in an uncertain direction, and by moving to continue on Antpool’s side they ended up with over 50%, making that path the safe choice. That said, there is no proof that Foundry actually started on BIP-110 at all; it is also possible they simply paused until the situation became clear.

In both cases, what stands out is that a configuration where two pools control over 50% of the hash rate leads to distorted outcomes. And that is exactly the structural issue that needs to be improved.

If the first block during mandatory signaling had been a BIP110 ...

2026-08-13T19:27:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…rk42
_________________________

If the first block during mandatory signaling had been a BIP110 block, I think there was a real possibility the network would have followed it.

Foundry wasn’t mining at the moment of the split, which is one reason the next block on both sides took so long. My speculation is that Foundry may initially have been on the BIP110 side. After seeing Antpool, the largest pool, mine on the other side, they may have stopped rather than risk mining against it, and then switched.

That’s what the BIP110 side got wrong. The whole concept was based on miners not wanting to risk a split, but they didn’t consider what would happen if the first block was on the other side. They assumed other miners would want to override it and mine a BIP110 block. But in this scenario, miners instead stop mining to avoid risking a split. So everything comes down to mandatory signaling. The more support there is, the higher the chance of mining on a given chain.

If Bitcoin is captured and millions are being spent to influence ...

2026-08-12T11:38:03Z

If Bitcoin is captured and millions are being spent to influence it, splitting a significant group of users onto a competing chain could turn out to be one of the worst decisions for those trying to maintain that control.

A competing chain creates a real-world test. If price suppression, rehypothecation, or other forms of capture actually exist, the alternative chain could attract more capital by offering stronger monetary properties.

If the capture thesis is wrong, the competing chain may simply lose relevance.

But if it is right, the split could expose exactly what the capture was supposed to hide.

Don’t try to capture Bitcoin. You’ll just lose money.

2026-08-11T20:08:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…x7q2
_________________________

Don’t try to capture Bitcoin. You’ll just lose money.

The most powerful thing about Bitcoin is that you can always fork ...

2026-08-11T20:06:34Z

The most powerful thing about Bitcoin is that you can always fork it.

If Bitcoin ever becomes truly captured, users can fork the system, change the rules, or even change the PoW algorithm and rebuild outside the captured structure.

Someone can spend enormous amounts of money trying to capture the chain, only to watch the network evolve around their control and make that power irrelevant.

Then the market decides.

The chain with more self-custody, more independent nodes, more decentralized mining, no money creation, less rehypothecation, and no group able to enrich itself through control of the protocol has the stronger monetary properties.

Capital will ultimately flow toward the system people trust most.

I don’t think Bitcoin is fully captured today, but we are seeing tendencies.

A Bitcoin chain can be captured.

The idea of Bitcoin cannot.

I don’t support BIP110 in the sense that I would sell my real ...

2026-08-11T18:39:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…54a6
_________________________

I don’t support BIP110 in the sense that I would sell my real Bitcoin. But until BIP110 is proven to be unsafe or unsustainable, I will hold my coins on both chains.

In the long run, I believe the chain that is more decentralized, where more people choose self-custody instead of rehypothecation, and where nobody can enrich themselves by changing the rules will gain more value.

I’m open to both chains. I also know that Bitcoin Core and mining on the real Bitcoin have a lot of room for improvement. Time will show which chain better preserves what makes Bitcoin valuable.

This has nothing to do with that. When mining is centralized and ...

2026-08-11T10:22:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…m57f
_________________________

This has nothing to do with that. When mining is centralized and two pools control over 50% of the hashrate, smaller pools are effectively forced to follow the big ones.

Miners get paid by users through transaction fees. Yet they willingly cut off around 20% of their potential fee-paying users just to push them out of the network, hurting both themselves and Bitcoin in the process.

With BIP110 activated, no one using Bitcoin as money would have been pushed out of the network.

There is a minority in Bitcoin that has spent years building ...

2026-08-10T18:18:15Z

There is a minority in Bitcoin that has spent years building tools to make Bitcoin more decentralized.

They built OCEAN (nprofile…wpe4) to decentralize mining and block-template construction. They built simple, accessible node hardware so more people could validate Bitcoin themselves and have a voice in the network Start9 (nprofile…xmmy) They even rented hashrate and pointed it toward smaller pools to reduce mining centralization.

Then on Saturday, five major mining pools chose a path that forked this minority off, despite having the option to keep them on the network.

That choice should have consequences.

Exiting Bitcoin is not the answer.

Now is the time to use the decentralization tools that have already been built.

Move hashrate away from dominant pools. Mine through smaller, more decentralized options. Run your own node. Construct your own block templates. Support infrastructure that reduces our dependence on a handful of mining pools.

The response should be to make those five pools less important.

Compete against them. Take hashrate away from them. Reduce their influence.

If mining pools make decisions that damage the network, we should make them feel the economic consequences.

I agree with “don’t fork off,” but in my view there are ...

2026-08-10T17:50:00Z

In reply to nevent1q…g27m
_________________________

I agree with “don’t fork off,” but in my view there are serios problems with centralisation.

10–15% of nodes explicitly supported the soft fork, while 0% rejected its blocks under the existing consensus rules. The rest simply didn’t signal support.

Yet miners proactively chose the path that forked those users off, even though they didn’t have to.

How else are we supposed to measure consensus? Does one large exchange saying “yes” suddenly matter more than thousands of independent nodes?

Non-signaling is not rejection.

The most objective signal we have is the rules nodes actually enforce. And there was no consensus-rule rejection of the soft-fork chain.

To me, this exposes a serious centralization problem in mining. A small number of large pools collectively chose a path that removed 10–15% of nodes/users and their potential fee revenue, despite a compatible path being available.

So what incentives or coordination made that outcome preferable? Social pressure? Money? Politics? Or simply a misunderstanding of the incentives?

A chain split hurts everyone in Bitcoin. It fragments users, liquidity, infrastructure, and economic activity. That was clear before it happened.

So the question I still have is: why did so many influential voices prefer the split over a compatible path that could have kept the network together?

In the livestream, Bitcoin Mechanic said that he received a ...

2026-08-09T14:47:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…l60d
_________________________

In the livestream, Bitcoin Mechanic said that he received a message from a Foundry miner saying they weren’t getting any jobs. That could explain why it took Foundry so long to mine a block they had simply stopped mining.

My speculation is that Foundry initially started mining on the BIP110 side, but then changed course after seeing Antpool’s block.

Maybe if the block had come from a smaller pool, they wouldn’t ...

