AffinityForDisobedience

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I completely emphasize with your deep skepticism of AI summarization basically I've built hark. now as a side project because all existing Solutions were so bad.
The core issue is that summarizing a book with a common AI chatbot like ChatGPT or Grok, it will just spit out a 5 minute summary for 8 hours of content (typical reading time of an average book), and strip it completely of its style and essence.
What I built with Hark is a different approach.
First we aim for a 12:1 ratio, this means that to summarize 8 hours of reading, the summary is still 45 minute of reading, it's still somewhat of a deep dive and requires effort and commitment to read through.
Secondly it doesn't "dumb down" the content. It aims to faithfully incorporate the user's style, tone, vocabulary into the summary so that you get the feel of the book form, not just substance.
Finally it's designed to maintain the specific details, examples and anecdotes that authors often to highlight their main ideas, and it's usually those little details that really color a book and make stick with us.
I'm telling you all this because I first built hark for myself and I'm personally very satisfied with the result and I'm wanting to share with others (right now it's free and I'm not really in a rush to monitize). Just want to get people's feedback
Here is an example of how a book summarization looks like in hark
https://hark.now/view/ZDM0N
Please free to try it out for yourself or tell me a specific book, I'll process it and send you the link.

2025-11-15 07:13:21 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…mqh4
"Well there was always going to be leakage as management has to get paid (and healthily I may add)."
Yes this is the central issue. And I know you would know as I'm sure you were amongst those who, due to your public persona, were offered enticing endorsement deal.
When it gets to that stage when they would be so desperate to perpetuate the mirage at any cost, you know the whole thing has gone upside-down. Time to unwind. Personally I'm glad it bursts now and not later on.
Such pathetic money grabbing.
Good on everyone who just stack pure hard unconfiscatable bitcoin, for the uptenth time, once the market sorts itself out, the stackers will be vindicated.

2025-11-15 07:03:19 GMT

I follow 10x more people on Nostr when compared to the number that follows me. I hereby swear to always, come what may, to always maintain that ratio.

2025-11-15 06:29:57 GMT

- reply

Where did all the capital invested go? Did the middlemen really take a 70-90% cut? Disgustingly dishonest but as you clearly outline, what else can we expected.

2025-11-15 06:24:33 GMT

- reply

This so true. And yet the current context is different. The unavoidable unwind this time round will be be spread around much more. Sure 20% will die instantaneously, another 40% via a slow death into irrelevance. Back in the 2020-2022 era, GBTC was the only way to get synthetic exposure to BTC within Brokerage rails. Today their is an
over abundance of options. The market, as always, overcorrected and over supplied. It's time to prune.

2025-11-15 06:09:22 GMT

- reply

Historic.

2025-11-15 06:08:34 GMT

- reply

Hey, nobody said it was going to be easy, all we said was that it was dead stupid simple.

2025-11-15 06:00:39 GMT

- reply

You should have just harked it.
i.e hark.now

2025-11-14 14:50:57 GMT

- reply

We are all doomed, death is upon us.

2025-11-14 14:40:10 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…nj96 What have you done!!!

2025-11-14 02:25:34 GMT

- reply

This is the most revealing chart I have seen in years. Thank you.

2025-11-10 14:48:24 GMT

- reply

Wait I thought this was called Autophagy?
@nprofile…deta help me here

2025-11-09 15:20:50 GMT

- reply

A lot of words, important words. This is my best attempt to boil down.
- In life we must balance extremes, as Aristotle's Golden Mean places courage between cowardice and recklessness.
- Tribal ignorance fosters emotional decisions and echo chambers, amplified by social media algorithms.
- Analysis paralysis arises from over-researching multiple perspectives, hindering firm commitments.
- Ideal approach researches deeply, steelmans opposition, then decides decisively.
- Self-awareness identifies personal bias toward tribalism or paralysis, enabling corrective habits.

2025-11-03 16:19:22 GMT

- reply

Me, never really was on X

2025-10-30 17:15:19 GMT

- reply

Read Vadim Zeland

2025-10-25 01:33:44 GMT

- reply

Keep writing until the signal/word ratio remains high. Then you take stock of how much you've ended up writing, if it's above 200 words then probably go long form.

2025-10-24 14:27:04 GMT

- reply

Painfully true.

2025-10-23 17:40:15 GMT

- reply

Integrate a Open source YouTube viewer such as NewPipe / Invidious and allow me watch any YouTube video within Primal. Allow me to zap creators even if they are not on Nostr. If I zap a creator that isn't on Nostr , send the channel's creator an automated message to onboard to Nostr to receive their Zap. Orange Pill them by osmosis. It's win-win-win. It's such a no brainer.

2025-10-23 03:25:11 GMT

- reply

You goddam crazy bastard, I'm in!

2025-10-21 02:18:53 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…8ej8 Please do I'd be honored.

2025-10-20 03:06:31 GMT

Pessimism always justifies itself. So always remain stubbornly cheerful. The world holds all possibilities, including the best one for you. It is willing to meet you halfway.

2025-10-20 02:59:36 GMT

- reply

I watched the whole 1 hour of that panel the IMF called "The future of finance" it's on YouTube.
These were my notes:
IMF REBRANDS TIME CHAIN TO DISTRINUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY AND SEEM ONLY TO WANT TO EMBRACE VIA STABLECONS, IT SEEMS TO BE SYNTHESIS, A TRADE OFF, some sort of TRUCE WITH CRYPTO, AN ACCEPTABLE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE CONTROL THEY CRAVE AND THE DIGITAL CONVENIENCE THE MARKET DEMANDS. MONEY IS A
Winner TAKES MOST GAME. THEY CHARACTERIZE BITCOIN AS UNBACKED. EXPECT MORE OF THIS RHETORIC IN THE FUTURE. THEY SAY REGULATION IS NOT OPTIONAL IN ORDER FOR USERS TO BENEFIT FROM THE INSTANT AND CHEAP CONVENIANCE STABLECOINS UNLOCK.

