brunswick
Brunswick

https://highlighter.com/[email protected]/articles

GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)

I'm not vegan, BTW.

[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/?s=chauvin)

Public Key

npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqqwqdk9

Publishing to

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc

Show more details

Published at

2026-07-30T02:59:03Z

Kind type

0 Metadata

Event JSON

{ "id": "a5923befdd61f12c66a3821f01aa26830d534a637e5676105908c92f2e9d72fd", "pubkey": "c1e9ab3a56a2ab6ca4bebf44ea64b2fda40ac6311e886ba86b4652169cb56b43", "created_at": 1785380343, "kind": 0, "tags": [ [ "alt", "User profile for brunswick" ], [ "name", "brunswick" ], [ "display_name", "Brunswick" ], [ "picture", "https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/bfa844f57b19899f1417560ca955e2fda2281f466599101a69aaa3118dd6423e.jpg" ], [ "banner", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg/1280px-John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg" ], [ "website", "https://highlighter.com/[email protected]/articles" ], [ "about", "GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)\n\nI'm not vegan, BTW.\n\n[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/?s=chauvin)" ], [ "nip05", "[email protected]" ], [ "lud16", "[email protected]" ], [ "client", "Amethyst" ], [ "clink_offer", "noffer1qvqsyqjyxv6njcf5xd3rwwfcvgenye35xg6nzdmxxfjnvv3cv43nyvmpv43kyd3kxg6kgd3nxqexyetyxp3nzd3cvvunsd35v5cnyepcv4sk2drxv5mkvqg6waehxw309aehgunxwfujuumgda3kktnwv468wmmjdvqzqahdghcqe6nm43va359h6gzgfr6nr8tmjmq5plaklja24v9p84zwdz7ydt" ], [ "i", "github:BrunswickBTC", "d9124e8c3754865d4f56310c68c981a5" ] ], "content": "{\"name\":\"brunswick\",\"about\":\"GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)\\n\\nI'm not vegan, BTW.\\n\\n[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/?s=chauvin)\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected]\",\"picture\":\"https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/bfa844f57b19899f1417560ca955e2fda2281f466599101a69aaa3118dd6423e.jpg\",\"lud16\":\"[email protected]\",\"username\":\"BrunswickBTC\",\"display_name\":\"Brunswick\",\"displayName\":\"Brunswick\",\"banner\":\"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg/1280px-John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg\",\"website\":\"https://highlighter.com/[email protected]/articles\",\"clink_offer\":\"noffer1qvqsyqjyxv6njcf5xd3rwwfcvgenye35xg6nzdmxxfjnvv3cv43nyvmpv43kyd3kxg6kgd3nxqexyetyxp3nzd3cvvunsd35v5cnyepcv4sk2drxv5mkvqg6waehxw309aehgunxwfujuumgda3kktnwv468wmmjdvqzqahdghcqe6nm43va359h6gzgfr6nr8tmjmq5plaklja24v9p84zwdz7ydt\"}", "sig": "956047c6482f8de9f2eebd008a52e26799d47225f25c91a4875c3471ecb937cccc3745ec6a4851caa35350dec6d24a2e2d23c6f1f9020b0643de06a69cc548f0" }

Last Notes

2026-08-15 11:14:40 GMT

- reply

Water? I ever touch the stuff

2026-08-15 03:45:15 GMT

- reply

Some learn how to succeed by observing successful people.
Some learn how to not fail by watching others fail.
Some learn how to succeed by failing and correcting course.
The rest fail and never learn, and they are the warning for those who can see.

2026-08-15 02:26:59 GMT

- reply

Maybe the ones that get you wet. Most men I know aren't so insecure as to perform "masculine" feats at a chance for a few minutes with some saggy tattooed up pierced nipple milkers.

2026-08-15 00:53:26 GMT

- reply

Bill Clinton
https://people.howstuffworks.com/13-famous-rhodes-scholars.htm

2026-08-15 00:48:52 GMT

- reply

I didn't even need to look at her last name. But I did anyway.

2026-08-15 00:47:26 GMT

- reply

Yes. Men don't shelter women from deception -> women use their bodies to brainwash men -> everyone ends up retarded

2026-08-14 20:51:52 GMT

- reply

Do I need to be serious about this fiasco?

