bitmunt retweeted
You have 21 days...
AN OPEN LETTER TO CORE;
From the node runners.
We are not your enemy. We are your users. And we are done w/your secrecy
For a while we asked for 1 thing, in public and in good faith: a conversation. Not obedience. Not surrender.
A conversation.
What we got was a closed door. Decisions announced, never discussed. A BIP implementation submitted to you & left to rot without merge or explanation.
And on August 10th, the removal of Luke Dashjr as a BIP editor -> days after the split, in a process no ordinary Bitcoiner was invited to witness.
You govern the most important monetary network in human history like a private club, and then act surprised when people leave.
Knots did not grow from nothing into a serious minority of this network on marketing. It grew because operators who fund, run, and validate this chain concluded they had no voice, and voted the only way a node runner can: by leaving.
That is your warning. Every disillusioned Bitcoiner you create today becomes tomorrow’s loudest critic
(Dont create a dozen more Roger vers)
We have watched that movie before. None of us want the sequel.
August 8th did not have to happen. What comes next still doesn’t.
So here is the olive branch, and it is the last one.
We will hold the line for 21 days.
In that window, sit down — X Spaces, podcast, mailing list, anywhere public and on the record — with Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Mechanic, Matt Kratter, Justin Bechler, and the broader node-running community.
You do not have to agree. You do not have to concede a single line of code.
Just...
Show up. Be honest. Listen.
Twenty-one days of silence is itself an answer. And if that is the one you choose, we will stop asking, walk away, and build our own house.
The door is open. The clock is not.
🟠 21 days...
Core needs to stop being like a secretive cabal, and be more communicative with node runners.
Thank you for your time in reading this.
bitmunt retweeted
Without context, Saylor’s “110 Reasons #BIP110 is a bad idea” looks reasonable. Many of the concerns are admitted in the BIP, and if spam was Bitcoin’s only issue then the article might even be persuasive. However, if a credible attack was attempted against Bitcoin, what would it look like? Not a 51% attack. Everyone knows that one.
You’d have to boil the frogs.
Incentives were aligned when Bitcoin began. The devs wrote the code, mined the coins, stored the data on their nodes, and stacked the sats. If a dev wrote a line of code that favored the miners at the expense of the node then he paid the cost.
Now we have specialization, which is fine, but devs might not even own bitcoin or run a node or mine. Each group has their own incentives. Devs are creatives. They want to create. Users want to pay lower fees. Miners want higher fees. The nodes are the impartial referees. They guard neutrality because they are the volunteers that decide the rules.
I don’t care if Saylor gets a million Bitcoin. The Bitcoin I was sold didn’t matter whose stack was the biggest because we could all run a node and we could all contribute hash power, and those checks and balances evened the playing field.
Except that we also have a mining centralization problem. A half dozen large pools control over 90% of hash.
Before Core drove nodes away they had a monopoly on node market share. Worse still, Hodlonaut’s research revealed that gatekeeping was selecting for devs that lacked diversity of thought in favor of diversity of demographics, and Core also drove out devs that refused to engage in groupthink, the disagreeables that an open source project needs and depends on.
So every area of Bitcoin has a centralization problem. One alone might only be an annoyance, but when the centralization of coins, devs, nodes, and miners happens all at once then it frames the spam issue in a riskier light.
This is why viewing spam as a centralizing force for nodes is reasonably called existential.
And why cautious urgency is prudent.
Saylor’s 110 reasons look very different if you assume there are no credible threats to Bitcoin versus if you recognize the signs of the control system trying to coopt the network.
With that in mind, my rebuttal holds the view that Bitcoin is under attack, and that it’s up to nodes to defend against it. And that’s why I think node sovereignty takes priority above all.
1. With a comparatively tiny number of altered lines of code and the credible code reviews, BIP-110 couldn’t be any clearer, more serious, or broadly understood.
2. Bitcoin Core PR #28408 was submitted to patch the Taproot inscriptions hack. The explosion in the ratio of arbitrary data to financial transactions is solid evidence.
3. Contested judgments were already made consensus valid, necessitating that nodes use escalation dominance at the consensus layer.
BIP-110 tests whether bitcoin solves tyranny of the majority.
4. BIP-110 does not claim to read intent. It has filter limits and patches the inscriptions hack, and BIP-110 does not address whether the arbitrary data that would be used in any case would be for an image or otherwise. Devs might be motivated by such things, but the code is impartial because it doesn’t know.
5. Removing filters (Corev30) and adding features (Segwit, Taproot) objectively created collateral risk by increasing bitcoin’s attack surface. The intent behind those changes cannot be known, but we know the unfavorable second order effects that resulted. Now we fix the glitch.
6. It’s not just a social message, and even if that were conceded it’s still just your opinion on what sufficient grounds is.
7. Ah, the fee. Paid by the spammer to the miner, saddling the node with the extra burden for no additional compensation. In “The Law” Bastiat called that Legal Plunder.
8. Payments, Lightning, basic multsig are all protected. And it’s temporary. If the network wants to revert back they can let BIP-110 expire.
