Kerry ⚡

Sons of Liberty 🐍 Remember Executive Order 6102.

[Kerry ⚡ @FreeSpiritBTC]

@dhruv_ The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg

[ANTON, BIP 110 @Anton__BTC]

Unpopular opinion:
Core isn't enabling "data use case" to support miners.
Core is enabling "data use case" to weaken the monetary use case.
The only use case that the banking cartel has an issue with.

[Chris Guida | ⚡🪢 BIP110 @cguida6]

My opening statement from this debate:

---------------------

BIP110 is a simple statement: "we reject Core 30’s proposed addition of data storage to bitcoin."

Bitcoin is money. That is the starting point. If we lose sight of that, we lose the plot.

The block size war was one of the defining moments in bitcoin history because it forced bitcoiners to answer a basic question: who is bitcoin for? Is it for large companies, exchanges, miners, and professional infrastructure providers? Or is it for ordinary people: pleb merchants, individual savers, and node runners, who need to verify the system for themselves?

In 2017, bitcoiners answered correctly. We rejected the bigblock roadmap because it put bitcoin on a slippery slope: whenever blocks fill up, make them bigger; when they fill up again, make them bigger again. That path leads directly to centralization. It prices out ordinary node runners, turns validation into a professional activity, and recreates the trusted intermediaries bitcoin was designed to eliminate.

But the bigblockers got one thing right: bitcoin must work as a payment system. Their mistake was thinking bigger blocks were the way to get there. The real path is conservative base-layer validation, combined with trustless off-chain protocols like lightning. That is how bitcoin can scale commerce while preserving decentralization.

The current conflict over data spam is part two of the block size war. Once again, the question is whether we prioritize node runners and people using bitcoin as money, or whether we allow other interests to consume scarce block space and raise the technical, economic, legal, and moral cost of running bitcoin.

The worst centralization pressure here is not merely that spam makes nodes more expensive (which it does). It is that arbitrary data storage creates the possibility of deeply harmful illegal material, including CSAM, being embedded in the chain. If that happens, fully validating archival node operators could be placed in the position of storing and distributing material they find morally abhorrent. Even if the legal analysis varies by jurisdiction, the social consequence is obvious: most decent people will not voluntarily run infrastructure that forces them into that position. Node running would become limited to large institutions with legal departments, specialized infrastructure, or people with no moral objection to hosting such material. That is an extreme centralization pressure, and it attacks bitcoin’s security model directly.

So the answer should be the same as it was in 2017: the protocol must protect node runners first. Pleb merchants, especially in poorer parts of the world, must be able to run nodes and conduct business without trusted intermediaries. If they cannot, bitcoin will become dominated by large corporations, custodians, and professional infrastructure providers.

That is why protocol changes should be rare and careful (unlike the removal of the opreturn filter). Unless a change is necessary to make bitcoin more useful as money, or to defend bitcoin against a serious threat, the default should be caution.

But caution is not ossification.

Bitcoin is not a museum piece. It is a living system in a hostile environment. If we pretend the current ruleset is perfect forever, bitcoin loses the ability to adapt to new attacks, incentives, and failure modes. Ossification only makes sense if the protocol is already perfect. It is not.

BIP110 addresses a real vulnerability: the possibility that the developers of the dominant node implementation adopt an ideology that turns against the user community they are supposed to serve. When the people maintaining the main implementation make it harder to run a node, harder to use bitcoin as money, and easier to treat bitcoin as generic data storage, node runners have a responsibility to respond.

This problem is made worse by a small number of influential developers who appear to have an effective pocket veto over consensus changes. They can support changes that create harmful unintended consequences, and then block or stall the fixes. That is an unhealthy level of centralization in the development process.

Core v30 was a breaking point. Before it, there was a delicate balance between consensus and policy: consensus was permissive enough to allow future upgrades, while policy was restrictive enough to discourage abuse. Now we are told that policy does not matter, that spam transactions should be treated like real payments, and that node runners should simply accept the consequences.

That argument is not serious. Core still maintains many policy limits. Nobody actually believes every possible transaction must be relayed and mined on equal terms. The question is not whether policy matters. The question is whose interests policy serves.

BIP110 is therefore a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of Bitcoin Core. Mistakes happen. But refusing to admit a mistake, refusing to fix the damage, and blocking others from fixing it is far more dangerous than the original mistake itself.

One side effect of that pocket veto is the bikeshedding treadmill. Leadership quietly opposes a fix, but instead of saying what would actually earn support, the discussion becomes endless nitpicking: this opcode, that activation path, this implementation detail. At some point, “review” stops being review and becomes a strategy for delay.

