peter doherty

Long on Bitcoin in 2025 and 2026 My tweets are mostly retweets of those I follow, for my reference.

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@PlanBpassport Here

[Beautyon @Beautyon_]

Quite naturally, these people deploy fallacious arguments to bolster their insupportable positions.

They claim that only a "Scientific Approach" should be used, but if that were true, they would never have opted for an increase in OP_RETURN, because the experiment had already been run on an altcoin where the negative outcome was already seen and theory that the increase decreases spam completely disproven, whilst also demonstrating the introduction of a large reputational risk.

The scientific method requires experimentation, not blindly gambling with other people's money, and expecting a different result when the experiment has already been run once.

The claim that "Bitcoin's strength is its credible commitment to neutral, predictable rules" makes no sense when the OP_RETURN increase was manifestly not done in a neutral way (forced through), and claiming that it was done as a "Spam Filter" is simply false; a Straw Man Argument.

On the contrary, allowing for bigger contiguous spam files is the downgrade; another inverted reality prosaic non argument that only an uninformed or a simpleton would accept at face value.

It appears that BIP110 is going to activate. If it does, this avenue of storing large contiguous files will be closed. What happens after that will be an extension of the war against Spam on Bitcoin, but what will be demonstrated is that no one agrees with perspective driven non definitions, and no one is interested in supporting infinite "use cases" driven by reality denying SJWs and their sycophants and enablers.

And the software arena is not the only place where this battle will continue.

Don't believe for an instant that someone is not going lobby Cynthia Lummis and the other legislators globally who want to be aligned with Bitcoin. They will have no problem understanding that Bitcoin is a financial network and will gladly extend Financial Terrorism, and Network Disruption legislation to everything these Wreckers of Civilization are planning to deploy.

When the legal penalties for running Worms on Bitcoin and depositing non financial data are made clear, all of the people performing it or writing software to do it will suddenly stop doing it and move to altcoins, where their tools work identically but without the very real legal risk.

You can be sure that the very big players are thinking about this seriously, because it's their money that is at stake, and they're not going to let, "a gaggle of weirdos dump JPEGS on their money".

[Beautyon @Beautyon_]

The "Social Layer" of Bitcoin is right now, the most dangerous place. It is dangerous because people who have no interest in bitcoin, or who have connections to entities that are hell bent on destroying it, can instantly gain inappropriate influence over technical matters.

Once OPERATION: OSSIFICATION is the norm, then these people whoever they are and whatever thier motivations, will be permanently excluded from the ability to change anything.

It won't matter who you are, what agency you work for, who you know, or how much money you've raised. No one will be permitted to touch the reference client, and everything in bitcoin will happen on top of the reference client, where bitcoin itself cannot be harmed by dint of someone doing something.

"The Age of Enemies" in bitcoin will end, except in one area, which is legislation, but that can be successfully routed around just like Torrents have for longer than some people have been alive.

Meanwhile, there are many enemies of bitcoin to hold up for destruction. Witches to burn, warlocks for the rack, parasites to expose and expel, leeches to salt and all sorts of other fun.

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@E_MindsetHQ @BizMindful 21. Learn to count.

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@MolecularLab_ @Artofphysique_ 51181

[Simply Bitcoin @SimplyBitcoin]

Happy Bitcoin Whitepaper Day! 🎂🧡

17 years ago, Satoshi dropped the 9 pages that changed the world.

The separation of money and state began right here.

Your mission remains the same:

Read it.
Understand it.
Live it.

#Bitcoin 🚀

[The Bitcoin Historian @pete_rizzo_]

Exactly 17 years ago Satoshi Nakamoto released the #Bitcoin white paper

Today BTC is worth over $2 trillion dollars, used as a reserve asset by multiple countries and embraced by all of traditional finance. 🔥

[Nick Szabo @NickSzabo4]

Markets learning the value of a trust-minimized store of value.

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

Made by @grok Imagine

[Beautyon @Beautyon_]

I simply cannot believe that there are people who work in and have started companies that help people use bitcoin are not deeply concerned about the catastrophic reputational damage that would have ensued should Core 30 have been adopted.

Everything they’ve been building on was not in fact rock solid but was treated as a trivial play thing to store anime pictures and garbage, pushed along by fantastically un serious actors who short circuited the meritocratic high voltage cable insulation that keeps everybody safe.