2026-08-14 13:30:04 GMT

- reply

True about categories but cartoons don't do anything for me

2026-08-14 13:17:28 GMT

- reply

Not Kant?

2026-08-14 04:06:24 GMT

Wow the latest version of @nprofile…wywf just went from being the nostr Swiss army knife to being the entire hardware store.

2026-08-13 22:16:02 GMT

- reply

Yes

2026-08-13 20:45:43 GMT

If your nsec was generated with insufficient entropy, you are an NPC

2026-08-13 19:10:14 GMT

- reply

I coded an app extension using nothing but Luna. It probably required more iterations, but I feel like the result is very locked in because of the gradual implicit requirements discovery and acceptance criteria along the way.

2026-08-13 19:08:03 GMT

- reply

By the way, IMO Satoshi was probably a financial software developer for wallstreet. He appeared to be proficient with MFC and was just learning Qt.

2026-08-13 19:05:16 GMT

- reply

Have you tried switching to the Luna model? It's pretty good and way cheaper

2026-08-13 17:16:18 GMT

- reply

There is zero chance someone isn't leaking the findings from the team to various country's intelligence and selling it for corporate espionage

2026-08-13 15:11:40 GMT

- reply

Very few can code in C, almost no-one. 30 years experience speaking. If you start out in assembly, then object oriented assembly and learn to write object oriented in C, you have a chance of being meticulous enough to write secure code. You can't take a desktop hacker and turn him into an embedded systems programmer or an encryption software author. The practices used in embedded systems in C to maintain long-term stability and maintainability are not widely known, and even more rare is someone who has those skills and is also comfortable with encryption concepts. The rule "don't write in C" for secure systems is a good rule of thumb. Even the best programmers, ones with 50 and 60 years experience, recommend using something other than C. System legibility and careful abstraction layering, is far more important to security than cleverness and vanity.

2026-08-11 20:14:18 GMT

- reply

He doesent want to show is face after that catastrophically fake crying performance

2026-08-11 14:04:09 GMT

- reply

I supported taproot for the wrong reasons, to prove that bitcoin can respond to market-driven need for changes, and those reasons turned out to be co-opted by the mining cartel, so what drew me back into bitcoin turned out to be a puppet show.

2026-08-11 13:53:09 GMT

- reply

Its as if each of them were assigned a role to make bitcoin worse, and Dorsey chose the least-worst (BIP-177)

2026-08-11 04:13:44 GMT

Music by retards, for retards, about retards.
https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/bb5d0db83e97a458e4cb27c5fd6005895fb8a1606b6426e8d56eff1c6bf4c522.mp3

2026-08-10 23:16:55 GMT

- reply

No need for ocean mining when they are changing the hash algo

2026-08-10 18:29:04 GMT

- reply

So you are arguing with a "hoard" instead of addressing an individual. Good job. Fuck off

2026-08-10 17:58:08 GMT

- reply

I'm done arguing with bad faith opponents. Anyone claiming a superior intellect, even when the opposite has been demonstrated, is owed no good-faith response.

2026-08-10 16:37:17 GMT

- reply

I bow to you, you gloriously superior intellect. You have successfully won the argument by ignoring it.

2026-08-10 16:33:00 GMT

- reply

You are making this about the man instead if about the merits. Why do you keep talking about one person's intent and desires when I asked you a technical question?

2026-08-10 16:29:23 GMT

- reply

My timeline is so much cleaner without @nprofile…2szn in it

2026-08-10 15:45:54 GMT

- reply

Are you arguing for opening up OP_RETURN or are you arguing that onchain spam is part of the financial function of bitcoin? Why are you arguing with obvious factually wrong arguments? Yes the chain can't grow any faster than the limits. The question is whether you should change the code to allow spammers free reign to post contiguous chunks of data on the blockchain. Core said yes, BIP110 said no. It's a simple question.

2026-08-10 15:40:11 GMT

Covid should have taught us, the average person will do what they are told, and that is why we are seeing people dogpile on BIP110 proponents.

2026-08-10 14:11:56 GMT

- reply

No. Either your nsec has been compromised or you have lost your mind. In either case, you are not Jack.

