Mischa

Many people currently view Bitcoin negatively because too few users practice proper self-custody. I fully agree that this is a real issue and it is something we need to address. I want to highlight a positive development in this area by sharing a project I have been following for the past few years. I am not involved in it, but I believe it deserves much more attention. The team is building trustless swaps between Ethereum and Bitcoin, aiming to extend the Lightning Network model across multiple blockchains through what they call the Lithium Network. The idea is simple. The Lightning Network can be linked to the Lithium Network, enabling off-chain swaps between stablecoins such as USDT on Ethereum or any EVM chain and native Lightning BTC. No centralized custody is required, and users remain in full control of their wallets at all times. The only centralized element is the orderbook used for matching swaps, and the long-term plan is to have multiple independent orderbook providers competing with each other. In other words, this approach enables fast cross-chain, self-custodial, off-chain swaps between EVM assets and Lightning. One of the most exciting aspects is that it already works. It is currently live on testnet and open for anyone to try. I find this approach extremely promising, especially as a way to increase self-custody adoption while still giving users access to the stablecoins and assets they rely on. If the future includes widespread stablecoin usage, a decentralized mechanism that connects those assets to Bitcoin could become a major breakthrough. I am curious to hear what others think. Link to the documentation are included below. https://docs.hydranet.ai/welcome

A great podcast. If you want to understand the Core vs. Knots topic, this is a must-listen. https://fountain.fm/episode/Hfa2SvBEc8CHGqgAy742 nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp7j0nlfaerw75fc8vgp5j0s3yq7y9qm3scuxugdq05qgl9dsvpg9lmjvee

People’s savings always try to find the safest place. In a potential Bitcoin fork, the chain whose rules offer the strongest long-term protection for stored value will naturally win. That chain will have the higher Bitcoin price, higher transaction fees, and therefore higher miner revenue, which means miners will always gravitate toward it. In the end, the rule set that best protects money becomes the chain that people recognize as Bitcoin.

Many Bitcoin OGs may not be selling out of fear or profit-taking, but for strategic reasons. If a fork occurs, they could position themselves on the chain they believe is correct and strengthen it economically. The noticeable increase in OG selling began around the same time Bitcoin Core introduced its controversial change. Many long-time Bitcoiners seem to disagree with the direction Core is taking. Which chain prevails is ultimately not determined by miner signaling or online debate, but by which chain is economically more attractive. The chain with the higher Bitcoin price and higher fees attracts pools, and miners always follow wherever the economic return is greatest. If they don’t, the hashrate will simply flow to the pools offering better economic incentives. The theory, is that some OGs are selling now in order to build large positions on the alternative chain in the event of a split. By buying there and paying fees, they increase the economic pressure on that chain and draw miners toward it. In this way, OGs could indirectly influence which chain wins in the long run by directing their capital toward the version of Bitcoin that aligns with their vision and protects their wealth more effectively. Now we just need to identify the rule set that maximizes Bitcoin’s decentralization and economic robustness, informed by the new insights we’ve gained from recent spam dynamics. And then develop it..

Over the past years, Bitcoin has gradually increased in complexity through various upgrades. That have a lot of great features, but the downside of this trend is now becoming clear: new vectors for spam and unintended usage have emerged. Developers also face structural incentives to add complexity, because complexity requires ongoing maintenance and concentrates influence among those who are able to understand and control the expanding codebase. This is why it is crucial to closely observe and critically question new developments. It raises the question of why such a controversial change is being advanced without a clear understanding of its long-term implications. At the same time, parts of the Bitcoin Core community seem to have shifted away from Bitcoin’s original purpose as self-sovereign, decentralized money. The increasing alignment with ETFs, institutional custody models, and corporate treasury strategies risks shaping Bitcoin into something more centralized and easier to influence. For Bitcoin to remain resilient, it must stay simple, conservative, and focused on its core function: money that individuals can hold and validate themselves. Limiting spam and keeping the protocol lean is essential to preserve decentralization. For these reasons, I support the proposed soft fork. nostr:nprofile1qqsw3p5pela795rxxff34kgfafsaawhnkqp8ehmgm2my49dgx9fjclcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgqgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46qpk04na nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7c9ljrg nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszxthwden5te0wfjkccte9eekummjwsh8xmmrd9skctcesmjwd

The problem I see with the current OP_RETURN development is primarily the legal aspect. When large amounts of data can be stored in a single transaction, access to that data becomes extremely easy. Previously, when data had to be split across multiple transactions, you needed additional information to reconstruct it: you needed to know which transactions belonged together, in what order, and you had to actively assemble the content with a script. That acted as a natural barrier because it required effort, knowledge, and intent. Now, in the worst case, a single transaction ID is enough. One click in a block explorer, and the full content becomes visible. Even if it is only hex-encoded data, the legal situation is fundamentally different. The risk falls not just on the sender, but also on full node operators, explorer operators, and potentially even end users. That should be taken seriously.

„This year, block propagation has slowed down, because some transactions are missing from node mempools.“ That’s a disadvantage for miners who include transactions containing non-monetary data. If miners don’t include them, there’s no delay. So does this finally mean filters aren’t useless after all? https://fountain.fm/episode/0Co1Oyl10OjTEWXYjzxl nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqxy8f2wy344cxljzl5n6plazkt5ykcg93fp6hnhqukhwsjqvcxjfe4y8xz

Our debt-based financial system is not about creating wealth. It is about control. Debt steers people toward what benefits the lenders and creates a centralized system of control over others. It is a tool the rich use to shape the work and choices of everyone else.

