Keysa

“The Simplest Bitcoin Book Ever Written” is as relevant today as when it was first published in 2022, with the second edition published in 2024. One of the best bitcoin primers out there, if I say so myself 😂 Free download at the link below ⬇️

@surferjimw 🧡

@SimplestBTCBook Everything is art when viewed from the right perspective, isn't it.

Breaking: sparkie opportunity awaites. The modern electric grid in Bali is calling you. 😉😄

@RobinSeyr That wasn’t the polarizing part :)

I really didn’t think it would be so polarizing to say „Attack ideas, not people“

@LorenHodl Depends on if you’re a suitcoiner/compromised/VC grifter/paycheck depends on Bailey/Saylor Et al… or a pleb/not compromised/here to separate money from state etc

Is BIP110 a good idea? 🤔

@DrStarHeartsong x.com/simplestbtcboo…

Bitcoin is supposed to be simple. Yes on BIP-110. A shared ledger. That’s it. Peer-to-peer electronic cash that anyone can verify. The intellectual appeal was never complexity or feature bloat. It was purity. Like early Unix: small, clear, powerful, and understandable. Something an individual could actually reason about and run. Right now the full blockchain is just over 750 GB. A few years ago, before the inscription wave started in late 2022 and early 2023, it was roughly 450 GB. The extra weight is not free. Every full node has to carry it forever. The people stuffing JPEGs and arbitrary data onto the chain pay a fee once. Everyone who wants to keep verifying the ledger pays in disk, bandwidth, and time for as long as they run a node. This is a slow tax on the exact people who make Bitcoin different. Ordinary individuals running commodity hardware. When that gets harder, verification concentrates. What remains trends toward professional operators and institutions. That is how a system that started as sovereign money drifts toward something more captured. Bitcoin was not designed as a general data host. It is a monetary consensus ledger. The beauty was in the constraint. Scarce block space. Clear purpose. Anyone can check the rules themselves. Once we treat the base layer as a permanent public hard drive for whatever content people are willing to pay to embed, we lose the simplicity that was the original intellectual draw. There are many beautiful, simple systems in the world. Unix is one. Bitcoin was supposed to be another. Adding permanent JPEGs and random data does not make it more powerful. It makes it heavier, messier, and harder for normal people to verify. That is not evolution. It is accretion. BIP-110 is a temporary, narrow intervention. It limits the main pathways for large non-monetary data for about a year. It does not touch existing coins. It does not rewrite history. Normal payments continue. It simply slows the externalization of costs onto the people who actually keep the ledger honest. The real question is not technical. It is about what we want this thing to be. A clean shared ledger that ordinary people can still run and verify, or a progressively heavier system whose verification layer quietly consolidates. Simplicity was the appeal. Purity was the point. Protecting the conditions that let regular people participate in verification is how you keep both. That is the case for BIP-110.

@adam3us @adam3us will you ever respond to this?

@adam3us With all the respect I used to have for you, I find it quite fascinating that you feel sorry for people you think have been misled when you still haven’t responded to these .. if you have pls point me to it x.com/simplestbtcboo… x.com/simplestbtcboo…

Ponder this: If BIP110 was a nothing burger, why are Back, Saylor AND Bailey wasting so much time on Twitter fighting it? What are they so scared of? A temporary soft fork designed to provide a breather for bitcoiners to consider better spam mitigation, what is so terrifying?

Who controls Bitcoin?

The most obvious reason it doesn't matter is because bip110 expires after a year The less obvious reasons are 1) ln-symmetry doesn't require the taproot annex, opreturn could be used instead (or some other more elegant construct in a future softfork) 2) ln-symmetry requires other consensus changes that would need to build consensus, so almost certainly won't be already active by the time bip110 expires (ctv has taken 5 years already and isn't blocked by bip110, csfs could be activated alongside it during bip110, then it would automatically become usable once bip110 expires) Point is, people who claim bip110 blocks ln-symmetry in any way are lying through their teeth, or just don't know what they're talking about

This is an amazing post, long but well worth reading and doesn't seem to be AI generated. PoW unlike Saylor's.

Having a feature that looks like it's intended for non-financial content may be a much larger legal risk than having a feature intended for financial transactions that is subverted to post non-financial content. It's not "all just bits" in the eyes of the law. Caveat IANAL. A feature that looks like it's intended for non-financial content also sends a strong social signal that non-financial content is welcome on Bitcoin.

@hodlonaut All the very best and wishing you a swift recovery 🧡🧡

Having surgery tomorrow to re-attach the distal bicep tendon on my left arm. 🤞

@JasonPLowery @LorenHodl Apples to oranges

Do you have a #Bitcoin treasury company or a bitcoin trashury company. Please consult the included guide to find out! @saylor @phongle @jackmallers @phil_geiger @gerovich

@boomer_btc @Roughnecks110 So appreciate these notes, thank you 🙏 Interested to hear more about your BIP idea!

I'm limited on time but a few quick points: 1. I think much of current thinking about things like mempool construction, fees, block creation, and certainly, policy and consensus comes from a point of view clouded by recent years of low transaction counts. The exceptions have been periods in which activity around inscriptions, runes, ordinals, etc. have pushed blocks to capacity. 2. I do agree that it is best to use the term arbitrary data not spam because that separates much of the debate away from what is spam to how is block space utilized. It is my opinion that the biggest issue has been the abuse of the witness discount. It was created so that signatures didn't consume a disproportionate amount of block space. I have been thinking a lot about this and pondering a new BIP (whether 110 is broadly accepted or not) to close this gap. The basic concept would be that the witness discount only applied for a reasonable number of bytes (maybe 256 to 1K), and after that it would get progressively penal. Kind of like airline baggage fees, if your bag is less than 20kg then you pay the standard fee, as soon as you cross that barrier the price goes up tremendously. 3. Miners have not, and definitely will not, evaluate their block construction based solely on the immediate block reward. Each will have their own criteria but these will include everything from the pre-sale of future block space to philosophical/ethical considerations. A dev not considering or understanding this is not seeing the picture clearly. Keeping this flexibility/optionality available to miners is critical. None of this is censorship and I agree with the post, it is completely inappropriate to associate the freedom of miner to create the block of their choice with censorship. I find that offensive. I wish I had more time to say more.

@DathonPwn Except he does

Kratter wants exchanges to support BIP 110 (which has a known consensus bug) when his own website doesn’t accept bitcoin payments. You first professor.

11/21 is off the market and will meet its new collector soon 🧡🙏🏽 22k gold on PCB - a collaboration with @ModeotecArt 🧡