BitMEX Research

@trussliz Why didn't you fight like this as PM? Why not say a gilt market crisis was inevitable due to decades of policy while you were PM?

In Autumn 2022 even though the Bank of England announced the sale of £40bn gilts and kicked off the LDI crisis - the rates still weren't as high as this. Where are Britain's "financial journalists" now?

@knutsvanholm @BitcoinMotorist @rogerkver Indeed, like Bitcoin Unlimited, people are so frustrated with Core, they have settled on something really stupid, which in a way, plays into Core's hands

@BitMEXResearch @BitcoinMotorist @rogerkver It is the answer they got

.@knutsvanholm in March 2026: "Who initiated change? Was it the BIP-110 people, or was that an immune reaction to Core making changes that were not wanted in the first place." @rogerkver in 2017 & 2018: Bitcoin Core changed the "economic code" by keeping the blocksize small, which lead to high fees, slow confirmations and unreliable transactions. Increasing the blocksize limit is not a change, it keeps things the same The BTC version of Bitcoin has changed into something that is not what was defined by Satoshi. Bitcoin Cash most closely resembles the version of Bitcoin from 2011 Sources: youtu.be/pVFA4mO2AbQ?si… & youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Zk9i… As is explained in the book "The Blocksize War", people have different ideas and visions for Bitcoin. There is nothing to prevent those visions from changing or appearing to change. There is nothing to ensure people have the same visions. People have different opinions on issues such as "full blocks" or how to deter "spam". In contrast, it is the technical rules on block validity that are hard to "change"

@BitcoinMotorist @knutsvanholm @rogerkver Were you not happy with that? If so, maybe its worth re-opening that debate then But BIP-110 certainly isn't the answer

@BitMEXResearch @knutsvanholm @rogerkver Only problem with that is that Core DID increase the block size. Segwit was a block size increase despite the propaganda from people like Roger and Craig at the time

@orangegatewayx > If your node doesn't mine, what exactly is it securing? Your incoming transactions...

Genuine question: If your node doesn't mine, what exactly is it securing? It can't produce blocks. It can't reverse transactions. It can't punish bad actors. It just watches. BTC has 15,000+ "nodes" and 3 mining pools run the show. How is that different from trusting 3 companies? 15,000 spectators don't decentralize 3 mining pools

@evoskuil @Arthur_van_Pelt My Libre Relay nodes matter to some people

@BitMEXResearch @Arthur_van_Pelt Nodes do not matter to consensus if they are not able to reject a trade. And if it’s not consensus, they don’t matter either.

Your daily reminder that Eric Voskuil has no idea what he is talking about. Economic nodes follow what the market is trending towards, otherwise they lose customers. These are therefore extremely meaningful numbers.

@Beautyon_ > with a huge OP_RETURN for them to leverage Dont think the spammers will care. They will care about what is cheaper per byte Would be a good experiment though, with two chains side by side

It's worth exactly 0. Bitcoin will not have more spam than the forked chain; the economics will not work for the spammers when there is a 1:1 clone of bitcoin with a huge OP_RETURN for them to leverage and all the miners mining both chains. Plus there is the extra risk of posting to an hostile environment where conniving schemers are constantly cooking up ways to remove you from the network. There is no money in that. At all. The chain that rejects pornography will be accepted as the better bitcoin, because normal people are not disgusting perverts who can't tell right from wrong and who believe nothing is real.

Claim: BIP110 supporters are losers Nothing to do with BIP110. Ad Hominem Claim: He lost all his bitcoins Nothing to do with BIP110. Ad Hominem. Claim: They follow a cult: "Bitcoin Maximalism" Nothing to do with BIP110. Ad Hominem. Claim: Has devolved Bitcoin from a theory... False. Nothing to do with BIP110. Nic "My star continues to rise" Carter has long been the butt of Bitcoin Community jokes and ribbing for years, and no doubt, it has weighed heavily on him. x.com/Beautyon_/stat… Grok points out: x.com/dcfmusic/statu… "Nic Carter has long been trolled in Bitcoin Twitter with the running joke/meme about "his star rising" (or falling), which started in 2022 during some bitcoin drama. It spawned a viral parody song called "My Star Will Continue To Rise" by . In the final analysis, BIP110 will either activate and the spammers will be annihilated, or it will not, and everyone will use the same chain, spam or no spam. If the chain splits, the Bitcoiners will keep Bitcoin, and the spammers will be on their own SpamCoin like bCash, and they will be happy and Bitcoiners will be happy. And you can be sure that Chun will mine both Bitcoin and Spamcoin. That's 100% guaranteed, because he knows full well other miners will pick up the hashrate he's leaving on the table. Watch what these people do, not what they say. Whatever happens, someone is going to be happy. Therefore; work hard, avoid accidents and be happy!