2026-08-09T14:16:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…kjy5
_________________________

Maybe if the block had come from a smaller pool, they wouldn’t have stopped. But once they saw that it came from the biggest pool, they stopped.

Yes, and after seeing Antpool’s block, they stopped.

2026-08-09T14:14:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…kjy5
_________________________

Yes, and after seeing Antpool’s block, they stopped.

Did Foundry stop mining as soon as mandatory signaling started, ...

2026-08-09T14:05:17Z

Did Foundry stop mining as soon as mandatory signaling started, or only after Antpool found the first block?

It would be interesting to know whether Foundry initially signaled BIP110 and then, after seeing Antpool’s block, pivoted, stopped mining, and waited or whether they stopped right when mandatory signaling began. It’s possible that it was simply chance that determined which chain won.

I’m still unsure why they didn’t prevent a chain split.

If the soft fork had succeeded, there wouldn’t be two chains. ...

2026-08-09T10:53:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…hxne
_________________________

If the soft fork had succeeded, there wouldn’t be two chains.

By splitting the chain, Bitcoin as a whole loses: capital is divided, we lose a competing node implementation, and the network’s monetary force is weakened.

No matter which side you support, splitting Bitcoin into two competing networks makes both weaker than one unified network.

From that standpoint, miners chose to hurt themselves instead of moving forward with a single chain. Why?

We can’t predict the time horizon, but ultimately, the most ...

2026-08-08T17:48:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…caw5
_________________________

We can’t predict the time horizon, but ultimately, the most decentralized Bitcoin will win. Bitcoin as an invention is here to stay, and there is no way to enrich yourself by manipulating the protocol rules. The chain with the most economic value will be the one where nobody can steal from others.

Probably the best listen for understanding the debate and ...

2026-08-08T09:49:19Z

Probably the best listen for understanding the debate and preparing for today’s event. It explains what could happen and why.

https://youtu.be/-or58xeQeXU

Did you read this? ...

2026-08-08T06:55:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…m4y3
_________________________

Did you read this?

https://x.com/oomahq/status/2085717166884618584

As I see it, the big pools face a real risk if they don’t ...

2026-08-08T06:28:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…g5pe
_________________________

As I see it, the big pools face a real risk if they don’t signal. By playing it safe and only starting to signal once mandatory signaling begins, they gain an advantage over all the smaller pools.

quoting
nevent1q…5csj
My prediction for today:

Small miners can’t really decide on BIP110 themselves; they have to follow the big miners.

If either Foundry or Antpool flips the bit while the other doesn’t, the one that doesn’t could be in serious trouble. If both flip it, they’re safe. In that case, they would benefit from mining blocks with less competition for some time, until the smaller miners catch up and follow them. On top of that, by flipping the bit, they serve 100% of nodes.

With the majority of the hashrate, the BIP110 chain will grow faster and overwrite legacy blocks. No permanent chain split, and all economic value remains on one chain.

I think both Antpool and Foundry will flip the bit. In that case, they can’t really lose. They benefit from less competition until all miners converge on one chain.

There will probably be a temporary split until all miners start signaling BIP110.

Guilty. Mine are closed. I’m ready for the showdown.

2026-08-08T06:05:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…dyqt
_________________________

Guilty. Mine are closed. I’m ready for the showdown.

My prediction for today: Small miners can’t really decide on ...

2026-08-08T04:01:55Z

My prediction for today:

Small miners can’t really decide on BIP110 themselves; they have to follow the big miners.

If either Foundry or Antpool flips the bit while the other doesn’t, the one that doesn’t could be in serious trouble. If both flip it, they’re safe. In that case, they would benefit from mining blocks with less competition for some time, until the smaller miners catch up and follow them. On top of that, by flipping the bit, they serve 100% of nodes.

With the majority of the hashrate, the BIP110 chain will grow faster and overwrite legacy blocks. No permanent chain split, and all economic value remains on one chain.

I think both Antpool and Foundry will flip the bit. In that case, they can’t really lose. They benefit from less competition until all miners converge on one chain.

There will probably be a temporary split until all miners start signaling BIP110.

I agree. If there were actually a permanent close to 50/50 chain ...

2026-08-07T18:46:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…g4ns
_________________________

I agree. If there were actually a permanent close to 50/50 chain split, that would obviously be bad. But in our case, the incentives are aligned for miners to avoid that, and they can do so, because BIP110’s rules are compatible with all older nodes. If they weren’t compatible with older nodes, it would be a disaster.

It also doesn’t activate out of nowhere. There are close to two weeks of preparation for each activation period, which makes a sustained near-50/50 split very unlikely.

The way we’re doing it now, the incentives are aligned for miners to upgrade. More signaling is obviously better, but in this case, the threshold doesn’t really matter because it activates even without reaching it.

It’s good to see how Bitcoin works under different conditions. This is the only way to see how we can secure it when it comes under attack.

Does this have something to do with BIP110?

2026-08-07T05:44:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…368u
_________________________

Does this have something to do with BIP110?

It’s a UASF. The threshold doesn’t matter because it ...

2026-08-07T05:35:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…0shk
_________________________

It’s a UASF. The threshold doesn’t matter because it activates anyway. They considered it an emergency and tried to activate it as early as possible. A 55% threshold puts more pressure on miners. With a 95% threshold, a miner with 6% could simply wait and wouldn’t have to worry about early activation. Miners will try to avoid a chain split at all costs. If signaling reached 55%, it’s very likely it would have quickly gone above 95% as well. But anyway, today is the activation date, so the threshold doesn’t change anything.

Maybe he was exploiting it slowly so nobody noticed, and now AI ...

2026-08-04T18:07:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…awp4
_________________________

Maybe he was exploiting it slowly so nobody noticed, and now AI found it.

What if the allegations against Adam Back were true, and the ...

2026-07-29T17:40:37Z

What if the allegations against Adam Back were true, and the mining operation was in fact a Ponzi scheme? The implications could be significant. If many developers associated with Bitcoin Core, companies, or other prominent figures had lent money to finance that operation, Adam’s inability to repay those loans could expose them to substantial financial losses. In the worst case, some companies could face serious financial distress or even insolvency.

Under that hypothetical scenario, one possible explanation for the strong opposition to BIP110 would be that they believe Blockstream’s Simplicity smart contract project could generate enough value to help close that financial gap. If BIP110 were to succeed, there might be no realistic way to recover those funds.

Almost everyone loses unless BIP110 activates without a chain ...

2026-07-27T16:15:48Z

Almost everyone loses unless BIP110 activates without a chain split.

