Taylor ₿

Bitcoin and the great outdoors

[Taylor ₿ @rolyatsats]

@LukeDashjr I don't want to fork, so I'm not going to do anything. If I'm wrong, then I don't understand how bitcoin works. Prior to BIP-110, I was happy people were running consensus compatible Knots nodes in protest of Core.

[Taylor ₿ @rolyatsats]

@LukeDashjr I don't want to fork, so I'm not going to do anything. If I'm wrong, then I don't understand how bitcoin works. Prior to BIP-110, I was happy people were running consensus compatible Knots nodes in protest of Core.

[Taylor ₿ @rolyatsats]

"If you don't update, you're the one making changes"

RIP BIP-110

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

@Beiwatch BIP110 is the consensus Bitcoin has worked under for 17 years. If you don't update, you're the one making changes, harmful changes that WILL wreck your node.

[Anthony Towns @ajtowns]

I don't say "no" to filters.

Miners selectively filtering transactions from the blocks they build is largely fine, particularly if no coercion is involved.

Without coercion, people can route around filtering: just find a miner who will accept a fee for including your transaction. Same thing that every transaction does, except that if you're doing something weird you might have to pay a higher fee and might have a more complicated process than just sending the tx to the first peer you connect to.

The economics of the situation ends up saying "no" to many filters at that point: if there are many people who want to make such transactions and pay significant fees for them, then most miners won't want to filter. That flows into software defaults: if most miners want their software to work one way, that should be the default.

I do say "no" to coercive filters: if you want to filter transactions out of the blocks you mine, good for you; but if you want to prevent anyone from including them in any block, that's worrying, because if you're successful, then others can apply the same approach to filter "good" transactions out, just as you have filtered "bad" transactions out. Bitcoin's censorship resistance works because it only takes 1% of hashrate to get your tx mined, even if everyone else is against you. If you can coerce even that 1% to reject transactions, then censorship resistance goes too.

Of course, economics likely ends up saying "no" to coercion here too; both because people don't like being coerced and aren't easy to coerce, and this sort of coercion fundamentally damages bitcoin's historic value proposition.

Filtering at the peer-to-peer relay level when you're not running a mining node (ie building templates for a pool or a sv2/datum miner) isn't really even worth saying "no" to -- it might make your node marginally less efficient particularly if you're filtering a lot of txs that are regularly getting mined, but it won't have much impact on you, and will have very little impact on the network. If it's somehow extremely impactful on the network as a whole anyway (eg you're running a lot of sybils, or a lot of people start filtering), then it's fairly easily worked around (see the lists of peers to connect to during subsat-summer a year ago, eg) and provides a good test case for improving bitcoin's robustness against actual censorship attempts that might come in the future. If you don't want to make your node marginally less efficient, your p2p relay filters should probably match what most miners use so that you can get a good prediction of what will confirm in the next block.

So:
* miners filtering: sure
* coercing miners to filter: no
* p2p filtering: have fun and do whatever you like, but generally best to just do what most miners are doing

That's different to saying filters prevent spam; spam just adapts to whatever isn't filtered, up until the point where it's too expensive to send for the expected value. But data's fungible, so if it's expensive for spam, it's expensive for substance as well, which is generally not a desirable tradeoff.

[BitMEX Research @BitMEX_Jon]

@cguida6 @start9labs @PortlandHODL @dathon_ohm My point is that if one opposes BIP-110 and supports the existing rules, that is not the same as support for "Core"

[Vortex | BIP448 @theonevortex]

It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few:

-Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking like a curated platform and this sets a precedent where a 55% majority can decide that your valid transaction is "spam" simply because they dislike the use case

-It doesn't actually solve the problem - As Peter Todd demonstrated these filters are easily bypassed as he successfully embedded the entire 6,000-word text of BIP 110 into a single transaction by fragmenting the data across multiple 256-byte PUSHDATA elements and 83-byte OP_RETURNs so this proves the fork doesn't stop data it only increases the transaction fee "tax" for users

