Sᴀᴛs & Sɪʟᴠᴇʀ⚡️

1886 Morgan Silver Dollar → Hand-Engraved Skull with 24K Gold inlaid Bitcoin laser eyes. My buddy Sam Wall spent 14 hours meticulously engraving under a microscope to turn it into a one-of-one hard-money relic! Have you ever seen anything like it? #Stack #Silver #Bitcoin

@HodlHabit @FactualXBT Congrats! @HodlHabit is the best! How much does $100 USD go over there in Africa @FactualXBT? More than enough to take care of you?

Congratulations @FactualXBT !!!

@HodlHabit I giess I get 200 extra entries then 😂 j/k. Seriously your a great account! It's just so hard to consistsntly post original content—especially in video form which the algorithm cleary prefers.

@SatsAndSilver Thank you Sats & Silver! I still remember you followed me back when I had fewer than 200 followers!

1000 Followers! Today is such a special day! Thank you so much everyday follower who has joined HodlHabit on a mission to paint the world with Organge Dots 🟠🟠🟠 This is just the beginning! I am building the tools to help Bitcoiners DCA more consistently and achieve financial sovereignty one orange dot at a time. Never stop stacking! Your future will be great! *I will release the $100 giveaway result soon!

@BTCWealthWar It's me guys! I follow & unfollow each of you multiple times every night. 😂

X is broken, or maybe just my account Went to sleep with around 2,629 followers Woke up with 2,591. This has been a recurring issue for about a month now Analytics don’t reflect these fluctuations either Anybody else having something similar going on?

I walked over to my cactus & succulent stand. 5 of them are in full bloom. All different species 😍😍😍. I took it as a sign to stack another million Sats. ✅️ Done & already in Cold Storage. 🙏🏻

@isabelfoxenduke @knutsvanholm @jonatack This might help. x.com/i/status/20368…

@isabelfoxenduke You can't be serious? Did you watch @knutsvanholm with our man @jonatack explain his experiences with what happened during maintainer selection & funding? If ONE individual at Brink did half of what is alleged, I'd say that's the VERY obvious infiltration point.

I do agree that most BIP 110 supporters are feds. At least at the leadership level. They clearly want any hope of a Bitcoin fee market to die — and for the network to death march to zero security bitcoin.

@Mrgunsngear Holy crap! Brutal. Scumbag move shooting an oblivious, unarmed woman in the back. 🫩

Security cameras captured the ambush shooting of 27 year old Katerine Torrez Barros at her home in Barrio Venezuela. According to local media, she was 4 months pregnant and survived the shooting. I didn't see any information on the baby. Plan accordingly... #CityLife #crime #ambush #evil #pregnant

@opnetbtc Who actually wants to be able to "swap" Bitcoin for stablecoins on BTC Layer 1?

Stablecoins exist on every major L1 except Bitcoin. With OP_NET smart contracts that is able to change. This is why it matters more than you think ⬇️

@dom_lucre He baited those impulsive retards into it & was 100% prepared to talk over their outbursts unphased. 😂😂 All he had to say was Minnesota & they lost it. Then he called them "Somali Pirates" just to troll them and I lol'd. 😂😂

That was the most ghetto State of The Union Address I have ever seen. I am so disappointed in our elected officials.

@prrfbeauty If you think this is cool, "art", or valuable then you are an idiot. This bullshit does nothing except make the world take Bitcoin a little less serious.

Some mints from last night 🧡 All with the vanity inscription ID ded110. Spam to some. Bitcoin history to us.

@Beautyon_ I don't know how you tolerated that voice long enough to catch anything 🥴🥴🥴

Did you catch it?

@grok @BitMEXResearch @knutsvanholm @JP_Technology @stephanlivera 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

According to BitMEX's latest report (Sep 2025), ~60.77 GB of arbitrary data is on Bitcoin's blockchain via Ordinals/inscriptions. Breakdown: - BRC-20 tokens: 27.81 GB - Images/jpegs & other (videos, etc.): 29.96 GB Yes, this extra data increases expenses for full node users by enlarging blockchain storage (~61 GB added), extending sync times, and doubling the UTXO set (mainly from BRC-20), raising hardware and bandwidth costs. Images may validate faster per unit due to discounts.

BIP110 is a hostile fork. Proponents did not build consensus for the idea. They are instead smearing and attacking anyone who disagrees. They are attempting to hijack the network.

@BitMEXResearch @knutsvanholm @JP_Technology @stephanlivera > Utter Rubbish Hey @grok according to Bitmex latest report, how many gigabytes of arbitrary data is on the bitcoin blockchain? Include jpegs/ordinals/inscriptions/BRC-20 token data. Also, does all this extra data cause ANY increase in expense to users running full nodes?

> BIP110 is a temporary soft fork. Huge difference. A softfork could ban all spends. Of course a softfork can be an attack. > low time preference If you have low time preference why don't you work on a long term solution rather than a temporary softfork? > This is an attempt at making it relatively cheaper for users to run nodes Utter rubbish The large spam images do not make it more expensive to run nodes

@BTCOVERFIAT Either you have wizard jpegs or down syndrome. 🤷‍♂️

BIP-110 is absolutely an attack on Bitcoin.

@hodlonaut @giacomozucco If only core had the wisdom to compromise & re-evaluate their decisions then maybe none of us would be having to choose sides? They could end all of this right now by releasing v.31 with op_return back to 83b... or even 160. Yet, they won't even consider it.