9. Bitcoin isn’t permissionless. It’s decentralized permissionless. Whatever you think bitcoin is or whatever attributes that it has, it will help to add “decentralized” at the beginning to remind you that the network, not fiat decree, makes the rules. In the Syndicate, everyone has a share.
10. Wrong, this is the unconstrained vision. Sowell wrote at least 2 books about it. The unconstrained vision thinks rules don’t apply. The constrained vision accepts the reality that the optimal game theory is to cheat if you can get away with it, and adopts guard rails to prevent rent seeking.
I see a lot of convenient code switching. Unconstrained vision to open the door to spam, then swapping over to the constrained vision to prevent solutions.
11. BIP-110 does not claim to distinguish spam from utility. I would argue that all arbitrary data is spam, and that it should be looked upon with suspicion in every case. I accept that it cannot be eradicated completely, and the network has already conceded plenty of space for utility.
12. Payments are monetary. Nodes are not distributed data storage for every well funded, well intentioned developer’s imagination to try to make it better.
13. No changes would have ever been made, good or ill, if knowing unknowns was a prerequisite.
14. Ok, and if the network is not satisfied with the size of the node burden removed then it can let BIP-110 expire.
15. It is not necessary or even preferrable to quantify a benefit. Goodhart’s Law – “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
16. I do not need to specify the size of the rent seeking to justify defense against it. I am justified in resisting all of it.
17. Then fund a grant and task a developer to find those remedies.
18. If a ship’s trajectory is even 1 degree off then it will end up wildly off course. The objective threshold is if Bitcoin does not course correct then it continues to trend toward not being money.
19. It was a useful policy until it was weakened despite contention, by the developers cited in Hodlonaut’s article. Gatekeeping in the recruitment of devs kneecapped bitcoin’s open source tradition. Node defense justifies escalation.
20. You concede the rationale is in the BIP, but demand that it establish an optimal boundary. Suggest a methodology for identifying this optimal boundary. Maybe AI could figure it out.
21. The BIP was constructed with just enough teeth to matter while respecting as much of the legacy code as possible.
22. It’s hard enough to get things done (as it should be) without sending a half dozen soft forks through. Temporary status alleviates concerns.
23. Exactly. This is why we’re here. But no evidence why a temporary move from policy to consensus is inherently bad, especially when the policy has been made less effective.
24. 256 bytes is generous. Old UTXOs are grandfathered. This is an acceptable trade-off.
25. They’d require the time it takes for the BIP to expire to go to market anyway.
26. Similar to 25. One reason the bar for “exceptional justification” has been accepted by some and not by others is acknowledging that Bitcoin is under attack, and that spam is a credible attack surface. If you don’t believe that, supported by Hodlnaut’s Capture article, then the bar is set unreasonably high because you still trust.
27. “can constrain complex script trees.” I’m not willing to bloat my node for rare, and advanced edge cases.
28. No legitimate use case today.
29. Commonly abused to hide data that never executes.
30. “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Thomas Sowell
Compared to much larger soft forks, BIP-110 is extremely precise.
31. Anti BIP110ers are already dunking about using steganography to exploit what BIP110 doesn’t prevent. Closing as many loopholes while preserving as much current use is important. Future design space is a rational trade-off
32. “needs that had not yet emerged.” The only thing I’m interested in is bitcoin’s properties aligning with it emerging as money, not the wild imaginations of the visions of the anointed (another Sowell reference, won’t be the last).
33. Regular upgrades already disincentivize building on bitcoin. Jimmy Song, fence sitter that he is, made this solid point in one of the many podcasts he participated in. I suspect we three agree that a certain amount of ossification is preferable so that devs can build confidently on layer 2 without fear of the code changing before they can even release.
I simply cannot, as a former IT professional myself, endorse ossifying without fixing the glitch first (Office Space and Sowell reference in the same post? Few).
34. We agree the BIP expressly admits this. Though I think the BIP doesn’t break recent versions of BITVM which is itself not even a finished product even if it did “complicate” it.
“Limiting Taproot control blocks to 257 bytes directly constrains the size of the on-chain, consensus-enforced script tree. This could complicate or possibly even impede advanced smart contracting like BitVM, which relies on a large number of executable scripts. Now this is the story all about how, My life got flipped-turned upside down, And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there, I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air. In the worst case scenario, these use cases may just need to wait until this softfork expires. As they are still in early development, testnet and sidechains should be sufficient for the next year while a more scalable rule is implemented.”
35. This applies to advanced users that are perfectly capable of making the necessary adjustments. Not an unreasonable imposition.
36. Modify them then.
37. “Rare.” Affects advanced users capable of updating and/or migrating.
38. Don’t do it during the deployment. Known workflows can be avoided.
39. You were never promised costless. Proof of Work works because it costs more to attack than the scammer is willing to spend.
40. Unknown unknowns are worth consideration, but not more than the known knowns causing harm.
41. Nothing to disagree with really since this is literally true, but if policy is attacked until it no longer serves its policy function then trade-offs are worth it to protect nodes from bloat.