For leveraged companies with significant debt, opposing BIP110 without a successful URSF is like shooting themselves in the foot. A split would divide capital between two chains, reduce miner revenue, put downward pressure on Bitcoin’s price, increase the risk of a leverage cascade, create technical challenges for Lightning, add operational costs for exchanges, and damage Bitcoin’s reputation.

Every company operating in the Bitcoin ecosystem stands to lose from that outcome. So why are they pushing so hard against BIP110? If Bitcoin is used as money, most users wouldn’t even notice whether BIP110 activates. But everyone would notice the consequences of a chain split. So what do they believe they would lose if BIP110 activates?

The best outcome for everyone would be for BIP110 to activate ...

2026-07-26T22:05:33Z

The best outcome for everyone would be for BIP110 to activate without a chain split. If that happens, it would still be possible to revisit the change in a year.

The opponents of BIP110 failed to build enough momentum for a URSF. Instead of engaging with the concerns raised about the changes introduced in Bitcoin Core v30, many dissenting voices were ignored, blocked, or dismissed. This is the result of that approach.

For leveraged companies, promoting opposition that could lead to a chain split is a highly risky strategy.

I’m prepared for any outcome. If the Bitcoin price drops significantly, i don’t care. Whether every company or miner can afford such a scenario is another question.

I’m ready and have no reason to be anxious. My bitcoin is in cold storage and secure.

At what point leveraged companies will realize this, I don’t know. But for their own sake, I hope they do before it’s too late.

With over 15% of the network’s nodes, the longer it takes for a ...

2026-07-26T21:53:11Z

With over 15% of the network’s nodes, the longer it takes for a block to be found on the BIP110 chain, the higher the transaction fees rise. That attracts more miners, increasing the risk of the other chain being wiped out. Don’t be fooled by debt-ridden companies. They don’t pay you, they simply benefit from Bitcoin’s price appreciation. But in the event of a chain split, they would likely have the most to lose if the price falls. It seems they underestimated the risks. If they don’t reconsider their opposition, they may end up paying the highest price.

*Failed to build momentum for a URSF

2026-07-26T19:10:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…e578
_________________________

*Failed to build momentum for a URSF

We have a war in Bitcoin, largely caused by Core’s ...

2026-07-24T07:36:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…pjq5
_________________________

We have a war in Bitcoin, largely caused by Core’s misdirection. How is it that all the major companies ended up giving even more money to the same organization that funded Core during the period when it was moving in the wrong direction?

I think that once the major AI companies start trying to match ...

2026-07-23T15:27:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…rswm
_________________________

I think that once the major AI companies start trying to match their expenses with their revenue, many people will want to buy their own local AI setup instead. My suspicion is that this transition will take much longer than we expect.

It’s interesting to watch. Core supporters seem to appear out ...

2026-07-23T14:59:19Z

It’s interesting to watch. Core supporters seem to appear out of nowhere every few weeks. Once their arguments are debunked or their conflicts of interest become apparent, they disappear, only to be replaced by another new voice.

In contrast, the people supporting BIP110 have largely been the same individuals from the beginning, consistently making their case over time.

🇨🇭

2026-07-17T06:02:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…8slh
_________________________

🇨🇭

The beautiful thing about Bitcoin is that it can become whatever ...

2026-07-14T11:11:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…5dj4
_________________________

The beautiful thing about Bitcoin is that it can become whatever people value most. The rules that attract the most capital, attract the most hash rate and therefore become Bitcoin. In a world where everything inflates, the rules that best protect capital from devaluation will win.

It can be messy, especially when people hold Bitcoin indirectly through stocks or funds and a single entity decides how that capital is used. But in the end, the concept of Bitcoin survives.

If you don’t trust the latest rules, take some money and move it to the fork you believe is safer for your capital. Put your money where you believe it is best protected. Don’t decide out of fear or follow the majority. In the end, that behavior is what drives Bitcoin’s evolution.

True, and I agree it’s the best shot we have. Bitcoin is not ...

2026-07-13T10:59:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…spc9
_________________________

True, and I agree it’s the best shot we have. Bitcoin is not static. If there are several forks, the one people believe will be the best long-term store of value will become Bitcoin, because it attracts the most capital and therefore most miners. If BIP110 fails, a chain optimized for more than just money will become Bitcoin. That’s not the chain I trust. At that point I will diversify more. If we eventually have a truly decentralized chain focused only on being money, I will go all in again. That’s how Bitcoin works. Incentives decide which chain becomes the best money and therefore Bitcoin.

Before the Blocktrainer went full Saylor fanboy, he argued that ...

2026-07-13T10:28:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…np9l
_________________________

Before the Blocktrainer went full Saylor fanboy, he argued that Ethereum only pretends to be decentralized. His point was that it’s actually better to have a centralized system where everyone knows who controls it and who has the power to change it, rather than a system that gradually centralizes while nobody knows who is really in control.

I see Bitcoin the same way. If, at such an early stage, ordinary users can’t compete with corporate interests, then there are dangerous forces at work. Everything we value about Bitcoin could eventually be changed. Physical gold doesn’t carry that same governance risk.

It’s not that I’ve completely lost trust in Bitcoin. I just see a risk that, in my view, is growing. That’s why I plan to diversify more if BIP110 fails.

agree

2026-07-13T10:15:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…j3d5
_________________________

agree

physical gold and swiss franc

2026-07-13T10:15:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…np9l
_________________________

physical gold and swiss franc

If BIP110 fails, I will sell a portion of my Bitcoins. If ...

2026-07-13T07:31:29Z

If BIP110 fails, I will sell a portion of my Bitcoins. If corporate interests are valued more than those of the plebs, it means Bitcoin is not as decentralized as I believed, and I need to diversify more.

Corporate entities are driven to maximize shareholder value. They can’t simply sell if a chain split happens.

On top of that, there is no technical opposition in form of a URSF to BIP110. If miners understand this, there will be no chain split.

That’s true. That was the original intention they stated. ...

2026-07-09T17:54:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…ey6h
_________________________

That’s true. That was the original intention they stated. However, after the overwhelming backlash, there were other ways to address the issue. For example, the outcome could have been achieved by simply limiting OP_RETURN at the consensus level.

Especially given the entire fork discussion. If their primary concern had truly been protecting the Bitcoin network, they could have offered an alternative consensus fork that for example enforced just an OP_RETURN limit, especially after it became clear that most node operators did not support opening up OP_RETURN. That would have addressed the concerns around the miners while also taking much of the momentum away from BIP110.

