The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack) header
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack) profile picture

A Bitcoin show for people who think deeper about money. Quit slacking and start stacking.

Joined December 2024
Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)Photo by The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 (@thesatstack)
.@JeffBooth joined me to discuss some of the biggest tests Bitcoin is facing -BIP-110 -Bitcoin treasury companies -Self-custody -AI + tons more
3
1
14
404
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
You're living through one of those 10-15 days a year where Bitcoin makes most of its gains. Enjoy.
35
152
24
3,118
101,677
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
The internet has been so scrubbed of references to Dario Amodei’s wife, Cami Clark, that if you Google her, you get a picture of his sister instead. Not even Claude can say if he’s married. But she has been an influential force in his career, introducing him to Eric Schmidt, one of Anthropic’s first investors, with whom she had previously been in a three-year relationship, and serving as a key sounding board and networker. To get to this point, she overcame much: dropping out of college, a brief early marriage when she was 20 to a man more than 40 years her senior, a bankruptcy and an entrepreneurial path that included trying to get Jeffrey Epstein to invest in her “revolutionary porn company.” w/ @LukeJKummer
316
1,206
302
8,742
1,637,911
TIL the richest county in America is the data-center capital of the world 🤔
Replying to @matthew_sigel
Loudoun County, Virginia is the richest by median household income (around $178k–$182k). It's a classic DC suburb and the global data-center capital, with 200–250+ facilities (mostly in Ashburn) that generate over $1B in annual tax revenue for the county.
124
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Y'all are hilarious @tether. Acting as if people don't have internet access 😂😂 One subsidiary getting "audited" from among a byzantine web of hundreds with unknown liabilities, legal and otherwise... Here's the latest from the ICIJ: icij.org/investigations/coin…
10
21
9
137
77,129
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Tariffs went up and companies raised prices. Tariffs are now being refunded and companies are keeping the price increases. Funny how that works.
180
1,063
109
4,088
192,370
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
PSA for anyone ordering bitcoin hardware wallets: USE A P.O. BOX AND A FAKE NAME AND A BURNER EMAIL
We have some difficult news to share. Unfortunately, one of our shipping providers has experienced a data breach that exposed sensitive order data. This affects new customers in the US, UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal who received an order within the 90 days prior to August 8th, 2026. The data exposed: - Full names - Shipping addresses - Phone numbers - Email addresses The incident affects 11,742 customers with full exposure (name, email, phone number, shipping address) and 1,947 customers with partial exposure (name, city, email). The breach is limited due to Trezor’s strict 90-day data storage policy (we were also able to negotiate the same terms with fulfillment partners, who follow the same policy). All affected customers have been contacted separately by email. Our systems and devices remain secure, but affected customers could experience an increase in phishing attempts. NEVER enter your wallet backup on a website or share it with anyone, and only check for updates on official Trezor channels. We are deeply sorry to the community and those affected. We are investigating this situation and will post updates on our blog: trezor.io/blog/news/recent-c…
34
18
5
189
44,913
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
We have some difficult news to share. Unfortunately, one of our shipping providers has experienced a data breach that exposed sensitive order data. This affects new customers in the US, UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal who received an order within the 90 days prior to August 8th, 2026. The data exposed: - Full names - Shipping addresses - Phone numbers - Email addresses The incident affects 11,742 customers with full exposure (name, email, phone number, shipping address) and 1,947 customers with partial exposure (name, city, email). The breach is limited due to Trezor’s strict 90-day data storage policy (we were also able to negotiate the same terms with fulfillment partners, who follow the same policy). All affected customers have been contacted separately by email. Our systems and devices remain secure, but affected customers could experience an increase in phishing attempts. NEVER enter your wallet backup on a website or share it with anyone, and only check for updates on official Trezor channels. We are deeply sorry to the community and those affected. We are investigating this situation and will post updates on our blog: trezor.io/blog/news/recent-c…
2,036
2,227
2,485
8,275
7,684,224
Wen gold
This quoted post is unavailable.