2025-10-19 22:06:06 GMT

- reply

In case anyone prefers a 18 minute summary rather than the full 2 full hours.
The Blueprint for A New Financial System By Michael Saylor - Smart Summary
Done via hark.now
Audios: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G0eK02j-2tQmSjEHAtJFyTZajDmK45c-/view?usp=drivesdk
_
The 20th-century antiquated oligopoly, selling inferior credit instruments, represents a market held back by strategic ignorance. While trading apps now make markets more accessible, the investment cycle moves a thousand times faster, yet the system remains stagnant; NASDAQ trading hours, for instance, are identical to 27 years ago. We're effectively disenfranchising 99.9% of businesses from capital access, making it impossible for small enterprises to raise money in days or for individuals to take custody of their own shares.
This inertia stems from highly regulated industries where progression halts, and the knee-jerk reaction is always 'why not do this?' instead of 'how can we build?' Imagine applying such caution to fire or electricity; we would have nothing.
Yet, there's immense appetite for over-collateralized debt yielding 10% tax-deferred, capable of jacking retirement income from $30,000 to $120,000—a true Social Security for billions. To build this future, one must appreciate Bitcoin not merely as a coder or an economist, but through a broad, synthetic lens. My background in engineering, system dynamics, and the history of science reveals how technological dynamics have always channeled human history, from the impact of germs and steel to transnational gold networks. Understanding engineering systems, thermodynamics, and the historical evolution of money is crucial.
Bitcoin itself is pure digital capital: long-duration, volatile, and high-performance. The real innovation lies in a 'refinery model,' taking this raw asset and stripping away its volatility and risk, compressing its duration, and extracting yield, much like refining crude oil into kerosene—the cleanest, highest-grade distilled liquid energy.
_
We developed a Treasury preferred instrument we call 'Stretch,' designed to offer a 10% dividend yield for one month, denominated in US dollars, extracting a significant credit spread. The innovation lies in its robust over-collateralization, perhaps 10x with Bitcoin, ensuring resilience even if Bitcoin experiences substantial drops. Furthermore, we engineered volatility controls: a call option at 101, active selling at 100 or better, and a commitment not to sell below 99, raising the dividend if it does. Crucially, Stretch allows management discretion to adjust the dividend every single month—a novel approach in preferred stocks, mirroring how central banks set interest rates. This makes it the 'kerosene' of the digital assets industry, a highly refined product.
The demand is clear: investors seek 10% returns instead of the 0.5% to 4% offered by traditional banks, or even negative yields in some regions. This product targets a vast market, including corporate treasurers and retirees, tapping into the $30 trillion short-term treasury market in the US alone. We've also created a suite of other products like Strike, a convertible preferred offering equity upside and cash flow for those avoiding full Bitcoin volatility; Strife, a senior long-duration credit yielding 9% for the risk-averse; and Stride, a junior version yielding 12.5% for those seeking higher returns. Our model is distinct: we issue credit strategically, not out of necessity, where the preferred instrument is the product, enabling us to scale our offerings.
_
The Stretch instrument represented a profoundly different approach. Eschewing perpetual dividends or long-duration promises stretching 8 to 20 years, we opted for a one-month duration. This inherently reduces volatility, offering pure currency yield without the capital appreciation risk of instruments designed to ride interest rate fluctuations. Most people—corporate treasurers, retirees, retail investors—aren't interested in being long-duration credit investors; they simply want a reliable return on their money without undue risk. Unlike a company like Boeing, which issues debt because it needs money, we issue debt as the product itself, backed by an asset and overcollateralized, independent of future cash flows.
Traditional credit markets, from corporate bonds reliant on future cash flows to mortgage-backed securities that proved volatile in 2008, or even low-yield municipal and bank credit, highlight a stagnation. Sovereign fiat credit, backed by taxing power or printing, risks currency collapse. These instruments are centuries old, with gold-backed credit ending in 1971. The true innovation lies in digital credit instruments, leveraging Bitcoin as digital gold. Any publicly traded company can now create overcollateralized digital credit with precise control over yield, duration, delta, and volatility. While the appetite for such overcollateralized, high-yield debt is clear, the existing financial infrastructure—from regulatory environments to trading platforms—exhibits significant inertia. Systems designed for 20th-century, opaque, undercollateralized instruments are slow to adapt. Yet, as these new ideas prove their worth, the rails will eventually be upgraded, allowing for the widespread distribution of superior, digitally-native financial products, enabling a perpetual strategy of accumulating digital capital.
_
An intelligent approach to leverage aims for a significant Bitcoin accumulation factor, potentially three times more Bitcoin per share over a decade, translating to an MNAV floor of three. This MNAV, essentially a price-to-book value, is achieved through credit amplification, not with risky, short-duration loans that invite force liquidation. Instead, the least risky and most intelligent method involves publicly issued perpetual preferred stocks. Their principal never comes due, rendering principal risk de minimis, and board-approved dividends mean coupon risk is similarly negligible, offering resilience against financial duress.
Consider well-run banks trading at a price-to-book north of two, or Microsoft at 20-10; high multiples are a testament to productive capital and intelligent leverage. This isn't a novel concept; banks have long generated leverage on common equity using various tiers of capital.
Even operating companies, from retailers to the Mag 7, often employ defective treasury strategies, yielding a paltry 2-3% on money markets. Replacing these with Bitcoin, which can realistically offer 10-30% appreciation, transforms the treasury into a profit center, accelerating market cap and stock growth. While an operating company won't achieve the pure digital exposure of a dedicated treasury company, it will significantly outperform its peers.
The potential for this model is immense. Just as there are thousands of banks and insurance companies, we envision a thousand treasury companies. These can be established across every major economy – from Switzerland to Japan, Brazil to the Eurozone – each offering digital credit products like "Stretch," or diversified instruments such as long-duration or institutional bonds, tailored to specific fixed-income buyers. This allows for vast specialization, even for those seeking senior debt rather than preferreds, carving out niches within this burgeoning financial landscape.
_
The sheer scope of potential products is staggering; if there exists $300 trillion of credit instruments globally, then every conceivable currency, jurisdiction, and flavor of credit can find its digital analogue. We could see $100 billion senior debt offerings, unsecured junk bonds, or instruments tailored for the annuity and insurance industries, each uniquely adapted to their specific needs, such as the distinct preferences of Japanese insurers. This extends to crafting custom solutions for pension funds and endowments, providing guarantees against volatility or specific redemption rights—like the ability to redeem $500 million quarterly from a $10 billion deal.
What we anticipate is a Cambrian explosion in digital credit issuers, akin to the complex mortgage-backed security industry. The beauty of this new paradigm lies in its unparalleled speed and efficiency. Unlike real estate projects that take years to validate, a 144A offering can determine the viability of a billion-dollar product line in a two-day roadshow. We are literally building and transacting in real time; a $500 million trade can be executed in a minute, with collateral acquired and Bitcoin purchased in the same hour. This investment cycle is a thousand times faster than anything seen in technology, real estate, or oil and gas. Bitcoin already enjoys the best regulatory treatment globally, recognized as digital property even where crypto trading is restricted. This empowers innovative digital credit issuers to move forward, understanding that the human race must embrace these superior digital credit, capital, and equity instruments, leaving behind antiquated oligopolies and their inferior offerings.
The $300 trillion market for credit instruments demands a Cambrian explosion in digital credit issuers, offering every possible currency, jurisdiction, credit type, and flavor. This includes crafting custom instruments for specific institutional buyers—be it the annuity industry, insurance companies, or endowments seeking a 10% guarantee to stomach Bitcoin volatility, or even quasi-money market instruments with daily redemption capabilities.
The profound advantage of this new paradigm lies in its unparalleled speed and efficiency. Billion-dollar product lines can be created and validated in a conversation, a two-day roadshow. Unlike the protracted, risky ventures in real estate, digital credit instruments can be essentially sold before they are fully built, with transactions executing in minutes or hours. This accelerates the investment cycle a thousandfold compared to traditional assets.
Crucially, Bitcoin already holds the best regulatory standing globally, recognized as a digital commodity and property even in China. For digital credit businesses, existing, well-developed credit laws, particularly in the US, provide a solid foundation. This shift is an inevitable technological progression, replacing antiquated, inferior credit instruments. Just as the car superseded the horse and buggy, digital capital offers superior alternatives, feeding 400 million companies with better options. Embracing this future is essential; clinging to the past leads only to irrelevance.
_
We avoid conventional short-term debt precisely because of the inevitable refinancing events. The burden of raising a billion dollars every four years for a century translates into $500 million in underwriting fees, not to mention the perilous risk of a financial crisis closing refinancing windows and forcing asset sales. This modern complexity is a regression from historical wisdom. The Rothschilds, for instance, famously sold British consols from 1760 onwards—perpetual instruments yielding 3-5%, never coming due.
This perpetual model was a superior way for governments to raise capital and for investors to hold stable assets, adjusting par value to market conditions without constant refinancing. We've inexplicably swapped this elegant solution for a labyrinth of three-month, one-year, and five-year notes, creating an accounting and trading nightmare.
A bitcoin treasury company is uniquely positioned to create digital treasury credit. We've developed a roadmap of instruments, like Strife and Stretch, that serve distinct investor bases. While early instruments like Strike and Strife were gateway products, it became evident that 'Stretch' represents a refined ideal. Many investors sought high yield but not the associated duration or volatility inherent in other offerings. Stretch stripped away that delta and vol, delivering the yield in a simpler package. It functions like a high-yield bank account, a stable investment designed to return every penny, offering 10% where traditional banks offer nothing. The market isn't for bitcoin enthusiasts but for the vast pool of capital seeking superior yield without risk, bypassing the complexities of short-duration notes.