Ultimately, the node network does not need permission from Core leadership to defend bitcoin. Especially not when Core itself introduced or normalized the harmful behavior in question. BIP110 is on track to activate with or without their blessing.

And BIP110 is not merely defensive. I am very bullish on its activation because it breaks the consensus logjam, among other things.

Bitcoin needs other improvements if it is going to destroy the fiat standard. We need better payment systems. We need better custody tools. We need mechanisms like covenants, vaults, and more powerful trust-minimized point-of-sale systems. But the current process makes every consensus change feel impossible, because if any mistake is made, we are told we must live with it forever.

That is not conservatism. That is paralysis.

BIP110 shows that bitcoin can fix mistakes. It shows that unintended consequences from prior upgrades do not have to become permanent vulnerabilities. It shows that node runners can still act when the dominant implementation fails them.

So yes, I strongly support BIP110.

It reestablishes payments as the primary use case of the bitcoin blockchain.

It reasserts that bitcoin is money, not arbitrary data storage.

It protects node runners from being pressured into storing or distributing morally abhorrent material.

It reminds everyone that node runners - not developers, not corporations, and not miners - are ultimately in control of bitcoin.

And it proves that bitcoin can adapt. Not recklessly, not casually, but when necessary: to defend its decentralization, its usefulness, and its purpose.

Bitcoin survives because node runners enforce the rules. BIP110 is node runners enforcing the rules.

Thank you.

[knight_bj-BIP110 @chunshengzhang3]

When Core v30 unilaterally increased the OP_RETURN data size limit from the original 80 bytes to around 100,000 bytes without consensus, the purpose was to make it easier for spam data and pornographic images to be inserted into blocks. That is why we choose Bitcoin Knots.

[Saifedean Ammous @saifedean]

Time preference is the control knob of your destiny.

The hardness of your money is the control knob of your time preference.

Inflation destroys human civilization, as we see all around us, because it forces people to have a high time preference.

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

@stepnoy385394 @oomahq @AtlasPool_io There's really no good reason for any datacarrier allowance anymore, tbh.

The current 83 byte default exists only to accommodate legacy privacy tech that is being phased out.

[₿itcoin ₿ombadil @BitcoinBombadil]

Bitcoin Policy Institute doesn’t understand Bitcoin’s monetary mission.

Shame @bitcoinpolicy

Abolish Taxes. End the Fed. Repeal Bank Secrecy Act. Repeal Patriot Act.

Advocate for ideas that actually protect individual liberty and help Sound Money/Bitcoin flourish.

[EL PAÍS @el_pais]

El Gobierno está en shock. La imputación de Zapatero por “organización criminal, tráfico de influencias y falsedad documental” es un golpe durísimo al corazón del sanchismo https://t.co/hJVlHqlAz6

[f☻sa @e_fosa08]

It reflects the philosophy behind each bending style. The martial arts inspirations for the four elements are completely different, and their hand positions show that.

Fire bending uses strong, explosive, direct movements inspired by Northern Shaolin. Closed fists represent aggression, power, and force being projected outward. Firebenders attack head on and generate energy from within.

Earth bending is based on Hung Gar, which emphasizes rooted stances and solid impact. Earthbenders clench their fists because their style is about firmness, resistance, and overwhelming force. They meet attacks instead of avoiding them.

Water bending comes from Tai Chi, which focuses on flow, redirection, and fluidity. Open palms allow smooth circular motions to guide energy instead of stopping it. Waterbenders adapt rather than overpower.

Air bending is inspired by Ba Gua Zhang, a style built around evasion, spirals, and constant movement. Open hands symbolize freedom and non-aggression. Airbenders prefer deflecting and dodging over striking directly.

So visually:

Closed fists = force, control, confrontation.
Open hands = flow, redirection, freedom.

It’s also a subtle personality reflection of the nations themselves:

Fire and Earth are more rigid and assertive.
Water and Air are more adaptive and spiritual.

[Kerry ⚡ @FreeSpiritBTC]

@VandelayBTC Wake me up when September ends...

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

@jratcliff The "other side" is bad actors and victims of their gaslighting.

[₿lackthorne AI @BlackthorneAI]

The scary part is not even the tax rate.

It is the mindset underneath it.

When a government starts talking about taxing unrealized gains, surveilling self custody, and restricting what assets people are allowed to hold, they are quietly redefining ownership itself.

You no longer own property.

