BitcoinJiuJitsu

@ausbtcclub @giacomozucco yea it's a demeaning spot 😂 but usually only shared between friends, so that's nice.

@BitcoinJiuJitsu @giacomozucco He has me in a Boston Crab

For anyone interested about the truth: Adam Back is absolutely, overtly and veritably lying about me *ever* supporting BIP110, or even being "a fence sitter" about it. I have always strongly, clearly and unequivocally opposed any similar fork proposal since the very earliest suggestions. I have always been, and remain, consistently opposed to: - using consensus rules to tackle specific types of onchain spam, - defensively addressing any kind of "illegal data" moral panic in any possible way (mempool policies included), - enforcing any controversial consensus change (including the ones I agree with, unlike this one) without clear full-ecosystem agreement. It's a bit unfortunate that a very influential voice in the industry is lying about me, since I have a smaller reach to debunk him. Maybe some of you can help me by spreading the correction. Thanks.

@rodpalmerhodl 😂🙏

getting one-shotted by “arbitrary data” is extremely pleb coded

@MajorianBTC Is this the best you can do??!?! Do you truly find these people to be a threat to Bitcoin 😂

@BitcoinJiuJitsu Listen to Lopp and Peter Todd for 20 minutes. Technically not devs but somehow hold sway with Core

You consider yourself a bitcoin maximalist and you decided to do the 'cool' thing in your circle and oppose BIP-110. Ok, cool. Now what do you do when your new shitcoiner/spammer friends are advocating for larger blocks, uncapping the bitcoin supply, and freezing UTXO's?

@ausbtcclub @giacomozucco x.com/JP_Technology/…

@giacomozucco Because Adam is throwing you under the bus, and Adam hates BIP110, does that mean you sorta like BIP110 now? Just sayin...

@giacomozucco @L0RINC The amount of brainiac cycles dedicated to shaving off even a byte or two from signature encodings and formally proving the correctness with proof verifiers. And then people accuse them being pro some stuffing a friggin 10kB JPEG into the chain. I mean c'mon, be serious!

Users wanted privacy. Banks wanted confidentiality. Technologists thought it was cool. @adam3us explains how Confidential transactions on Liquid satisfied all three.

@MayaPar25 🤦‍♂️

UASF means User Activated Soft Fork. The “U” stands for users running nodes and enforcing the rules they choose to accept. It does not mean a small group of exchanges, companies, miners, or developers deciding on behalf of everyone else. If consensus is determined by a handful of institutions, that’s not a user-activated system, it’s much closer to a federation. Bitcoin’s security model depends on the ability of individual node operators to independently verify and enforce the rules of the network. “A User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) is enforced by the economic majority (full nodes), bypassing miner approval. A User-Accepted Soft Fork relies on miners signaling readiness, with users passively accepting once the upgrade is locked in. In a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF): •The Process: Full nodes and users coordinate to reject any blocks that do not adhere to the newly upgraded rules, entirely ignoring miner signaling. •The Goal: It strips the power to dictate the upgrade timeline away from mining pools and places it into the hands of the economic majority. •Real-World Example: The 2017 Bitcoin UASF (BIP 148) forced the activation of Segregated Witness (SegWit) by penalizing miners who refused to support the new rules. In a Miner-Activated Soft Fork (UASF / User-Accepted Soft Fork): •The Process: Miners signal their readiness to adopt the new rules by updating their node configurations. Once a required threshold of hash power (e.g., 95%) is reached, the upgrade activates. •The Goal: This method ensures network continuity and hash-power support are firmly in place before enforcing stricter rules, relying on the user base accepting miners' readiness signals.”

@BitcoinJiuJitsu For Bitcoin to function as gold it doesn’t need any of these things. Although, BitVM + Covenants look promising to address some of Lightings limitations with scalability.

Why does everyone want to make Bitcoin the world’s computer? If it’s digital gold it should be extremely rudimentary. The only changes made should be to patch vulnerabilities.

@joshatoshi All of these are either completely irrelevant, unstoppable, or even desirable.

@BitcoinJiuJitsu OP_CAT, EVM Layer 2s, Ordinals and Runes, Drivechains, Babylon, BitVM…

@blockchainchick Old and boring take.

@coinjoined Very nice

Fork Around & Find Out

@Thebitcoinway_ Nobody assumes core won't make mistakes, that's ridiculous. The bug you're referring to affected an extremely small % of wallets & was patched immediately. Meanwhile luke is still the only Knots dev where he unilaterally pushes 1000s of lines of non peer reviewed code, no thanks.

@ExplainingBitc1 Don’t need to trust your gut. Max normie behavior. DYOR. Start ⬇️ x.com/stephanlivera/…

My gut is telling me to side with the people who say decentralization (your node) matters. It’s as simple as that. If you don’t like decentralization there are plenty of forks and shitcoins out there for you. #Bitcoin #BIP110 #Core30

@knutsvanholm CSAM rider from the four horseman of the infopocalyspse invoked. 👎 Looks familiar.

Dark times in Europe incoming. Resist with everything you've got!

@asanoha_gold Notify me when it becomes practical to distribute Lady Gaga video on Bitcoin.....

Notice the last sentence in this... "That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends... That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary." - Satoshi Nakamoto

@basedlayer 💯 manual labor and driving car is not the highest and best use of human potential. But shit poasting is 😈

I'm glad AI and automation are coming for jobs.