-Incentivizes Centralizing BlockSpace Market - Capping the public relay at 83 bytes forces high-volume data users to bypass the P2P network and instead pay large mining pools directly via private APIs to include "illegal" non-standard data which creates a private blockspace market that small home-node miners cannot see or profit from

-Risk of confiscation / disruption to backwards compatibility - As Gregory Maxwell noted Bitcoin nodes have no "global state" of pre-signed transactions so if a user has a multi-year inheritance plan or a "Vault" emergency exit signed offline that uses a 500-byte script or an OP_IF branch BIP 110 welds that exit shut and since the transaction is now consensus-invalid the funds are effectively confiscated for the duration of the fork

-Anti-Scaling (Kills eltoo/ln-symmetry) - BIP 110 explicitly invalidates the Taproot Annex which directly blocks the ln-symmetry upgrade which is the industry's best hope for a Lightning Network that dramatically reduces the need for constant watchtower monitoring and enables simpler multi-party channels

-Creates UTXO bloat - BIP 110 incentivizes spammers to hide data inside fake addresses/UTXOs (like multisig-encoded data) and while an OP_RETURN can be ignored by a lean node, a fake UTXO must be tracked by every node forever so BIP 110 intended to "save" nodes but actually creates a more expensive permanent burden on them

-Breaks Miniscript & Vaults - Miniscript is the industry standard for writing readable secure smart contracts (used for inheritance, multi-party escrow, timelocked recovery) and relies heavily on OP_IF to branch between conditions so by banning OP_IF in Tapscripts BIP 110 effectively breaks Taproot-based custody setups that represent the direction the entire industry is moving

-Lobotomizes BitVM - BitVM is one of very few viable paths to trustless Layer 2 bridges and requires deep "Taproot Trees" (Merkle paths) to verify computation and a 257-byte limit caps the tree depth at roughly 7 levels (128 leaves) when BitVM protocols often require thousands of leaves to function

-Loss in fees for miners - If you filter out the highest paying transactions because you don't like their content you are effectively asking miners to take a pay cut which could lower the "hash price" and as block subsidy continues to halve transaction fees become increasingly critical to security

-Rushed Timeline / Governance Precedent - BIP 110 activates unconditionally by September 2026 regardless of support with early activation possible at just 55% signaling within a tiny 3-month window and this "emergency" style of governance is a radical departure from Bitcoin's traditional 90%+ consensus model, if rushed "emergency" consensus changes become normalized that governance precedent is permanent even if the technical changes expire

[Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco @giacomozucco]

I acknowledge the fact Bitcoin's layer 1 consensus rule most likely can't update anymore (I still remain open to the wishful hope we may find consensus over one more SF maybe, but it seems hard). Bitcoin as a multi-layered protocol suite can of course update a lot. And it is updating, and it will. For expert users, privacy and scalability are basically a solved issue. For noobs, it's now mostly a matter of UX facilitation and wallet adoption. "Flexibility" itself is not even a goal for money, that's something related to app that will integrate Bitcoin payments. Bitcoin never had any chance to beat fiat network effect by itself as long as the fiat system more or less holds up, by definition: its goal is to quietly create a Noah's ark for people who want to escape fiat's collapse.

[Glenn Meder @GlennMeder]

🧵 THREAD

1/ Your daughter posts something online.

She is 19. In college. Trying to figure out what she believes. She shares a political opinion that an algorithm flags as problematic.

You do not see it happen. No one notifies you. No one tells her.

But 72 hours later, her bank account is frozen. Her student loans are suspended. Her digital ID shows a compliance violation.

And there is nothing you can do to protect her.

[Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco @giacomozucco]

"We need to clone Bitcoin, with 70% premine and scammy ICO, to have larger op_return data encoding and Turing completeness for colored coin schemes!"

"No wait, we actually need that for larger and faster blocks to keep fees low, while still writing everything on-chain, on a single totally-replicated layer 1!"

"No wait, we actually need that for environmentalism and climate change, because proof of work will boil the oceans!"