In the long run, Bitcoin miners that neither use surplus energy nor repurpose their waste heat will struggle to remain profitable. As competition increases, profit margins will continue to shrink. This is why it would be fascinating to integrate mining chips into everyday devices that already produce heat, such as the boilers inside coffee machines. Take a coffee machine, for example. Its boiler operates almost continuously, and if it were powered by small mining chips, the heat generated by mining could be used to warm the water at the same time. With millions of such machines running around the world, they could collectively help secure the Bitcoin network in a highly decentralized way, distributed across countless locations. Companies that adopt such designs could benefit by earning rewards from the operation of all their machines. If anyone has experience with boiler systems, this might be an idea worth experimenting with. #mining #boiler

Progress on my dashboard from my mining management system The battery display is now dynamic, and at the top there is a scale showing how close my best difficulty has come to a block. The miner moves forward as the value increases. There are also status points: yellow when a miner finds a new best difficulty, and red when the hashrate drops too low or the temperature gets too high. Both remain visible until they are acknowledged.

The fact that transactions can currently be included in blocks without the consent of nodes is not due to Bitcoin itself, but to the centralized block creation by a few large mining pools. In a truly decentralized mining system, where no one knows who will find the next block, this would not be possible without the agreement of the nodes. This is why allowing OP_RETURN without limits is dangerous. Nodes would have to process and store far more data, which would push out smaller operators. Unequal mempools would emerge when large amounts of spam compete with real transactions at the same fee levels. Since many nodes can only hold a limited size (for example 200 MB) while the network may contain in the future far more data (for example 800 MB), each node would end up storing a different set of transactions. As a result, block propagation would slow down because nodes are no longer working from the same transaction base. In the end, only large pools with expensive infrastructure would benefit. If we want to keep mining decentralized and move it further in that direction, we need filters and clear limits instead of allowing unlimited data spam in the network.

I installed Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots on my Umbrel server at the same time, three days ago. Bitcoin Core has almost twice as many connections, even though I allow 250 connections on both. Are so many nodes that deliberately censor Bitcoin Knots? nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr

Great interview. Samson Mow has gained a lot of integrity in my eyes. He is one of the few developers who fairly and accurately weighs the arguments of those opposing Core. https://fountain.fm/episode/6A0VU3d7xxSBNVaInYA9 nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzq7tatlu6tf44w8x0nunuw5hj98t40989mzmjldv29ye7d35wy07gpt5ul4

Update on my Mining Management System Over the past few weeks, I’ve been working on integrating my Bitaxe miners into my visualization. It wasn’t easy, but I finally got the interface running smoothly, and now I can display live data from each miner. The interface has been redesigned, the core setup is ready. Next comes the fine-tuning: more indicators, cleaner visuals, and some animations I plan to add in the coming weeks. The Project idea: When the solar panel produces excess power and the battery is full, the system automatically switches on more Bitaxe miners via relays. If production drops, it scales them back down. This way, surplus electricity can be put to work for mining and everything can be monitored visually in the interface.

My current position on the Core debate: If Bitcoin is accepted by the broader public, the mining market will become so competitive that it will mainly be viable with excess electricity or by reusing the heat from computers. These applications are distributed worldwide and are most efficient directly at the source where surplus energy or heat exists. Pools will continue to exist, but they will increasingly consist of participants located across many different regions. For Bitcoin’s decentralization it is essential that these different actors have the ability to construct their own blocks. Protocols such as Stratum V2 are important because they give individual miners the power to decide on block content rather than leaving this responsibility entirely to the pool operator, which otherwise strengthens centralization. In my view, the new Core version continues to push Bitcoin in a centralized mining direction even though we already have tools that could make mining more decentralized. With this version, it becomes harder for individuals to mine because running Core alone is no longer enough. A miner also has to worry about which filters to activate in order to avoid legal risks if a block they find were to include illegal content. This raises the barrier for small participants. Until now the OP_RETURN limit has already made it almost impossible for illegal content to slip into a block without being split across multiple transactions. Instead of leaving this safeguard as it is, the new changes create additional complexity and discourage individual miners. The result is that large pools benefit while individuals lose part of their freedom to decide how to run their node, whether they want to mine or simply participate independently in the network. I am aware that settings can still be adjusted, but it is a major pitfall if I want to use my node for mining. What I find troubling is the very assumption that a node is not by default meant to be used for mining and for securing Bitcoin’s decentralization. #mining #core

Hey Jack, you uploaded the same episode as last week on Spotify and Fountain😅 @jack mallers https://fountain.fm/episode/nLUlYDg3g0E8OJM1Lssm

I use Bitcoin Knots because I disagree with Bitcoin Core pushing changes and adjusting default settings despite significant resistance. Having multiple developer groups is crucial for decentralization, security, and diverse perspectives. Whether it’s about differing opinions or preventing unintended bugs. I’ve also come across an even stronger argument: Without proper filters or limits, attackers could push large amounts of illegal data, including pictures or even videos, through the mempool, letting it spread across the network without paying the high fees required to get it into a block. Node operators could unknowingly become legally exposed by relaying such content. Don’t change a running system. Why is it suddenly so important to remove these limits? Are the Bitcoin Core developers fully aware of these potential consequences? #knots #node #spam