42. "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Spooner
Core intentionally created the spam problem or was powerless to prevent it. Grandfathering is a reasonable accommodation to clean up the mess they left behind.
43. No objection to this. Encountered it myself in upgrades projects. Of course if this were the only consideration then we’d just ossify completely and die anyway.
44. Actors have time to plan for this.
45. And time for this.
46. I’m not sure I would ever support a soft fork again that isn’t temporary considering the segwit discount and taproot inscriptions hack laid the groundwork for the OP_RETURN blowback. Every upgrade I ever participated in had rollback instructions in case of failure.
47. Spammers like to remind folks that they paid fees for consensus valid transactions. Nothing about bitcoin prevents a soft fork from this kind of activation. I should not enjoy this irony as much as I do, probably.
48. Valid. I still prefer miners to flip the bit and lock in early, signifying the cleanest activation so I like that it’s available. In the future, however, offering this to the miners just kind of makes it seem like they’re in charge when they’re not.
49. I sure as hell hope so. A permanent artifact of spammer PTSD from when they got rugged.
50. OP_RETURN increased bitcoin’s attack surface at the policy level. It’s not obvious why defending bitcoin at consensus level increases risk more than allowing or expanding policy vulnerabilities.
51. All nodes are burdened, but some nodes are burdened more than others. This is an admission that spam IS an issue, but you can avoid it if you give up the sovereignty of a full node.
Once 8 billion people use Bitcoin, and there are 80 million pruned nodes and 800k server farms running full nodes then maybe we can relax our guard because it’s too late to coopt it, but until then since full nodes are the enforcers of neutrality, it follows that neutrality is maintained by the number of people running full nodes.
52. Nodes already permit the miners to collect block rewards for securing financial transactions. This is well understood and accepted, but when miners accept bribes to include spam this creates a market distortion which prevents true transaction fee price discovery. Transactors competing with transactors has clear free market implications.
Gold’s non monetary use cases make it less suitable as money, and is one of the reasons why bitcoin is superior to it, and why bitcoin will eat it. Supply and demand for physical products allows for price manipulation which affects users paying with it or storing it for value.
It’s a terrible idea to recreate the properties that cause other moneys to fail, and program them into bitcoin.
53. BIP-110 does not care about your transaction’s purpose. You can still use it permissionlessly to buy and sell whatever you like. The protocol still has no idea what you’re buying or selling.
We know that financial transactions require precious little data, inputs, outputs, ownership, transfer. The rest has inconsequential purpose to that end.
54. Scammers gonna scam.
“When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.” Bastiat, The Law
Nobody said freedom money would be easy. We’re gonna need some hard men to get through the fourth turning.
55. This is saying we should accommodate abusers because we can’t stop all of the determined ones. And it presumes a static amount of demand for abusive spam that will route around defenses, and does not account for potentially infinitely increasing spam welcomed by loosening rules.
56. And it may not. We know exactly what’s happening based on opening up space for spammers. More spam.
57. Again, from The Law, by Bastiat:
“Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.”
Framing theft from artificially inflated fee competition of financial transactions and the legal plunder of nodes storing the data without additional compensation as beneficial to miners is false philanthropy. We’re operating a welfare network now?
Miners already get paid to do the job of securing the financial network. If you take bribes to line your pockets at node expense (their employers), that’s not charity, and you get fired for that.
58. “all else equal” A network that legitimizes legal plunder, rent seeking, and moral hazard isn’t all else equal. The less monetary properties a money has will decrease its value, making miners less interested in mining for it, and for users to use it.
Don’t like the pay? Don’t take the job. We’ll adjust the difficulty accordingly.
59. Non monetary use clouds free market pricing. This is why socialists can’t figure out how much anything costs. It’s not because they’re lazy that socialism always fails. It’s that they can’t solve the economic calculation problem. If I send a bitcoin and you send a bitcoin then the price is determined by the competition between the two. If non monetary use cases are included for the sake of diversity (we doing DEI fee markets now?) we introduce barriers to true price discovery.
60. False philanthropy again.
61. A person can use a calorie counting app to limit daily calories and lose or maintain weight. If they eat only chips and soda they will still get metabolic disease and die.
The quality of the block is directly proportional to the health of the network. Miners already use any number of selection criteria to include transactions. They don’t just use a first come first served approach, a “neutral” approach.
62. Fees are the filter in a free market, not in a market where subsidies are introduced (segwit discount), and where rent seeking is allowed. The bid for rent seeking is infinite, and you’re asking users to pay the ransom. Why shouldn’t the spammers holding block space ransom just keep raising the ransom forever?
And you’re asking users to outbid spammers to protect, not themselves, but the nodes. And you’re asking nodes to store the arbitrary data of the spammers that the users are supposed to outbid in the fees are the filters argument.
The fees are the filters arguments don’t work with misaligned incentives.
63. That’s why the node is asking. This is an issue of property rights. Owners of property have the right to use their property and also the right to exclude its use from others. Free people also have the right to freedom of association. If nodes decide to protect their private property from rent seeking by seeking out a protocol that remedies their complaint then that is valid right of exclusion from non monetary use.