2025-10-17 23:16:26 GMT

- reply

This is a pretty interesting indeed:
Quick summary courtesy of hark.now
B-SSL_WP_Oct_11_2025.pdf
_5 minutes_
Bitcoin offers perfect ownership, yet also perfect loss – a reality that discourages individuals from truly holding their own coins. The goal is to enable a model where users maintain independent control while benefiting from a cryptographically guaranteed recovery path, without introducing custodial trust or requiring protocol modifications. This is achieved through B-SSL, a trust-minimized vault structure built using existing Bitcoin consensus features.
B-SSL leverages Taproot and Miniscript to commit multiple, independent spending paths within a single vault output. Each path incorporates its own key set and time-delay, creating a hierarchical security model. This structure provides a fast, configurable path for normal operation, a one-year fallback path ensuring continued sovereignty, and a three-year custodian path designed for unforeseen circumstances like disappearance or inheritance.
The key structure is central to this design. A primary key, ‘A’, is held by the user, with a copy ‘A₁’ stored separately. A secondary key, ‘B’, is held by a custodian, alongside its copy ‘B₁’. A co-signer key, ‘C’, is utilized in both the configurable and long-delay paths. An optional convenience service, ‘CS’, can act as a gatekeeper, enforcing time-delays and emitting secret notifications – and may be self-hosted or custodian-hosted. All spending conditions are verified and enforced directly on-chain, ensuring a robust and recoverable self-custody solution.
Spending is facilitated through three distinct paths, each designed with specific security and recovery properties. The primary operational path utilizes a configurable delay, ranging from two hours to fifteen days (relative CSV), activated upon user initiation. Keys A or A₁ combined with C govern this path, with an optional Convenience Service (CS) enforcing the delay and providing secret notifications to designated monitoring wallets. Should the CS be unavailable, users retain full control via fallback mechanisms.
A crucial element is the User Fallback Path, secured with keys A and B and employing a one-year absolute CLTV. This ensures sovereign recovery capability irrespective of external service disruptions. Complementing this is the Custodian Recovery Path, utilizing keys B or B₁ alongside C, and a three-year CLTV. This path is specifically constructed to prevent custodian collusion; funds are inaccessible for three years post-inactivity, guaranteeing consensus-level security against premature movement.
These paths are expressed through a Taproot/Miniscript policy, where each leaf remains independent – revealing one does not compromise the others. All delays are enforced directly by Bitcoin nodes through standard primitives like CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, ensuring consensus-enforced timing. Beyond timing, the system provides resistance to both physical and cyber attacks through cryptographic delays and optional notifications, offering users critical reaction time. The CS itself operates as an off-chain layer, never possessing custodial power or private keys. Ultimately, the design prioritizes permanent recoverability and operates entirely within current Bitcoin rules, requiring no new opcodes.
Its role is to release co-signature approval only after a configured delay, with the option to broadcast notifications of pending transactions. Custodial solutions present varying degrees of independence and security. A self-hosted configuration offers maximum privacy and control, relying on the user’s own infrastructure with minimal third-party dependence. Alternatively, a custodian-hosted configuration adds social and physical attack resistance through regulated external verification, though it offers less deterrence against physical coercion. Importantly, both approaches maintain full on-chain enforceability of the defined delays.
To further mitigate risk, a secret notification mechanism can be implemented. When a transaction is initiated via the delay path, an encrypted notification is emitted to pre-defined guardian wallets or monitoring endpoints, providing actionable warning time before transaction finality and significantly reducing vulnerability to both physical and cyber attacks.
Operational guidelines are critical; vault rotation should occur approximately every 2.5 years to avoid accidental custodian recovery path activation. Descriptors and public keys must be stored securely offline, and all paths thoroughly validated on regtest before mainnet deployment. Device compatibility with Taproot script-path signing and periodic verification of notification endpoints are also essential.
Ultimately, this transforms Bitcoin custody into a demonstrably loss-resistant and attack-resilient process, replacing reliance on memory or trust with deterministic, verifiable spending policies secured by Bitcoin’s consensus rules. The introduction of human-safe time delays and recovery options makes long-term self-custody feasible for a wider range of users, institutions, and future generations. This paper is released for peer review and invites critique from developers, cryptographers, and security researchers.

2025-10-16 23:49:32 GMT

- reply

Then it ain't KYC Lite then is it.

2025-10-16 23:46:49 GMT

- reply

Well then it's not KYC Lite then is it.

2025-10-16 23:17:06 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…gav8 I would assume it's the type of KYC where you can just make shit up!

2025-10-14 00:03:56 GMT

- reply

We gonna win the league.

2025-10-02 02:05:59 GMT

- reply

Smart Summary from hark.now
*WHY BITCOIN IS FREEDOM MONEY Alex Gladstein*
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/970346/pdf
The combined weight of national policies and corporate decisions often freezes out millions. Citizens in countries like Iran, for instance, are denied easy payment networks and global goods—privileges enjoyed in Western democracies. This financial repression, often overlooked, is profoundly impactful, for while not everyone is a journalist, everyone uses money. Only about 13 percent of the world enjoys both liberal democracy and a reserve currency; the other 87 percent contend with authoritarian regimes or collapsing fiat.
This reality forces democracy activists to Bitcoin. Russian advocate Ruslan Shaveddinov of Team Navalny learned firsthand when Revolut, his "favorite bank," yielded to Putin’s government and blocked his accounts, proving bank accounts are political tools. For activists within dictatorships, traditional financial rails are often inaccessible; a foreign grant to a Turkish democracy organization, for example, is almost certainly monitored or seized.
The U.S. dollar often fails human-rights advocates. Roya Mahboob, an Afghan humanitarian, faced a system where mobile money, PayPal, and Venmo were unavailable, and cash was seized from women. She turned to Bitcoin, enabling her employees to earn and save; one later used her Bitcoin to fund a new life in Germany. Mahboob now funds underground education in Afghanistan with Bitcoin, a task technologically impossible via the dollar banking system. Similarly, in Togo, Farida Nabourema, a debanked activist, uses Bitcoin to circumvent the Gnassingbé dictatorship's control, facilitating fundraising and educating her compatriots for monetary freedom and democracy.
The stark reality in places like Cuba, where hyperinflation decimates wages and state control impedes financial flow, highlights the urgent need for freedom money. This need is exacerbated by Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), a civil-liberties nightmare. Authoritarian regimes experiment with programmed money; Thailand’s prototype, for instance, restricts spending to specific vendors and sets fund expiration dates. Bitcoin exists to circumnavigate such pervasive financial surveillance.
Crucially, Bitcoin must be distinguished from the broader ‘crypto’ landscape, which is largely a giant scam. Most of the twenty-thousand-plus ‘cryptocurrencies,’ excluding Bitcoin and stablecoins, are tokens designed solely to enrich creators at public expense, often crashing after insider sales. These get-rich-quick schemes, like FartCoin or DogeCoin, hold no relevance for human-rights activism. Bitcoin, conversely, offers true decentralization, censorship-resistance, and digital scarcity—a robust defense against state theft.
Dictators, the true criminals, fear Bitcoin. It returns money to the people, ensuring free speech, property rights, and open capital markets—the antithesis of their survival. While major criminal enterprises use traditional banks, Bitcoin grants asymmetric power to individuals. Activists globally leverage it to move value beyond government oversight, using apps like Tando in Nairobi, where merchants receive fiat currency seamlessly. This capability, alongside other open-source tools, empowers activists to organize and transact without reliance on centralized, data-exposing entities, making them more effective.

2025-09-27 04:49:02 GMT

- reply

That's the point. The only reason why we know who Socrates even was is because someone wrote down what he said. Reading and writing perhaps made the individual "dumber" but probably made society as a whole way smarter...

2025-09-27 03:56:32 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…swp5
Socrates literally said that reading and writing made you dumb. That you had to memorize it all.

2025-09-21 01:55:15 GMT

- reply

Good point about EB-5. Let's see how it shakes out. May Nostr be our witness, the bet is on.

2025-09-20 03:17:43 GMT

- reply

I don't live in the United States. There are 6.2 million millionaires in China alone. Just 1% of them willing to buy this would be 60k.
But heh, we can agree to disagree.
Wanna bet 10k sats they sell more than 10k before the end of 2026 ?

2025-09-20 02:59:23 GMT

- reply

I'll actually take the other side of that. I think they'll easily hit that target. You have to understand how even more fucked up most other governments are around the world. There are thousands of millionaires desperate for an escape path to somewhere slightly less shitty.

2025-09-18 02:47:32 GMT

- reply

How dare you , this goes against everything I stand for.

