Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE

84K posts

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE banner
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE

@theonevortex

Former host of The Bitcoin News Show. Creator of https://t.co/8tcwct1Icy. Bitcoin Is. And that is enough.

Planet Earth Katılım Şubat 2011
1 Takip Edilen53.9K Takipçiler
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Chun
Chun@satofishi·
@BitcoinMotorist @MARA @RiotPlatforms @BITMAINtech The thing BIP-110 supporters are best at is taking a biased stance and pretending to ask aggressive, hostile, and confrontational questions, because their minds are underdeveloped.
English
10
4
61
2.8K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Ryan Gentry
Ryan Gentry@RyanTheGentry·
Announcing the world's largest paid endpoint directory for AI agents: the 402 Index! The 402 Index aggregates 15,000+ paid API endpoints live on the internet today, and runs hourly health checks to help your agent determine which providers have the most reliable infrastructure.
GIF
English
47
64
399
46.1K
Tone Vays
Tone Vays@ToneVays·
@theonevortex @SoNamecoin @adam3us @RandyMcMillan @3ricMills @Pledditor Vortex for the Love of God please stop making sense to Anonymous AI Bots from 202x, just look at his profile with 500 followers and just realize it's not a real person .... Or if it is, it's too retarded to understand anything you type 🤯 I ignore and/or Block ALL anons of 202x
Tone Vays tweet media
English
3
0
6
166
Pledditor
Pledditor@Pledditor·
Wouldn't it be nice if "Today's News" was actually news, and not just a repackaged version of your "For You" feed.
Pledditor tweet media
English
11
1
86
23.3K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
No what YOU fail to understand is that bitcoin core is a meritocracy and the bitcoin network is anarchy, nothing about bitcoin is a democracy for loud people on twitter to vote on, this is a feature not a bug. Everyone was ignoring the 100k limit which was causing malincentives to provide private backdoor channels to miners like mara with slipstream which resulted in centralizing the blockspace so v30 was released as harm reduction as I go more into here: x.com/theonevortex/s… As I just mentioned the data limit is 1mb and remains unchanged, the relay policy change was a minor change and can be changed by any individual node to their liking, while something like 110 is a consensus change and 110 has a huge amount of technical issues that I go more into here: x.com/theonevortex/s… It seems you've been psyopped and bought into narratives instead of paying attention to the facts, I mean just look at your handle name lol.
English
3
4
28
1.6K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
First of all the only nacks were from non developers or people with only a few commits, the vast majority of acks were from actual bitcoin core developers, do better research instead of buying into narratives, the info is all right there publically in the PR. Run whatever you want but the Knots client is a joke and pet project of luke's where he pushes whatever code he wants straight to master with little to no peer review, literally tens of thousands of lines of code diff from bitcoin core all unreviewed, no thanks. Also 110 is still ridiculously stupid. If you feel gaslit by my words that's on you, not me. Understand that bitcoin doesn't need you, you need bitcoin.
English
5
6
47
7.8K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
Why "must" it happen lol? Market left spammers behind so fees are cheap since the fee market did its job, 110 doesn't actually stop spam in anyway shape or form and instead has a ton of technical issues that I outline here: x.com/theonevortex/s… It's pretty clear you bought into a psyop.
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex

It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking like a curated platform and this sets a precedent where a 55% majority can decide that your valid transaction is "spam" simply because they dislike the use case -It doesn't actually solve the problem - As Peter Todd demonstrated these filters are easily bypassed as he successfully embedded the entire 6,000-word text of BIP 110 into a single transaction by fragmenting the data across multiple 256-byte PUSHDATA elements and 83-byte OP_RETURNs so this proves the fork doesn't stop data it only increases the transaction fee "tax" for users -Incentivizes Centralizing BlockSpace Market - Capping the public relay at 83 bytes forces high-volume data users to bypass the P2P network and instead pay large mining pools directly via private APIs to include "illegal" non-standard data which creates a private blockspace market that small home-node miners cannot see or profit from -Risk of confiscation / disruption to backwards compatibility - As Gregory Maxwell noted Bitcoin nodes have no "global state" of pre-signed transactions so if a user has a multi-year inheritance plan or a "Vault" emergency exit signed offline that uses a 500-byte script or an OP_IF branch BIP 110 welds that exit shut and since the transaction is now consensus-invalid the funds are effectively confiscated for the duration of the fork -Anti-Scaling (Kills eltoo/ln-symmetry) - BIP 110 explicitly invalidates the Taproot Annex which directly blocks the ln-symmetry upgrade which is the industry's best hope for a Lightning Network that dramatically reduces the need for constant watchtower monitoring and enables simpler multi-party channels -Creates UTXO bloat - BIP 110 incentivizes spammers to hide data inside fake addresses/UTXOs (like multisig-encoded data) and while an OP_RETURN can be ignored by a lean node, a fake UTXO must be tracked by every node forever so BIP 110 intended to "save" nodes but actually creates a more expensive permanent burden on them -Breaks Miniscript & Vaults - Miniscript is the industry standard for writing readable secure smart contracts (used for inheritance, multi-party escrow, timelocked recovery) and relies heavily on OP_IF to branch between conditions so by banning OP_IF in Tapscripts BIP 110 effectively breaks Taproot-based custody setups that represent the direction the entire industry is moving -Lobotomizes BitVM - BitVM is one of very few viable paths to trustless Layer 2 bridges and requires deep "Taproot Trees" (Merkle paths) to verify computation and a 257-byte limit caps the tree depth at roughly 7 levels (128 leaves) when BitVM protocols often require thousands of leaves to function -Loss in fees for miners - If you filter out the highest paying transactions because you don't like their content you are effectively asking miners to take a pay cut which could lower the "hash price" and as block subsidy continues to halve transaction fees become increasingly critical to security -Rushed Timeline / Governance Precedent - BIP 110 activates unconditionally by September 2026 regardless of support with early activation possible at just 55% signaling within a tiny 3-month window and this "emergency" style of governance is a radical departure from Bitcoin's traditional 90%+ consensus model, if rushed "emergency" consensus changes become normalized that governance precedent is permanent even if the technical changes expire

English
0
0
0
14
Stephen Z
Stephen Z@stephenz010·
@theonevortex @reardencode @rupadizzle I’ll only do that if I think it may change their mind. I’m adamant that BIP-110 must happen. I’m not as certain that it will succeed, but it must happen nonetheless. The industry gravy train of spammers, scammers and skimmers is moving at high speed. It must be stopped.
English
1
0
0
13
Rearden Vibes 🛩 fork/acc
Rearden Vibes 🛩 fork/acc@reardencode·
Listening to Luke and Mechanic is literally the greatest number of lies per minute I've ever heard. I almost cannot believe this level of dishonesty exists in the world.
English
16
7
133
4.9K
Society of Namecoin
Society of Namecoin@SoNamecoin·
@theonevortex @adam3us @RandyMcMillan @3ricMills @Pledditor There are nodes that more active in relaying information across the network than others; one node does not equal one “vote” But stop gaslighting Knotszi’s that their dissent isnt warranted. How Core rammed through the change to OP_RETURN mempool policy despite the bevy of NACKs
Society of Namecoin tweet media
English
6
0
1
203
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Anon
Anon@NakamotoQA·
@nvk “Every person new to Bitcoin thinks they have a unique understanding of Bitcoin and everyone ought to hear about it. The Bitcoin community does these arrivistes a real disservice by taking them seriously instead of just telling them ‘read more’.” —Rochard
English
3
3
31
3.5K
Society of Namecoin
Society of Namecoin@SoNamecoin·
@theonevortex @adam3us @RandyMcMillan @3ricMills @Pledditor Bitcoin development is [mostly] a meritocracy but thank God that doesn’t imply that Bitcoin is DEFINED by developers or miners When NODERUNNERS choose which software to run they are voicing their opinion about what Bitcoin SHOULD BE, knowing full well that others may abuse it…
Society of Namecoin tweet media
English
2
0
1
216
Society of Namecoin
Society of Namecoin@SoNamecoin·
@theonevortex @adam3us @RandyMcMillan @3ricMills @Pledditor What YOU fail to acknowledge is that by opening up mempool policy to allow for the peer-to-peer relaying of 100kB of SANCTIONED arbitrary data BY DEFAULT, Core has ignored the concerns that MANY noderunners have said is UNACCEPTABLE for the dominant node implementation to allow
GIF
English
3
0
0
182
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Michael Tidwell
Michael Tidwell@miketwenty1·
New scam I ran across today that was pretty good because it was initiated from a telegram account I had 5+ years history with, @jimmysong. Didn't see it all the way through after they posted a bogus link, but none the less wanted to let you know! Not sure how to contact you now a days, but your telegram account is/was compromised, not sure if it's your current one or not. Seems like a lot of people are being reached out to via from your telegram account. 1. Sets up a no rush calendly. 2. Currently using fake personal gmail jaejoonsong07@gmail.com 3. Using telegram username jimnyxbt They'll likely change these details if they see this. Just a heads up for anyone who thinks Jimmy is just randomly being friendly and wants to chat all of a sudden.
English
3
3
22
1.9K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
Points that have been walked back from the Knots side so far and counting: -Core v30 will kill bitcoin -Spam will kill bitcoin -Viruses will take down AWS -The CSAM in bitcoin will make running nodes illegal -They won't fork
English
14
7
80
5.3K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
Please feel free to refute these technical issues I've found with 110: x.com/theonevortex/s… Here's some more from others as well: rearden x.com/reardencode/st… kevin x.com/KLoaec/status/… Giacomo x.com/giacomozucco/s… supertestnet x.com/SuperTestnet/s… ajtowns: x.com/ajtowns/status… Looking forward to your technical response.
Super Testnet@SuperTestnet

