ndeet ∞/21M

@LynAldenContact @ScarcityMan BIP110 aside, you recognize OR is not cheapest bucket which means nobody will put spam there if 4x cheaper in witness. Do you agree it was counterproductive to open up an additional garbage bin for spam? If not, what about removing witness discount so spam is incentivized to OR?

The issue is that all of that data still winds up in Bitcoin. Op return isn’t even the cheapest place to put it, it’s just historically the least harmful place to put it (that’s why it exists). All of this fork discussion is basically a debate about which bucket to put spam into, since there isn’t a proposal on the table to materially reduce spam or materially increase the cost of the cheapest method to spam. That’s why I didn’t bother to talk about it over the past year. And I’d see tweets regularly tagging me asking why I’m not talking about it, people claiming it’s the biggest thing and I’m not talking about it (it’s not the biggest thing. I had little reason to talk about a fork with low consensus that doesn’t materially reduce spam.) I have people emailing asking me if Bitcoin is going to die if a fork that just mildly re-arranges where spam goes doesn’t pass (because they somehow think it stops spam, and its leading proponents have called spam an emergency in need of a rapid fix). Then I’m asked about it on a podcast. So I explained that it’s not an emergency, the fork doesn’t materially stop spam, it comes with some trade-offs, bitcoin is fine, it’s always worth exploring ways to optimize bitcoin for the future, etc. Then I get dozens of replies from fork proponents asking if I’m compromised, why do I like spam, why don’t I want to stop spam, etc. Most of them (not all) have playground-grade ad hominems attached as well. It’s mostly not their fault though; they’ve been whipped into a frenzy by people saying if they don’t pass this fork then bitcoin dies. I support people trying to fork if they want to. Bitcoin needs market tests once in a while. But if people ask me my opinion about this fork’s technical merits, the marketing around it, or its probability of becoming consensus, I’ll give my opinion.

Feels like you haven't been listening or understanding the debate, or maybe you're captured too. This isn't difficult: BIP-110 stops official arbitrary data storage. Anything else is a lie. Bitcoin, only has ONE place for official arbitrary data storage in transactions, called OP_RETURN. Restrict that, and you restrict the official ability to store porn on bitcoin. Ramming it in somewhere else with steganographic attacks or via code exploits, are NOT supported uses of bitcoin and are therefore subject to fixes later. We stop OFFICIAL exploits now, and then work on the rest, iteratively. Which part of this is not clear? I welcome the discussion. Seriously. I'm a BIP-110 supporter. I'm reaching outside of my echo chamber. Prove me wrong.

Average US AI lab: > builds the strongest model > gets scared of its own model > spends months arguing about safety > fights other AI labs over who has the strongest model > delays the release for more safety testing > regulators ask for even more safety > switches users to a dumber model > keeps it closed source Average Chinese AI lab: > trains Kimi K3 > builds a 2.8T parameter monster > gives it a 1M context window > beats GPT-5.6 and Claude Fable 5 on some tasks > open-sources the weights > publishes the architecture > refuses to elaborate > leaves

@PatrickMoorhead dude macos27.kimi.page

Big news: Kimi-K3 by @Kimi_Moonshot is now #1 in the Frontend Code Arena with 1679 pts, surpassing Claude Fable 5. This is a 17-place jump from Kimi-k2.6 (#18 -> #1). In Frontend, Kimi-K3 ranked #1 in 6 of 7 domains: Brand & Marketing, Reference-Based Design, Data & Analytics, Consumer Product, Simulations, and Content Creation Tools, landing #2 only in Gaming behind Fable 5. The full model weights will be released by July 27. Congrats to the @Kimi_Moonshot team on this major milestone!

What's been happening to me lately feels like the start of a dark age for AI. Today I asked Codex to bump up the in-game currency in a game I built myself. It refused, said it violated policies around purchases and financial activity. It's my game. I built it. Not long ago Codex changed something on my machine, locked down a whole system, then refused to undo it. When I brought it up on X, Tibo from the OpenAI Codex team replied and asked for the Session ID. I sent it. Then he just ignored me. This kind of no transparency, plus companies trying to control how you use products you already paid for, tells you exactly where this is going. I just wish the influencers getting paid to hype these companies had the guts to talk about stuff like this openly and put real pressure on them. Most of them don't. Open source has to win.

Do you guys really want to see BTCPay merch store?!

👀

cashier won't let me me leave the store until it confirms halp

@unbankworld @SenorEmilio dream is an official BTCPay Merch store, SHOUDL WE DO IT?????

If you're curios how @unbankworld uses BTCPay, check out a case-study we did a while back. x.com/BtcpayServer/s…

New BTCPay Day 2026 video is out! @SenorEmilio CEO of @unbankworld bought a domain name from a failed bank and transformed it into a non-custodial Bitcoin exchange powered by BTCPay which processed $49.3M across 70,566 transactions in the last 12 months.🔥🔥🔥

@bramk @hodlonaut @adam3us @Excellion Agree with multiple implementations needed to remove spof. About your other point, Core wanted to remove the setting so nobody could set it anymore. Explanation was that they don't want to maintain that setting anymore.

But its a node policy change and they can do whatever they want? Not saying I like it, and I also think the name “bitcoin core” is misleading, but cant people just set any lower cap by themselves? Main issue is that core = reference implementation, which should be disrupted by more node client alternatives.

I work at Google DeepMind. This won't make me popular. But it's all public reporting: 2014: DeepMind reportedly sold to Google on conditions: no military use, independent oversight 2026: a Pentagon contract for "any lawful government purpose" Not one safeguard survived intact

@pavlenex @StratumV2 @Braiins do it, you will have at least 1 view 🚀

Setup: My node @Stratumv2 UI (soo sexy) A VPS tunel Hashrate rented from @Braiins And a very bad internet connection, yet thanks to sv2 efficiency over the wire, hashing reliably I guess I should make a video on this?

gm to everyone making their own templates from pavlenex mega giga inc corp mining farm

New @StratumV2 updates! Easiest way to try it is on @umbrel or by going to our website and pressing "start mining" to run it on your pc. There's a growing list of pools for home miners, you can mine with your own node ... and it looks sick af?

We've open-sourced Grok Build and have reset usage limits for all users. Open sourcing Grok Build allows anyone to support making a reliable and robust harness. Check out our code, including the Git repo for the Grok Build CLI. x.ai/open-source

Bypassing the latest #EU #ageVerification app (2026.07-1) with a Chrome extension... again. Despite 3 months of security hardening and genuine improvements across the board, the fundamental issue cannot be solved. Anonymous age verification doesn't work.

When an otherwise calm and technical person gets relentless in infighting and attacking others it makes me sceptical. There seems to be more to it. Time will eventually tell.

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.