W4ge 5laver

@solo_mining GFY

Tell me you're a Bitcoiner without telling me you're a Bitcoiner.

1/8 Today, we introduce CTR, the coordination asset for the Bitcoin economy. Over the past two years, we built an end-to-end Bitcoin economy that relies on the Bitcoin Network as its source of truth. With CTR, we're handing control of this economy to the people who use it.

You can’t explain Bitcoin to someone who doesn’t understand money in the first place. No awareness of the problem = zero appreciation for the solution. That’s why most people dismiss bitcoin.

@Anton__BTC Surely TOR and I2P are enough?

Plebs, I kindly ask you to make your nodes a listening type. It costs nothing but a few router adjustments. Use a friend or LLM, for step by step guidance.

It's all so tiresome... time to touch grass.

That’s a wrap on SCaLE! 🎉 Over the weekend, I2P hit the expo floor to advocate for what matters most: privacy, security, and data anonymity. We had an amazing time connecting with the community, hearing your positive feedback, and welcoming new users to the I2P network. Help us keep the momentum going! Spread the word about I2P to a friend and follow us to stay in the loop: Linkedin: linkedin.com/company/808064… Instagram: instagram.com/stormycloudinc/ Reddit: reddit.com/r/i2p/ TikTok: @stormycloudinc?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">tiktok.com/@stormycloudin… Where should we go next? Drop your conference suggestions below! 👇 #i2p #SCaLE #Privacy #OpenSource #data #CyberAwareness

@w4gecom Not everyone is up for risking $20 to potentially make $20,000+ when market corrects to mining cost.

Tired of rugs? Liquidations? But still need that 10,000x? Spot bitcoin testnet3. Yup, seriously. 3rd oldest PoW, 21 million limit, too decentralized to reset so it's been let to run forever. Mining costs are now over $20k per tBTC due to dust sized mining rewards.

To really thrive in prison you have to abandon all hope and be all accepting of your situation.

1/ In 2025 Bitcoin Core removed a decade-old mempool policy default — a configurable limit on how much non-financial data nodes would relay. OP_RETURN was effectively uncapped. Not a consensus rule. A default setting. But defaults govern what most of the network does. Which governs what miners see. Which governs what gets mined. The justification: it wasn’t working anyway, data was getting in through a loophole. What wasn’t disclosed: that loophole had been deliberately kept open. Here’s the documented sequence. 🧵

Does Bitcoin Core currently have your trust and support as responsible stewards of the reference implementation of Bitcoin?

Where do you stand right now? Let’s see if there’s any movement.

New solo block found on a self-hosted Umbrel instance. 🚀🚀🚀

@hodlonaut + @BitMEXResearch

I resigned from Bitcoin Core on Monday. Here is the letter I sent to the mailing list: Dear Bitcoin Core Development Team, I am writing to formally tender my resignation from my position as a contributor to the Bitcoin Core project, effective two weeks from the date of this letter. Over the course of my involvement, I have dedicated significant time and effort to advancing the protocol in ways that align with Bitcoin's foundational principles as outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper. However, recent developments and ongoing discussions within the team have led me to conclude that my continued participation is no longer tenable. This decision has not been made lightly, but after careful reflection on the direction of the project and its adherence to Bitcoin's core ethos. The primary reason for my departure stems from a profound disagreement with the prevailing mindset among many developers, who appear to have lost sight of Bitcoin's fundamental identity as sound money. Bitcoin was conceived as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, designed to empower individuals with financial sovereignty free from centralized control. Yet, the focus has increasingly shifted toward technical complexities and features that dilute this vision, treating Bitcoin more as a speculative asset or a settlement layer for spam rather than a medium of exchange. This misalignment undermines the very purpose of Bitcoin, and I cannot in good conscience support initiatives that prioritize scalability gimmicks or layer-two solutions over preserving its role as money for the world. Furthermore, I have growing concerns that the development process has been compromised by external influences, whether through funding sources, institutional pressures, or ideological biases that favor control over decentralization. These compromises threaten the integrity of the protocol and erode the trust that the community places in Bitcoin Core. It is with regret that I step away, but I believe this action is necessary to maintain my personal commitment to Bitcoin's original ideals. I wish the team success in future endeavors and hope that a course correction can restore the project's focus on true monetary innovation. I am available to assist with any transition matters during my notice period. Signed, NEEDcreations