You can take the most charitable interpretation of Hodlonaut’s research, and attribute Core’s changes as incompetence instead of malice, but the direction was decidedly in the direction of not conserving bitcoin’s monetary properties.
64. Right, and Core castrated policy tools with Core v30 against fierce opposition. Miners get fired for plundering nodes, and so do developers.
65. If miners won’t protect nodes voluntarily then they will be voluntold.
66. Presumes that thousands of nodes and expert developers can’t or haven’t performed analysis to their satisfaction. Nobody leapt to anything. We begged Core not to deploy v30. BIP-110 is a measured response. Some say it doesn’t go far enough so there will be criticism even if it was more or less restrictive.
67. “Good” Jocko Willink
Spammers will remember.
68. We’re past that study phase. Feel free to commission the study. You missed your chance to influence the content of the upcoming activation.
69. Submit your softfork with what you come up with.
70. And softforks are bitcoin’s superpower. Your 11th hour objection does not by itself prove that consensus shouldn’t be used.
71. Counting on it. Shitcoin devs should feel really, really chilly. Downright frosty. I heard the weather at ETH is good this time of year.
72. I only care about one use case. A sound ledger. If layer 2 devs understand that they can’t lobby for special edge cases then they will find ways to build without them. Or not.
73. They aren’t even using all of the tools from Taproot. I’m not sacrificing resisitng current harm for some future bell and whistle that may get hyped and underutilized.
74. If the network determines that transaction structures are harmful then they won’t remain available.
75. The script design space can design around my node’s preference. Money.
76. Maybe they should have petitioned Core not to provoke an immune response that would delay their project. Now they wait.
77. Node sovereignty is the gold standard of security and neutrality. If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.
78. We can talk ossification efforts after we “fix the glitch.” Or do you roll out buggy software, and work on the next upgrade with unpatched bugs?
79. Bitcoin emerged as money because of its superior monetary properties, not its superior non monetary use case properties. There’s no arbitrary data chapter in your What is Money series because the properties of money make money stronger.
80. They can do all that with the old 40 byte limit so the 83 byte concession is already too generous.
81. This might have been reasonable if bitcoin wasn’t only suffering from spam. It’s also got a mining centralization problem. A 95 percent miner-readiness with 6 miners controlling 90% of the hash would allow single entities to hold miner readiness hostage.
Also, softforks do not require options for miner signaling at all. This is actually a concession in favor of BIP-110. If anything, it sends the incorrect message that miners control bitcoin. They don’t.
They have been offered an opportunity to lock in a smoother change early, but the UASF doesn’t need them to.
82. Clearly. The permanent damage from previous upgrades has brought us to this pivotal moment. At least this change recognizes the seriousness of consensus changes with the humility to let it expire if the network wishes.
83. As described at the top, incentives are no longer aligned between all participants. The nodes are the neutral arbiter between these factions. If you’re concerned about neutrality then you will side with the node.
84. Working as intended. Participation in block rewards is granted to the miners by the nodes.
85. Due to mining centralization, this would put way too much power into the hands of a few or even a single miner. Nothing stops this train.
86. Failed state addressed already.
87. It’s not supposed to. Miners don’t dictate consensus to nodes.
88. Feature not a bug. The protocol of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of plebs and parasites.
89. If one believes a threat is existential then it’s only a matter of bracing for whatever effort is required to avoid it. Conflict avoidance feels comfortable, but it doesn’t solve problems.
90. Nodes are Bitcoin’s immune system. If nodes have already decided a threat is existential then you’re not scaring anyone with “a more serious risk” than death. Extra dead is still dead.
91. Good. We are learning sooner than later what Bitcoin is. Bewilderment intensifying.
92. I hope so. Democracy has long suffered from tyranny of the majority. Finally, the free market has delivered a solution for the intolerant minority to defend itself from an attacker with greater numbers.
93. Now you’re getting it. This is a decentralized open source project. The system is trustless, except for trusting that each actor acts in their own best self interest, and that everyone, and no one, determines what Bitcoin is.
94. That’s what Bitcoin is, decentralized judgement.
95. Governance risks increase with centralization. BIP-110 preserves node decentralization.
96. Nodes can decide for themselves what is exceptional.
97. If nodes can’t fend off minor attacks, how will they muster the courage to coordinate against “more serious threats?”
98. I’m tired and this sounds like social justice warrior bullshizzle. Run a node, plug in a miner if you want to be heard.
99. The mechanics of a successful activation don’t care. Nodes set the rules. Miners build on the longest valid chain. “Thought that you were safe but nobody ever was.” K. Flay
100. You were invited to play long ago, and I had selfish hopes that bitcoin treasury companies would be the heroes of the spam war, unlike the bad rap suits got in the block size war. Corporate participation is legitimate when they demonstrate the ability to resist fiat subordination in favor of nodes.
