One last post about the Core vs Knots thing and specifically about the Core argument that it keeps "Bitcoin more decentralized". Do make up your mind if you think Bitcoin wins with this or not: --- 1. What the pro-change argument says Removing the OP_RETURN limit supposedly: Reduces UTXO bloat (because people stop hacking around the limit with fake pubkeys). Keeps relay decentralized (so data-heavy users don’t have to rely on private relay networks or mining pools). This means smaller miners can still compete, because they’ll see and include these transactions via the public p2p network. So the pitch is: this helps decentralization by leveling the playing field. 2. Where the critique comes in Now, if you zoom out and ask: Does this help Bitcoin as a monetary network? The answer is more complicated. Yes, technically it avoids some centralization pressures. But what are we protecting here? Not payments. These OP_RETURN use cases are almost entirely non-monetary (protocol metadata, bridging data, sometimes NFTs). So the change is less about “helping Bitcoin as money” and more about “making Bitcoin friendlier to non-monetary protocols.” In other words, the real beneficiaries are projects like Citrea, RSK, token layers, cross-chain bridges, etc. 3. The trade-off On one hand: You do remove some hacks and improve node efficiency (prunable OP_RETURN vs. forever-bloated UTXO set). You do lower the entry barrier for smaller miners by keeping relay public. On the other hand: You’re opening the door for more non-monetary data in blocks, which may raise fees for ordinary payments. You’re implicitly incentivizing Bitcoin’s use as a data layer, not just a monetary settlement layer. 4. The deeper question So your instinct is right: the real debate isn’t “do smaller miners benefit?” — that’s a secondary technical point. The real question is: 👉 Do we want Bitcoin to be optimized for neutrality and broad use cases (including inscriptions, bridges, zk-rollups)… 👉 Or should it stay laser-focused as a monetary network, where extra data is discouraged even if that hurts some projects’ relay convenience? ✅ Conclusion: The “smaller miners” argument is partly valid (technically true, it levels the field), but it’s not the core issue. It’s more of a framing. The heart of the matter is what role Bitcoin should serve: If it’s a neutral ledger, then yes, relaxing OP_RETURN helps. If it’s a monetary network, then this is a distraction — you’re prioritizing non-monetary protocols over Bitcoin’s payment efficiency. --- Neutral is different than monetary network. That's the core of the argument. If you want a truly neutral network use Bitorrent!!!!! Cheers!

If you're out of the loop like me, this is a summary of the Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Knots debate. Please feel free to add to it to make sure it's right or not. ---- ## Introduction The current debate in Bitcoin is often framed as **Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots**, but that’s not the real issue. At its core, the controversy is about **Ordinals vs. monetary-only Bitcoin**: - Should Bitcoin remain a **neutral, general-purpose ledger** where people can inscribe art, tokens, and other data? - Or should Bitcoin be kept **lean and focused strictly on monetary transactions**, preserving block space for payments and settlements? ⚔️ The Ordinals Debate in Bitcoin What Ordinals are A protocol that numbers individual sats and lets people inscribe arbitrary data (images, text, tokens) into Bitcoin blocks via SegWit/Taproot. Enables Bitcoin-native NFTs, meme coins, and permanent data storage. ## The Supporters’ View Innovation & new use cases: Bitcoin isn’t just money, it can be a foundation for art, collectibles, and tokenization. Miner revenue boost: High Ordinals activity drives up transaction fees, which helps secure Bitcoin as block subsidies shrink. Permissionless ethos: Bitcoin is supposed to be neutral — anyone should be free to use it without gatekeeping. The Critics’ View (e.g. Luke Dashjr / Bitcoin Knots) Spam & bloat: Inscriptions fill blocks with non-financial data, raising fees for ordinary payments. Against Bitcoin’s purpose: The base layer should prioritize financial transactions, not NFTs or memes. Centralization risks: Larger blocks → bigger storage/processing requirements → fewer people can run nodes. Policy response: Bitcoin Knots enforces stricter relay rules (e.g. 42-byte OP_RETURN) and filters some inscription transactions. ## The Broader Tension Bitcoin Core v30 (coming 2025) will loosen limits, making inscriptions easier. Bitcoin Knots is rising in popularity (~18% of nodes) as a counterweight, keeping “anti-spam” defaults. This creates a philosophical and technical split: Bitcoin as neutral, general-purpose ledger (pro-Ordinals). Bitcoin as lean, monetary-only system (anti-Ordinals). ✅ In one line: The Ordinals debate is really about what Bitcoin should be: A neutral, permissionless base layer for all kinds of data and innovation, or A strictly monetary network optimized only for peer-to-peer cash and settlement. --- Is this correct? Which side of the conversation are you on? #asknostr

Death meditation, which is a common thing in Buddhism, and even more so in Tibetan Buddhism, it's incredibly empowering and liberating. It's all going to end, why are you so worried about it?

Engel's story is very interesting. I highly empathise with his perspective and I think it's a part of history that needs more resolution. And I really never thought I would to be completely honest. We're living at a time where there's a complete polarization or detachment from history as if there's nothing to learn. As if some people are evil and others are good, period. And it's all emotional. For many years I completely ignored a lot of ideas and people just because there was a big movement in a different direction. I really don't want to be like that. If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. Learning means really learning and putting ourselves into people's positions. Here's a text: When we hear “Engels,” most people think Marx’s sidekick. But Friedrich Engels wasn’t just a theorist — he was a witness. In 1842, Engels was sent to Manchester to work in his father’s textile business. What he saw there shocked him to the core: Overcrowded slums: Families packed into one damp room, with sewage running in the streets. Child labor: Kids as young as six working 12–14 hours, stunted, deformed, exhausted. Disease everywhere: Typhus, cholera, tuberculosis ripping through neighborhoods, while the wealthy lived just a short walk away in green suburbs. Misery and survival: Prostitution, alcoholism, petty crime — not because workers were “lazy,” but because they were being crushed by a system that treated them as disposable. Engels compared this to the comfort of the bourgeoisie — factory owners enjoying gardens and fine homes, funded by the destruction of the people who worked for them. This is why Engels was so annoyed by abstract “armchair” philosophers and utopian dreamers. While they debated theory, he had walked through neighborhoods where children were dying at ten. For Engels, socialism wasn’t about dogma or purity. It was about confronting real conditions: sewage in the streets, kids in factories, human lives shortened for profit. That’s why he never had patience for sects, cliques, or doctrinaire posturing. --- Now, Marxism later on lead to very bad outcomes as we all know. But don't you think we are in a similar situation? Isn't interesting that Engels actually had good intentions and a good diagnosis of the situation? #politics #philosophy #economics

I think quite some real estate capital (something like perhaps 2T to 5T) is going to flow to Bitcoin in the next 5 years. First it'll go through equities, mostly the S&P500 (and MSTR which will siphon a lot of that capital) and Bitcoin ETFs. Why? Because the housing crash is here. It'll take some years to bottom, maybe 3 years, but it's definitely here. In 2008 in some cities, the prices dropped 50%. Imagine that happening now? That would mean real estate would drop from 300T to something like 230T in this crisis. Almost a 1/3 wiped out. Do you think real estate people are going to accept those losses? A lot of them are going to try and sell. But who or what are they going to sell it to? Bitcoiners. In 5 years Bitcoin will be about 500k USD and houses will be at a 50% from top (in certain cities). Along the way a lot of trades will be made. #bitcoin #economics #economy #politics