Hey Bitcoin, drop back here for a while. My fiat’s waiting.

Great session! @BTC Sessions

Bitcoin is 117k today? Okay.

evening run

#bitcoin

GM Running a Bitcoin node is easier than driving. If you can handle a car, you can run a node. Do it! #bitcoin

Reminder: Run a node 💧 #bitcoin

Institutional flows are getting bigger. Brace yourself for what is to come. Stack sats. Run a node. #bitcoin

"Buy sats, buy your family sats, buy your dogs and cats sats!!!" And then run a node. 💧 #bitcoin @npub13wl6...np8z 👋🙏

You run Core? #bitcoin

Wen #nostr support crabs? 🦀 BTC/CRAB 📈

Run a node. 💧 #bitcoin

KNOTS is safe, CORE v30 is not Running Knots is as safe as you want it to be. Just wait 6–12 months before upgrading, verify releases, and only run versions you agree with — if Luke pushes a commit you don’t like, you simply don’t upgrade. Use Knots purely as a watch-only node, sign all transactions with Sparrow + an air-gapped hardware wallet, and your keys never touch the node. Consensus changes need the economic majority, not a single maintainer, so Knots can’t force anything on you. With this setup, Core stops being a gatekeeper — the real risk of centralization is VC influence steering Core toward Ethereum-style rollups, not one maintainer shipping an optional release. The “1 maintainer” fear is a myth if you run Knots this way. Consensus cannot be changed by a maintainer — rules are enforced by the economic majority, not by commits. If Luke ships code you dislike, you simply don’t upgrade. By waiting 6–12 months, verifying signatures, and using your node only for verification while keys live on an air-gapped hardware wallet, the maintainer’s role is irrelevant to your security. A solo maintainer can’t steal your coins, can’t force a fork, and can’t override your sovereignty. With this setup, the number of maintainers is noise — your own upgrade discipline is the real security model. Plebs, can you help repost / boost this? #bitcoin #knots