"No wait, we actually need that for ZK proofs to do proper layerization, across hundreds of non-interoperable layers each one with its own premined token!"

"No wait, we actually need that for QUANTUM!"

A proper bear market can't officially start until the new Ethereum marketing narrative is decided!

[Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco @giacomozucco]

Clear contradiction: If policy can be used for that case, it can be useful now instead of bip110. So you are left with the crazy, shitcoin-like idea that we will change Bitcoin base-layer validity rules every time a spammer comes up with a new popular spam scheme (among infinitely many). Like Monero with ASICs.

[Jeff Booth ⚡️ @JeffBooth]

The gap between natural deflation (thanks to technology) and forced inflation (from central banks) is the greatest wealth transfer in history. It's a hidden tax on future generations, enriching asset holders at the expense of everyone else. #Bitcoin fixes this.

[Jack Mallers @jackmallers]

The Cost Of Our Inheritance: A Generation's Vision For Ethical Money

One of the most personal and important keynotes I've ever given on broken money, generational injustice, and Bitcoin as our moral imperative.

The future isn't something we wait for, it's something we build ✊

[Eric Lombrozo @eric_lombrozo]

Most Bitcoin newcomers have no idea the well-thought-out pipeline that had been implemented back in 2015 in order to incrementally enable new op codes. It was interrupted by the block size wars, and the insuing distrust made it impossible to continue that agenda.

[Eric Lombrozo @eric_lombrozo]

Not only do you have complete choice of client software, You have complete choice not to upgrade, or to change the defaults, or in the case of power users, to roll out your own custom clients with whatever presets and defaults you want.

That's the beauty of Bitcoin - nobody can tell you which software to run. Wanna set different p2p policies? No prob. Wanna preferentially connect to specific nodes? No prob. Wanna filter your own mempool? No prob. Wanna broadcast transactions that do not conform to the standardness criteria in any particular implementation? No prob.

All this software is totally free. Nobody is making money off of any captive usershare.

Therefore, wars over client software market share are virtue signaling at best and a complete waste of time at worst.

[grubles @notgrubles]

Who tricked Steak n Shake into using Bitcoin as money instead of as a Google Drive alternative??

[Pierre Rochard @BitcoinPierre]

Bitcoin’s design is inherently decentralized, with a proof-of-work mechanism and a globally distributed network of node operators. No matter how large an individual’s BTC holdings may be, they cannot unilaterally modify the consensus rules or coerce node operators and miners to accept any changes to the protocol. This rules-based architecture means the system’s security relies on a transparent, open-source protocol, which anyone is free to inspect and run. Even a high-profile advocate or a single large holder is subject to the same validation and consensus processes as all other users.

While it is true that a prominent figure like Michael @Saylor can attract attention and bring more capital into the market, Bitcoin’s value proposition does not rest on a single spokesperson. Instead, it flows from fundamental properties such as a predictable issuance schedule, global accessibility, cryptographic security, and a robust community of decentralized node operators. Large-scale accumulation or aggressive “pumping” cannot override the network’s neutral treatment of all transactions or inflate Bitcoin’s supply beyond the consensus rules. The result is a monetary system not governed by trust in a single person or institution, but by code and peer-reviewed upgrades.

Critiques that such behavior could “damage the ecosystem” overlook Bitcoin’s track record of resilience. Over the years, Bitcoin has withstood major exchange collapses, market volatility, and protocol disagreements, all while remaining online with no downtime. Ownership distribution is also more extensive than headlines suggest, with millions of addresses globally—most holding small balances. Ownership itself does not bestow control over consensus rules, and the public’s ability to self-custody coins means they can opt out of any custodial or intelligently leveraged entity.

The notion of creating a “better Bitcoin” by forking the code or inventing a new cryptocurrency is theoretically possible but practically challenging. Bitcoin holds a unique position as the first successfully implemented decentralized digital currency, bolstered by network effects, global liquidity, and a long history of secure operation. Competing projects, especially those that alter fundamental design elements such as moving to proof-of-stake, can introduce new security vulnerabilities like long-range attacks or dependence on large token-holders. Meanwhile, replicating Bitcoin’s worldwide community of miners, node operators, developers, wallets, exchanges, and infrastructure has proven exceedingly difficult for imitators.