101. Yup, and nodes can propose consensus changes if it’s in their self interest. And if data storage gets past all of those filters, nodes still have to store it.
102. Core has had a monopoly on the code long enough to show signs of an empire in decline. Arrogance, decline in openness, corruption. Competing implementations are coming. Hopefully, loss of market share will remind Core who they work for.
103. You’re too late. Negotiations have been over for a while now, and this just seems like a delay tactic than a serious claim.
104. Submit it. And this isn’t a broad package. It’s like 37 new lines of code. Trivial compared to Segwit.
105. We can do a lot of things. You maintained radio silence until it’s too late. It’s a good BIP. Arguably the best BIP in Bitcoin history because it doesn’t promise to add functionality with unknown second order effects, but instead does the thankless job of patching hacks and punishing parasites.
106. Not interested in studying the rate of moral hazard. Only in making perpetrators uncomfortable.
107. Coulda woulda shoulda. A difficulty epoch late and a Satoshi short.
108. Thousands of nodes find the evidence compelling. Calls for restraint and 110 reasons not to implement Core v30 were in order last year.
It’s almost like you want to delay a fix for node centralization to play for enough time for devs, miners, and coins to all be centralized and it’ll be too late.
109. Bitcoin is money for enemies so we won't be singing kumbaya all the time. Allies understand this, even if they don’t have to like it. I’m all for amnesty when this is done. I’m calling it spamnesty. Optimal game theory says once defection stops, then you resume cooperation for cooperation.
110. At least we’re admitting the spam condition is real, finally. Or could it be that spam is the iatrogenic side effect whose source needs to be addressed to prevent the condition from worsening?
Nodes are the guardians of neutrality.
Nodes fork to enforce neutrality.
bitmunt retweeted
My wife's college professor told her class of 12: If nobody shows up to take the final exam, I will give everyone an A+ on the exam. But if even one person shows up, that person will take the test and be graded, everyone else will get zeros.
She told them: I've offered this for 10 years, and never once has any class been able to trust one another enough to all not show up.
The morning came; they were all in their seats with their #2 pencil.
BIP110 will succeed.
bitmunt retweeted
Saylor is a rich-kid bully... and I'd know because I used to be one myself.
I grew up in Ohio in the '90s.
My mom was the homeschool coordinator of a local Christian school and I was homeschooled K–9th grade.
Every week on Friday the homeschool families would meet for art classes and extra-curricular activities.
My family was upper-middle class, but I was friends with the "cool" upper-class homeschool kids who lived in the neighborhood next to mine.
There were also some "hillbilly" farmer kids in the group, but me and my city slicker friends were too cool to associate with them.
One day I bullied one of the farm kids to the point that it came to fisticuffs.
I was confident because I had a pair of boxing gloves at home and boxed with my brothers. I was also a little taller than my opponent and figured it was a done deal before it even started.
But rather than standing to exchange punches like a Rocky movie, the kid rushed me, tackled me to the ground, and started punching me in the face. I tapped out and apologized. MMA before its time. 😅
I learned a few lessons that day:
1. Having money doesn't make you better than others.
2. Bullies bleed too.
3. Sometimes the quiet kid talks with his fists.
Today the richest fiat-man in Bitcoin threw a punch at the quiet kids running nodes.
He says BIP-110 would "impose monetary purity by fiat."
Let's be precise about words, since he isn't.
Fiat means rule by decree, by an authority.
Bitcoin has no such authority. It has rules that node runners voluntarily enforce by choosing what software to run. That's not the state. That's the freest market in monetary history.
By his logic, the 21 million cap is "statist." It stops people like Peter Toddler from using Bitcoin the way they'd prefer. Every consensus rule "disapproves" of something. That's what makes it a money protocol.
And property rights? Forcing every node runner on earth to store your data forever, at their cost, is the property-rights violation. Filtering it is the node owner exercising theirs.
The man selling you Bitcoin wrapped in paper is calling YOUR node statist. Saylor doesn't care about you or the health of Bitcoin. He never did.
The Bitcoin il-literati believe they can lie, gaslight, redefine words, and muddy the waters until you believe that the delineation of rules in a monetary protocol is somehow anti-liberty.
They want you to be impressed with their money and power and to leave your brain at the door.
They want to bully you into abdicating your sovereignty.
They think you are stupid.
It's time to punch the bully in the face.
Run BIP-110.
bitmunt retweeted
Peter Thiel, Adam Back, Vorhees, Balaji, SLopp, and anyone else who invested in or simped for Citrea can seriously go to hell.
Every single one of these people is attacking humanity’s best shot at Sound Money (Bitcoin) with bullshit.
always wondered how iOS apps are actually built with no code. started vibe coding—steep learning curve.
then i found @superappios. two sentences. core of the app. done.
loading… bugs… fix… and suddenly it worked 😅
bitmunt retweeted
Mr. Massimo @Rainmaker1973
You’ve been reposting videos from my account nonstop since I started posting in May, and at one point it was almost all of my content, then a few days ago you blocked me and several other creators simply because we refused to support behavior that was clearly harassment, and you still refuse to acknowledge it.