No major investor funds a business built around embedding ...

2026-07-03T12:38:30Z

No major investor funds a business built around embedding arbitrary data into Bitcoin if that use case could disappear overnight. Core V30 changed those incentives by treating data on bitcoin as a feature to protect. That’s what BIP110 tries to solve. Sending that message is a powerful way to discourage future spam projects.

I’ve been mining on my own node for the past month using rented ...

2026-06-04T19:49:30Z

I’ve been mining on my own node for the past month using rented hashpower from Braiins and directing it to Ocean with around 2 PH/s. I was fully prepared to lose a bit while supporting decentralization, but funnily I actually ended up making around $50.

To all the power seekers in Bitcoin: the plebs are coming. And on top of that, we’re even making money while doing it.

Another day, and once again more reasons not to blindly trust ...

2026-06-01T17:52:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…nla3
_________________________

Another day, and once again more reasons not to blindly trust Bitcoin Core.

For Saylor, it’s grow or lose. If he can’t continue ...

2026-05-31T10:44:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…mvax
_________________________

For Saylor, it’s grow or lose. If he can’t continue accumulating more Bitcoin, then why should somebody hold his stock?

Actually, the fact that mining pools are so large may make it ...

2026-05-31T09:50:28Z

Actually, the fact that mining pools are so large may make it easier to carry out a UASF in practice.

If around 30% of the hashrate is controlled by a single pool, then even a relatively small shift can change the dynamics very quickly. For example, if at the beginning 20% of the hashrate is mining on the BIP110 side and Foundry mines two blocks in a row on the opposing chain, then Antpool switching its 30% to the BIP110 side could suddenly push the situation close to 50/50.

At that point, Foundry would face a real risk that the blocks it just mined could become invalid on the chain that eventually wins. Because miners are economically incentivized to avoid that risk, large pools may switch sides faster than many people expect.

So ironically, mining centralization may actually make a UASF easier to activate, because only a few large pools need to change behavior for pressure on the rest of the network to increase dramatically.

I agree that mining centralization is probably the biggest ...

2026-05-30T22:14:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…5p7w
_________________________

I agree that mining centralization is probably the biggest problem, and because of that we now have the spam problem. If nothing is done against spam, it will attract larger funding rounds, more investors, and more people building non-monetary use cases on Bitcoin.

Over time, Bitcoin’s rules and culture are shaped by how the network is actually used. The longer these alternative use cases grow, and the more capital and infrastructure form around them, the harder it becomes to move Bitcoin back toward its original role as primarily a monetary system.

To the second point, I don’t think Core is handling this in good faith. Bitcoin Core v30 has seen relatively low adoption, and we have now a discussion about a possible fork caused by the disagreement of the change.

If Core genuinely wanted to find a solution that benefits the network as a whole, they could at least propose an alternative, instead of pushing their own approach without compromise.

I do not think that BIP110 changes Bitcoin’s censorship ...

2026-05-30T11:43:49Z

I do not think that BIP110 changes Bitcoin’s censorship resistance in any meaningful way, and I believe it is needed to close a form of misuse of Bitcoin that was not previously possible.

Because of the increasingly centralized block creation within mining, it is possible to route data around the node network entirely. You can have all nodes running strict policies, but if a single mining pool finds a large share of blocks and there is a direct way to send data to them, then those policies cannot effectively stop the data from entering the blockchain.

This is exactly why BIP110 tries to introduce limitations that make abuse harder.

In Bitcoin’s early days, this attack surface barely existed because nobody knew who would find the next block. Transactions had to propagate through the node network first, which meant node policy actually had strong influence.

Today, with large mining pools, private transaction submission, and centralized block template creation, that dynamic has changed significantly.

Once there is a reliable way to regularly store data on Bitcoin, projects begin forming around it and attract investors who increasingly fill Bitcoin with spam-like usage.

Core’s policy changes contributed to a situation where nearly every block become completely filled with this type of data usage. If an individual miner refuses to include it, they put themselves at a financial disadvantage compared to other mining pools that continue accepting the fees.

Theoretically, the temporary aspect lowers the barrier for miners ...

2026-05-29T14:57:40Z

In reply to nevent1q…dv6u
_________________________

Theoretically, the temporary aspect lowers the barrier for miners to activate it.

Were you already involved in Bitcoin during the Bitcoin block size wars?

I don’t care about the fees. My concern is the long-term health ...

2026-05-22T09:25:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…96f7
_________________________

I don’t care about the fees. My concern is the long-term health of nodes and the decentralization of the Bitcoin network.

Okay yes, true that’s a fair point, but still what happend to ...

2026-05-22T06:05:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…t6pj
_________________________

Okay yes, true that’s a fair point, but still what happend to this approach?! From my perspective, Taproot mainly benefited spam and data-related use cases without providing a comparable real-world benefit for Bitcoin as money itself. And still, there has been no serious alternative proposal to adjust or mitigate the unintended consequences that came with it. Opening OP_RETURN limits also benefits spammers, while not actually reducing spam.

And yes, I agree that we probably cannot stop it completely. But then why are we not even trying to limit it in a reasonable way?

To me, the easiest way to prevent something like BIP110 from gaining support would be to propose an alternative approach that is less strict and more balanced. I don’t see much effort from the other side to even explore compromises or mitigations, and that is how to see bad intentions.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The example ...

2026-05-21T20:21:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…juvy
_________________________

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The example shows that the Bitcoin community can drive out spam projects if we adopt a consistently hostile stance toward them. When such projects are unwelcome, VCs and investors quickly lose interest and stop funding them.
The reality is that Bitcoin Core has done almost nothing over the past few years to address this issue and that’s precisely why we’re in this situation today. If nothing changes, we should expect even more of these projects to follow.

I disagree. There are ways to remove spam projects, and we have ...

2026-05-21T19:38:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…2uud
_________________________

I disagree. There are ways to remove spam projects, and we have already done so. Look at Vitalik post and why he chose to build Ethereum instead of using Bitcoin.

https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/929805462052229120?s=20

That’s not the point. The reason many of us want to restrict ...

2026-05-21T19:22:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…ee97
_________________________

That’s not the point. The reason many of us want to restrict arbitrary data on Bitcoin is because we don’t want the chain turning into a platform for spam projects like Citrea or other shitcoins.

Selling Bitcoin to normies is already hard enough. Making the blockchain look like a playground for tokens, NFTs, and speculative projects only makes adoption harder.

And on top of that, we don’t want permanently 4Mb full blocks.