@geekigai @MayaPar25 x.com/SuperTestnet/s…

English
0
2
5
635
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
@stephenz010 @reardencode @rupadizzle Looking forward to you actually attempting to rebuttal Rearden, aint gonna happen, also if you're so adamant about 110 put your money where your mouth is in the betting markets since literally nobody else from 110 has yet.
English
1
0
1
30
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
Right that worked for BCH because BCH implemented replay protection (they added a SIGHASH_FORKID flag that made transactions invalid on the other chain). So once the fork happened your BTC and BCH transactions were inherently incompatible meaning you could spend on one chain without it replaying on the other. The concern with a BIP-110 split is there's no guarantee either side would implement replay protection. If they don't, moving coins around post-fork wouldn't protect you the same way and your transaction could still be valid on both chains regardless of which wallet you use.
English
1
2
12
503
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE@theonevortex·
@lukedewolf @adam3us 110 is literally removing 2 basic building block op codes from bitcoin that unequivocally make it a worse programmable money.
English
8
6
63
10.7K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Shinobi
Shinobi@brian_trollz·
This, is a lie. I would just have quote tweeted, but @_PyBlock_ like most people pushing filters and BIP-110 is a pussy ass little coward who has blocked everyone capable of calling out his bullshit. The referenced change is to the Bitcoin Core mining template builder, and has NOTHING to do with consensus rules, any consensus changes, or anything enforced by consensus at all. It by default now sets the nLocktime field in the coinbase transaction to the current blockheight -1. This is not enforced or mandated by consensus at all. It is a arbitrary change _preparing for_ the _possibility_ that the Consensus Cleanup might be activated in the future, but NOTHING is enforced by consensus in this release. PyBlock is either a liar, and intentionally misleading people, or an incompetent fucking buffoon who can't even read crystal clear descriptions of a pull request.
Shinobi tweet media
English
7
4
49
2.8K
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE retweetledi
Rearden Vibes 🛩 fork/acc
Rearden Vibes 🛩 fork/acc@reardencode·
A very abbreviated list of Luke/Mechanic's lies.
Rearden Vibes 🛩 fork/acc@reardencode

"Spam has been fought with policy historically" - total lie, I'm pretty sure policy has exclusively been relaxed since it was created, never tightened "You are at legal risk unless you try to filter" - false, by treating the content of blocks as anything other than other people's money and attempting to filter, you open yourself up to liability "Filters work, you can tell by the lack of 81B opreturns" - filters add the barest bit of friction and nearly all opreturns are messages that can by shortened by 1 character without losing anything, and the 80B limit was specifically picked because ~all uses known at the time for it for into that size, so of course most non message ones are smaller "Core is doing this for Citrea" - no, Citrea find a legitimate money use for a larger than 80B opreturn and core naturally responded by relaxing the policy "This opens nodes up to abuse" - false, the more data is put into opreturns, the lower the costs of operating a node "Core is doing this to us on purpose" - no, core is merely doing their job by responding to network conditions. People like me, who run libre relay to ensure propagation of consensus valid economically valuable transactions, are forcing core to relax policy. "This is bad for bitcoin" - no, if consensus valid, economically valuable transactions could harm bitcoin, it was a failed system. Fortunately they cannot. There are some real dangers to bitcoin that are addressed in the consensus cleanup, let's focus on that. "This was never 'allowed' before" - opreturn has never had a consensus limit and has been consensus valid since bitcoin was first published. They deliberately mix up consensus and relay policy throughout their entire rhetoric to confuse the less technical. "Core is specifically sanctioning fine storage on bitcoin" - opreturn is intended for money protocols, always has been and always will be. "This turns bitcoin into S3" if S3 was ten thousand times more expensive and got exponentially more expensive the more people use it. People looking for file storage can not and never will use bitcoin for it. It is a novelty, a cultural statement, or similar to publish files in the blocks of the world's best money. I could go on because they literally lie continuously.

English
3
2
10
2.5K