2
101
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Some people (like @adam3us) disagreed with my point that the BIP-110 ordeal could have been avoided if OP_RETURN was left alone for a while. Some also pointed out that Core doesn't need to do anything the users/plebs want. That is true! Bitcoin Core is not Bitcoin, and the Core team/project can do what they choose. Only it's a bit more complicated than that. Let's address the first point. The following was my reply to @ToneVays: -- It was at a time when there were so many suspicious looking missteps on the Core side. - Banning people from GitHub - Locking thread and unlocking to ninja ACK (still no good explanation of this) - Citrea being cited as a reason for change - Antoine asking Peter to open the PR for him (sure he had a reason but optics looked bad in light of the situation) - Distributed Authoritarianism - Questions over the legitimacy of an appointed maintainer (and the already prevalent confusion about how maintainer roles work and IETF-like process) List goes on. It was a pile of tinder waiting to go up in flames. -- The next point is that most people did use Core, so they viewed it as theirs. Core is and isn't theirs at the same time - if that makes sense. There's actually a parallel in game dev. When balancing a game (RTS or MMO), you have to be very careful because everyone gets attached to the various unit stats and abilities. There were times working on COH and DOW that we would buff almost everything else rather than nerf one thing, because we knew how passionate and angry the players could be when they perceive something to be "taken away" from them. Interestingly enough there's a direct example from @VitalikButerin: "One day Blizzard removed the damage component from my beloved warlock's Siphon Life spell. I cried myself to sleep, and on that day I realized what horrors centralized services can bring. I soon decided to quit. In 2011, searching for a new purpose in life, I discovered Bitcoin." Also, as I have said before, Bitcoiners do not like being told what to do or forced to just accept things. For the average non-technical user, the OP_RETURN change was tantamount to a consensus change or an attack on Bitcoin because they didn't understand how it all worked exactly, didn't know how to change their config, and were angry at the amount of spam on the chain. So Core has no obligation to listen to the users, and that's fine, but they should not expect the users to not get angry when they perceive their Bitcoin/money to be under attack. Worth repeating my view that devs should probably operate under nyms and be more low-key like Satoshi.
If you don't take responsibility for your own hand in directly spawning the BIP-110 movement, it will just happen again. Maybe you can't see it, but your "side" was just as nasty in its attacks, especially given you and other Core devs' close association with angry vitriol-spewing people like Brian from Bitcoin Magazine. Did you really not expect that anger and vitriol to be returned tenfold? All of it amplified by the Zhao/Newberry improprieties and a long list of other clumsy, guilty-looking missteps. All I did was hint at structural problems within Core, problems Jon Atack later discussed openly. Nothing I said was inaccurate, much less libel. This entire mess could have been avoided if you had just left OP_RETURN alone for a year or two until things cooled off. Everyone knew it was only a default, which is exactly the point: changing it or not changing it made no practical difference. BIP-110 supporters were largely not technical. They were ordinary people, artists, podcasters, musicians, your average Bitcoiner, and they perceived a threat to Bitcoin, which is to say a threat to their money. You don't need a deep understanding of human psychology to grok why that was going to cause an uproar. You may be a great coder, but you have no self-awareness and no EQ. Also, if I just went whichever way the wind blows, the Big Blockers likely would have won the Blocksize War.
23
31
11
222
33,807
How can anyone believe that a chain with almost no hash power producing no blocks with almost no nodes and with centralized leadership is somehow more decentralized and more secure than the trillion dollar global chain they forked off of I have said many times I was ideologically aligned with the goals of the BIP but all of this has clearly gone so far off the rails
7
1
12
743
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Replying to @LukeDashjr
@LukeDashjr and @GrassFedBitcoin You were probably more important for to stay here and maintain Knots. 1% to 20% node share was impressive and I dont think it could be done again. Core at 99% is a risk.