This is not about PC speech policing or tone policing; this is about how an extraordinarily serious flaw in how decisions are made at the fundamental level of bitcoin development almost led to its irretrievable destruction. The price of sound money is eternal vigilance, and because people prefer to trust rather than distrust, the fundamental weakness was exploited and bitcoin almost brought to ruin.

It is now known, or widely known, that Luke proposed a fix that would’ve done something to solve a serious problem, but it was rejected because of TV Soap Opera dynamics behind the scenes which were tawdry, tasteless and highly disgraceful.

There are many lessons to be taken from this, and some of them reinforcing the sort of thinking that “modern people” would rather imagine are not a part of their living interpersonal dynamics any longer. But here you are….

Obviously development processes of the bitcoin reference binary are completely inadequate and proven unsafe, and cannot and should not be trusted out of the box and unscrutinised. The grave responsibility of safeguarding the network was obviously treated as nothing, or some perverted idea of a “Game” and so, as a result of this, a venerated name “Bitcoin Core” has had its reputation completely smashed.

This is a great pity.

The idea that bitcoin could be developed in the open without State supervision, and that the software was run entirely by volunteers who reached a consensus about what it should do was a pipe dream. All it took is one person and a small Cabal to push a few kill shot changes that had the potential to wreck everything.

No one, or very few, saw this coming. This attack on bitcoin is extremely sophisticated, cunning, subtle, sinister, clever, long time horizon based, a weapon when fired, shoots his payload at the person who pulled the trigger. Users of the software itself would be weaponised to bring it down, not because they don’t have the resources to run the bloated clients but because all normal people despise p()rnographers.

This attack is like OPERATION BERNHARD, where forgers were employed to create fake Bank of England banknotes to disrupt the British economy; corrupt the money system, cause widespread rejection of its notes and thereby kill the economy.

In the PC “Cancel Culture” world of 2025, it wouldn’t take much for the public to turn on Bitcoin, that they already see as weird, useless, incomprehensible and not required, “because we already have dollars and credit cards”. Add OP_RETRUN to this mix, where Bitcoin is permanently contaminated, and you have a money that no one will touch except weird people who “are probably perverts, I mean, just LOOK AT THEM”.

What a pity…it’s not over yet though!

[Beautyon @Beautyon_]

If anyone doesn’t think running Core 30 will make a difference, even if it set datacarriersize to 0, then why argue for it, why argue for any contentious change, and if it didn’t matter, “even if set to 0”, why make the change, disrupt “The Community” unleash uncertainty and unseat Core?

If none of this matters, what is the motivation for any of it?

Why would you argue for a change that, “doesn’t really matter” if arguing for it puts you on the side of p()rnographers of the worst sort, makes you deploy the worst arguments imaginable, and with this bizarre statement, makes you look like you don’t even care, and are treating the entire subject like some sort of academic “game”?

The conclusion any normal person would make is that actually, the change really does matter, and is in aid of something that hasn’t yet been disclosed. This is the, “no one could be that stupid” conclusion, reached by simple observation.

The Occam’s Razor conclusion would be, “he’s lying”.

There must be some hidden motivation causing advocacy for a toxic change that puts literally everything on the line, even Bitcoin’s ability to run in the open, unmolested by the State.

To make a gamble of this size, the prize, you would think, would be the total victory of Bitcoin over all fiat, altcoins, Ordinals, Spammers, p()rnographers, and bitcoin’s enemies put to silence and relegated to history’s dustbin.

But increasing one parameter couldn’t possibly do this, in any universe, so they’ve burned it all for…what exactly?

And realise this also, even if arguments against increasing a parameter are incorrect, the perception now is that its supporters don’t care about bad content being encouraged, and runners of that version are signalling that they’re inviting bad behaviour and don’t take any of it into consideration.

This is the effect of “Community Morality” in play, where users are shunned because they’ve signalled that while they know that what they’re doing invites disastrous consequences, they’ve chosen to do it anyway.

It’s shocking, unfortunate, unpleasant, and very revealing at once.

And what principle are they upholding exactly? That people don’t matter as much as Bitcoin does? That they’re willing to sacrifice literally anything for Bitcoin? What are the implications of making this choice, and do they take them into consideration?

In case you didn’t know, Bitcoin was written to serve people; to act as a tool to help them not harm them.

If you add a feature to Bitcoin the effect of which is to harm people, surely that’s against Bitcoin and unethical. And once again, signalling that you’re willing to harm people for bitcoin’s ends, even in theory, for your own satisfaction at any level, when you could choose not to do this, and still keep Bitcoin, is…shocking.