You take our videos and copy and paste captions word for word without making any changes, and sometimes you do not even watch the videos, which results in incorrect captions being used, while at the same time you do not open your DMs or offer any kind of support to the creators whose content you are making money from, not even a like, a comment, or a simple acknowledgment.
And now even after blocking me and other creators, you continue posting our videos, likely through other accounts that you follow and watch and admire, so please stop reposting content from my account, and at the very least respect creators enough to engage or create your own content instead of taking it from others, because I truly believe you can improve yourself and find your own content, and if you cannot, I can even teach you how to do it, as it is not rocket science and I believe even you are capable of doing it.
Best of luck with finding your own content.
I got my first bitcoin in 2011.
I never went to a bitcoin conference.
I got my first euro in 2002.
I have never been to a euro conference.
I got my first Swiss franc in 1994.
I’ve never been to a Swiss franc conference.
I got my first US dollar in 1979.
I’ve never been to a …
bitmunt retweeted
BREAKING: THERE IS A SECOND CRYPTO MARKET STRUCTURE BILL. AND IT IS WORSE!
600,000 of you read my breakdown of the first crypto surveillance bill.
Brian Armstrong is at Davos right now.
He is not there to protest. He is there to buy his seat at the table.
And WE are the product he is selling.
The crypto industry spent $14.6 MILLION lobbying for bills that do one thing:
Build the surveillance state while crushing anyone who might compete with them.
They hired 240 former government officials. The Blockchain Association made a sitting CFTC Commissioner their CEO. She jumped straight from regulator to industry lobbyist.
And the bills they wrote?
THE FIRST BILL (Senate Banking):
Real-time trade surveillance
5-year transaction records
Data sharing with foreign central banks
Emergency freeze and liquidation powers
THE SECOND BILL (Senate Agriculture):
CFTC gets "exclusive jurisdiction" over ALL spot transactions
Your crypto can ONLY be held by government-approved custodians
Every employee must individually register with the feds
Self-custody? Dead.
Combined, these bills give the government TOTAL VISIBILITY into every digital asset transaction in America.
This is not regulatory clarity.
This is the end of financial privacy.
And here is the part that should make your blood boil:
Everyone telling you these bills are good is either:
Taking money from exchanges
Taking money from VCs who fund exchanges
Running bot networks (I have the receipts)
All of the above
I have been in crypto since '12. I watched this industry go from "banking the unbanked" to "we need government-approved custodians."
I am running for US Senate. I am not taking their money.
TOMORROW: THE AARON DAY SHOW, 6PM ET
Both bills. Full overview The lobbying money. The revolving door. The bot networks. The Davos connection.
I also have a 10,000+ word article that analyzes it all
You want to know who is bought? I will name names.
Full bill analysis with threat scores: day2026.com/legislation
They are betting you will not read the bills.
Prove them wrong.
Every crypto bro cheering this bill is either on Coinbase’s payroll or can’t read. I read all 278 pages. You’re getting played.
I’ve been in crypto since 2012. That’s 14 years of watching governments pretend to be confused while quietly building the cage.
Trump promised to make America “the crypto capital of the world.” His party just delivered a surveillance framework that would make the CCP blush.
Today I’m launching the Day2026 Bill Tracker. It does one thing: exposes how both parties collaborate to build your digital prison while you cheer.
First up: The Senate Digital Asset Market Structure Act.
278 pages of “regulatory clarity” from Senator Tim Scott. Translation: 278 pages of compliance theater that kills everything crypto was built for.
Here’s what your favorite influencers won’t tell you because their bags depend on you not knowing:
MANDATORY TRADE SURVEILLANCE - Every exchange must implement real-time monitoring. Every. Single. Transaction. The NSA called, they want their playbook back.
UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION - Exchanges, brokers, dealers, even “associated persons” must register. Anonymous participation? Dead. Satoshi’s vision? Buried.
FULL DISCLOSURE TO THE STATE - Token issuers must hand over source code, transaction history, and tokenomics to regulators. Open source for thee, total transparency for me.
MANDATORY GOVERNMENT CUSTODIANS - Your coins must sit with approved custodians. Self-custody for regulated activity? Effectively illegal. Not your keys, not your coins just became federal policy.
DEFI IN THE CROSSHAIRS - For the first time ever, DeFi developers face registration requirements. Building permissionless systems now requires permission. Let that sink in.
YOUR DATA GOES GLOBAL - Transaction records flow to the SEC, CFTC, and foreign regulators. Your wallet activity shared with central banks worldwide. Bullish, right?
WHO ACTUALLY WINS:
Coinbase gets a regulatory moat that buries competitors. You think Brian Armstrong is lobbying for YOUR freedom?
Chainalysis gets permanent government contracts. Surveillance as a service, funded by your tax dollars.
BlackRock and Wall Street get clear on-ramps while DeFi gets strangled in the crib.
The SEC and CFTC get expanded empires and fresh revenue streams.
You get watched. Tracked. Controlled. But hey, number go up.