6
3
35
975
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
If you don't take responsibility for your own hand in directly spawning the BIP-110 movement, it will just happen again. Maybe you can't see it, but your "side" was just as nasty in its attacks, especially given you and other Core devs' close association with angry vitriol-spewing people like Brian from Bitcoin Magazine. Did you really not expect that anger and vitriol to be returned tenfold? All of it amplified by the Zhao/Newberry improprieties and a long list of other clumsy, guilty-looking missteps. All I did was hint at structural problems within Core, problems Jon Atack later discussed openly. Nothing I said was inaccurate, much less libel. This entire mess could have been avoided if you had just left OP_RETURN alone for a year or two until things cooled off. Everyone knew it was only a default, which is exactly the point: changing it or not changing it made no practical difference. BIP-110 supporters were largely not technical. They were ordinary people, artists, podcasters, musicians, your average Bitcoiner, and they perceived a threat to Bitcoin, which is to say a threat to their money. You don't need a deep understanding of human psychology to grok why that was going to cause an uproar. You may be a great coder, but you have no self-awareness and no EQ. Also, if I just went whichever way the wind blows, the Big Blockers likely would have won the Blocksize War.
He helped bootstrap what became the 110 movement, personally amplifying libel, propaganda, and attacks on Core contributors. Then, once the tide turned, he reinvented himself as an opponent of 110. Ten years later, he still goes whichever way the wind blows.
35
53
32
419
113,200
Never met Luke but from the outside looking in this appears to be an informative interpretation
Replying to @turtlecute33
I knew a decade ago that Luke would eventually break away and hard fork, simply because he's a hardcore Catholic sedevacantist. I'm a traditional Catholic, which means I share many of the theological views of Luke, in contrast to more mainstream Catholic views. In many ways, being a traditional Catholic is like being a bitcoiner: you are part of a small, but significant, group of people who diverge from mainstream thinking. Yet sedevacantists are a (tiny) subset of traditional Catholics; they run constant purity tests and break away from even traditional Catholics, forming their own independent chapels completely detached from the Catholic Church (and often they reject other sedevantists for obscure and insignificant reasons). In my many years of interacting with sedevacantists I've seen a common personality type among them, and Luke fits it to a tee: a socially awkward person (usually a man) who fixates on a small subset of reality to the exclusion of everything else. They then forcefully reject anyone who dares challenge their view of reality, often presenting those "enemies" in the worst possible light, and willing to bring everything down just to support their slice of reality. They also will gaslight to no end, claiming their own tiny chapel is the "true Church" and the billion-strong Catholic Church is the imposter with a straight face, daring you to challenge that ridiculous statement. Sound familiar? Over the years Luke has followed the sedevacantist playbook to a tee, and if you knew the playbook, none of it is surprising. He's creating a tiny minority fork, but he'll claim with no shame that it's the "real bitcoin," just like his tiny sedevacantist chapel is the "real church." It's sad, because Luke is obviously brilliant, but his psychology just won't allow him to stay in any group, either in the Church or in the bitcoin world.
100
It appears this tweet got me blocked by Luke. Never met or spoken to him and have never said a bad word about him on X either
2
94
I just got served a YouTube short of Saylor on diary of a ceo explaining that he made $15B last year by creating novel financial products that bankers and lawyers told him not to sell but the AI told him it was fine
92
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Replying to @thesatstack
unavailable
2
1
4
305
Unless someone else forks it and maintains it, it appears Knots is dead as a bitcoin node implementation Deeply ironic (and unfortunate) that the outcome of this entire saga is ultimately greater centralization of nodes on core
unavailable
1
2
232
Am I understanding correctly that if this path continues Knots will effectively fork off and no longer be a Bitcoin node implementation? That would be a bummer cuz all it does is serve to further the centralization of node implementations under core
The Bitcoin network is under attack, and block production has slowed significantly. The community is preparing mitigations to resolve the situation. In the meantime, attackers are spreading misinformation and advising users to downgrade or switch to insecure node software.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The main Bitcoin chain continues normal block production unaffected; the claimed slowdown and "attack" refer only to the minority BIP-110 fork chain, which split off at block 961632 with ~2.5% support and stalled after two blocks. coindesk.com/tech/2026/08/0… primexbt.com/news/bitcoins-…
6
13
1,047