Credit is the ability to outbid a saver today by sacrificing ...

2026-05-16T20:48:41Z

Credit is the ability to outbid a saver today by sacrificing future freedom.

lose-lose

I agree, showing every possible opinion is not the solution ...

2026-05-14T17:17:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…nt9n
_________________________

I agree, showing every possible opinion is not the solution either. What makes Bitcoin interesting is that every change comes with trade-offs between decentralization, security, scalability.

In both Bitcoin and politics, the tendency is often to keep adding more features, more complexity, and more layers. Over time, the system becomes so complicated that most people can no longer fully understand it themselves, or properly evaluate all the side effects of a change. At that point, we have to trust a small group of experts, or influencers. That is the point I see Bitcoin facing right now. If the majority of people can no longer independently evaluate changes, narratives become more powerful than reality itself.

And that naturally leads to centralization, because a small minority gains disproportionate influence over the existing system and can shape it in ways that primarily benefit themselves. There is no real solution to this. The best approach is to keep Bitcoin’s rules as simple as possible.

Seems so. I don’t know him. I just read something a few weeks ...

2026-05-14T09:07:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…zyms
_________________________

Seems so. I don’t know him. I just read something a few weeks ago about a fork he wants to do.

Bitcoin was originally designed so that the network remains ...

2026-05-14T06:51:55Z

Bitcoin was originally designed so that the network remains decentralized as long as all participants act in their own self-interest. But what happens when the perception of many users no longer reflects reality?

In my view, the biggest attack vector against Bitcoin is misinformation directed at the different actors within the network, influencing whether changes are pushed through, or intentionally prevented.

It is interesting to observe how nearly every large Bitcoin influencers end up holding the exact same position against the BIP. In many cases, I believe this is driven by fear of losing influence, reputation, or important relationships within the ecosystem.

If we want Bitcoin to succeed, we need more large influencers with different views on important topics within Bitcoin.

Somehow true, but the block size limit is not meant to be full ...

2026-05-05T16:36:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…fzgj
_________________________

Somehow true, but the block size limit is not meant to be full all the time. If no transactions need to be processed, that’s actually good, because the blockchain doesn’t grow unnecessarily.

In my view, that’s exactly why we need to take action now. ...

2026-05-05T06:10:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…jadj
_________________________

In my view, that’s exactly why we need to take action now.

quoting
nevent1q…cuy9
Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were introduced with Taproot, with the promise that they would improve Bitcoin as a payment network. For a long time the argument was that these use cases simply needed time to develop.

Now more than four years have passed and Taproot is still barely used for payments. It had enough time to prove its value.

What we see instead is that a significant portion of blockspace is used for things that have little to do with Bitcoin as money, or a payment network.

The issue is that Bitcoin evolves through consensus. Bitcoin ultimately becomes what its users use it for. If more activity revolves around NFTs, smart contracts, DeFi, or similar applications, the incentives around Bitcoin will inevitably shift in that direction.

Bitcoin is built on trade-offs. Decentralization and scaling cannot both be maximized. Other applications have very different trade-offs than Bitcoin as decentralized money and a store of value.

Once those use cases become large within the network, they also gain influence over its future direction. At that point it becomes much harder to steer Bitcoin back toward its role as money. If a large share of blockspace is already used for other purposes, that shift has already begun. That is the risk I see, and why I support moving Bitcoin back toward being primarily a store of value and payment network.

We as a community messed up too. If we had pushed back harder ...

2026-05-05T06:02:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…jadj
_________________________

We as a community messed up too. If we had pushed back harder against arbitrary data during the OP Return, Taproot discussions, it would have sent a completely different signal to everyone.

The reason the financial system is the way it is comes down to ...

2026-05-03T19:18:29Z

The reason the financial system is the way it is comes down to greed. Satoshi showed a fairer system is possible.

Many voices in Bitcoin lost that vision. Even if it stays small but decentralized, the vision survives.

Anyone centralizing it to accumulate more is acting in self-interest. Don’t trust them.

From what I’ve read, this would also be valid under the rules ...

2026-05-02T07:23:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…yjst
_________________________

From what I’ve read, this would also be valid under the rules of BIP110. Is that correct?

UPS-backed node and internet router. Running self-sovereign ...

2026-04-22T19:25:45Z

UPS-backed node and internet router. Running self-sovereign Bitcoin with my own Lightning node, managing channels, and ~1 PH of rented hashrate pointed to my node. That’s how Bitcoin stays decentralized.

Do you think the new Trezor with an open-source security chip is ...

2026-04-17T21:39:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…kre3
_________________________

Do you think the new Trezor with an open-source security chip is the safer choice?

Renting hashrate and pointing it to your own node feels right. ...

2026-04-17T21:34:55Z

Renting hashrate and pointing it to your own node feels right. Glad to contribute to more decentralized mining.

The technical side is too complex for me to fully judge. But in ...

2026-04-02T06:16:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…ltha
_________________________

The technical side is too complex for me to fully judge. But in case of doubt, I would prefer fewer features if that helps preserve decentralization in the long term, because decentralization is the highest priority for me. I would rather have centralized scaling companies than a less decentralized main chain. My concern is that if the BIP fails, everything will just stay the same. I don’t think more time for developers will change anything. With BIP110, it seems nothing will happen unless it activates. If it gets activated, everyone would have one year to finally address the spam problem. If developers worked together to find a compromise instead of ignoring or insulting each other, they would probably find the best solution. But if things continue like this, nothing will happen, and I am willing to sacrifice some functionality for decentralization.

In Bitcoin, the majority of nodes ultimately decide the rules. If we allow more and more other use cases, then the trade-offs shift away from money and toward other areas. Since decentralization and scaling can never be achieved without compromises, this would mean we are slowly pushing Bitcoin in a different direction.

Once other use cases exist on Bitcoin, the topic of confiscation becomes much bigger, because to achive the best form of money, more users would have to be controlled, or restricted. If Bitcoin is no longer the best chain for storing and sending money, then a gap opens for other projects that can do this better and attract more capital as a result.

I understand the concerns, but I think if we really want Bitcoin to remain money, we need to protect that use case first, before Bitcoin is used for other things.

Interesting view🤔

2026-04-01T09:50:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…krpk
_________________________

Interesting view🤔

So the main criticism seems to be about timing. Given how the ...

2026-03-31T20:07:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…59rj
_________________________

So the main criticism seems to be about timing. Given how the limits are chosen, do you fully agree that they are reasonable?

I agree, but I think the criticism are mainly about future ...