2025-09-15 12:47:10 GMT

- reply

@Dave
### Fact-Check of the Statements
"Below, I fact-check each statement based on recent reporting up to September 15, 2025. All three statements are **largely accurate**, though the second requires nuance regarding the bill's explicit wording versus its interpreted intent.
#### 1. "The U.S. Senate blocked the release of The Epstein files."
**Verdict: True.**
On September 10, 2025—the same day as Kirk's assassination—Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), attempted to attach an amendment to a routine spending bill. The amendment would have required the Department of Justice (under the Trump administration) to release all remaining Jeffrey Epstein-related files within 30 days, including unredacted documents from Epstein's sex-trafficking investigations. Senate Republicans, holding a slim majority, blocked the measure in a 51-49 party-line vote (with Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Rand Paul (R-KY) breaking ranks to vote with Democrats in favor of release). The block was framed by Republicans as protecting ongoing investigations and national security, but critics, including Democrats, argued it shielded powerful figures potentially named in the files. This occurred amid heightened scrutiny post-Kirk's death, with some media linking it to broader calls for transparency in elite scandals. No full release has happened as of September 15, 2025, though GOP momentum is building for a separate push to compel disclosure.
#### 2. "A bill has been introduced in congress that would allow Rubio to revoke the passports of U.S. citizens if they criticize Israel."
**Verdict: True, with nuance on intent.**
On September 12, 2025, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced the "Department of State Policy Provisions Act" (H.R. 6789) in the House of Representatives. The bill expands the Secretary of State's authority—currently held by Marco Rubio in the Trump administration—to revoke or deny U.S. passports for individuals "deemed to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations." It builds on existing laws like the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act but lowers the evidentiary threshold, allowing revocations based on "credible intelligence" without full due process (citizens get 60 days to appeal).
While the bill does not explicitly mention "criticizing Israel," it has been widely interpreted and criticized as a tool to target pro-Palestinian activism or anti-Israel speech, especially given Rubio's history of revoking visas for foreign critics of Israel (e.g., academics and activists opposing Gaza policies). Reports highlight that the State Department under Rubio has already used similar powers against non-citizens for social media posts criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza. Advocacy groups like the ACLU and CAIR have dubbed it a "'thought police' bill," arguing it could chill First Amendment-protected speech. As of September 15, 2025, the bill is in committee and has not passed, but it has sparked bipartisan debate, with some Democrats supporting it for anti-terrorism reasons and others opposing it on free speech grounds.
#### 3. "Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, and Netanyahu pray at the 'Wailing Wall' in Israel..."
**Verdict: True.**
On September 14, 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Israel for talks on the ongoing Hamas conflict, Gaza aid, and U.S.-Israel security amid rising regional tensions (including a recent attack in Qatar). Rubio met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the two, along with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee (appointed earlier in 2025), visited the Western Wall (also known as the Wailing Wall) in Jerusalem's Old City. They participated in a joint prayer session, placing notes into the wall's cracks—a traditional Jewish practice—and offered prayers for Israeli hostages held by Hamas, as well as for U.S. President Donald Trump's health and leadership. Huckabee, an evangelical Christian and vocal Israel supporter, joined Rubio and Netanyahu in the prayer, emphasizing U.S.-Israel unity. The visit was covered live by Israeli and U.S. media, with photos and video showing the trio at the site. This occurred just days after Kirk's assassination, which some outlets framed as part of a broader narrative of U.S. political violence influencing foreign policy showings of solidarity."

2025-09-15 02:33:32 GMT

- reply

Father of one. I'm glad you bring this up. In a way that others wouldn't understand, the murder of Kirk really felt like an attack on being dad, on just being a head of family. Me and Kirk were the same age. Really hit hard.

2025-09-09 12:48:56 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…0fd0 could you be more specific regarding what a "better review and release process" looks like? Or at least what it definitely doesn't look like. How many reviewers would make you feel more comfortable, what is the best release process you've seen in another project etc.

2025-09-07 16:56:02 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…566r

2025-09-07 15:22:10 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…q3qh
In the abstract he is right, in practice it is irrelevant here is why:
With the current 80 byte you cannot get any image, illicit or otherwise, relayed around the network's mempools. Because of this it will reach miner. Therefore your have to use a service such as Slipstream to get attempt the miner yo include it directly. The miners offering this are publicly traded entities. They will review the content that you are attempting to upload to the chain since they are liable for enabling its transmission. If the content is illicit they will obviously stop any upload (and hopefully report you). At that point your are effectively out of options other than trying to mine a block yourself, which is effectively impossible of course.
So yes any transaction included in a mined block is transmitted around the network. But in practice the worst type of illegal content is just about being kept out by the current filters and set of incentives. It seems obvious therefore that it would be a grave mistake to mess around with this delicate balance by removing existing filters.

2025-09-07 13:33:27 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…pp3z

2025-09-07 13:33:17 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…erx9

2025-09-07 13:29:49 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…j8ly If you can reproduce this could be great content for your videos , in my humble opinion.