THE PROCESS:
Senators got 48 hours to review 278 pages.
Democrats asked for more time. Denied.
Because nothing says “deliberative democracy” like speed-running financial surveillance.
They call it regulatory clarity.
I call it regulatory capture gift-wrapped for the donor class.
THE REAL GAME:
This is what “bipartisan consensus” means in 2026: both parties racing to build total financial surveillance while fighting about pronouns on cable news.
Republicans say they oppose CBDCs. Then they vote for infrastructure that makes CBDCs inevitable.
Democrats say they want consumer protection. Then they vote for bills written by the corporations they claim to regulate.
Different jerseys. Same owners.
THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH:
Trump isn’t saving crypto. He’s domesticating it.
The goal was never to ban Bitcoin. The goal was to make it legible, trackable, and taxable. Mission accomplished.
Every laser-eyed profile pic celebrating this bill is either naive, compromised, or selling you something.
WHAT I’M DOING ABOUT IT:
Full analysis with threat scores, beneficiary tracking, and talking points: (day2026.com/legislation/sena…)
Every major bill gets this treatment. PATRIOT Act. TARP. CARES Act. REAL ID. GENIUS Act. Executive orders. All of it. Exposed.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT:
Neither party will protect your financial freedom.
Neither party actually opposes CBDCs.
Neither party will stop the technocratic merger of corporate and state power.
That’s why I’m exploring a run for US Senate in New Hampshire.
Not to join the club. To burn down the velvet rope.
The algorithm buries truth. Make it work for us.
bitmunt retweeted
What is Mimblewimble and how does it help Litecoin become a better form of money?
w/ @SatoshiLite and @scottmelker.
bitmunt retweeted
The deeper you go into the semiconductor supply chain, the less believable it becomes.
> TSMC, a company on a small island, produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced chips
> TSMC relies on dutch company ASML for EUV lithography machines
> ASML depends on German Company Carl Zeiss, the only firm in the world capable of making mirrors precise enough for ASML’s requirements.
> The light source for ASML’s EUV machines is produced by a single company in San Diego.
> The photoresists used to print transistor patterns are produced by Japanese firms like JSR and Tokyo Ohka Kogyo.
> The ultra-pure quartz needed to make silicon wafers comes entirely from a single mine in Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
> The copper and rare-earth materials inside chips are mined and refined across Chile, the Congo, and China.
> The specialized gases used in chipmaking, like neon and fluorine, largely come from Ukraine and Japan.
> The design blueprints for these chips often come from American companies like NVIDIA, AMD, and Apple, which rely on software tools from U.S. firms like Synopsys and Cadence.
Remove any single piece and the whole system collapses.
bitmunt retweeted
@Excellion @adam3us Just finished listening to your Spaces event. It was frustrating.
We all know how smart you are, Adam, but you dominated the conversation with technical details only a few of us could hope to follow, and you frequently interrupted Samson before he completed his thought, often with a subtle indication that you found some slight fault in some aspect of his comment. It made you appear elitist. You also avoided addressing directly the issue most of us are concerned about.
Bitcoin SV increased its op_return limit to 100K and CSAM quickly appeared in its ledger. Remind us what happened to Bitcoin SV after that. I expect the same thing will happen to Bitcoin if Core doesn’t refrain from this direction in v. 30.
Adam, you quickly shot down discussion of the CSAM issue by suggesting that those of us who proffer this CSAM concern are bad actors because that discussion is so incendiary that it must be being introduced to draw negative attention to Bitcoin. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it irks me a great deal when someone claims to know my intentions.
I don’t want to pretend that I can know your intentions, but it’s not a good look that you are not adequately concerned about CSAM.
I want Bitcoin to survive. I thought you did also, but I’m not convinced. I’m going to run Bitcoin Knots.
What he said.
This is a very important point by uncle @r0ckstardev.
Bitcoin would likely survive CoreV30 being widely adopted and some nasty attackers eventually encoding illegal stuff into large standard op_returns. Bitcoin would likely survive Knots&al taking over Core and the current main maintainers being "fired" (and the same nasty attackers still eventually encoding illegal stuff into large non-standard op_returns anyway). Bitcoin would likely survive ossifying now and never ever getting a new non-bug-fixing soft fork, forcing us to use heavily interactive L2s and leaving midwits sleepless over quANtuM. Bitcoin would likely survive getting very expressive script replacements like MATT or Simplicity very soon. Bitcoin would likely survive being criminalized by the USG like heroine, which is the whole point of its design. Bitcoin would survive getting fully adopted, shilled, contaminated and fractionally reserved by banks and governments. Bitcoin would likely survive very high fees and very low fees.
Some of these scenarios are bad for some reason and worth fighting against if possible. Not all of them are equally bad, and often middle grounds and Goldilocks zones are worth fighting for. Even passionately. But when you see your inner Roger Ver, chill out, relax, get your focus back.
Avoid BDS.
bitmunt retweeted
Fun fact: LR was originally conceived of as an attack on Core, not Knots.