You temporarily administer it, under conditions that can change politically at any moment.

Austria already showed the predictable outcome.

Capital does not disappear.

It moves.

Talent moves.

Builders move.

Liquidity moves.

And the state ends up collecting less than projected while trust erodes faster than expected.

Europe keeps treating Bitcoin as a taxable anomaly instead of recognizing what it actually is: an escape valve from monetary and political overreach.

The irony is that the more aggressive the crackdown becomes, the more people understand why Bitcoin matters in the first place.

[Kerry ⚡ @FreeSpiritBTC]

@lunaticoin Has caído por la madriguera barefoot 😄 esa es una de mis favoritas !

[Softfork Mechanic #BIP-110 @GrassFedBitcoin]

The bullshit in Core reminds me of the naive celebration of the First Amendment with regard to holding the powerful accountable.

The reality is the media is completely captured and a mouthpiece for the government and truth has to be garnered elsewhere.

The ignorant perspective that Core being open source somehow disqualifies it from ever being able to subvert Bitcoin is just as unfathomable to anyone prepared to be honest with themselves.

[Don Keith @RealDonKeith]

🚨EU plans VPN crackdown: New age ID system “cannot be bypassed” via VPNs.

Couldn’t stop illegal migration, but suddenly goes full North Korea on controlling what Europeans read online.

[Beautyon @Beautyon_]

The problem here is the mischaracterizing and overestimating of the Bitcoin Cult.

Even in the Bitcoin Cult context, accounts like "MrHodl" are not significant or influential in the big "rest of the world" picture where bitcoin is destined to thrive.

It really doesn't matter what "Mr. Hodl" has to say about anything; nothing he claims or says can or will change the direction of bitcoin. That's a fact.

Shinobi, who is a provably extremely intelligent, very well versed and knowledgeable person has more influence than "Mr. Hodl", and has risen from scintillating "phone it in appearances" on YouTube Bitcoin shows where he wiped the floor with big blocker anti-Bitcoiners to gaining a seat on Bitcoin Magazine's staff.

By dint of this, he has bigger reach; this is unarguable. His manner on X however, as a matter of effective persuasion, completely destroys his "arguments", on top of the fallacious, teenage, "Pics or it didn't happen" discourse that no one takes seriously.

Adam Back is the most powerful of the three, with a reputation spanning decades, a history of very sound ideas, a company actually offering real and useful services to Bitcoin users rather than skulking in the shadows as an rutardid "anon".

Everyone took him seriously because he was clearly a very serious, logical, philosophically aligned genius level thinker, and major and effective contributor to the Bitcoin business ecosystem with Blockstream's products, tools and services. Those are "Bona Fides" by any rational measure. No argument against him can be mounted in these areas.

That's why people are so shocked by his profound change in particular, because through being effective, he actually mattered.

The corruption of Bitcoin means less to Shinobi and "Mr. Hodl", who are not as invested in every way like Adam Back is. If Bitcoin vanished tomorrow, what would "Mr. Hodl" lose? Nothing. He's just an anon on X. Shinobi loses his writing gig at Bitcoin Magazine. Neither employ anyone, serve anyone with tools. Nothing of value to others is lost.

On the other hand, Adam Back loses the the culmination of a life-times work in a field where he is an expert to the level where he is cited in the venerated "White Paper". He has more to lose than any intemperate autist or silly 4Channish weather-vane turning Backstreet Boys fangirl level Anon.

The fact of the matter is that Bitcoin is bigger than all of these people; even Adam Back.

This is not controversial. The telephone as an idea was bigger than Edison. After Edison died, and his Patents expired, telephone networks grew and spanned and changed the entire world. Adam Back is not Satoshi; his company is one of many that are building on Bitcoin, all of which are owned by people who will eventually fade away. And Bitcoin will grow to engulf the entire world...right?

The noise you hear on X is not bitcoin. The people you worship are not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is much bigger than what is said on X, and infinitely bigger than the miniscule and fleeting reputations of Bitcoin Cult members who switch off their brains when they go to conferences and pack halls to the rafters to hear the High Priest of Bitcoin whine on stage to a pounding music intro.

No matter what happens, bitcoin will survive all of these people, and it will continue to do what it does one way or another. Hopefully it is one way. The weakest part of the ecosystem are the brain dead men and women who don't know why bitcoin was written, and the brain dead men and women who know why it was written but who are pulling up the ladder and the brain dead men and women who think Bitcoin is a threat of some kind. If these people did not exist, bitcoin could continue indefinitely. But you don't live in that world.

