quiet NaN

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@__B__T__C__ That's incorrect. "max_activation_height: 965664" (from https://t.co/yQjmhjddok)
Right now, this rejection of data that you talk about is not happening. Only signalling enforcement is.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

Even in a hypothetical, you should try to be factually correct. This is wrong. There is *no* difference in transaction validity from BIP110 at this point in time. That will only hit in ~2028 blocks. The reason that a transaction would not be in Knots is that there are no blocks.

[𓂀 | #BIP110 @__B__T__C__]

@bitcoincoreorg Devs Nodes cannot be affected because those so-called “Devs” do not run nodes, but the code changes they made—which enabled this—will likely also result in criminal liability for them.

5/6

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

Also, if an "illegal file" would be sent in a way that is valid in Core but intentionally invalid in Knots, it would be somewhat clear where that came from. It's perfectly possible to send a transaction that stores that file in both.

[𓂀 | #BIP110 @__B__T__C__]

RDTS Nodes are unaffected, as Bip-110 nodes were automatically protected against this attack starting at block 961632.

4/6

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@skwp At least the wording is right this time. "Has been ignored" is largely correct and a welcome change from the usual "attack" rhetoric.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@edprospero23 I understand inside the echo chamber you feel strong support.

- I work at a crypto company: 0 supporters
- I am active in a local Bitcoin community with 1000+ members: 1 supporter

Nobody colluded. There was just no support. And no pressing reason to explicitly "reject".

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

A neutral outside observer can not know if my block was known to Luke at the time of that tweet.
This is the exact problem that Satoshi consensus solves. Without proof of work, you don't get a globally consistent view of a shared state. You have to ask and *trust* the answer.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

In all the craziness of the last days, this tweet stands out to me by a mile.
"Everyone got this?" Luke must ask. Because the criterion he chose depends on node state. On block propagation. I could *now* create a block that would match all requirements.

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

2026-08-11T17:02:11Z Saw new header hash=0000000000000001bcda56f2ec833fe96b4585a1953124b2c1c1f9a34709a027 height=147949
2026-08-11T17:02:12Z Saw new header hash=00000000006859c534d62586f46354cd20615c5edfbc063d451254c7724da14d height=147950
2026-08-11T17:02:14Z Saw new header hash=0000000000750724f5e39437cc3661f3da66ec05dd8eccb7ad33b0089efe8ccc height=147951
2026-08-11T17:02:16Z Saw new header hash=0000000000012c9f64670244da8b031a629ecdb7a4f5831913b8ce6f0e92e349 height=147952

Everyone get this?

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@LukeDashjr Will there be replay protection?

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@LukeDashjr @SatoshisBull Why would there be no clean way? I have a split UTxO from two incompatible transactions that were included in either chain. Freshly mined coins would also be an option. I can move (thus sell) Core without moving Knots.
(Not that I would. Just saying, it's possible)

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@oomahq @adriancantrill @GhostofMapl @matteopelleg This particular split event showed the opposite of what you claim. This pools don't have power, they are only representative. If they deviate from what the miners want, the miners switch. Precisely as Roughnecks did. Ocean could not stop that.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

To whom it concerns: ETHW's current futures price on Poloniex puts it to a market cap comfortably in the top 20, just between Tron and Avalanche.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@EncryptedPedro

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@fiber7_ch Is there any public information where in Switzerland the fiber realization is planned point-to-point vs point-to-multipoint?
Seems to be hard to come by.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@saleemrash1d 🤫

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

The implicit assumption of the definition of Miner Extractable Value (MEV) is by far not as grim as it actually is.
Not saying that EIP1559 is problematic. Just that the arguments for it being helpful, or even NOT being problematic, are not in the specification.

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

#EIP1559's specification in passing presents the most straw-man versions of miner incentives and fee economics (including #bitcoin's) that I've ever seen. While at the same time severely lacking in basics in their own description:
"Test-Cases: TODO"
https://t.co/PZwkeHbNDr

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@CobraBitcoin Big news reports incoming: "Bitcoin down from ddos attack!!!"

[quiet NaN @quietNaN]

@bitsam_ @alexbosworth I have several channels with natural bi-directional flow that I very rarely rebalance. No, I won't recoup 20k...

[Lewin Boehnke @LewinBoehnke]

@alexbosworth Would you mind sharing some numbers? Would love to see how it compares to half a year ago (https://t.co/5biDjW1OrA)