2026-03-31T20:03:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…2djy
_________________________

I agree, but I think the criticism are mainly about future technologies that might not be able to connect different layers to the main layer because of the limit.

I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future ...

2026-03-31T14:16:00Z

I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future development, and that is a valid concern. Maybe there is a better and more conservative way to set the limits. But no one is proposing real alternative solutions, and the problem still exists: It cannot be the plan that we have full blocks forever. The limit should be there for periods of high demand, not so that blocks are permanently full.

If Core really wants to solve this problem, they should propose other solutions. Just saying that the problem cannot be solved is not enough.

What makes me skeptical is that at the same time, companies, or funding partners connected to Core are working on smart contracts and other use cases around Bitcoin. That creates a conflict of interest.

They tell the public that Bitcoin is money, but at the same time they are building business models on top of Bitcoin to make money themselves.

The public is being told one story, while the incentives behind the scenes are different. Decisions are not only being made for Bitcoin as money, but also for business opportunities and profit.

quoting
nevent1q…zjjm
In my opinion, Adam Back has lost a lot of credibility. First, he was involved with Epstein, and now I’m hearing more and more about Blockstream actively working on smart contracts on sidechains, with long-term plans to potentially expand this technology to Bitcoin Onchain.

This makes me question his motivations. I no longer trust that his opinions are purely based on what is best for Bitcoin. It increasingly seems that his views may be influenced by business interests, pushing additional use cases on Bitcoin through Blockstream and promoting his treasury company, even if those use cases may not actually benefit Bitcoin as money.

In my opinion, Adam Back has lost a lot of credibility. First, he ...

2026-03-31T12:11:31Z

In my opinion, Adam Back has lost a lot of credibility. First, he was involved with Epstein, and now I’m hearing more and more about Blockstream actively working on smart contracts on sidechains, with long-term plans to potentially expand this technology to Bitcoin Onchain.

This makes me question his motivations. I no longer trust that his opinions are purely based on what is best for Bitcoin. It increasingly seems that his views may be influenced by business interests, pushing additional use cases on Bitcoin through Blockstream and promoting his treasury company, even if those use cases may not actually benefit Bitcoin as money.

If a split happens, much more is at stake than just fees. A chain ...

2026-03-30T17:47:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…t45f
_________________________

If a split happens, much more is at stake than just fees. A chain split would hurt Bitcoin’s reputation, likely cause a price drop, reduce mining revenue and fees, and probably create issues for Lightning too.

Around 10% of nodes is already a significant share, and there will certainly be miners who want to capture those fees. The only realistic way to prevent this is to activate the BIP. The closer we get to the deadline, the more pressure miners will be under.

If miners really follow economic incentives, then in theory they will just adopt the BIP, or mine BIP-compliant blocks, because that’s the rational economic decision. A small amount of spam fees are not worth the trouble.

Truly astonishing. It’s likely Citrea has more to do with it ...

2026-03-10T15:04:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…pnma
_________________________

Truly astonishing. It’s likely Citrea has more to do with it than they admit.

Bitcoin becomes what its users use it for. The direction of ...

2026-03-10T14:26:14Z

Bitcoin becomes what its users use it for. The direction of Bitcoin is ultimately shaped by the collective agreement of users, and the rules can change if that agreement changes.

If more activity moves toward NFTs, smart contracts, or DeFi, the incentives around Bitcoin will also shift in that direction. Because Bitcoin is built on trade-offs between decentralization and scaling, pushing it toward other applications risks weakening its role as decentralized money and a store of value.

quoting
nevent1q…cuy9
Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were introduced with Taproot, with the promise that they would improve Bitcoin as a payment network. For a long time the argument was that these use cases simply needed time to develop.

Now more than four years have passed and Taproot is still barely used for payments. It had enough time to prove its value.

What we see instead is that a significant portion of blockspace is used for things that have little to do with Bitcoin as money, or a payment network.

The issue is that Bitcoin evolves through consensus. Bitcoin ultimately becomes what its users use it for. If more activity revolves around NFTs, smart contracts, DeFi, or similar applications, the incentives around Bitcoin will inevitably shift in that direction.

Bitcoin is built on trade-offs. Decentralization and scaling cannot both be maximized. Other applications have very different trade-offs than Bitcoin as decentralized money and a store of value.

Once those use cases become large within the network, they also gain influence over its future direction. At that point it becomes much harder to steer Bitcoin back toward its role as money. If a large share of blockspace is already used for other purposes, that shift has already begun. That is the risk I see, and why I support moving Bitcoin back toward being primarily a store of value and payment network.

Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were ...

2026-03-10T13:23:59Z

Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were introduced with Taproot, with the promise that they would improve Bitcoin as a payment network. For a long time the argument was that these use cases simply needed time to develop.

Now more than four years have passed and Taproot is still barely used for payments. It had enough time to prove its value.

What we see instead is that a significant portion of blockspace is used for things that have little to do with Bitcoin as money, or a payment network.

The issue is that Bitcoin evolves through consensus. Bitcoin ultimately becomes what its users use it for. If more activity revolves around NFTs, smart contracts, DeFi, or similar applications, the incentives around Bitcoin will inevitably shift in that direction.

Bitcoin is built on trade-offs. Decentralization and scaling cannot both be maximized. Other applications have very different trade-offs than Bitcoin as decentralized money and a store of value.

Once those use cases become large within the network, they also gain influence over its future direction. At that point it becomes much harder to steer Bitcoin back toward its role as money. If a large share of blockspace is already used for other purposes, that shift has already begun. That is the risk I see, and why I support moving Bitcoin back toward being primarily a store of value and payment network.

That’s true. But the fact that a bug has existed for a long ...

2026-02-26T15:21:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…wcjy
_________________________

That’s true. But the fact that a bug has existed for a long time and was rarely used doesn’t mean it should be ignored once it starts being used more frequently.

The current conflict has not changed our fundamental ...

2026-02-25T18:12:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…25hn
_________________________

The current conflict has not changed our fundamental understanding of what Bitcoin is. We all have significant skin in the game. In my view, the main difference between us comes down to the information and perspectives we each rely on.

I am convinced that almost everyone in Bitcoin values your work. Thanks. However, after a long period of neutrality and silence, suddenly taking a clear side based on speculative arguments naturally triggers reactions.

The reason we have different blockchains today is historically connected to Core’s stance against non-monetary transactions. That is a fact. And that stance has clearly shifted.

The data that ends up on the blockchain is a direct consequence of the current rules. Bitcoin is meant to be a payment network. If the current state of the blockchain no longer reflects that, then the rules need to be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted.