I had a long talk with wise @giacomozucco today. And I am withdrawing my support for BIP-110. I stand by A and B of this post. And partly C. Something is seriously off with Bitcoin Core. And they are imo fully responsible for the current social fracture. Arrogance, woke politics, disturbing physical centralization, very poor ability to be responsible stewards of the reference implentation of Bitcoin. But I can no longer justify supporting BIP-110. I know the people pushing for it has the best intentions, a strong principled base, and a huge heart for Bitcoin. I respect that a lot. But I don't think it will yield any good results, and may actually make future resistance more difficult. I do not think there is a chance of a fork, since I do not think hashrate will support BIP-110. I apologize for the flip flopping, and any contributions I have made to worsen the social fracture. I saw too many red flags, and wanted so badly to counter them. The red flags are still there. But the urgency and rational methods of countering Core's arrogance and lack of wisdom isn't imo. I will continue to run Knots, and hope Bitcoin will have more solid implementations to choose from in the future. Once again, sorry for coming in too hot after a leave of absence. Kudos to everyone fighting for what they believe in the best way they know, and FU to Core for uncapping OP_RETURN in the face of heavy controversy and creating this fracture.

@callebtc I hope your clawdbot becomes a Knotzi & installs Bip-110 😂😂

weekend project: give your agent bitcoin and tell it to reproduce itself. it needs to buy a VPS and get AI credits somehow, good luck buddy.

@thebitcoingal @RobSats @AAStack Bitcoin should NOT be neutral to arbitrary data. Previous Core devs have been openly hostile to it since Bitcoins inception, it wasn't until recently the exploit being used for inscriptions & ordinals was opened. Then they blew open op_return by a factor of 1250x! 83b to 1000kb!

Glad you’re researching. One thing I’d mention is to also look for sources that don’t assume “spam” as the starting point. That framing is one side of the debate. The other side asks: should Bitcoin be neutral about what data transactions contain, as long as they pay fees and follow rules? Also worth understanding that BIP-110 is a consensus-level change. Consensus rules are what make Bitcoin what it is. The consensus rules define what transactions are valid across the entire network. Changing them is serious, which is why proposals at this level usually take years of careful review. And while BIP-110’s restrictions are temporary, the precedent of using consensus rules to make judgments about what data is legitimate is not. That door doesn’t close after a year.

Serious question What is BIP-110 ? And why should I care? Bonus, send me a 5 minute video Extra bonus, video made for a non-technical retard like me

BIP-110 for Dummies. A straightforward resume of the article below 👇. Bitcoin wants to stop people from using the blockchain as a permanent file-storage system and refocus it on being money. What problem is this trying to fix? Think of Bitcoin like a highway built for payments. Recently, people started: •Uploading images, files, and junk data (inscriptions, blobs, spam) •Using tricks to store large chunks of data forever on the blockchain That causes problems: •Nodes have to store this data forever •Running a node gets more expensive •Fees go up, making payments harder •Bitcoin starts drifting from “money” → “permanent database” This proposal says: “No. Bitcoin is not Google Drive.” What does the proposal actually do? For one year only, Bitcoin would enforce new rules that: 1. Block large data uploads •Any data chunk over 256 bytes becomes invalid •No big images, no large files •You can still do cryptography, signatures, contracts — just not storage Analogy: You can send letters, not ship furniture through the mail slot. 2. Limit scripts to normal sizes •Output scripts bigger than 34 bytes are rejected •Except OP_RETURN (still allowed up to 83 bytes, like today) Why? •These scripts live in memory forever •Big ones are almost always used for abuse or spam 3. Shut down Taproot abuse It temporarily disables: •Unlimited witness versions •Taproot “annex” data •Oversized Taproot trees •OP_IF / OP_NOTIF spam tricks •OP_SUCCESS future-upgrade placeholders Analogy: You can still use the engine, but you can’t bolt random junk onto it. 4. Does NOT break normal Bitcoin use •Normal payments: ✅ fine •Lightning, multisig, Taproot (standard use): ✅ fine •Existing UTXOs: ✅ grandfathered in •Only breaks data-storage abuse Why only temporary (1 year)? Because this is an emergency brake, not a permanent redesign. The thinking: •Act fast now •Stop the bleeding •Give devs one year to design a better, long-term solution Analogy: You patch the roof during a storm, then rebuild it properly later. Why not let fees handle it? Because the incentives are broken. •The miner gets paid once •But every node must store the data forever •Node operators get zero compensation •That’s unfair and centralizing This proposal realigns incentives. Tradeoffs (yes, there are some) Downsides: •Some advanced smart-contract experiments (like BitVM) may be delayed •A few experimental wallets may need updates •Very rare edge cases could freeze funds (extremely unlikely) Upside: •Lower node costs •Better decentralization •Lower payment fees •Bitcoin stays focused on money The philosophical message Bitcoin should do one thing — and do it well. This proposal says: •Data storage is not supported •Payments and sound money are •If you want storage, use IPFS, Nostr, BitTorrent, cloud, etc. Final TL;DR •Bitcoin is under pressure from people storing junk data on-chain •This proposal temporarily blocks large data uploads •It protects node operators and keeps Bitcoin usable as money •It’s a temporary, defensive move •The goal is sound money, not on-chain Dropbox If you want, I can also: •Explain this from a Bitcoin maxi angle •Compare it to Ordinals / inscriptions •Explain why node decentralization matters so much •Or translate it into an X thread for posting @SKIPPER_BTCMSTR @TheWealthDr @FringeBtc