Preferential peering got its start with mempoolfullrbf, before it was even named Libre Relay.
Core refused to turn on mempoolfullrbf by default, so Peter wrote his own fork with special preferential peering code in order to circumvent core's filters.
This was wildly successful (along with some direct peering with mining pools), so now Peter has decided to use LR to strong-arm core into getting rid of the rest of its filters.
For some reason Core is just going along with this as though it's perfectly normal
… “every Core dev I’ve encountered in this debate has come across as arrogant, supercilious, narcissistic, and dismissive of anyone without a PhD in computer science. That alone is a red flag.
Secondly, if Knots didn’t scare them, they’d ignore it.”
Amen.
Where I stand on the Knots vs. Core debate:
I don’t claim to know every minute technical detail; I’m learning as I go.
But after putting serious time into it, I’ve decided I want to run Knots because I want my node to help Bitcoin be used as permissionless money.
Core’s culture is captured by people who treat Bitcoin like a generic settlement platform instead of what it is: a monetary network!
However, even if Core were right that it’s “irrelevant” (it’s not), I’d still choose Knots because almost every Core dev I’ve encountered in this debate has come across as arrogant, supercilious, narcissistic, and dismissive of anyone without a PhD in computer science. That alone is a red flag.
Secondly, if Knots didn’t scare them, they’d ignore it. The fact that they can’t stop talking it down tells you everything.
bitmunt retweeted
Hello @bitcoincoreorg,
We live Bitcoin. We dedicate our lives to it, full time, nonstop. On the ground, we work as part of Bitcoin’s invisible team, often without salaries, simply because we believe in its power to fix money and defend society from injustice and authoritarianism.
Bitcoin is beautiful. But it can also become fragile, outdated, or even corrupted, if we do not care for it with the seriousness it deserves.
The white paper begins with the words:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.”
Not a decentralized database. That distinction matters.
Developers must lower their time preference and think in terms of centuries, not release cycles. Bitcoin is a cash system designed for global adoption in commerce. That was Satoshi’s vision.
Originally, in 2014 Bitcoin Core introduced OP_RETURN with a 40-byte limit. In 2015 this was raised to 80 bytes, and in 2016 clarified as an 83-byte script length. For nearly a decade the rule stayed unchanged. Then, in 2024 with Core v29, the policy was relaxed to allow multiple OP_RETURN outputs per transaction, although each remained capped at 80 bytes. Now, with Core v30 (2025), the long-standing cap itself has been removed entirely: OP_RETURN outputs are no longer bound to 80 bytes, and multiple OP_RETURNs per transaction are allowed, bounded only by general transaction-weight (~100,000 vbytes) and block-weight (4 MB) limits.
This is extremely risky. By first allowing multiple OP_RETURNs (v29) and now eliminating the explicit size cap (v30), Core normalizes and facilitates behavior that was once discouraged. It opens the door to spam, bloat, and malicious use cases. It allows attackers to inject unwanted or even illegal content directly on-chain, potentially exposing node operators to liability. Users should have the freedom to filter what they host, but Core should not encourage practices that turn Bitcoin into a data-storage network.
Yes, arbitrary data can already be forced onto the blockchain in different ways. But these policy changes transform a fringe misuse into a legitimized practice, encouraging precisely the kind of abuse that poses systemic risks. A public-opinion crisis, triggered by toxic or illegal content, could cause catastrophic damage to adoption and market confidence.
Bitcoin is money. Just as you can scribble a short note on a banknote but not publish a book on it, Bitcoin transactions can carry limited messages but should not be hijacked for unrelated purposes.
If protocol development drifts toward use cases that weaken Bitcoin as cash, the consequences will be severe. The network is already signaling concern: voices like @BitcoinKnots resonate because Bitcoiners are smart, technical, and willing to act when needed to protect the network.
We have already built important advancements to secure Bitcoin’s long-term future. Let us not undo this progress. Let us stay true to the vision: Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
bitmunt retweeted
I really don't understand why nobody seems to be able to make the simple, consistent, honest point: "I'm skeptical of maintaining the long tradition of mempool spam-filtering in Core and in favor of loosening it, since spam attacks are so intense now it may be counterproductive to keep it". Instead, they all resort to nonsense, lies, absurdity or dishonest rhetoric, like this. Either pretending mempool policies are a new thing (they always been the status quo), or calling them censorship (they aren't, and if they were consensus rules would be much more), or putting them in trade-off with actual censorship resistance (an effective way to censor Bitcoin is to DOS it), or pretending spam isn't spam (with retarded mental gymnastics that wouldn't cover the way we use the word for anything), or making up inexistent "OCEAN commercial conspiracies" (Luke/Jason/Mechanics sacrificed revenues and hashrate for this battle, going against their main investor), or an equally inexistent "technical experts vs illiterate plebs devide" (Luke is one of the most experienced Bitcoin devs, facing influencers who barely code at all like Lopp). I myself humbly disagree with the filteroors about this being a big deal technically, but he amount of dishonest gaslighting going on really tempts me into imagining symmetrical conspiracy theories here.