2026-08-10 14:08:09 GMT

- reply

I said this more than 3 years ago. Money/funding to pay "bitcoin devs" only serves to centralize and to put grifting parasites as gatekeepers. We saw exactly that happen, culminating on core v30. Now we have proven the "expert class" logical fallacy has enough social capital sway that most bagholders have no understanding of what just happened. They sided with "the experts" and thought the failure of BIP110 "proves" those in favor of it were wrong. No, it proves exactly the state of where we are today. Miner pools, not miners, have taken control of bitcoin. Part of the OP_RETURN justification is to increase miner revenue, maybe the only justification. Is core beholden to miner pools? We can only wonder.
BIP110 was what should have been the LEAST CONTROVERSIAL change to bitcoin, to undo what core did against the will of most devs and noderunners, and against the interests of the long term viability of bitcoin itself. It was met with resistance by the mining pool operators. The "influencoors" dogpiled on BIP110 supporters as "radical" because of some kind of personal beef they have with its author. Then when the mining pools rejected the MASF, they celebrated victory. Victory over what? You think you made bitcoin better? Do you even know what you are saying when you repeat the "censorship" lie?
Well, here we are. Congratulations coretards, you annealed bitcoin centralization into the psyche and you think bitcoin is healthier as a result.

2026-08-10 05:40:37 GMT

- reply

We have our own Logos? That's quite an observation

2026-08-10 03:52:08 GMT

- reply

Yes, it's a giant trap we set for ourselves, and China and Japan just tripped the trigger.

2026-08-10 03:46:06 GMT

- reply

Jack is crashing out

2026-08-10 03:22:03 GMT

- reply

We understand it and stand against it. It was done counter to most of the devs, the ones who weren't kissing DEI feet that is, were also against it. What the fuck is wrong with you Jack? You are smarter than this, but then you pretend to "not understand technology". Are you seriously swayed by the core leadership's decisions? Why would you believe them for their "expertise" but then not trust the US treasury and federal reserve for their ability to "manage the money supply"? Core, with no doubt whatsoever acted in bad faith, and you insinuate they had a legitimate reason to do it? The only ONE reason would have been to create division, maybe for good, maybe for bad, but either way they succeeded.

2026-08-10 03:11:56 GMT

- reply

You are not Jack

2026-08-10 00:57:07 GMT

- reply

China and Japan are crashing the markets in the us tomorrow. If you are going to make a move consider your timing

2026-08-10 00:39:55 GMT

- reply

Congratulations!

2026-08-10 00:39:01 GMT

- reply

Congratulations brother. Keep on winning!

2026-08-09 22:41:36 GMT

- reply

Win the battle, lose the war.

2026-08-09 21:06:45 GMT

- reply

It leaves them with nothing. Bitcoin doesent exist anymore. Now we have a scam cryptocurrency with over a trillion USD in market cap and millions of bagholders who don't even know what happened.

2026-08-09 21:04:49 GMT

Everyone who hid under their desks over the past 6 months and wouldn't talk about BIP110, but now are declaring anyone who was for the "losing side" yesterday were all deceived, cowardly, attacking bitcoin, not having faith in bitcoin... Take a long look in the mirror, if you even can.

2026-08-09 20:54:51 GMT

- reply

You're celebrating from the prison camp

2026-08-09 20:53:29 GMT

- reply

The CSAM problem is with running a node. Are you playing ignorant?