Instead of personal attacks, the technical arguments should be discussed. If both sides clearly state what they disagree with on a technical level, compromises and durable solutions can be developed. Especially if the goal is the same.

That is exactly what I hardly see from Core and why i oppose it. Why, after such a long time, has no serious compromise even been visibly explored? If concerns are widely expressed and there is still no sign of meaningful reconsideration, it does not look like an open process. It looks like a predetermined direction being pushed through.

The way I understood him, he thinks that both sides were paid to ...

2026-02-22T19:17:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…73rg
_________________________

The way I understood him, he thinks that both sides were paid to divide the community.

I have another point: #nevent1q…x7k7

2026-02-22T15:11:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…7e8y
_________________________

I have another point:

quoting
nevent1q…x7k7
I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose.

The concern is understandable: if users can bypass node relay rules by sending large OP_RETURN transactions directly to miners, that creates centralization pressure. Miners could start offering private submission channels for large data transactions. Over time, that weakens the public mempool and gives mining pools more gatekeeping power.

After recognizing this issue, Core likely looked at different ways to handle it. In the end, they decided to align relay policy with consensus and completely remove the OP_RETURN size limit at the policy level.

The idea was straightforward: if the standard relay path allows what consensus already allows, there is no incentive to route transactions around the network.

Up to that point, I can follow the reasoning. But that is not the only possible solution.

Why not go in the opposite direction?

Instead of loosening relay rules, why not tighten consensus to 80 bytes?

That would have:
• Closed the bypass vector completely
• Removed the incentive for direct miner submission
• Kept the attack surface smaller
• Avoided normalizing larger data embedding
• Reduced legal and reputational risks
• Made large-scale spam more expensive, since it would need to be split into multiple transactions

In short, instead of expanding what is permitted at the policy layer, consensus could have been made stricter.

So the real question is:
Why was this option not seriously debated? Were there strong technical reasons against it, or was it simply not the direction they wanted to take?

Is this technically accurate? I believe it would also be a strong ...

2026-02-22T15:07:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…qn2l
_________________________

Is this technically accurate? I believe it would also be a strong argument against Core’s decision.

quoting
nevent1q…x7k7
I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose.

The concern is understandable: if users can bypass node relay rules by sending large OP_RETURN transactions directly to miners, that creates centralization pressure. Miners could start offering private submission channels for large data transactions. Over time, that weakens the public mempool and gives mining pools more gatekeeping power.

After recognizing this issue, Core likely looked at different ways to handle it. In the end, they decided to align relay policy with consensus and completely remove the OP_RETURN size limit at the policy level.

The idea was straightforward: if the standard relay path allows what consensus already allows, there is no incentive to route transactions around the network.

Up to that point, I can follow the reasoning. But that is not the only possible solution.

Why not go in the opposite direction?

Instead of loosening relay rules, why not tighten consensus to 80 bytes?

That would have:
• Closed the bypass vector completely
• Removed the incentive for direct miner submission
• Kept the attack surface smaller
• Avoided normalizing larger data embedding
• Reduced legal and reputational risks
• Made large-scale spam more expensive, since it would need to be split into multiple transactions

In short, instead of expanding what is permitted at the policy layer, consensus could have been made stricter.

So the real question is:
Why was this option not seriously debated? Were there strong technical reasons against it, or was it simply not the direction they wanted to take?

I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely ...

2026-02-22T15:01:22Z

I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose.

The concern is understandable: if users can bypass node relay rules by sending large OP_RETURN transactions directly to miners, that creates centralization pressure. Miners could start offering private submission channels for large data transactions. Over time, that weakens the public mempool and gives mining pools more gatekeeping power.

After recognizing this issue, Core likely looked at different ways to handle it. In the end, they decided to align relay policy with consensus and completely remove the OP_RETURN size limit at the policy level.

The idea was straightforward: if the standard relay path allows what consensus already allows, there is no incentive to route transactions around the network.

Up to that point, I can follow the reasoning. But that is not the only possible solution.

Why not go in the opposite direction?

Instead of loosening relay rules, why not tighten consensus to 80 bytes?

That would have:
• Closed the bypass vector completely
• Removed the incentive for direct miner submission
• Kept the attack surface smaller
• Avoided normalizing larger data embedding
• Reduced legal and reputational risks
• Made large-scale spam more expensive, since it would need to be split into multiple transactions

In short, instead of expanding what is permitted at the policy layer, consensus could have been made stricter.

So the real question is:
Why was this option not seriously debated? Were there strong technical reasons against it, or was it simply not the direction they wanted to take?

I agree. I don’t feel particularly pressured, but I do find ...

2026-02-22T11:46:23Z

In reply to nevent1q…5x3x
_________________________

I agree. I don’t feel particularly pressured, but I do find Core’s behavior questionable.

If the issue was that nodes can be routed around, that could have been addressed by tightening the OP_RETURN limits at the consensus level, rather than expanding the attack surface in Bitcoin.

At the same time, I think this reflects a very natural dynamic: closely connected people tend to avoid openly contradicting one another. In my last post, I outlined how I believe this situation developed.

quoting
nevent1q…30dt
History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally.

The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses.

Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low.

This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction.

One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable.

These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest.

This post is inspired by the newest video from nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uea5z4g (nprofile…5z4g)
Best regards, I appreciate your content.

There was no real urgency that required this change. A soft fork ...

2026-02-22T09:44:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…sgn0
_________________________

There was no real urgency that required this change. A soft fork could have been prepared properly and discussed openly, instead of introducing a controversial change that may expand the attack surface.

The lack of serious debate naturally raises questions. It gives the impression that the change was primarily pushed for specific actors or projects, such as Citrea or individuals like David Bailey.

If you can’t see that connection, I honestly don’t know how else to explain it.

Now in moments of weakness, you just open it in the browser ;)

2026-02-21T20:45:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…kgux
_________________________

Now in moments of weakness, you just open it in the browser ;)

Maybe I’m wrong about the legal aspect. Right now, the risk ...

2026-02-21T20:35:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…4fah
_________________________

Maybe I’m wrong about the legal aspect. Right now, the risk seems limited. But we don’t know what could happen in the future if OP_RETURN remains open.

At the moment, block template creation is largely centralized at mining pools. I assume they currently prevent clearly problematic content from entering the blockchain, or maybe not needed?

If the long-term goal is to decentralize block creation, then moving in the direction of v30 feels questionable. Block creation without any kind of data filtering mechanism could significantly affect Bitcoin’s public perception in the future, but that’s simply my critical assessment of possible outcomes.

