Thanks for the podcast. I agree with almost everything. One more specific point I would add: every additional development on Bitcoin increases complexity and with it the risk of errors. Each new layer makes us more dependent on developers, on how they interpret the code, and how they assess trade-offs. The more complex the system becomes, the harder it is for the network as a whole to evaluate changes and make sound decisions. At the same time, the attack surface grows, both technically and socially. Greater dependency also increases the risk of capture or undue influence. In that sense, a simple and clearly defined protocol is not stagnation. It is protection.

Fountain: Podcasts & Music

The Bitcoin Infinity Show • BIP-110 and the Fight for Bitcoin's Future with Hodlonaut | Bitcoin Infinity Show #191 • Watch on Fountain

Hodlonaut joins the Bitcoin Infinity Show to talk about his controversial decision to first support and then withdraw support for BIP-110, the prop...

View quoted note →

History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses. Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low. This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction. One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable. These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest. This post is inspired by the newest video from @Bitcoin Mechanic Best regards, I appreciate your content.

As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit.

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability. The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future. https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4 View quoted note →

It is correct that before Core v30, miners could also include large OP_RETURN transactions in blocks, but that choice was made by clearly identifiable actors. Miners are public-facing companies. Deliberately mining large OP_RETURN data could lead to reputational damage, loss of hashrate, and in extreme cases legal consequences. That acted as a natural social and economic brake. With the opening of OP_RETURN, responsibility shifts from individual miners to the network as a whole. Every node now relays these transactions, regardless of their content. This removes clear attribution to a responsible actor. What used to be a conscious choice by a few miners becomes a structural property of the protocol. Large OP_RETURN data and inscriptions increase storage, bandwidth, and computational requirements. That raises the cost of running a node. Over time, fewer people can afford to operate their own nodes, which weakens decentralization and concentrates influence among large operators. In the long run, this can alter Bitcoin’s level of decentralization and change the balance of power within the network.

I really like the idea behind Fanfares. I tested the reward-sharing mechanism with a second account, but it didn’t work as expected. Here’s what I noticed: I was using the Brave browser, and I’m wondering if having cookies disabled prevents rewards from working. When I logged in with my second account, the public key was correct, but the Lightning address shown was different from the one in Primal. I tried logging in twice and got the same result. Also, when I first clicked the link, I was automatically logged in with a new account. In the browser. After that, I switched to my real one. Could that have confused the reward-sharing mechanism or caused it to link the wrong account? @Short Fiat

I’ve often heard that the true potential of Nostr hasn’t appeared yet, that its revolutionary use case still doesn’t exist. I think I’ve found one and the name is fanfares. Create a new incentive system where valuable content is stored encrypted on Nostr and unlocked through Lightning payments. Sounds very simple, but give it a listen.. https://api.fanfares.live/s/P9km2Q

A good beginner video for people who have not yet deeply looked into the fundamental reasons why some want to create a fork of Bitcoin. @Matthew Kratter

Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. Thank you, Peter. It’s clear that you truly want to make things better and that you are actively working toward change.

Fountain: Podcasts & Music

The Peter McCormack Show • #139 - Simon Dixon - How the Financial-Industrial Complex Runs the World • Listen on Fountain

Western politics appears chaotic - broken states, endless debt and permanent crisis. Simon Dixon argues it isn't chaos at all, it's structure. In t...

View quoted note →

Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. Thank you, Peter. It’s clear that you truly want to make things better and that you are actively working toward change. https://fountain.fm/episode/WYtgYKympvqyFMyARErc View quoted note →

The fiat monetary system is inherently unstable and can only function if it is continuously supported and steered by intervention. Interest rates, liquidity injections, bailouts, war and regulation are not exceptions but structural requirements. Without these interventions, the system collapses. If market shrinks, debt cant be payed back and the system collapses. That is the core problem. Every structural weakness produces crises, and every crisis is used to justify further intervention. These interventions inevitably concentrate power. Not because of moral failure, but because managing problems always creates hierarchies. Actors who gain advantages through special privileges force others to adapt. Those who refuse lose competitiveness, access to capital, and influence. Bitcoin escapes this logic. It requires no political intervention, no bailouts, and no special rules. It operates without central control and without privileged access. That is why we need Bitcoin. It enables, a truly free market with fixed rules that are not stabilized by power.

Bitcoin is not an investment product. It is a rule set. If you don’t run your own node, you accept someone else’s rules. If you accept someone else’s rules, you are not using Bitcoin. You are using a representation of it. Changes like those in Bitcoin Core v30 are not minor details. Policy is power. Whoever controls policy influences usage. Running a node is not a hobby. It is responsibility. No nodes, no sovereignty. No sovereignty, no Bitcoin.

Excellent episode. Very informative and well spent two hours. Thank you. https://fountain.fm/episode/r9jPwy3CkTyEawEyc4hL View quoted note →

Bitcoin Lightning payments have something special about them: your own coins on your own server, payment in seconds, near-zero fees and the product still arrives at your door as usual. The flow feels familiar, but the feeling is different: direct, private, with no middleman taking a cut.

Bitcoin works because humanity as a whole creates the most value. The chain with the strongest economic incentives attracts the most miners, gets most hashrate, and therefore becomes Bitcoin. Long term, Bitcoin is a collective decision: It is whatever people choose to store value in. That’s why it must be protected early. Money and power is concentrated today, and Bitcoin must remain decentralized until power is decentralized again.

Why a restrictive consensus fork can gain traction even without explicit miner support. One of the main reasons this could work lies in the asymmetry of consensus rules. The current rules are broader, while the fork tightens consensus. A block that follows the fork rules is valid on the current chain, while a block that follows the current rules may be invalid on the fork. This creates a situation we have never seen in Bitcoin before. Before the fork actually happens, once the rules of the potential fork are in effect, a miner can choose to mine blocks that are accepted on both chains. By doing so, the miner earns rewards on both sides, avoids the risk of mining on the wrong chain, and retains the option to later sell coins on one chain after the fork while keeping exposure to the other. If a miner instead produces blocks that are valid only under the current rules, a chain split occurs and the miner earns rewards on only one chain. Up to this point, there is a clear economically dominant strategy: following the stricter rules minimizes risk and preserves optionality. As long as it is not completely clear which side would ultimately prevail, there is no economically rational incentive for a miner to take the first step and realize the chain split. Triggering the split would forfeit optionality and introduce asymmetric risk. Once the split actually occurs, this dominance disappears. From that moment on, the outcome remains uncertain at first, and miners can no longer rely on a risk-free strategy. They must instead estimate future fees, liquidity, and market value, and choose accordingly. In my view, this makes the initial activation of the fork economically unattractive, unless expected fees or external incentives become large enough to compensate for the added risk. As a result, it is entirely plausible that miners will voluntarily align with the fork’s stricter rules even without an explicit chain split.