Rene

[Rene @duke_h3]

@GrassFedBitcoin Why is this a dress-code thing? Many captains of industry wear suits, its not a bankster dress-code.

Do you have to dress in a sack to show virtue?

[Rene @duke_h3]

@HShearsay @OrangePilled No that is taking it too long, Roger is a influencer and he did not join BCH until 2x failed. The tech guy was Amaury Séchet, lead def of bitcion ABC.

[Rene @duke_h3]

@Dimi_h @DrStarHeartsong Yes and if you want to take that thought even further, why is no money been sent to software from the pools that receive the users fees? Core is basically donation ware. Here I think Ocean is a good example, they are defecto (or where) running there own software.

[Rene @duke_h3]

Again technically incorrect. Any new bip cannot get adapted without the mining pools active participation. software does not magically appear on their nodes. They have to make an upgrade, and if it is a soft fork then bip-9 signaling should follow, and consensus reached at 95% I am pretty sure bip-54 will try a UASF (bip-8) while pretending to be bip-9.

And to say that you proposed bip was not controversial is again beeing loose with the truth. You where litteraly attacking known bitcoin use cases. One might assume that atleast people using those use cases would object. And people standing next to them thinking will I be next? You even made a point of excluding people from bitcoin saying openly, and I am quoting. Bitcoin is not for everyone. One post even went as far to say that if you are not running a node then bitcoin is not for you. That is 99.9+% of bitcoins current user base. Such a bitcoin would have exactly 0% chance of success of replacing fiat money as global currency.

This is not nothing, these are founding pillars of the movement.

I might disagree with ordinal or Sailors digital credit. But I will to my last breath defend his right to use bitcoin that way. Bitcoin is for everyone, including people who's use case you do not agree with.

[Rene @duke_h3]

It was not half a dozen mining pools, it was litteraly every mining pool on the planet except the one that was run by the guy pushing the fork. And even that one was not supporting it default. It lost half of its hash power as a result. And it was also 99.9+% of bitcoins user base. Nobody showed any interest.

If you want to worry about something then you should worry about the fact that we have one reference implementation of the software and exactly 0% of the over 10B USD equivalent that the users anually pay is used to fund that implementation, the mining pools just scoop up that software for "free" instead it is donationware, and a lot of people have opinion on the implementation. But if you are not paying for it it is not your product is it.

[Rene @duke_h3]

Interesting...

[isa⚡️ @isabellasg3]

the bitcoin culture is dead and nobody wants to admit it

[Rene @duke_h3]

@ScarcityMan So in your own word, my mother is forced to run her own node to be part of bitcoin, chap I don't think you and I belong in the same movement, its great that you fork off.

[Rene @duke_h3]

Already more, you have made a mining reset, the trick is not be be more decentralized at inception, the trick is to be more decentralized when you are 15 years down the road 200 M users using your chain and you are dispensing the equivalent of 200k USD per mined block. Bitcoin was also more "decentralized" back in 2010-2011, when it comes to mining. We where very centralized when it came to the ability to exchange bitcoin for other currencies, and we still are very very decentralized when it comes to the software provided, at least on L1, L2 looks a lot better with competing implementations.

[Rene @duke_h3]

People keep asking me if I support one fork of bitcoin or the other. I will continue giving the same reply I gave back in 2017. I will continue supporting and improving bitcoin. On the whole I think it is important that @LukeDashjr with friends now have their own version of bitcoin that they can do with as they please. This will again (like with BCH) revitalize the community, lessons learned on one chain can if seen positive be merged back into the other. The market in the end decides the value. They have set out an alternate vision for what they want.

[Rene @duke_h3]

@realityblob They are a softfork, so that are compliant with BTC main chain util a potential PoW change.

[Rene @duke_h3]

@zndtoshi @BitcoinMotorist This is a defeated branch of bitcoin.

[Rene @duke_h3]

Bitcoin users are not affected

[Pavol Lupták @wilderko]

This is brutal — the EU is forcing banks outside the EU to stop providing core banking services to EU residents, unless those banks set up a licensed branch inside the EU.

Note that what matters is your residence, not your passport — an EU citizen who is tax resident elsewhere is not affected.

If you want to avoid trouble opening an account with any non-EU bank in the future, I recommend securing residency outside the EU (we'll gladly help with Paraguay, Uruguay or Panama).

As an EU resident, you may already run into problems opening a bank account outside the EU from next year.

EU Directive 2024/1619 ("CRD VI") introduces a new Article 21c. From 11 January 2027, it prohibits banks established outside the EU from providing core banking services — including deposit-taking — to clients established or situated in the European Union, unless the bank operates a licensed branch in the relevant member state.

[Rene @duke_h3]

We have had effective futures trade since 2017, so this is nothing new. Futures usually means that you get a more effective and stable price. Ofc the depends on asset. I don't have the data on how hard it is to capture bitcoin. But markets are usually difficult to capture. I know a lot more examples of failure to do so, even at modest prices and very very few examples of success.

The peek 2021 was destroyed by altcoin season, that was not the case in 2025. Instead we got what in my eyes looked like adoption. Smaller peaks, now the question is why. To move bitcoin today, compared to 2017 require a lot more heavy lifting.

[Rene @duke_h3]

Looks cool!

[Neo Im Him 6g @boss_im_him_6g]

GTA 6 leaked gameplay 🥹

[Rene @duke_h3]

People wont listen, and they will have to learn by them self. I would rather try to talk a stone out of something than Luke once he has made his mind up, the stone is a lot more flexible, and listens to reason.

I learned back in 2017 that you can hang around two communities and still get away with it. I would not give up on trying to influence bitcoin main chain in a positive direction.

[Rene @duke_h3]

@DrStarHeartsong @BitcoinPierre I can feel your pain, I tried to talk the people behind segwit2x not to join BCH back in 2017.

[Rene @duke_h3]

I am not sure mining pool centralization is the issue here. Apathy to the problem a few, but active group of people see as a problem is. Me personal is a bit on the fence here. I believe that bitcoins powerful irreversible sequencing ability is its true intrinsic value, that can be used to help humans in a lot more cases than just bitcoin. In the same way we use gold for other things than mint coins. So we should expect people to use it for other form of sequencing. The problem ofc comes if that comes at the expense of individual node runners feels that there HDD is filling up with things that they don't want. Ofc big corp will not care about HDD space but a private person that feels that he is being unfairly used as somebody else redundant storage will. But the question does not always be to seek conflict. Some times adapting technology can work in your favor.

I am pretty sure that starting yet-another-bitcoin-fork-this-time-we-will-do-it-right is not he most optimal path for the bitcoin community.

I do fell that the bch and bsv forks did provide valuable data (we now know that we can hardfork for instance) that we can then re-implement in the main chain if need, but I don't really see the value the Luke is now proposing, other than he is in control of that chain, but if he things he needs a playpen to experiment sure go ahead.