I would be fine with the change too. If there were at least some indication that Core is willing to change something.

So what is the plan going forward?

I fully agree. In that post, I laid out how I see the whole ...

2026-02-21T20:05:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…3m5w
_________________________

I fully agree. In that post, I laid out how I see the whole situation and why this conflict in Bitcoin exists, if you’re interested ;)

quoting
nevent1q…30dt
History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally.

The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses.

Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low.

This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction.

One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable.

These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest.

This post is inspired by the newest video from nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uea5z4g (nprofile…5z4g)
Best regards, I appreciate your content.

“For the record, if Core gets routed around with Libre Relay, ...

2026-02-21T19:43:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…7amt
_________________________

“For the record, if Core gets routed around with Libre Relay, etc., the answer isn’t to turn Core into Libre Relay.”

Very true, but it could be addressed by reducing OP_RETURN at the consensus level.

I believe the legal dimension is more relevant, even if, in theory, node operators are not doing anything illegal themselves. The fact that they are not responsible for the content does not eliminate the practical risk. If illegal material is embedded in the blockchain, running a node could still expose someone to legal scrutiny or prosecution on the grounds that they are distributing, or storing that data.

This risk may be especially significant in developing, or more authoritarian countries, where legal systems are less predictable and due process is weaker. The recent events surrounding Samurai Wallet show that even when individuals are acting within the law, authorities may still pursue aggressive enforcement actions.

That reality should be taken seriously when changing fundemental things in bitcoin.

I do not see the situation as an acute emergency, even if it is ...

2026-02-21T19:33:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…tkkl
_________________________

I do not see the situation as an acute emergency, even if it is sometimes framed that way by the Knots side. And i agree, it would be naive to assume that any side is immune to compromised actors. Based on what I have observed over the past months, I still lean toward the Knots position.

The increase of the OP_RETURN limit was controversial from the outset. For months, the Knots side made it clear that their objective was to reverse the change. Despite that, there has been no visible willingness to seriously reconsider it. More nodes are now running Knots than Core v30. That cannot reasonably be described as a clear and uncontested mandate. Yet even in light of these signals, there has been no meaningful reflection or attempt at compromise. The obvious question remains: why?

The main argument in favor of the change is mining centralization. Without the adjustment, fee markets could develop outside node policy, allowing larger OP_RETURN data to be compensated directly to miners. The concern is that this would create long-term centralization pressure.

If the real issue is the potential for bypassing node policy, an equally effective approach would be to tighten consensus rules rather than relax OP_RETURN limits. A stricter consensus limit would make large OP_RETURN data fundamentally impossible, eliminate the bypass vector entirely, and at the same time address the broader data concern.

This is precisely the direction the proposed fork takes. It may be stricter than necessary, but it attempts to solve the same underlying problem Core claims to address, without introducing new incentive shifts or expanding Bitcoin’s attack surface.

I believe the legal dimension is relevant too, even if, in theory, node operators are not doing anything illegal themselves. The fact that they are not responsible for the content does not eliminate the practical risk. If illegal material is embedded in the blockchain, running a node could still expose someone to legal scrutiny or prosecution on the grounds that they are distributing, or storing that data.

This risk may be especially significant in developing, or more authoritarian countries, where legal systems are less predictable and due process is weaker. The recent events surrounding Samurai Wallet show that even when individuals are acting within the law, authorities may still pursue aggressive enforcement actions.

That reality should be taken seriously when changing fundemental things in bitcoin.

For those who are not aware yet, this is the reason behind this ...

2026-02-21T16:54:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…dass
_________________________

For those who are not aware yet, this is the reason behind this childish attack.

quoting
nevent1q…5xez
Matt Odell Maligning BIP-110

That’s how you properly respond to an accusation.

2026-02-21T16:30:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…xv86
_________________________

That’s how you properly respond to an accusation.

Fair point, but what is actually preventing Core from tightening ...

2026-02-21T10:21:04Z

In reply to nevent1q…kpp6
_________________________

Fair point, but what is actually preventing Core from tightening the consensus rules? Why choose to fully open up OP_RETURN despite significant controversy?

Most nodes oppose the change in v30. Most nodes also oppose the ...

2026-02-21T08:49:18Z

Most nodes oppose the change in v30. Most nodes also oppose the change proposed in BIP110.

So why not roll back both and slow down?

Take the time to develop serious solutions. Let different teams propose different approaches. Evaluate them openly. Test them thoroughly. Compare the trade-offs honestly. Then, in one or two years, decide which path truly makes sense for Bitcoin.

As long as Core refuses to reverse its change, I feel pushed toward supporting the fork. We clearly have a spam problem and spam harms Bitcoin in multiple ways. Ignoring it is not a strategy. Pretending it has no meaningful impact is the wrong approach. If the change were rolled back, I would be willing to give the process more time.

I do not see this as an immediate emergency. But failing to address the issue and signaling that spam will simply be tolerated will only accelerate the problem. That is not a direction Bitcoin should move toward.

We clearly have a spam problem. Core should roll back OP_RETURN ...

2026-02-21T06:50:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…y9w4
_________________________

We clearly have a spam problem. Core should roll back OP_RETURN and then actually focus on addressing spam properly.

Take the time to develop real solutions. Let different teams propose different approaches. Evaluate them openly. Test them. Compare trade-offs. Then, in one or two years, decide which path makes the most sense for Bitcoin.

What is actually stopping this approach?

ODELL (nprofile…2uzc)

Why not roll back the change? I’m convinced some people would ...

2026-02-21T06:37:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…humd
_________________________

Why not roll back the change? I’m convinced some people would pause and reconsider how urgent this fork really is.

If the goal is truly to minimize damage, reduce division, and lower the risk of a chain split, then reverse the change…

@nprofile…fg9w , I genuinely want your view on this, especially ...

2026-02-20T19:52:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…sn5k
_________________________

ODELL (nprofile…fg9w) , I genuinely want your view on this, especially after seeing this post.

Around 20% of nodes have upgraded to v30 within six months. A significant portion of the community opposes the change, and several developers themselves say it has had virtually no meaningful impact on the blockchain’s data volume.

Yet there has been no visible sign of reconsideration or willingness to reassess.

If the practical effects are minimal, adoption remains low, and resistance is clearly evident, what explanation, other than ego or control, would justify continuing to push it forward?

And in your reasoning, how is this meaningfully different from the dynamics we see around the BIP110 proposal?