2026-08-09 20:49:57 GMT

- reply

Scrypt was selected because it was thought to be *more* ASIC resistant. This is back in the day when assumptions about ASICS were essentially bound by the capabilities of inexpensive FPGAs, that is, there was limited on-chip memory and DRAM was painfully slow, even when connected to an FPGA. Since then, the SHA and Crypt algorithms have been better understood and pipelining makes it trivial to accelerate with GPUs and FPGAs. I dont know there can ever be a PoW algorithm that can't be accelerated by ASICs, the very notion seems wishful thinking on its surface.
Bitcoin chose to not do the cat-and-mouse game of changing the PoW algorithm every time thr ASICS caught up, and changed the end-goal - to let the limit be access to energy rather than access to computing hardware. Both games can be won by high-finance. Therefore, we are at a juncture now where finance has captured the incentives through optimization by centralization of mining pools. Yes, technically its not miner centralization, but the pools centralize the decision making around which version of chain rules will be given the hashpower. Anyone who ends up in the minority starts bleeding money, and fast. Like I said, its a finance game now. That means bitcoin is captured.
Ocean mining was an attempt at decentralization, but its a newcomer, and core has drug its feet on changing miner inventives. I'd like to know what their rationale is for that... Maybe they would work themselves out of a jib, and therefore lose control?
Returning to today, we are at a juncture where all the mining equipment capital investment is in sha256. Business models and finance have made the assumption that this is somehow fundamental to bitcoin's design. It is not.
If it were possible, and only after centralized pools are extinguished, one way to tear the whole facade down is to change the hash algorithm, only by a minor amount. Instead of sha256, change it to sha3-256 or sha-384. Why, because its more ASIC resistant? No, to restart the hashpower ramp-up. A new epoch in hash algorithm.
Is this a successful strategy? Doubtful, but I'm sure coretards would faint on their couches again at the mere suggestion.

2026-08-09 20:32:16 GMT

- reply

No. Sit on it. It's obviously captured, which means eternal punp-n-dumps

2026-08-09 20:16:42 GMT

- reply

You don't need to sell to not have CSAM, you just can't validate your coin with your own node unless you're willing to have CSAM in your possession. If not, then for you, bitcoin is broken.

2026-08-09 19:55:40 GMT

- reply

True, but bitcoin is bigger than the source code. Its not an issue of the code being wrong, its a flaw in the architecture. In 2010 I had a conversation with someone involved in the development. He wasn't a developer, or so he said, but he was intimately familiar with the design and the other people involved. He claimed to have lost interest in the project at the time. He said "SHA256 was chosen because its GPU and ASIC resistant, it is very memory intensive." Within a few months, someone announced the first verilog code to run a miner on an FPGA. I may have my exact dates wrong, this was quite some time ago.
My point is, that is exactly when the mining algorithm could have changed to preserve the architecture. It did not. Altcoins were created instead. For example Litecoin with scrypt.

2026-08-09 19:41:07 GMT

- reply

Bitcoin has a cancer, it's reached stage IV.
Radiation therapy didn't work. Chemotherapy didn't work. Surgery didn't work. Gene therapy didn't work. The oncologist is out of tools.

2026-08-09 19:37:45 GMT

Calling #BIP110 proponents cowards. That's rich
#nevent1q…4au6

2026-08-09 18:23:50 GMT

Good luck to Bitcoin without its toxic maxis

2026-08-09 17:01:30 GMT

- reply

I took BIP110 on the merits of what it actually set out to do. Whatever you believe about the person who made changes nothing. Bit you went along with the diatribe that it is all about Luke. No, it is about limiting the use of bitcoin to monetary function and keeping it clean from an outcry for legitimate government intervention (regardless of they can intervene). This is one of several reasons bitcoin does not have private (zk) transactions, to keep it auditable. You yourself condoned buying only KYC bitcoin so it is "washed" by the exchange and "pristine" and not colored by illegal and immoral activity like paying hitmen or being routed through a sanctioned country. You can dismiss the problem introduced by allowing unencrypted and unlimited contiguous data chunks placed on your computer, but IMO this is the biggest danger to what core did. They called attention to it by making it worse, and Luke was the only one proposing a solution. Everyone else cried, twisted their undies, and fainted on couches claiming "we can do nothing about spam". This is not arguing in good faith, and you of all people fucking fell for it.
So what do I get? This bullshit "argumentation" from the greatest marketing genius ever born leading with a stupid question "how can it ever work, asshole?". Well fuck you right back at you. This isn't about whether it works, it's about convincing people the problem exists and can be confronted, and showing everyone what they allowed to happen to their sacred " bitcoin devs" controlled by "core". Ha! "Core", that name alone should have sent up red flags. BIP110 was only addressing part of the problem. Again, you of all people should understand this, but maybe you're just too cowardly of ending up on the "wrong side of history". There are no heros in bitcoin, they all fall from glory, and I'm not in this for glory. I want to separate money from state.