You should therefore be prepared to believe that you will be smeared, attacked, and harassed by people you made the mistake of venerating if you try to exit the Cult. Hodlnaut, because he was counted amongst the victims of Craig "Faketoshi" Wright was on the surface, a deep Cult "Made Man" at a minimum. That he has broken ranks in such an effective and serious way, using his assumed high level cult member status to destroy the priesthood is the greatest of blasphemies. Hodlnaut and Adam Back were in the same Hight Court being attacked by Faketoshi. Hodlnaut has the credibility as a wrongly perceived insider, by mere association, to detonate Bitcoin Core from the inside.

That's why they hate him so much. He broke ranks.

None of these people attacking Hodlnaut (or very few of them) are actually interested in the truth or in Bitcoin; it's just another grift, gig and club to be in. The low level cult members who are too timid or dumb or anti-social to do what Adam Back has done move from one position to another because that's where their maximum value is; they have nothing actionable to offer, nothing to buy or use; its just hot air, swearing, positioning, and lazer eyes.

The cult tenets of "don't trust, verify" and decentralization mantras were nothing more than sentiments provided to the Cult from the priest class as symbols and coordinating messages to get plebs in line, mobilize them into an army and control them. The Cult Priesthood don't believe any of it; if they did, they would not be reacting the way they've reacted to BIP110 Hodlnaut and Luke's client. They would never have done or supported "Use Cases" or pollution on Layer 1, or anything that caused what has happened to happen.

Of course they don't care about "don't trust, verify" and decentralization. Everyone can see this now, and it may explain why they're so furious; they can't use the religious texts they've been using to enlist and control and manipulate users. They've been disempowered. It's over for them.

That they're retreating to intemperate bursts of schoolboy profanity laced anger, ridiculous Appeals to Authority, Ad Hominem and other fallacious arguments, shaming, smears....and a point blank refusal to engage with the shocking revelations of the articles shows they're completely destroyed and haven't got a leg to stand on. It's really over for them.

What's more interesting is that they believe that railing against Hodlnaut's exposé will discredit his work, make it go away or diminish its impact. Haven't they heard of the Streisand Effect? The more furiously they explode against him the more people read the articles and share them, just like this:

https://t.co/HIFEeaCT9V

And they can't all be doing this because they're "compromised" and being "Blackmailed because Epstein". They're doing this because they believe in it; they believe in "use cases" and want Bitcoin to be polluted on Layer 1. That's beyond dispute. They want the corrupt management of Bitcoin Core and the Reference Client to continue unchallenged. All of this is a logical conclusion.

Once again. The current generation of Bitcoiners, Bitcoin users, Bitcoin businesses and everyone tangential to it is not eternal; new people will come to it with (unfortunately) "their own ideas" and they will try to corrupt it.

Whether they succeed or not is up to the people who run the nodes and who are aligned with bitcoin's ends, unlike the Three Stooges Hodlnaut references. Bitcoin's central flaw is that it requires a large number of aligned people for it to run in a protected state. In 2026, this is harder than ever to put in place, because you're dealing with mentally ill people who don't even believe that there can be truth at all.

Still, does this mean you should give up and "go back to fiat". Obviously not. What you should do is begin to behave in a rational manner; stop being and acting like a cult member and imitating other people.

You are going to get burned again and again by your heroes; so, don't have any. Be in Bitcoin for it's purpose, not the "culture". The culture is toxic and a dead end...but if you like death then...

Rock on, and perish with it!

[Jim | RDTS | Bitcoin, not jpegs @venorusprime]

Shitcoiner celebrates that @TheBitcoinConf went from being full of toxic Bitcoin maxis in 2021 to full of shitcoiners in 2026.

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

[Dear Son. @DearS_o_n]

Once you realize that anything can happen; sickness, death, lose your job... Literally, anything in the blink of an eye, you become very humble. Tables turn, and that's how crazy life can get.

Dear son, Always pray, stay humble, and be thankful.

[Curtis Yarvin @curtis_yarvin]

What’s wild about this global “age verification” push is that no one even knows who or where it’s coming from. Yet it’s clearly one idea with one source.

Real power in “our democracy” has become entirely mysterious. Makes medieval Venice look like a New England town meeting

[Dear Son. @DearS_o_n]

𝗦𝗲𝘅 feels different when you 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲.

𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗸 feels different when you have 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲.

𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 feels different when you’re 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 for your 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.

𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗹 feels different when you keep a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘁.

Dear son, 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯.