Matthew D 🇺🇸⚡

@knutsvanholm @jonatack But I am saying it has a noticeable affect on how users interact with one another, and interact with the network.

@knutsvanholm @jonatack I think this caused a very important factor to develop, the community of users let guards down. At a minimum the changes weren't being judged like they would have been if Bitcoin was deep in a bear market, like today. I'm not saying that activation happened because of price.

Bitcoin is about to be battle tested again

@callebtc Agree about the cypherpunk software. That's a big reason I reject the idea we need the likes of Coinbase and Foundry permission to gain consensus. They can't and won't be the actors that carry our ideals through hard times. It's up to the users.

@DetroitMatthewD that's great material for a spanish telenovela. the rest of us are here to build cypherpunk software.

black pill: bip-110 is a case study for the current state of the world truth doesn't matter. the mob will attach to low iq influencers and don't care about scientific accuracy. white pill: bitcoin isn't a democracy. we don't care about how many influencers you get on your side. the mob can't do shit. you can't vote us out. you either run our software or you create something that's better (good luck with that, your hiring strategy isn't... great). rationality and the spirit of cooperation prevail. stay strong dev. we're counting on you.

@ODELLXYZ @MasterTheGame Agree 100% The consensus changes happening under BIP 110 are the result of a years long fight. The central interests at Core et Al did nothing but gaslight and use sly and foxy politics. This BIP is only possible with that back drop.

@MasterTheGame the fact that bitcoin is hard to change is a fundamental requirement for it to be valuable

theoretically possible to freeze bitcoin with a soft fork there could be a soft fork attempt that tries to freeze iran’s bitcoin or blackrock’s in practice its not likely, forks require overwhelming support to succeed bitcoin is incredibly hard to change by design

Lately there's been a lot of discussion around L2s like Liquid, Ark, and Spark, and the deciding factor for preference seems to have become unilateral exit: the ability to exit to the mainchain on your own initiative, even if the operator is malicious, censoring you, or has vanished entirely. Ironically, as people are discovering, only one Spark wallet actually supports unilateral exit (the others say it's coming later), which is a bit comical, because that's often the very reason the more hardcore Bitcoiners dismiss Liquid. At @JAN3com, we're building on @Liquid_BTC because I firmly believe it offers the best set of tradeoffs. After Liquid, my next choice would be Ark, and personally I would avoid Spark because of how centralized it is. It's all about the substrate. We're all trying to solve for the best L2 substrate, which can also include ecash mints or even databases (like the original WoS). Here's what I believe are the key criteria, in priority order. 1️⃣ Privacy. Both operator-side (are they logging you?) and on-chain (are amounts/assets confidential?) 2️⃣ Operator model. Single operator or federation? Can they steal funds, and can they censor you? 3️⃣ Liquidity. How deep and accessible is it? 4️⃣ Time in production. How long has it been live, and has it held up under real-world conditions? 5️⃣ Data availability. Can you get the data to prove what you own, without relying on the operator? 6️⃣ Economically viable exit. Is that exit actually affordable, or does fee/congestion cost make it theoretical? 7️⃣ Unilateral exit. Can you exit to the mainchain on your own initiative, even if the operator is malicious, censoring you, or gone? 8️⃣ Liveness requirements. Do you have to come online periodically or risk losing funds? (relevant for Ark) How does Liquid stack up for these criteria? Really well. 1️⃣ Privacy. Confidential Transactions by default hide both the transaction amount and the asset type from all observers, including functionaries. Functionaries can't see amounts or asset types, so there's nothing to even log if they wanted to. 2️⃣ Operator model. 15 functionaries, 11-of-15 multisig, HSM-secured, tolerating up to 4 offline. Functionary code is open-source. 3️⃣ Liquidity. $5B TVL, including $4B+ in tokenized securities and ~$97M native USDT. 4️⃣ Time in production. Live since October 2018 as Bitcoin's first production sidechain (~7.5 years). 5️⃣ Data availability. Anyone can run a full node and trustlessly self-validate the chain, with L-BTC always verifiably 1:1 with BTC locked on mainchain. 6️⃣ Economically viable exit. 0.1 sat/vB average fee. For most users the primary exit is an atomic swap of L-BTC for BTC, which is permissionless and doesn't require federation membership. 7️⃣ Unilateral exit. Not there for regular users yet, but coming via a BitVM-style 1-of-n bridge on the roadmap. And as a business, you can join as a federation member today and peg out directly, no third party needed. 8️⃣ Liveness requirements. No online-or-lose mechanic; L-BTC sits indefinitely. Notice that economically viable exit sits above unilateral exit on my list. That's deliberate. Let's dig in. It's important to remember that L2 substrates are exactly that: substrates. None of them can compete with the trustless, permissionless properties of the Bitcoin mainchain. Anything you're holding long-term belongs on mainchain, in your own custody. You're using the substrate for spending (small amounts) or cost-effective UTXO aggregation, so unilateral exit isn't that important outside of an ideological insistence on having it. What you actually want is privacy, durability, liquidity, and economically viable exits. Remember how many Muun wallet users were caught off guard when mainchain fees spiked? When fees climb again, what you thought was a unilateral exit turns out to be no exit at all. Once network fees hit around 5-10 Sats/vB (or higher), unilaterally exiting small Ark VTXOs or Spark leaves stops being worth it. Let's take an example of 10 small balances adding up to 100k sats. At those fee levels, pulling each one out on-chain can eat 40–100% (or more) of what it's worth. You'd burn most or all of the value just to move it. At that point, it's effectively dust. This is because of the tree/branch/leaf structure of Ark and Spark. 5-10 Sats/vB isn't even expensive for a normal BTC transaction: at $100k, that's just $0.71 to $1.41. The cost blows up only because a unilateral exit means unrolling that structure on-chain, not broadcasting one clean transaction. Ark and Spark are really optimized for cooperative exits and if you're expecting cooperation anyway, then rationally you should expect that same cooperation for a Liquid peg-out. So with Liquid you get both: a cooperative exit via peg-out, and the primary atomic-swap model into a pool that's (pun intended) deep and liquid. @Liquid_BTC is perfect for the average person and that's why we're building @AquaBitcoin on it. TL;DR: Unilateral exit is oversold, especially when it's too expensive to actually use. For everyday spending amounts, exiting small Ark/Spark balances becomes uneconomical the moment fees rise, so it's an exit on paper only. Privacy, liquidity, durability, and a cheap real-world exit matter more, and Liquid wins on those. Hold long-term on mainchain; use the substrate for spending/aggregation.

@cguida6 @CodyB98504199 Not from the UASF technical stand point, it's the cultural layer that's different now.

@DetroitMatthewD @CodyB98504199 Bip110 doesn't really do anything fundamentally different from bip148

One of the problems with straw-manning BIP 110 UASF activation is that the people who are the users of the UASF are real Bitcoiners. Not some pseudonymous network participant that sprung up from the bushes. We're not Boogeyman, we're Bitcoiners.

@CodyB98504199 @cguida6 You're asking for something that doesn't exist. The closest, as you probably know is BIP148. You want something that doesn't exist so you can prove a point, but your point would be moot. BIP110 changes the rules because nodes rule the network.

Please point me to the historical evidence showing a self-isolating softfork that ends up fully activating with less than 1% of miner support, less than 15% of non-mining nodes running or supporting, and very few large economic nodes. I'm aware of BIPs in this standing that ended up replaced, abandoned, closed, withdrawn, or never activated. Learning is one of my favorite careers, and hobbies, both. I want to see this evidence. Point me in the right direction.

I'm not "infighting" People who pump treasury stocks aren't a relevant part of the community.

@FlyTheElephant1 Careful on this app. It's an algorithmically driven platform designed to suck you in and keep you engaged.

@FlyTheElephant1 Just don't lose yourself in the process.

@DetroitMatthewD I don't have a choice. There is a war, and this is my job until we win it.

@DetroitMatthewD We are real bitcoiners who seem to be arguing with corporate influencers, ethereum refugees, and corporate employees, and people who are scared because they spent their entire time in bitcoin trusting and never verifying.

@CodyB98504199 LLM vibes

Welcome to Bitcoin! I'm glad you're here and I hope you don't leave. Any UASF with small minority of adoption across all layers of the network, and tiny minorities in critical layers, doesn't work. If BIP110 permanently activates and becomes the heaviest chain for the long term, I am willing to be a user on the BIP110 soft fork. If BIP110 doesn't permanently activate, will you remain as a user on the current longest timechain?

@saylor Man I really bought into that cyber hornet goddess of wisdom thing. You had us in the first half...

Bitcoin is an emergent network of wallets weighted by satoshis, nodes weighted by commerce, and miners weighted by hashrate, with capital, consensus, and security held in dynamic equilibrium. $BTC

@DrJackKruse How about the Great lakes? Or are they too deuterated?

Is the ocean there?

@1914ad $MSTR days are numbered. It seems like just a matter of time before it suffers the same fate as online gambling.

✅ 100% agree with Michael!

@GrassFedBitcoin Everything past about v28 is a poocoin

According to coin(.)dance there has been a decrease of about 3500 Core nodes since early 2025. (And that's just listening nodes, the true number will be higher) If updates to a node implementatiom cause that many people to stop running it then it is a force for centralization, unless you can be routed around with an alternative like Knots. So lie and call Knots a Sybil attack all you like as some do, while pretending the obvious isn't clear as day: thousands of people stopped running Core and that's not something *WE* can fake.