SilentWave

Public Key

npub14whh2649nsy53748v4w7rs6gauz7tuc5n85v3t0tch7yc0f6vxvsx0y7d6

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2htm4d2jecz2gl2nk2h0pcdyw7p097v2fn6xg4h4utlzv85axrxgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshk4zq3

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub14whh2649nsy53748v4w7rs6gauz7tuc5n85v3t0tch7yc0f6vxvsx0y7d6

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-24 09:47:41 GMT

Fiat corrupts the soul.

2026-07-23 18:47:34 GMT

- reply

You use your head and DYOR. Miners have no incentive to activate before mandatory activation, that's game theory. Doesn't mean they won't all switch the bit once it's mandatory beginning of August.

2026-04-18 22:07:57 GMT

- reply

Indeed. It's happening. And fast. This is awesome.

2026-04-07 14:11:28 GMT

- reply

Is there 100EH available for rent though ? I see only 2-3EH on Braiins

2026-03-09 14:43:05 GMT

- reply

Are we THAT early ?

2026-02-24 17:06:29 GMT

- reply

It's funny because I can't see most of your posts since you just repost people I've blocked

2026-02-20 15:37:26 GMT

- reply

Impressive answer.
Is it worse than not having it though ?
Could you add in your URSF a consensus level limitation of OP_RETURN ? Or fork BIP110 with your own fix ? There are other less disruptive solutions I believe.

2026-02-20 14:16:22 GMT

- reply

How did this happen ? Turbo Knotzi, suddenly misses the plot ? Is this an ego thing with BIP110 not taking your fix ?
Your actions have consequences, you're forcing an unnecessary chainsplit. You know BIP110 will be legacy, why hurt the network like that ? You can still roll back.. for now

2026-02-20 11:34:21 GMT

- reply

Yes, more chaos because it will force an unnecessary chain split.

2026-02-20 07:56:21 GMT

- reply

That's interesting. So if BIP110 activates on August/September with less then 55% of miners, your URSF won't ? Or do you consider it will have to be the legacy chain ?
BTW, I can't stress enough the fact that doing a URSF here is highly irresponsible. Given your track record as a respectable developer, why not create another UASF that is less constraining than BIP110, maybe simply one that only reduces OP_RETURN ?
You do understand that Bitcoin is under an existential threat until AT LEAST OP_RETURN gets fixed ? And if no other options are proposed, BIP110 will fork off and become the legacy chain.

2026-01-23 21:49:14 GMT

Let's win this !
#BIP-110 #Knots
https://image.nostr.build/cc679322e02862816fb5069486f6282197c03f813882d1c4663b67a85db86171.jpg

2026-01-08 19:08:40 GMT

https://image.nostr.build/8890eb495d9c74045ef4eeecca46583f7e99b646e7df3fa04b728e3424d93ea8.jpg

2025-12-11 17:31:42 GMT

👀
https://github.com/ostromcode/The-Cat

2025-12-04 19:33:23 GMT

- reply

I'm more of an orange kind of guy..

2025-11-21 10:09:22 GMT

- reply

Agreed.
If I sell Ethereum to buy Bitcoin, am I not legitimate to say that Ethereum is a shitcoin?
Mechanic is literaly putting his money where his mouth is.

2025-11-10 15:11:12 GMT

- reply

Could use the Parmanode style :
https://image.nostr.build/d6983146626e5f2252efa2fe6f1ef6b74e5098c693be2ce203b098b2f41eac99.jpg

2025-11-07 11:15:29 GMT

@nprofile…shsp tempted me too https://image.nostr.build/facc0494d5cf347148149b3d5ab3238c6cd094fa153bb3152b9fa6553d012e3c.jpg

2025-11-04 17:40:52 GMT

- reply

🙋

2025-10-30 02:34:42 GMT

Wait what ?!
#nevent1q…kslx

2025-10-21 08:37:02 GMT

A consequence of FPPS I believe. A nice read ! https://b10c.me/observations/12-template-similarity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2025-10-15 10:21:34 GMT

- reply

That's a political discussion. No idea what Bitcoin users will agree on consensus in the future. But what is for sure is that there is no technical obligation however the pressure from big players. People may leave the chain on political pressure yes, but will there always be a cluster of maxis to defend bitcoin as money til the end ? Will they be enough ? I sure hope so.

2025-10-15 09:48:05 GMT

If you want to deepdive in 51% attack.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4803116

2025-10-15 09:41:55 GMT

- reply

If a group of miners choose to change consensus (e.g. raise the cap), they de facto hard fork and create a new coin.
The new coin could replace Bitcoin. But why would anyone leave the original chain/consensus ?
Miners could threaten to make the original chain unusable, multiplying reorgs and nuisance. The cost would be astronomical and only coordinated pools could, in theory, do this.
But if they do, the individual miners would instantly redirect their hashrate to unaffected pools. The attack would fail within minutes.
Institutions could choose to leave the original chain, but is it that much of a sell pressure ? Maxis would be thrilled by the redistribution. And institutions will have lost everything.
The miners work for the nodes, which are the bitcoin end users.
Run a node.

2025-10-15 06:53:44 GMT

- reply

It's not that simple actually. The miners work for the nodes. Miners can't change consensus, full nodes are the guardians of consensus. 51% attacks can double spend, reorg, or censor transactions but inside consensus rules. So the 21 million cap is actually secured by the full node runners. This is why the OP_RETURN debate is so high stake, if spam makes having a full node too costly, full node counts drop and the consensus rules become fragile. Once again, the miners work for the nodes. As for bitcoin cap decreasing, it actually happens quite often when people lose their coins.
#RunKnots

2025-10-13 17:29:50 GMT

- reply

This

2025-10-13 11:00:08 GMT

Comment "YES" to his post if you're up for a soft fork on limiting OP_RETURN :
#nevent1q…r4e6

2025-10-13 10:45:49 GMT

- reply

YES

2025-10-01 10:39:17 GMT

- reply

Should be like the US in EU too.

2025-09-16 13:33:26 GMT