2026-08-09 12:49:09 GMT

- reply

It shows the miners incentives do not align with the ideals of sound money. Satoshi stated bitcoin depends on miners being "honest". We found out miner centralization has caused them to be structurally unsound .

2026-08-09 06:19:43 GMT

This is not a crash-out. This is a realization that Satan has much more power than we want to admit

2026-08-09 05:35:51 GMT

Bitcoin ain't going to fix Jack shit. Let's face it, it's almost 20 years later, it's captured from top to bottom, and nobody actually uses it as money. The illusion is broken.

2026-08-09 04:35:32 GMT

- reply

I thought you were talking about @nprofile…0wrp

2026-08-09 04:32:03 GMT

- reply

Just in case they don't find an exploit, they have to exploit plebs in the meantime using guilt

2026-08-09 03:59:47 GMT

People attack @nprofile…pddv and throw in that he is "some kind of religious zealot". Anyone that made that assessment just showed me who they really are.

2026-08-09 03:53:06 GMT

- reply

The fork isnt over yet

2026-08-08 02:52:49 GMT

- reply

I remember a kid in the 80s telling this to me. He said it was a guy wire for a telephone pole. I guess he was part right.

2026-08-07 18:22:46 GMT

Of you are mad at NVK, run BIP-110
#nevent1q…64ct

2026-08-07 18:21:28 GMT

- reply

Why is there no ticket or PR associated?

2026-08-07 18:04:50 GMT

- reply

You should have limited access to btcpay server to only receive funds in your LND macaroon

2026-08-07 18:01:57 GMT

This is a F-d up week in bitcoin
#nevent1q…dxj4

2026-08-07 17:21:04 GMT

- reply

It was not believable. It looked like bad acting. True remorse does not look like crying on camera.

2026-08-07 16:12:53 GMT

- reply

Do nothing and your peers can close channels on BIP110 fork, now the lightning channel state is divided. The best scenerio other than closing all channels before the fork is you freeze all your channels while the chain could fork, not "do nothing".

2026-08-07 15:31:15 GMT

- reply

Scenerio C: chains fork, a lightning channel closes. One peer switched to BIP110, the other didn't. Each peer has channel open in one chain, but closed on another. The "recovery" path is to run a node with the other chain, and run a second lightning node, or "sweep" the channel on the other chain hoping the other peer doesent punish you for doing an asymmetrical close on both chains.

2026-08-07 15:09:11 GMT

- reply

Scenerio A) BIP110 "fails" - lightning channels are fine
Scenerio B) Large OP_RETURN is mined, BIP110 nodes reject, chain split... 5% of the market refuses to buy non-BIP110 fork, bitcoin price collapses, miners pull back unprofitable hashpower, exchanges are first to comply with BIP110, miners need to sell their coin on the premium exchanges so they switch to the softfork. As long as you aren't opening and closing lightning channels during this chaos, your node is fine, but some of the nodes you route through may be inadvertently exchanging core-coin for bip-coin, and if the core chain dies, those nodes will have channels with peers containing a shitcoin.

2026-08-07 14:12:51 GMT

- reply

June non-farm is half of estimate?
How is it possible government jobs declined, isn't that considered a Satanist's worst sin?

2026-08-07 05:29:51 GMT

@nprofile…6sk3 when will you return the bitcoin your employee stole from your customers

2026-08-07 01:37:15 GMT

- reply

You could epoxy the dice in place after the roll. Just sayin.

2026-08-06 22:47:15 GMT

- reply

I tried googling it and it didn't find it. A little SEO might help

2026-08-06 19:58:27 GMT

- reply

That looks IMPOSSIBLE for adults! I need a 9 year old to do that for me.
That dice wallet looks cool, I havent heard of it

2026-08-06 19:19:32 GMT

- reply

Data does not need to be in the blockchain. Adding it only intereferes with the financial function of Bitcoin, which is its sole purpose. Saying "BIP110 doesent stop spam" isn't the point and it's impossible for you to not already know this, yet opponents keep repeating it. The rest of your post is full of assertions that require intimate knowledge of many individuals motivations, which cannot be known unless you are yourself those individuals, and if you are then I don't trust anything you say about your motivations because actions speak louder than stated intent, and instead of limiting abuse of the blockchain you increased it. Anyone who asserts "bitcoin is better without limits on OP_RETURN" is not acting in good faith. You can argue technicalities and make excuses all day long, that doesent change that you are arguing to make bitcoin worse and not better.

2026-08-06 18:43:17 GMT

- reply

Why would I perform these calculations for you, and if I did, what does it prove? How you feel about the fork doesent change anything. Are you trying to get me to "give up?" because you have established nothing with your response. You must be new to thinking because you're very bad at it.

2026-08-06 18:00:17 GMT

- reply

There are people just learning about BIP110 now.
They are being told "moral crusaders are trying to take over bitcoin".
Many that heard about it and never looked into it thought it was already "settled" months ago.
Many think you will see a success or fail on Saturday.
Many think the miners have the final say.
Many think a node has no influence, but then point at a network statistic interpreted to mean something that it does not.
Many think "big money" sets the terms.
This is normal.
Nobody is "calling it off", the wheels were set in motion and nobody can stop it.
No "devs" have decided to "change the schedule" or "delay the fork".
Nearly everything you read is wrong.
You can scream at those that are in favor of it.
You can attack the character and demean those who had the balls to call their bluff.
You can misrepresent what BIP110 does and is about.
Your internal angst changes nothing. The decision has been made. Now it's a matter of the market catching up.
The rules that represent the best version of bitcoin will prevail. Not on a schedule, not on a deadline, not at the option of miners or based on the number of nodes, but based on whichever rules meets the needs of the bulk of people who transact in it. Whether BIP110 meets its own self-imposed limits if irrelevant.
BIP110 is accomplishing exactly what it set out to do - force people to decide whether they are for or against spam. Not whether they will adopt 110, but whether - when given the option - they will choose to limit spam or to remove down all limits to it. The question can't be clearer, and the most important communal development isn't the answer, it is to clarify the question.
Will the real bitcoin please stand up?

2026-08-06 17:36:08 GMT

- reply

They are throwing everything they have at BIP110. Much FUD, many lies, too many are swayed. It doesent matter, the enemy must be dealt with and many will cold feet before battle is normal.

2026-08-06 17:32:47 GMT

The face of death came to take my soul and I told him it his to take.

2026-08-06 04:11:27 GMT

- reply

Dude are you losing it?

2026-08-06 04:07:28 GMT

- reply

Yes, bit who is the miner mining for? The person buying the bitcoin from them. Who is buying it? Whoever has money and conviction to buy it. Does that mean institutional money controls the concensus because they control the most liquidity? Jack says yes. I say no, money doesn't work that way. The value comes from those who accept it for goods and services, not speculators on wallstreet.

2026-08-06 03:29:39 GMT

- reply

#nevent1q…299y

2026-08-06 03:25:04 GMT

- reply

Yes that's why it's disturbing coming from him

2026-08-06 03:24:41 GMT

- reply

He says bitcoin is defined by institutional money and miners only and their "big economic nodes" and that hodling plebs with nodes have nothing to say about it. Either he's being a troll, or we are seeing a gigantic divide in the bitcoin community. There are other cracks, but IMO this is the St Andreas fault line. It has nothing to do with bip110, but the BIP certainly does expose it.
If this were the case, and he is right, then there is no difference between bitcoin, ethereum, ripple, CBDCs and every other crypto. All that matters is whichever has the most money behind it, the big-money calls the shots and the plebs are the chumps who just do what they're told. This is a straight up inversion of everything Jack stands for, which is quite disturbing.

2026-08-06 02:59:20 GMT

- reply

Its not just BIP110. He's turning bitcoin on its head.

2026-08-06 02:35:17 GMT

- reply

Bitcoin. If it is what he says it is, the whole fucking thing is bitcon

2026-08-06 02:32:55 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…r542 is making me question my assumptions. Not a good day.

2026-08-06 01:33:14 GMT

- reply

You're taking the "miners define bitcoin" tact and that has proven over and over to be an incorrect assumption. I didn't say my node votes. I said my participation in the monetary network by assaying bitcoin against the rules I personally ascent to what the code I run defines as bitcoin. You're on too much a rampage to be having this conversation. When my wife acts this way, I tell her to go sit down.