Any scrutiny ultimately reinforces the ethos of independent verification at the heart of Bitcoin. The maxim “not your keys, not your bitcoin” has guided users to reduce reliance on centralized platforms and custody services, fostering a robust culture of education in hardware wallets, node operation, and best practices for holding one’s own private keys. Rather than undermining the ecosystem, high-profile controversies can serve as a reminder that Bitcoin’s genuine strength is its permissionless network, not the credibility or leverage of any single actor.

In this light, Bitcoin’s long-term resilience and decentralization rest on the principle that anyone can participate and verify the ledger according to open-source rules. The code and the global community enforcing it remain. The protocol’s core properties—secure, permissionless, and verifiable by anyone—ensure that Bitcoin’s fundamental promise is not compromised.

[Pierre Rochard @BitcoinPierre]

Wow. This is the worst financial advice I have ever heard.

[Joe Nakamoto ⚡️ @JoeNakamoto]

Exposing The Ugly Truths Behind Crypto Scams 😮

(full video)

#BitcoinNotCrypto #DontGetScammed

[Lysander @UnderCoercion]

I bought my first Bitcoin on @coinbase in 2017. What should have been the start of something revolutionary turned into a circus of distractions. Instead of teaching me why Bitcoin was transformative, Coinbase dragged me into their shiny little funhouse of lies. Their “earn-to-learn” program was a glorified bait-and-switch. They didn’t teach me—they sold me. Sold me on their Crypto Pleasure Island, where boys chasing easy riches turn into donkeys.

And I was a full-blown jackass.

I dabbled in everything: DeFi, yield farming, staking, altcoin gambling. They didn’t just distract me—they led me away from Bitcoin, the only thing that mattered. While Bitcoin was busy transforming lives in El Salvador, I was farming Cake tokens and pretending to “cloud mine” Electroneum like an idiot. Bitcoin was changing the world, and I was in a state of constant confusion trying to figure out how come I can’t figure out crypto.

Then 2022 hit. The Trucker Rally in Canada stopped me dead in my tracks. Watching the government freeze people’s bank accounts for donating to peaceful protesters finally opened my eyes. That’s when I finally got it. Bitcoin wasn’t a clunky tech experiment. It was a weapon against tyranny. While governments flexed their power, Bitcoin stood untouchable—a global, unstoppable freedom machine. I was late to the party, but I fell in love.

Not because of Coinbase. Not because of their snake-oil education programs or the crypto clown car. No, it was those so-called toxic Bitcoin Maxis who finally opened my eyes. The people everyone loves to hate—the ones who call out scams and take no prisoners—they taught me more about “crypto” than Coinbase ever could.

My journey to Bitcoin was delayed by four years of their garbage. Four years of chasing useless DeFi farms, stacking trash tokens, and trying to “learn” from the same people who were conning me.

I survived.
Many didn’t.
I lost a little.
Many lost everything.
I was delayed.
Many never arrived.

Coinbase had the chance to be a force for good. They could have been educators. Revolutionaries. Leaders of a movement. Instead, they became Vegas in an app—just another casino profiting off human greed. Casinos are never the good guys. History will forget them. Brian Armstrong? A footnote in the Blocksize Wars at best.

Bitcoin doesn’t need them. It doesn’t need gimmicks, yield farms, or fake learning programs. Bitcoin is inevitable. It’s the truth wrapped in code. And it will outlive every one of these crypto distractions.

So thanks, Coinbase, for wasting four years of my life. I got here anyway.

[Tom Woods @ThomasEWoods]

You should absolutely vote for Trump today because Lyn Ulbricht has grieved and suffered enough.

How can you find joy in anything when your son is unjustly imprisoned, for over 10 years now?

Let's free this kid

#FreeRossDayOne