A Bitcoin show for people who think deeper about money. Quit slacking and start stacking.
Joined December 2024
- Tweets5.9K
- Following1.2K
- Followers1.6K
- Likes5.1K
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.
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
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…
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Tether Completes the Largest Inaugural Financial Audit in History
Read more:
tether.io/news/tether-comple…
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.
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…
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…
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.
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
@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.
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.
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
BIP-110 has failed. The mandatory signaling window opened, AntPool mined the first non-signaling block, and the BIP-110 chain is now a distant minority with no realistic path to catching the main chain. This one battle is over in the sense that matters economically.
Though I agreed with the changes proposed in the BIP, I was never a supporter of this activation path. The mechanism required miners who control the overwhelming majority of hashrate to defect against their own economic interests based on pressure from a node minority that couldn't actually make non-compliance costly. That pressure only works when you have enough hashrate to make orphan risk real. They didn't, and the outcome reflects that.
None of this means the underlying problem is resolved. The governance structure that refused to close the Taproot envelope and then eliminated the practical limit on OP_RETURN data is unchanged. Non-monetary data still flows through the cheapest channels at subsidized rates. The people who built and supported BIP-110 were right about the problem. The activation path didn't work.
And this is the pattern. Core doesn't need to win the argument. It never has. It needs to hold the merge authority and the coordination layer long enough for whoever is challenging it to run out of options and reach for a hard fork they can't back with hashrate. Every time someone does that, Core gets to call them reckless, the fork fails on economics, and the governance structure that produced the original problem walks away untouched. The challengers exhaust themselves. Core just waits.
I am not in the Knots camp. I have no investment in any particular activation path or any particular team. What I have is a body of work arguing that non-monetary data embedding imposes real, unpriced costs on every participant who runs a node. I have yet to encounter a counterargument that isn't either a technical misunderstanding or gaslighting.
The most credible path that doesn't end here addresses the coordination layer directly. Another BIP is possible, but it runs into the same governance structure that just demonstrated it can outlast any pressure campaign. The solution is alternative implementations with independent teams, funded outside the institutional layer that funds Core, building on a formal specification that gives miners and node operators a reason to switch based on technical merit rather than political pressure. Accumulate that adoption over years and the leverage is structural. You don't need to pressure anyone into anything.
That work isn't exciting. It doesn't produce a signaling deadline or a fork watch dashboard. It produces something that actually lasts.
@BtcCommons @joinplebly
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
BIP 110 supporters, a few suggestions for how to push the change you want in Bitcoin more effectively:
- work on or fund alternative implementations
- contribute to Bitcoin Core
- work to create real consensus over a consensus change
- work on mining decentralization
(Giacomo is right.)
Two paths now: seppuku double-down with PoW change hard fork, or back to push the change you want in Bitcoin the hard but *possible* ways (funding alternative implementations, contributing to Core to take over the mindshare there, creating real consensus over a consensus change, etc.). Or even just preventing the situation from getting worse, this time with status quo on your side and not against you (xitter.gq/giacomozucco/status/20…).
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Some folks are upset & surprised that
6-15% of nodes, 0 exchanges, 2.5% of miners, and a couple devs couldn't force a change onto bitcoins consensus rules.
Personally I'm thankful that the best chance we have for a neutral fair monetary network is difficult to change.
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
You know… you could stay on Bitcoin, keep running an alternative client, continue to produce your own blocks and try to expand that culture.
Bitcoin would be far stronger, core’s contentious changes would never have default acceptance, we’d get real scrutiny and counter opinions, and you could play the long game on making Bitcoin stronger and more decentralized.
If you just fork off when you believe what you stated, then you actually do leave it to happen exactly that way.
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
the silver lining to all of this:
Ocean pool does indeed give sovereignty back to miners.
BIP-110 failing just showed Bitcoin mining can be decentralized.
.@simpleminingio mined block 961,634 using @ocean_mining’s DATUM protocol. This block extended the bitcoin main chain as it did not signal support for BIP 110 consensus rules.
While many members of Ocean’s team support BIP 110, they created a protocol to let their customers decide what they think is best. This should be lauded.
The Sat Stacker Show 🔶 retweeted
Orange pilled my mate down the pub last night.
Honestly, it’s so simple once you explain it properly.
I told him Bitcoin is just money you hold yourself.
He liked that. Then he asked how you hold it.
So I explained you buy a hardware wallet, but obviously not that one, and not that one either.
Then I said don’t trust its randomness, you’ll want to generate your own entropy with dice.
He said “like Monopoly dice?”
Bless him.
No, mate. Casino-grade precision dice, and verify they’re fair first, because a biased die is a biased seed.
Then I said roll it 99 times.
He asked why not fewer.
I explained that anything less than 99 rolls gives you less entropy, and while 50 rolls and 12 words is technically unbreakable by every computer that will ever exist, we don’t do technically round here. We do 256 bits.
He asked what a bit was. I told him not to worry about it.
Then I explained you do this in a room with no phone, no smart speaker, no camera, ideally soundproofed, because the acoustics of a dice roll and your keystrokes are a side channel.
He’d gone quiet by then, so I gave him a minute.
Then I said you’ll want 3 seeds, not 1, because single points of failure are what wiped out 500 people last week. So that’s 297 dice rolls.
Then multisig, 2-of-3, and you’ll need to back up the descriptor as well as the words, because 3 seeds alone won’t rebuild the wallet, and yes, that’s a fourth thing to lose.
Then I said store the 3 backups in 3 separate locations, because if a burglar or a house fire gets two, you’ve achieved nothing.
He asked where.
I said somewhere fireproof, ideally stamped in steel, definitely not the loft.
Then I mentioned the Faraday bag.
And the airgap.
And that you sign transactions by waving QR codes at a Raspberry Pi you built yourself.
And that you should rehearse the whole thing on a parallel test network with fake coins first, obviously.
He asked what happens if he gets it wrong.
I said you lose everything forever, and nobody is coming to help you.
Anyway, that’s another one onboarded. 💪