2026-08-06 01:29:59 GMT

- reply

Cortisol and estrogen do not mix well with Jack Spirko.

2026-08-05 23:48:18 GMT

- reply

Ice cream one day, nauseous another. Are you telling us something?

2026-08-05 21:36:52 GMT

- reply

Miners don't determine what bitcoin is. People transacting and storing value in bitcoin that get to write the definition. I think you expect the question to be settled by the MASF deadline and if that is the case, it is you who does not understand BIP110.

2026-08-05 21:07:08 GMT

- reply

They make those

2026-08-05 21:02:25 GMT

- reply

You are arguing with someone else's argument and misunderstanding mine. This is too much work. I'm done

2026-08-05 21:01:09 GMT

- reply

You want guarantees. There are no guarantees. Changing code does not settle questions determined by the market.

2026-08-05 21:00:24 GMT

- reply

I was about to respond to your arguments, then I saw ad hominem and now I am completely demotivated. It is not my or your arguments that win or lose the game. The game will play itself out on its own. It looks like you're getting excited about feeling like you are winning something. Go ahead, have fun with that. For me, this fork settles the question of whether bitcoin will be coopted by high finance or if it will win the war over money. The outcome isn't settled on the MASF block height deadline, that is only a starter-pistol for the actual battle. I can see you are emotionally bound by having picked a team, and I'm not going to resort to ad hominem against a brother in arms.

2026-08-05 19:45:12 GMT

- reply

Ok I understand your argument. The pathway to winning is the game theory laid out by bitcoin mechanic. I'm not going to repeat it here.
First, let's get our definitions right. What you call an "economic node" probably carries more weight in one area and less in another than the way I understand it. To start there as part of your foundation is weak sand, not because you are right or wrong, but because that starts us shouting past ones other right out the gate. I think you mean economic nodes are primarily those used by miners, exchanges and truster custodians like coinbase. I define an economic node to mean anyone running a node that uses it to assay their own bitcoin.
The second issue is "you are all nuts because what you are proposing will not work". What do you mean by "work"? Do you mean you will algorithmically with software determine which version of the blockchain is the "real" bitcoin? Do you mean that everything will change on August 8th? Do you mean if the MASF fails, then the UASF will also fail? How can you know this? These are not software questions, these are market dynamics questions.
So let's debate the underlying question rather than the minutae. I'm going to read your mind here, because I havent heard you or anyone else make this argument.
I think you mean that bitcoin is defined by whomever controls the software supporting the most liquidity, and "big players" will never accept BIP110.
This is certainly a valid argument. Here I do not claim to know the answer, but I do have a contravening theory: the big players are only into bitcoin because of the small players, and it is precisely the victims of the CK/CC attack that set the pace for the big players and determine what is and what is and what is not bitcoin. The "big guys" are only along for the ride, are not idealistic HODLets, and only have liquidity in bitcoin at all to leech off whatever value they can. This squarely places the power in the small economic nodes, that is the individual, family or small business HODLing bitcoin and they will only retain the bulk of value in whichever version they believe is the most effective at winning the war bitcoin was created for: separating control of the creation of money from the state.
This is why BIP110 should win, because it represents more what bitcoin is for than the big-blockers and the unlimited OP_RETURN/core crowd.

2026-08-05 15:27:48 GMT

- reply

So you aren't arguing whether BIP-110 is right or wrong, you're arguing that it will fail therefore it's a waste of time to talk about?

2026-08-05 15:13:41 GMT

- reply

I get the exact same thing from anti-bip-110 people.

2026-08-05 14:30:10 GMT

- reply

Why not use an isotropic fractal antenna?

2026-08-05 14:29:03 GMT

- reply

Its not a Nazi salute unless you also say SH or HH. This story is Orwellian Ovorton manipulation

2026-08-05 14:24:05 GMT

- reply

I saw some of this when I was in a Christian peer group of business owners, but at the time I was seeking the wrong thing from the group, and didn't benefit as much as I might have. I would have been better off if I looked at it like this, that it's more important to be with a cohort that are successful and to focus on what they are doing right rather than exclusively focusing on what you are doing wrong.