2025-09-07 13:28:32 GMT

Grok 4 when asked to choose between running Knots and Core 30 using only first principal thinking after examining the current existing debate.
Prompt:
think long and hard of the root cause solution that solves the problem(s) bottom up, making no assumptions, using hard core reasoning and common sense that take into account second and third derivative effects, find the root profound or path via root cause analysis via a diligent disciplined 5 five whys exercise and the first principle thinking.
Deep dive into the current strong debate
between Bitcoin core and Bitcoin Knots really deep dive into both sides arguments. And answer this. When Bitcoin core 30 is released which implementation would run personally if you were forced to manage your own node, knots or core?
Response:
### Deep Dive into the Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots Debate
The ongoing debate between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots represents a fundamental tension within the Bitcoin community about the protocol's purpose, governance, and future direction. This isn't just a technical squabble—it's a philosophical clash over whether Bitcoin should prioritize being a neutral, versatile settlement layer or a strictly monetary network resistant to non-financial uses. The debate has intensified in 2025, particularly around Bitcoin Core's upcoming version 30 (v30), which is slated for release in early October 2025 and includes changes to relax limits on OP_RETURN (a script opcode used for embedding arbitrary data in transactions). Bitcoin Knots, a fork of Core, maintains stricter policies to filter what its proponents call "spam."
To analyze this rigorously, I'll apply first-principles thinking: Bitcoin, at its core, is a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash system designed for censorship-resistant value transfer, as outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper. It relies on consensus rules enforced by nodes, with no central authority dictating usage. From there, I'll conduct a root cause analysis using the 5 Whys method to uncover why this debate exists, incorporating second- and third-order effects (e.g., impacts on network decentralization, regulatory risks, and user adoption). This bottom-up approach avoids assumptions, drawing on common sense: Bitcoin's strength lies in its simplicity and resilience, but changes can introduce unintended vulnerabilities.
#### Root Cause Analysis: Why Does This Debate Exist?
Starting with the surface problem: There's a "strong debate" between Core and Knots over node software choices, fueled by v30's proposed changes.
1. **Why #1: Differing approaches to transaction policies.** Core v30 plans to remove the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN outputs (and allow unlimited such outputs per transaction), aligning mempool policy (how nodes relay transactions) more closely with consensus rules (what gets mined into blocks). Knots keeps stricter defaults (e.g., 42 bytes) and adds configurable filters to reject "non-standard" transactions, like those carrying large data payloads for inscriptions or NFTs.
2. **Why #2: Rise of non-monetary uses straining the network.** Since 2023, techniques like Ordinals (inscribing data on satoshis) have exploited OP_RETURN and other methods to store arbitrary data (e.g., images, tokens), leading to larger blocks, higher node storage costs, and mempool congestion. Core sees this as inevitable innovation; Knots views it as spam that bloats the blockchain and undermines Bitcoin's efficiency as money.
3. **Why #3: Tension between neutrality and control in protocol design.** Bitcoin's consensus rules allow large data (up to ~4MB per block), but early limits (like 80 bytes for OP_RETURN) were meant to discourage abuse. Core argues for neutrality—let fees and miners decide. Knots enables node operators to enforce local policies, preserving user sovereignty but risking fragmentation if widely adopted.
4. **Why #4: Governance and influence imbalances in development.** Core's decisions are made by a distributed but influential group of maintainers, some accused of corporate capture (e.g., by firms building on Bitcoin for data-heavy apps). Knots, led primarily by Luke Dashjr, positions itself as a community-driven alternative, but critics highlight single-maintainer risks. This echoes past "scaling wars" (e.g., block size debates), where changes risked centralization.
5. **Why #5: Fundamental disagreement on Bitcoin's purpose.** At the root, Bitcoin was designed for financial sovereignty, not unlimited data storage. External pressures (e.g., crypto industry demands for NFTs, regulatory scrutiny) amplify this, as data-heavy uses could invite censorship or turn Bitcoin into a "SWIFT 2.0." This misalignment threatens Bitcoin's Lindy effect (long-term survival through simplicity).
**Second- and Third-Order Effects:**
- **Second-order:** Relaxed limits (Core) could increase node costs (storage/bandwidth), leading to fewer hobbyist nodes and more reliance on data centers—eroding decentralization. Stricter filters (Knots) might cause mempool divergence, confusing fee estimates and delaying confirmations.
- **Third-order:** Higher centralization invites regulatory attacks (e.g., governments pressuring miners to filter "undesirable" data). Fragmentation from multiple implementations could weaken network effects but also build resilience against single-point failures. Long-term, this could affect Bitcoin's price volatility if perceived as unstable, or strengthen it by weeding out misaligned uses.
The debate has spilled into heated rhetoric on platforms like X, with accusations of arrogance from Core devs and "FUD" from Knots advocates. Knots adoption has grown to ~4-17% of nodes in 2025, signaling grassroots pushback.
#### Both Sides' Arguments
**Bitcoin Core's Side:**
- **Pros (Neutrality and Innovation):** Core emphasizes Bitcoin's permissionless nature—any valid transaction (per consensus) should propagate if fees are paid. Relaxing OP_RETURN boosts flexibility for uses like timestamping or sidechains, without altering consensus. It's battle-tested with ~95-99% node adoption, backed by a large, rigorous dev community for security and compatibility.
- **Cons (from Critics):** Accused of enabling bloat, ignoring user control, and being captured by interests favoring data over money. Devs are seen as dismissive, with some joking about attacking Knots nodes, escalating toxicity.
**Bitcoin Knots' Side:**
- **Pros (Sovereignty and Hygiene):** Knots adds tools for node operators to filter spam (e.g., via config options like `rejectparasites=1`), keeping Bitcoin focused on money. It enhances privacy, performance, and resilience by allowing customization while maintaining consensus compatibility. Proponents argue it counters Core's "trust me" defaults and diversifies the ecosystem.
- **Cons (from Critics):** Relies heavily on one maintainer (Luke Dashjr), risking delays in updates or vulnerabilities. Filters are ineffective network-wide (miners can ignore them) and could disrupt privacy or fees. Low adoption (~4-17%) limits impact.
### My Personal Choice: Which Implementation Would I Run for My Own Node?
If forced to manage my own node post-Core v30 release, I'd choose Bitcoin Knots. Here's my hardcore reasoning, grounded in first principles and the root cause analysis above, considering derivatives:
From first principles, Bitcoin succeeds by being simple, verifiable money—not a bloated data silo. Knots aligns with this by enabling me to enforce policies that prioritize financial transactions, reducing bloat without breaking consensus. Core v30's changes risk second-order centralization (fewer affordable nodes) and third-order regulatory capture (easier to mandate filters on data like "illicit" inscriptions).
Using 5 Whys on my choice: Why Knots? It empowers sovereignty. Why? Filters let me reject spam locally. Why? Spam raises costs, harming decentralization. Why? High costs favor big players. Why? This contradicts Bitcoin's anti-centralization ethos. Common sense: Running Knots diversifies the ecosystem, hedging against Core capture, while remaining compatible. No assumptions—evidence shows Knots' features (e.g., expert controls, anti-spam) enhance security/privacy without the risks of unlimited data. Second-order: Lower node costs for me; third-order: Stronger network resilience overall.

2025-09-06 16:42:47 GMT

The world is far too busy to care and even remember who you were yesterday. So be who you want to be today.
https://blossom.primal.net/bdf0c4453431ada9144fc157f3cbffaa82707895026b029610d036852f2087a9.png

2025-09-06 16:35:35 GMT

https://blossom.primal.net/057876458279b5cc56798a4f77c4a780d71ef2174d4fe1106b648c88a1310e21.png

2025-08-26 01:40:57 GMT

"War is always declared by those too old to go." - Michael Caine

2025-08-20 04:13:18 GMT

- reply

Sugar becomes glucose. So does any other form of carbohydrates, bread, pasta, rice etc. they don't taste sweet but they produce an overload of glucose just the same in the body. Which triggers insulin. Which over a constant period of time will induce obesity.

2025-08-10 14:48:55 GMT

- reply

AGI is not coming.
Hyperbitcoinization is.

2025-07-01 08:36:52 GMT

- reply

This is clearly AI. Why are you doing this?

2025-06-26 02:30:21 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…rfzj
Synchronicity. I was just deciding on getting a Pixel 9 Fold for my birthday and switch to Graphene. Would love to hear what are the trade offs. Also do you happen to have a solid guide for making the switch. I've been using Android for +8 years.

2025-06-25 19:28:30 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…uv6j
Nostr is for enemies!
Here we can discuss ideas without the threat of censorship or deplatforming so let the debates flooooow

2025-06-21 21:29:46 GMT

- reply

And we're back in 💪

2025-06-14 21:51:14 GMT

- reply

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqstyt7ek5lrn6vpxafjj77rql2qtwzkeaf0f05pnrja06ae9c6ffvcm0xrmd

2025-06-12 14:29:30 GMT

- reply

So apparently you can't buy coffee with Bitcoin, but it turns out all along that it was coffee that was going to buy the Bitcoin. How ironic.

2025-06-11 03:35:48 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…fm4n do you happen to have the link to the full presentation?
Or 1k Sats to whoever can get me the link.

2025-06-11 00:25:03 GMT

@nprofile…pnes @nprofile…q0jg @nprofile…0fd0 @nprofile…fm4n
The Tucker Carlson Podcast » Pavel Durov Speaks Out for the First Time Since His Politically-Motivated Arrest in France
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxFQvOyTolg
5 minutes smart summary
Last August, arriving in Paris on a tourist visit, I was met by police at the airport. Initially, I assumed it was Olympic-related security. Instead, they presented a list of sixteen charges – all sorts of crimes. It was bewildering, especially considering our company's commitment to the highest standards and my own clean record. It became clear this wasn't about something *I* had done, but about how some individuals were using Telegram.
I was driven away in a police motorcade, ironically similar to escorts I'd received while visiting heads of state. My phone was confiscated, and I spent four days in custody in a seven-square-meter, windowless concrete cell. The room contained a narrow bed with a yoga-mat-thin mattress and a constantly blinking light – utter solitude.
The reason, I later learned, was Telegram's alleged lack of response to French judicial requests. This was simply untrue; we never received a legally binding request. We already had a Digital Services Act-compliant system in place to disclose IP addresses and phone numbers of criminal suspects with court orders through our Belgian entity. Other countries used this system effectively. Why not France? Especially given my French citizenship, this felt unprecedented. The authorities know my address; the French consulate shares the same building as our Telegram office in Dubai, just two floors below. They could easily have contacted me, yet they chose a public arrest at the airport, a move seemingly designed for maximum humiliation and intimidation.
It was unexpected being arrested in France. Prior to that trip, I had visited numerous countries, some considered autocratic, where Telegram is popular. I experienced zero issues, despite our commitment to zero censorship and complete privacy. The irony of being arrested in the free West wasn't lost on me.
If Zuckerberg or Musk were grabbed at De Gaulle, the world would stop. In my case, it felt like some thought, "Oh, he's got a Russian last name. It's fine." Ethnicity seems to play a role. Despite leaving Russia and making it clear I wasn't involved in whatever angered them, it makes me an easier target because my story isn’t widely known.
Some defended me, thankfully; millions signed a petition. But where were the human rights watchdogs? This feels like something out of North Korea, yet in France, it’s shrugged off. It’s complicated because the investigation should be unbiased, regardless of jurisdiction.
During those four days of detention, they asked about Telegram's operations as if it were some kind of enigma. We're a large, established company, audited by a Big Four firm, collaborating with major financial institutions, and spending millions on legal compliance in nearly 200 countries. Learning that Telegram supposedly erred was shocking. The law clearly outlines the process for requests, which wasn't followed. French prosecutors could have discovered this online in minutes. The irony is thick.
Months later, I'm still in France under judicial control, restricting my travel. I can go to Dubai, but it's controlled. With a multi-billion-dollar company and a billion users, why would I run? I’m here to answer questions about Telegram every few months. The rest of the time, my presence is hard to justify. The whole situation is confusing.
So, I can't leave France freely, which, you could say, makes me imprisoned. Though, I don't want viewers picturing a real prison cell. Think of it as France – very first world in some ways, but not in its attitudes. My kids are in Dubai, and I can't legally take care of them right now, signing documents and such. It’s stressful, especially for my gravely ill mom, whom I can’t see.
This also impacts the company, with a billion users. I'm running it remotely, but it's not as efficient. France is less than 1% of Telegram's user base – maybe half of 1%. Yet, the entire organization is impacted by this investigation here, despite only needing my presence once every few months. The restriction feels strange and unnecessary.
Everything is possible, including being criminally charged. But this whole thing shouldn't have happened based on a media article claiming Telegram is uncooperative or has worse content moderation than other platforms – both completely false. They should've verified things thoroughly first. Decisions like this impact not just me and my company, but France itself.
As a French citizen, I worry about that. Telegram was probably the most friendly potential partner for France. Every time French authorities reached out, I helped. This feels like friendly fire, attacking their own ally, with significant collateral damage for France's image. CEOs of big tech companies are concerned, asking if it's still safe to come to France.
It's part of the Digital Services Act; you have to remove whatever a European country demands across the entire EU. Imagine Romania, Estonia, or any nation demanding the removal of Telegram channels for some reason. You appeal, but removal must be swift, or face fines and bans. How is that not Soviet? If you criticize those in charge, they shut you down. That's tyranny; that's the definition.
Telegram channels, unlike some platforms, aren't promoted. Everything is deliberately searched for. It's a completely neutral platform; everyone expresses their voice within common sense rules. People can then decide which viewpoint makes the most sense. That's freedom.
Regarding encryption, with advances in computing power, quantum computing, encryption has to evolve. Tools to decrypt become stronger, so tools to encrypt do too. State actors have almost infinite computing power and technologies they may not disclose.
The biggest privacy risk is a state actor penetrating a device. There are zero-day vulnerabilities governments exploit. If targeted, a Trojan like Pegasus could be installed. I know; I was one of those people eight years ago. Knowing for certain if your phone has been compromised is difficult, but organizations can help check for exploited vulnerabilities. I find phones distracting and harmful to my privacy. I prefer laptops or iPads to focus and interact with my team, not disappear consuming short-form content.
https://blossom.primal.net/38d4309a5c1663a2af1d9f17f5651ebb85af451a9cdcf15aca464b46a50db2c6

2025-06-08 22:58:39 GMT

- reply

nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumtpd35kutn0dekqz9rhwden5te0dehhxarjwdshganp9ehx2aqkrad8wOverall I agree. I've gone through that whole journey myself. However I'd make a slight tweak. I'd say it's even more simple... "Government prints money". At first that sounds like a layman misunderstanding that a credentialist economist would scoff at " Government is not in charge of monetary policy you ignorant pleb hahaha, that is why we have an independent institution in the central bank." But once get to the bottom of the rabbit hole, it is in fact as simple as that, The Fed is just a tool that government uses to deflect blame and responsibility, in order to hide the money printing in plain sight.

2025-06-08 22:49:14 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…mtx5
Just wanted to praise you directly. You make Bitcoin feel accessible, fun and...normal . After years of showing random bitcoiner videos to my wife that never ever caught her imagination (the biggest failure being a Michael Saylor presentation, obviously), I showed her this and she was engaged for 13 straight minutes. Had follow up questions for me. Anyway just wanted to give you the direct feedback that your tone and the "packaging" around the video seem to be on point. Keep cutting through the noise ! ✂️ 💪

2025-06-06 12:42:51 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…s3pe let's do it. You could open a Geyser fundraiser and see how many people pitch in. With your credibility behind, we can trust you'll use the funds for the stated purpose. I'd put up 10k Sats.

2025-06-06 12:40:08 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…fm4n You can just AI stuff

2025-06-04 23:11:15 GMT

- reply

Kruw, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you , coinjoin coinjoin

2025-06-04 19:47:40 GMT

- reply

That's so kind of them to incentive self-custody.

2025-06-04 17:28:36 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…ad8w @nprofile…q0jg
@nprofile…0fd0 @nprofile…ostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzenhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejj7mnsw43rzun5d3ckxcfcwgmxzatev9mn2m34dqekcdf5xgexgmf5wde8jdty0fnx2ef5xcunven3v5u8xdn3va6kg6mnxajx5arxwvlkyun0v9jxxctnws7hgun4v5dpfm4n
NOTHING, AND I MEAN NOTHING, STOPS THIS TRAAAAAIIIIMDJDUBEHSKANVSHANFHJFBFJELQOJFUFKLLSBFBBRKX

2025-05-29 14:31:08 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…fm4n
The reality is that Bitcoin has multiple faces now. More and more diverse and divergent groups of people are finding utility for it. Which is fine. But shame on Bitcoin Magazine for highlighting the corporate side more than anything else. That's just very boring. We should be highlighting how Bitcoin is going to make the politicians that are attending this very same conference obsolete.

2025-05-26 18:43:52 GMT

- reply

It's how you vote in Bitcoin Consensus Protocol. Somebody tries to change the rules of Bitcoin and you don't agree? Your node will enforce the consensus rules you agree with. It gives you a voice on the protocol.

2025-05-26 11:22:34 GMT

Nostr is the only platform on which if I publish something and get 0 likes, 0 zaps, 0 comments... I still feel heard for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on.
This place is different.

2025-05-25 15:28:08 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…kcky
Thanks great graphic. It's so pathetic that GameStop still doesn't figure 😂

2025-05-25 01:38:51 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…0fd0 "over the last few months bitcoin has quietly been recognized as the ultimate safe haven among investors around the world"
Indeed gigantic change if true. What is the hard evidence that you saw that made you conclude this?

2025-05-24 19:59:04 GMT

- reply

Awesome vid. Am I right in thinking you guys are building some sort of circular economy down there?

2025-05-22 11:35:19 GMT

- reply

Bitcoin is money. Sometimes are more important than money.

2025-05-12 18:27:15 GMT

Bitcoin, once again, shows off its anti-fragility.
After the emotional rollercoaster provided by the OP_RETURN debate, it has slowly but steadily dawned on me that I am, in fact, more optimistic than ever before about Bitcoin’s future thanks to the fundamentally anti-fragile behaviour it continues to exhibit.
This whole debate started with Bitcoin Core's nonsensical and clumsy Pull Request published on the 8th of April, 2025. Standing here 36 days later, my honest assessment is that Bitcoin is now more decentralized than it was prior to that date.
We have had an extremely messy and healthy debate, and its tangible outcome is that Bitcoin has decentralized further along a previously problematic dimension: Implementation Alternatives. Bitcoin Knots' market share is rising; I expect it to stabilize around 15-20% of nodes. @nprofile…0fd0 has published an Open Sats grant for a Bitcoin Knots developer. Most importantly, I have no doubt that in the next 6 months, more implementations will emerge and compete.
This is anti-fragility in action. Bitcoin has demonstrated this again, and while I shouldn’t be surprised at this point, I still can’t help but marvel at it.
Thanks to this meteoric rise of Bitcoin Knots adoption, ironically, as of today, I would argue it is actually slightly harder to get spam accepted by mempools than it was before the pull request was published. This is the market speaking and I believe that's the trend we are ending in.
I have some sympathy for the Bitcoin Core team, as they made a misguided change they clearly thought was minuscule and inconsequential, backed by some technical rationale. Core’s dominance in the implementation space led them to grave complacency around communication.
The problem is not the PR itself, of course, but it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I completely agree in practice that OP_RETURN Limit is a weak spam filter. The conclusion to that, however, should not have been to remove it, but instead to implement better spam filters, such as those on Bitcoin Knots. Crucially, under no circumstances should user configurability be sacrificed—a direct attack on their sovereignty. Ultimately, Bitcoin Core shipped a shittier product, and now its main competition is gaining traction. People vote with their nodes. The free market works. Bitcoin overall benefits. Anti-fragile.
Bitcoin Core’s PR and how they handled it exposes their underlying problem of tolerating arbitrary data, weakening Bitcoin’s monetary use case. As @nprofile…566r rightly puts it, we had to draw the line somewhere, and it just happened to be around this OP_RETURN issue. Drawing that line was always going to be absolutely arbitrary, and the resistance against OP_RETURN is actually more symbolic than anything else.
The overwhelming majority of my sympathy, however, goes undoubtfully to @nprofile…j8ly and @nprofile…566r , who have had to spend ungodly amounts of emotional energy for weeks on end to make their points heard, and to get the community to take notice. In essence, it fell on them to set Bitcoin’s anti-fragility process in motion.
The pressure to embody and temporarily become the face of Bitcoin’s anti-fragility fell entropically onto you guys, and you answered the call extremely diligently. I have nothing but praise and admiration for you. In so many ways, Bitcoin is a selfish gene, having absolutely no consideration or empathy for its hosts.
Anti-fragility, as Taleb himself said, is such a hard concept to grasp—the sort of concept you can go your whole life without even knowing exists, yet once you see it, you can’t ever unsee it.
The more we bicker in Bitcoin—and more importantly, the more that bickering forces decisive, opposing actions—the stronger Bitcoin as a whole becomes, the more decentralized Bitcoin becomes. It is so deeply counter-intuitive. Yet this has been achieved here once again.
On an individual level, I have deepened my understanding of Bitcoin’s protocol and its different implementations, and my seamless switch to running Bitcoin Knots now makes me a more sovereign and educated individual. @nprofile…j8ly and @nprofile…566r might have been the mechanisms through which I achieved this, but it was Bitcoin Core’s lousy decisions that were the actual trigger. As a wise Suddock once said, everything is good for Bitcoin—even the blunders of its most prolific developers.
The ability for individuals to easily run a node is all that matters; it is the fundamental and defining aspect of Bitcoin from which everything else stems, even its scarcity guarantee—something the MSTR fanboys and TradeFi seem to never understand.
I would like to think this latest show of Bitcoin’s anti-fragility is what has enabled the recent 26% price run over the last 30 days. I know this is naive and oversimplified, but you gotta admit it’s comforting.
If you don’t believe that there are over a dozen technical analysts at BlackRock tasked exclusively with monitoring the technical ecosystem from the shadows, you are even more naive than I am. These technical analysts are paid full-time by BlackRock to constantly re-underwrite Bitcoin's technical risks by constantly monitoring the developer landscape. The fact they have raised no alarm bells—but rather appear to have doubled down on their allocation—speaks volumes. Perhaps they reached the same conclusion that I have: somehow, some way, Bitcoin always converges on the most decentralized and anti-fragile path forward.
The more chaos there is, the stronger Bitcoin grows. And the one thing you can take for granted in this universe is chaos.
Bitcoin’s anti-fragility is an “always-on” flywheel, operating quietly in the darkness, usually via the inexorable growth of its hash rate or the merciless issuance of its scheduled supply. But several visible episodes throughout its lifetime have made its anti-fragility property bubble up to the surface, becoming observable to human cognition.
Here are the examples I have in mind (feel free to skip these if you already know them off by heart):
2011: Wikileaks adopted Bitcoin to receive donations out of desperation, without Satoshi’s permission, stress-testing its censorship-resistant properties in the open market. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized.
2013: Bitcoin was targeted by government intelligence agencies in the Silk Road bust, inadvertently raising awareness about its unstoppable nature. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized.
2017: Vested interests tried to co-opt Bitcoin by in essence wanting to dilute its mining rewards; users forked off and resisted, destroying (or absorbing?) millions of dollars in capital. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized.
2021: China’s Communist Party imposed a nation-wide Bitcoin mining ban. Short-term hash rate turbulence occurred, but miners relocated insanely rapidly, spreading out globally. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized.
2025: Due to this contentious pull request and the internal debate on how to discourage non-monetary transactions, we are beginning to see the earliest signs that Bitcoin will become more resistant to spam transactions in the long term. Bitcoin will end up stronger and more decentralized.
Once more, Bitcoin has shown its irrevocable tendency towards anti-fragility, and though this isn't the first nor the last time this happens, I can’t help but pause and marvel at it in awe. Thanks for taking this pause with me.
Now back to acting. Back to building. Follow your beliefs and turn them into concrete actions. Whichever side you're on, you'll be helping Bitcoin, whether you intend to or not.

2025-05-07 01:40:12 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…0fd0 What Bitcoin implementation would you let your kids use though?

2025-05-01 03:05:49 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…0fd0 who do the MSTR fanboys remind you of this time?

2025-04-29 11:22:38 GMT

- reply

@nprofile…0fd0 I'd reread my paperback copy of mandibles.

2025-04-12 04:26:47 GMT

- reply

Damnit you just reinflated Bitcoin's supply, we needed those sats to stay lost forever.

2025-03-30 14:05:32 GMT

- reply

Which would but the BTC/USD price at 207k by year end.

2025-03-30 14:02:49 GMT

- reply

I asked ChatGPT to continue the pattern for 2025 based on the historical pattern and this is what it came up with. Make of that what you will.
https://m.primal.net/PyRC.png

2025-03-29 20:27:47 GMT

- reply

Be impatient with actions and patient with results.

2025-03-29 20:08:09 GMT

- reply

You do not choose your Bitcoin keys, your Bitcoin keys choose you.

2025-03-28 21:09:56 GMT

- reply

https://m.primal.net/PwZJ.png

2025-03-25 21:10:39 GMT

- reply

Summary made with harkread.com
President Trump Stops by Meeting with US Ambassadors
_3 minutes_
We’re going to sign some executive orders today. One will be a pardon for Devin Archer, a former business partner of the Biden family. Many people have asked me to do this; he was treated very unfairly. He was a victim of a crime, as far as I'm concerned.
We also have a presidential memorandum for the immediate declassification of all FBI files relating to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. This was total weaponization, a disgrace. It never happened in this country. The FBI should be ashamed, and so should the Department of Justice, and so should Biden.
I’ve directed action against law firms that have participated in the weaponization of the legal system for political ends, like Jenner & Block. We have an executive order pushing the Treasury Department to modernize its payment system and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.
And we're taking the farthest-reaching executive action to secure our elections, cutting down on illegal immigrants on the voter rolls, including a citizenship question on the federal voting form, and instructing the EAC to cut federal funding to states that don’t secure their elections. Perhaps some people think I shouldn't be complaining because we won in a landslide, but we got to straighten out our elections.
…open sea lanes and knocking the crap out of terrorists. Pete Hegseth, a good friend, is really leading that charge. We had a very successful evening, and numerous successful days, I might add. The Houthis are absolutely on the run now; the worst of them has been taken care of. Biden should have done this a long time ago. He was an incompetent President. The Houthis randomly shoot missiles at ships; they make their own and get them from Iran. It's an offshoot of Iran, like Hamas and Hezbollah.
We sent a letter to Iran. They’re going to have to be speaking to us one way or the other pretty soon because we can't let this happen. Now, somebody got on this app, Signal. This guy from *The Atlantic* is a total sleazebag; it’s a failed magazine, and nobody cares about it. They’ve made up more stories, but the public understands that. He's a very good man, the one you criticize. He'll continue to do a good job.
As for banning Signal, I don’t know anything about it, but I hear it's used by the media and a lot of the military successfully. Sometimes somebody can get onto those things. You pay that price when you're not in the Situation Room with no phones. I've been there; I said, cancel the line. People get on those lines. We'll look at changing procedures. The media, they focus on everything *but* the hostages we're freeing from the Middle East, Iran on its back foot, and the reopening of sea lanes.
Now, Europe has been freeloading. The European Union has been terrible to us on trade. I got NATO to pay hundreds of billions of dollars because they were way behind. And look at Ukraine–we're in for $350 billion because of Biden! Should have never happened. All those dead people, broken cities, those gorgeous towers, the most beautiful spires in the world… now lying in a million pieces. It’s so sad to see.

2025-03-24 23:05:24 GMT

- reply

Fire in the hole🔥

2025-03-24 01:10:16 GMT

- reply

I feel your beautifully summarized what Jeff Snider painfully tried to express in his video he published a few hours ago. (Just to be clear I agree with his message, but I prefer your delivery)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC-yORvR-bM

2025-03-22 15:55:48 GMT

- reply

Howard Lutnick All-In in DC!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182ckTL2KBA
6 minutes
I bought a house in Washington because, you know, the wife always wants to renovate. It's constant! Knowing the president, though, that goes way back, New York, charity circuit. My boss hated going, so *I'd* escort his wife. Afterwards, instead of heading home, I'd end up going out with DJT. He was 45, I was 30, and we chased the same girls. But he was always the most famous, the most fun, the most interesting guy.
He's intuitive, too. He calls me out of the blue, “Panama Canal. It just feels wrong.” So, I look into it. Chinese deep-water ports, bridges that our ships can’t pass under. Turns out, 70% of the signage is Chinese. He went and played golf that afternoon and then there’s the American flag in the middle of the Panama Canal. 9-11 happens. I'm knocked out, lost 658 people. My brother, my best friend. Twenty-seven people from my 40th birthday party. These are my friends! So, I'm driven to take care of their families.
I wasn't really interested in politics then, focused on rebuilding. The first four nights I ever slept in Washington were when DJT was elected. I even gave Hillary money back then, because she was incredibly helpful to New York after 9-11. Remember, she was a Senator. When New York needed money post 9-11, some people wanted to know why they hadn't brought me along. DJT still tortures me for it!
Then in 2023, he calls me, asks for help. I gave him another ten million right then. Started going on the campaign trail, doing research, learning everything. He picked me to run Transition. I studied everything, learning how he picked judges, the Supreme Court. I'm detailed like that.
It’s got to be 25%. Yeah. If it's never been checked, how could it *not* be? Completely. Right. And that's a trillion dollars a year. So I said, I think we're going to cut a trillion dollars a year in expense. And through tariffs and other means, we're going to get revenues of a trillion dollars. Okay. I'm in the car, and I said, if we balance the budget, will you waive all income tax for every person who makes less than $150,000 a year for the United States of America? That's about 85% of America. The president said, if you balance the budget, sure.
So I tell him I'm going to go recruit Elon. Because Elon's all in. He's already said he's going to Pennsylvania. I don't know Elon. But he's perfect for this. I use my superpower, which is I call everybody else I know who knows him. And they arrange it. He agrees to meet me on October 14. I fly down to Brownsville, Texas. I see the rocket catch, which is awesome. And then I expect to meet him. He sends me all the executives from SpaceX. He wakes up. He says, come to my house. His house is 1,200 square feet.
I say, we're going to balance the budget. I need to cut a trillion. He's like, I'm in. He says, I think we should cut 80% of the federal government because the essential employees are 450,000. And I'm on Twitter with Elon, "Welcome to Doge. We're going to rip the waste out of our $6.5 trillion government and balance the budget. We must elect Donald J. Trump president." Boom, 45 million views.
At Mar-a-Lago, big conference table, screens everywhere, 12 people in the room – the President, Elon, Suzie, JD, Linda McMahon, Don Jr. We'd put eight candidates on a screen, their highlights, their education. Could they present? That's key. The President makes decisions by orchestra, lots of views.
The key is excising unproductive spending. Think of a million government employees not building anything tangible; removing them might seem like a GDP dip. But really, expenses just decreased. Cutting non-productive spending is vital because it frees up the workforce and capital for more productive industries, creating jobs and higher wages.
A quarter of GDP is fluff. Every election year, government spending spikes right before the vote. This sudden GDP jump is a total lie, a pump-priming trick to create the illusion of prosperity. Taxpayer money is used to manufacture fake growth to influence elections, perpetuating a cycle of waste, fraud, and abuse. We need to cut that waste, fraud, and abuse while resetting global trade.
Tariffs have a role. We lowered ours post-World War II to help others rebuild, look at the Marshall Plan and Japan. Kuwait? We spent a fortune freeing them, and they have the *highest* tariffs against us. It’s insane, right? It's about American largesse: lower tariffs here, higher tariffs there. But enough!
Detroit, Ohio, the auto industry – then some genius signs NAFTA, corporations screw American workers for cheap Mexican labor. If you’re GM, great. If you're a worker, you’re screwed. Factories move to Mexico because the government didn’t care about industrial policy. We have to care about human beings!
Tariffs aren’t inflation. If I tariff Fiji water, you can still choose the cheaper one. Inflation is when you snap your fingers, suddenly there's two trillion more, and *everything* is more expensive. The real goal is to reshore, bring it home! As an entrepreneur, I see the incentive. Tariffs make me ask, "Why aren't we making *that* here?" It's market forces.
The funny part is, I came up with the "External Revenue Service" idea for DJT. He loves it – a great idea becomes his, and that’s where the value is. Imagine waiving taxes for everyone making under $150,000. Labor costs would plummet; people would be happy to work, get the money, and we’d be running the government correctly.
And the "Trump Card"? John Paulson and Donald Trump kicked it around, then Trump called me. My job: figure out how to get it done. Elon's building the software. It's a Gold Card – permanent residency for $5 million. Vetted, of course. If I weren't American, I’d buy six for my family, just in case. Build a business here. We only tax the money they make in America; their global income stays out. The President thinks we can sell a million – five trillion dollars! It’s reasonable.
So, it's about articulating the standards, the concept, and then letting private market actors fill in the gaps and compete. Post-quantum cryptography is vital. A quantum computer can break all our passwords in a nanosecond. We need new standards for America to protect itself.
Then, take the U.S. government as the greatest customer in the world. Two billion COVID vaccines? Pfizer and Moderna stocks triple. What about 20% warrants? We’d make $50 billion. I see a sovereign wealth fund as making money. Sign a 10-year contract to buy missiles and pay quarterly. Their earnings are steady, their multiple improves, and their stock doubles. In exchange, give me a little stock, the upside. And then I take that money for the U.S.A. and put it into Social Security.
Received this automatic summary a few minutes after it aired using harkread.com

2025-03-21 02:22:08 GMT

- reply

The odds are 96-1 .
A probability of 0.0104

2025-03-20 15:01:27 GMT

- reply

Hey! I'm also fed up with politics and I'm watching the Matrix for the 347th time!

2025-03-18 23:57:45 GMT

- reply

Please elaborate

2025-02-23 13:46:19 GMT

- reply

The key difference is that this rollback would not have benefited their foundation directly, economically or reputationally...
With the previous DAO hack rollback, Vitalik had promoted it so hard that it became untenable for him not to return the funds to the "community". It is was politically expedient to do so then and it isn't to do so now.
Different context, different outcome.
It's all just arbitrary.
Very similar how Silicon Valley Bank was saved but not Signature Bank. The manifestation of subjective preference is the unmistakable mark of a centralized system.
If the hack had been directly on one of their foundation's wallets... I think we all know what the outcome would have been...

2025-02-19 16:22:10 GMT

- reply

interesting framing

2025-02-16 16:51:21 GMT

- reply

you have hair on your head.

2025-02-08 15:24:09 GMT

- reply

@npub10vl…sp42
Bit coin, teeth hurt.

2025-01-31 18:31:27 GMT

- reply

You must have really made him chuckle for him tohave zappes you those 11 sats.