[Beautyon @Beautyon_]

There is no such thing as an "Internet separate from people". The internet and everything on it comes from people, is built and created by people and serves people's needs. You do not live in a cheap Sci-Fi paperback where the Internet is sentient and exists for its own purposes.

Since the internet and all the code on it is written by people run by people for people and because of people, those people by definition have a say in what is on their machines, and will exercise control over what they're doing and posting and relaying.

The internet and the networks on it are not an abstraction, and people who are using it and looking at it are real. The contention that, "If we don't talk about it, no one will discover this file space" is absurd on its face, and is already disproven by Ordinals.

Some clever person discovered that you could write arbitrary files to bitcoin using one simple trick, and it spawned an entire spam industry. Anyone who thinks that a large block of contiguous file space would never have been discovered were it not for people who pay attention talking about it is living in a delusional dream world; a fantasy "Main Character Syndrome" realm where there is no understanding of other people.

It is precisely this anti-reality mind blind mindset that cannot comprehend the negative reactions NORP_RETURN will spawn. You think it's bad when bitcoiners get testy about it, wait till the State gets a hold of this information.

The history of permissionless P2P protocols vs an establishment that always hated self-sovereignty and the ability to spin up a file sharing instance is well known, and those old enough remember Hilary Rosen and her RIAA and the failed campaigns she ran.

BitTorrent, Kazaa, Gnutella and IRC were different because they were not dealing with money and remained niche activities, despite having economic consequences for some software companies.

With Bitcoin however, the enemy is much bigger, better informed, highly resourced both with money and the power of the State and its propaganda. And the prize is much bigger than winning the race to have the "latest warez". The only way to beat the State is to get them on board as peers on the Bitcoin network. I've said this for years; once industry and the State are peers on the Bitcoin Network, they will have common cause with bitcoin and will aggressively act to defend it.

That time could be right now.

The question is, "Are they sufficiently invested to protect bitcoin?".

If they are invested sufficiently, when they find out about this very curious proposed change, they will come out blazing with guns to shoot it down. "They" means all industry, every government, Bitcoin Reserve positioned and invested or not, and everyone who does not want to be associated with filth. When they find out that this change is not even required or for security, they will be livid.

When this happens, no one will run a copy of Bitcoin Core 3 with this change in it, and all future developments will be under withering international scrutiny, and updates that do not have global consensus will be flagged as Malware and forbidden from deployment by law.

There is another side effect to this sorry outcome; there will be Keynesians who are made to realise that the money supply parameter can be "updated". Then every node runner will be compelled to update to The Keynesian Code or be threatened for running software against network policy.

That is possible too.

This is all the result of a tiny handful of people who wanted to exert control over the future of Bitcoin.

Incredible!

The bigger picture in this possible scenario is the open declaration that software development and deployment by "Consensus" will have been seen as an experiment that has failed. Of course, there were no tests put in at the beginning of bitcoin to determine when failure has happened, but this is not about silly things like facts.

This is about feelings. The people who feel they should be in charge because they put in the time and the work and have a complete understanding of the code base, the people who feel wedded to the ideas behind bitcoin and are terrified of change, the feelings of the rich who just want to stay rich, and the feelings of the banksters who are beginning to suspect that they are facing the end of their dominant positions over the form and mediation of money for the entire earth.

Oh well...what can you do?

Clean up your own house or someone will come and clean it up for you. And maybe clean your "tick tock next block" clocks too!

[Jameson Lopp @lopp]

Are you a Bitcoin node operator who is overwhelmed by the 170+ configuration options offered by Bitcoin Core? Bookmark my user-friendly configuration generator! https://t.co/BLC9JDnXzq

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@WSOP Lots of “J”’s 😎

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@agadmator Promote to Knight

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@TFTC21 @bensig

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@ATRightMovies 3000 miles to Graceland

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@WayneVaughan You are wrong. Sooner, rather than later, 1 Sat will = 1 cent.
There are 100,000,000 Sats in 1 Bitcoin.
Have Bits if you want, but remember, every Bit has 100 Sats.
Think it through Wayne.

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

@Joey7Barton You’ve got to be a hustler, Sue Wilkinson

[peter doherty @peterdo29556204]

You’ve got to be a hustler, Sue Wilkinson

[Louis Taberham @LouisTaberham]

@Joey7Barton Up there but prefer Scenes From An Italian Restaurant by Billy.