With more than 20% running an alternative client this pipe dream about an homogeneous mempool has failed.

What will be next major version number of Bitcoin Knots? 30 seems to be a tainted number now. From now on only minor numbers? That would also reflect the ossification process.

Taproot may well turn out to have been the last soft‑fork on Bitcoin. The way the core developers handled the release of version 30 — and that was not even a consensus change — could effectively have closed forever the window on future soft‑fork proposals.

These books printed by Amazon with large margin and fine print font size are a disgrace and basically wastepaper. It is a shame that such books are also sold outside of the Amazon website.

Not many have upgraded to Core 29.1 yet. So far only 332 did. Will Core 30.0 be even worse? Somehow reminds me of SegWit2x.

Bitcoin as a whole is larger than the ego of any of its developer. Long forgotten are Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn etc. So will be the current ones that still resist to listen to the community and still doubling done with their narrow-minded technical arguments not seeing the social economic dimension of Bitcoin.

It’s somewhat short‑sighted of some Bitcoiner to claim that the ongoing debate is not important and that Bitcoin will be fine anyway.  In fact, the very people who care enough to point out the current issues and put in the work are the ones ensuring that Bitcoin stays fine.

It is somehow disturbing that at @mempool spam free blocks are declared as less healthy.

Running /Satoshi:29.1.0/Knots:20250903/

Including considerations of hard‑forking, the “Knots vs. Core” debate increasingly resembles a game of chicken. As the block‑size wars taught us, the party that either loses its composure or dramatically overestimates its own strength—and therefore forks first—ends up on the losing side.

I guess that the usage of Lombok's @SneakyThrows annotation in a code base indicates that Java developers do not appreciate checked exceptions anymore or never did.

Humanity should be careful not to implement an Orwellian thought crime regime with kycing everything. Privacy is a corner stone of a free society.

In the end utilitarianism will also immolate its strongest advocates.

I missed a citation of Revelation 13:16-18 in "The Gospel According To Bitcoin" by Daniel Sherman and J.M. Bush in the sections talking about CBDC and Covid. Are these not examples of the "mark" in our time?

"You shall not steal". Printing money including taking a loan is stealing because you dilute the value of others holding fiat money. You can read all about this in "The Gospel According To Bitcoin" by Daniel Sherman and J.M. Bush

Hodling does not imply that one should refrain from using bitcoin as a means of payment. Instead, it means not to sell it in order to have more fiat aka realizing some gains. If you do not use the lightning network for payments, you miss out on benefits such as lower fees, reduced surveillance, and uncensorable transactions. It is really unfortunate that, even in 2025, some keynote speakers still claim that Bitcoin payments are unimportant.

Everybody pays the fees they deserve. Instead of complaining about high fees using the Twint payment app the "swiss retail federation" could promote payments with lightning. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/anzeige-gegen-twint-das-muesse-sie-wissen-229818778320

Open source projects as for instance gnome, debian, f-droid etc. should maintain strict neutrality on topics unrelated to their core mission, rather than seeking favor with unrelated movements. This approach would help to ensure that they do not alienate supporters who may disagree with these unrelated issues.

"The Bitcoin Enlightenment" by Ricardo Salinas, @Pascal Hügli and Daniel Jungen delves into some aspects of monetary history that are not yet broadly covered in other Bitcoin focused books, such as the founding of the Bank of England and the inflation in Mexico. It also addresses recent developments, including the growing influence of Bitcoin on political events, and offers some forecasts where the journey may go in the future.

In the long run the concept of bailing out the hashers by spam is not sustainable. The trend is rather one hodler=one bitaxe.