Hi Richard, life isn't fair, and the expectation that it should be (or ever will be) 100% fair, is juvenile. What we can realistically accomplish is to make it more fair than it was before. But, if your criticism is that, because Bitcoin isn't 100% fair, and because it doesn't perfectly solve wealth inequality, therefore it's a scam, then the problem is your expectation. Bitcoin was launched in the fairest way possible, and distributed in the fairest way possible, and if you don't agree, I challenge you to study the early history of Bitcoin, and propose an alternative hypothetical scenario that's more fair. Furthermore, the more important criteria for fairness, is not equal distribution. Because, ultimately, wealth inequality is not a function of unequal distribution as much as it's a function of access. What makes Bitcoin a fairer system, is the fact that it's cheap to take self-custody, and the inherent quality of the Bitcoin I own, in self-custody, is as pristine as anyone else's. There is no discrimination based on circumstance, provided that I own the keys to control my coins. There's never been anything like that before. No other ownership structure has ever allowed anyone to access, store and transfer their wealth, on an equal footing, regardless of who they are, where they are, and how much or how little they own. The fiat system rolls out the red carpet, depending on who you are, where you are, who you know, and how much you have. It's a club, with tiered access. But Bitcoin asks only one question: "Do you own the keys to move these UTXO's?" Other than that, whether you're the richest person in the world, or a kid living in rural Africa, there's no difference between the speed at which you can move your Bitcoin and the level of security with which you can store it. That is, is revolutionary. And if you don't understand that, then the problem is you.

This is insane! Op return accounts for almost 70% of that. 5.25 GB of crap just from op_return in 3 months and you wonder why we want to run bip-110?

Net Zero is economic suicide.

Summary of @dathon_ohm 's BIP-110 proposal for those new to the discussion. The simple goal is to combat spam and elevate bitcoin's monetary uses over non-monetary ones: - Activation Period and Expiry Rules apply to blocks from height 934864 until (and including) 987424. Rationale: Creates a strictly temporary "circuit breaker" (~1 year) to address immediate arbitrary data abuse (e.g., inscriptions, large payloads) without permanent protocol changes. Allows real-world observation of effects on spam, fees, node costs, and development focus; community can later extend, refine, or let it expire. - New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN (in which case up to 83 bytes are valid). Rationale: Most modern monetary outputs (e.g., P2WPKH, P2TR) are ≤34 bytes, with spending conditions moved to witnesses. Larger scriptPubKeys often embed non-monetary data and burden node RAM/UTXO set (pruned slowly or not at all). The 34-byte cap curbs this while allowing small OP_RETURN for legacy metadata; 83 bytes for OP_RETURN restores the historical tolerance to avoid breaking rare legacy uses, though even small OP_RETURN is increasingly deprecated via Taproot commitments. - OP_PUSHDATA payloads larger than 256 bytes are invalid*, except for the redeemScript push in BIP16 (P2SH) scriptSigs. Rationale: Prevents large data blobs embedded via pushes in scripts. 256 bytes suffices for cryptographic needs (e.g., large numbers, hashes) but blocks compressed images/files (~300-400 bytes viable). P2SH redeemScript exemption preserves legitimate multisig/scripted use cases without loopholes. - Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions is invalid (i.e., not v0/BIP141 SegWit, v1/BIP341 Taproot, or P2A); creating outputs with undefined versions remains valid. Rationale: Undefined versions currently allow unlimited witness data for future flexibility. Temporarily blocking their spending prevents interim abuse/spam while not hindering creation (forward compatibility). Future upgrades needing them would require a new soft fork anyway (typically >1 year coordination), so no practical restriction on planned features. - Witness stacks containing a Taproot annex are invalid. Rationale: The annex is currently undefined/unlimited data in Taproot witnesses, with no present legitimate use. Disabling it blocks a potential large arbitrary data vector during the period, safeguarding against abuse without impacting existing spends. - Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes are invalid (corresponding to a Merkle tree with up to 128 script leaves). Rationale: Caps Taptree complexity/size to prevent bloated, data-heavy Merkle proofs. 257 bytes (including version/parity byte + hashes) allows 128 leaves, sufficient for complex but realistic scripts, while blocking extreme trees. Addresses potential for abuse in large script collections; trade-off noted for advanced uses like BitVM (may need to wait or use alternatives). - Tapscripts containing OP_SUCCESS opcodes anywhere (even unexecuted) are invalid. Rationale: OP_SUCCESS are reserved for future soft forks (upgrade hooks). Disabling them prevents interim exploits or undefined behavior during the temporary window. Future upgrades would need a new soft fork regardless. - Tapscripts executing OP_IF or OP_NOTIF (regardless of branch taken/result) are invalid. Rationale: In Taproot, conditions should be evaluated off-chain with keypath preferred (hiding scripts). OP_IF/OP_NOTIF in Tapscripts is redundant and frequently abused for skipped spam (e.g., inscriptions). Closing this eliminates a common vector "for free," reinforcing monetary focus while minimally impacting legitimate designs. - Backward Compatibility / Exemption Mechanism Inputs spending UTXOs created before activation height are exempt from all new rules. Rationale: Prevents retroactive invalidation or "freezing" of existing funds/UTXOs (avoids "confiscation" concerns). Only new outputs during the period face restrictions, ensuring smooth transition and no disruption to legacy holdings.

1/8 Today, Citrea Mainnet Goes Live 🍊🍋 We are officially live with the first Bitcoin application layer that enables institutions and individuals to lend, trade, and settle directly on the Bitcoin Network. Start your journey with Citrea Dashboard: app.citrea.xyz 🧵