@BTCsessions @callebtc Ah. Good idea. Keeping quite and being undecided are different things

@BitMEXResearch @callebtc I know my thoughts and what I'm running at this point. I'm just refraining from the debate and telling people what to do.

BTC Sessions Ben is "undecided" regarding BIP 110

@BitcoinMotorist "Bitcoin Core is hostile".... Where have I heard that before??? That's right Roger Ver. His phrase was "openly" hostile. He was better with words than the BIP-110 supporters Source: softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/upl…

Core is hostile to users, will break backward compatibility to force upgrades according to core dev

@Arthur_van_Pelt What rubbish AI slop The bullshit AI slop logic couldn't even pick up that Xapo bank signed the New York Agreement! You should hire me to create your bullshit narratives. I could come up with much better ones Source: dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scalin…

Pretty shocking revelations in here, but not surprising. Just like Roger Ver tried a corporate take over in 2017 of Bitcoin, we have again large corporate interests gathered around a few people and their sock puppets to keep Bitcoin data spam friendly. 1/2

@melvincarvalho @evoskuil @Arthur_van_Pelt Possibly true, here is another example of "all nodes can matter" logic: x.com/BitMEXResearch…

@evoskuil @Arthur_van_Pelt Full nodes matter. Because, in case of catastrophic loss, the whole network can be reconstituted from one full node.

@evoskuil @Arthur_van_Pelt Even one tiny node, with no wallet or business assosiated with it at all, can matter quite a bit if trying to relax incentive incompatible relay filters All nodes can matter! Power to the node runners!

@Arthur_van_Pelt Oh, and no - all nodes definitely do not matter.

@BTCsessions @callebtc Probably a good idea to have a high degree of certainty about the rules for block validity and not "sit on a fence" If a chain split happens it can be quite hard to sit on a fence

@callebtc Oh fuck

@Telford00001 @NicoPerrino Was just clarifying what action does and does not violate the Declaration of Independence

@BitMEXResearch @NicoPerrino What are you on about. We just want the website to stop showing harmful content to kids in the UK If they are unwilling or unable to implement this we will block them. Why are you getting so uptight no one is suggesting the UK is trying to dictate what you show your kids Paris🤣

The internet must be free. 4Chan is an American company with no assets in the UK. Its only content regulator is the First Amendment. The Brits don’t get to colonize American companies operating out of America. See Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, etc.

In 1783, when signing the Treaty of Paris, the UK recognised the Declaration of Independence If the UK wants to enforce it's laws on US territory, it would need to rescind the treaty and refight the revolutionary war If the UK wants to block websites, something very different, that does not violate the Treaty of Paris

@NicoPerrino We don't care what you show your children in America, you clearly don't give a shit about them but in Britain we will protect our children. If that means blocking websites that refuse to follow our laws that's what we will do. America is not the world government.

@freddienew @rich_rdctd We should make a Bitcoin wallet and call it: "Hosted Wallet" Then her brain will break

I just really would love to know that when Sarah Breeden says 'unhosted wallets will not be permitted in the UK', what is going through her head, what does she think an unhosted wallet is, or does, and how she thinks she is going to prevent people from running software that essentially just sends messages to other instances of the same software.

Idiotic statements like this are made when policy is prepared by those who do not understand technology, and lack the intellectual curiosity to try. I’m far from a defender of stablecoins (for me they retain all the disadvantages of fiat currencies, not least of which being the peg to a currency controlled by a central bank). But I recognise at least that they exist, and that people use them, and the technology has certain properties. At the same time, I try very hard not to publicly call out people for rank stupidity, even when (like the @bankofengland here) they clearly deserve it. Saying ‘self hosted wallets will not be permitted under the UK’s stablecoin regime’ is a statement of such monumental, such overweening, stupidity, that it is hard to formulate a sensible response. Perhaps there is no point in trying. Let them say this, and then let everyone in the UK simply continue to use their ‘self-hosted wallets’ (ie ‘wallets’) without paying them a second’s more attention.

@rich_rdctd > and make it illegal for a specific sequence of digits to exist in someone's head? Also, might be worth reading this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_n… This number has been in my head for almost 20 years: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

@BitMEXResearch Noted and will correct