Centralized Unicity and Distributed Multiplicity I won’t speculate on personal allegations. My concern is strictly technical and philosophical: #Bitcoin Core’s posture toward spam and incentives has shifted in a way that endangers Bitcoin’s narrow optimum. Reducing Bitcoin’s security model to a generic market for blockspace, sellers and buyers exchanging bytes, may adequately describe a distributed data store, but it fundamentally misrepresents a monetary network. Bitcoin’s blockspace exists first and foremost to serve censorship-resistant monetary transactions. This market is constrained by a higher-order objective: preserving individual sovereignty. Bitcoin is not a morally neutral protocol; it is a weapon against tyranny. In the struggle against centralized unicity, state power concentrated behind infinite fiat, only one force can prevail: Distributed multiplicity. The plebs running nodes. They anchor consensus, enforce rules, and give economic meaning to mining. Miners are paid because nodes validate; incentives exist because the system is defended. Without node operators, there is no table at which anyone eats. In any system, economic or otherwise, turning against your primary client is fatal. If blockspace were truly neutral, if “data were just data,” then any sufficiently funded actor could flood blocks indefinitely, crowd out monetary use, and neutralize Bitcoin’s purpose entirely. If that model were correct, Bitcoin would never have existed. This is not a debate about arbitrary data competing for space; it is a question of what the system is for. Bitcoin persists because it is not secured by pricing alone. It is secured by social consensus enforcing constraints that privilege monetary use over abuse. This is the human factor. Filters, standardness rules, and policy limits do not violate the market; they define it. They form the narrow optimum that makes Bitcoin resilient rather than fragile. That narrow optimum is precisely what the plebs defend. It is fragile by design and resilient by consensus. Sixteen years of near-perfect operation can dull perception, but removing constraints does not strengthen Bitcoin; it dissolves the conditions that made it work. Anti-fragility does not come from loosening limits; it comes from enforcing them. What I will say is this: when an ecosystem concentrates legitimacy in a single reference implementation and discourages exit, it creates conditions where individuals cannot act freely, even when they should. Plurality is not rebellion; it is protection. Running alternative clients is not an attack on Bitcoin. It is how pressure is released, how incentives realign, and how people are allowed to stand upright again. Do not confuse centralized unicity with distributed multiplicity. A hard drive can always be outbid. A monetary network anchored in shared norms, human restraint, and collective defense cannot. Bitcoin is not a decentralized database. It is a system for human sovereignty. Blockspace is a means, not the purpose. --dewmap

In the software practice, it is possible to write code that compiles and runs correctly, but that fails to fulfil, or even corrupts the business purpose that the software is being written for. Software is not something that runs by itself in its own universe; ir runs in a context - "To Serve Mankind". It's therefore very odd to praise people who write software that harms people. It doesn't matter how clever they are, how hard they work or how good a mentor they've been; if they're doing something horrible and wrong, they're not worthy of praise. They should be condemned. Going forward, anyone who doesn't understand what Bitcoin is for, and who doesn't understand that bitcoin is not, "an experiment", or that "data has no meaning" or that Ordinals are evil, should be kept very far away from working on the reference client, whih in any case, should be in maintenance mode and when update is beneficial (Schnoor signatures for example) updated only when it is clearly demonstrated that performance will not be downgraded and parameters and purpose altered. In other words, all changes and improvements must be for the sole purpose of bitcoin's reason for being. If you want to extend the capabilities of bitcoin, you should fork it and play in your own kitty litter sandbox, where others can join you if they want to. People who do bad things are not "great", and praising them is distasteful and indicative of at worst, a bad character and at best, a painfully naïeve and credulous personality. --beautyon

It’s deeply counterintuitive how hard it is to simply buy and hold Bitcoin. Humans evolved to react. #Bitcoin demands that you don’t. That’s why so many people grasp Bitcoin intellectually yet fail at it behaviorally. The real moat isn’t technical knowledge or clever optimization — it’s emotional discipline sustained over years, not weeks. “Just buy and hold” isn’t simple. It’s minimalistic, adversarial, lonely… and quietly violent to the ego. If it were easy, everyone would do it. --dewmap

Dear Gloria Zhao, On behalf of #Bitcoin maximalists worldwide, I want to express our deepest gratitude for your priceless, unwitting service in exposing the terminal decay inside what was once Bitcoin #Core and is now more fittingly called “Coretard.” No measured technical argument, no patient explanation from the filter side could ever have achieved in a decade what your brief public appearances accomplished in a handful of videos: you single-handedly obliterated any remaining pretense of apolitical, competence-driven development. Your visibly confused ramblings, sanctimonious ideological posturing, and openly stated desire to “transition” Bitcoin into a progressive social-experiment token have done more to awaken the broader ecosystem than a thousand blog posts or whitepapers ever could. You have convincingly demonstrated to anyone still paying attention that something profoundly rotten has taken root behind the formerly respected — but now irrevocably compromised — closed doors of Core. Having you as one of the most prominent public faces of modern Core development is the single most effective anti-Core propaganda the #Knots side could have ever dreamed of. Whether your colleagues have noticed it yet or not, you and the activist clique that surrounds and celebrates you have already signed Core’s death certificate in the only place it ultimately matters: the court of public opinion. So please, from the bottom of our hearts — keep going exactly as you are. History will record you as the accelerant that finally persuaded the broader Bitcoin world to abandon the sinking, woke-infested husk you so proudly pilot. With sincere and everlasting thanks, A Bitcoin Maxi who genuinely owes you one P.S. Thanks to you, humanity’s lexicon has been permanently enriched with a new and instantly understandable term: Coretard. Your legacy is secure. --dewmap

Bitcoiner ≡ Critical Thinker The Epstein scandal exposes the rot: guilt by association torpedoes the push to bloat #OP_RETURN. #Bitcoin lives on don’t trust, verify—not deference to experts, institutions, or reputations. The real crisis isn’t a single scandal, but systemic decay within Core: lost humility, eroded rigor, and the collapse of adversarial scrutiny. Red flags are everywhere, dismissed with smug appeals to “the experts have spoken.” This is cultural capture, driven by complacency and blind faith. Bitcoiners don’t grant authority—they constrain it. They demand transparency and design for trust failure. Core’s reckless dismantling of Chesterton’s Fence—obliterating Bitcoin’s narrow optimum by orders of magnitude—has fractured the ecosystem. It’s appalling judgment, plain and simple. And those “earnest” influencers rushing to Core’s defense, waving away red flags as nonsense? They are vectors of the disease—mistaking organic outrage for heresy. What kind of Bitcoiner replaces don’t trust, verify with believe the elites—elites whose obvious lack of judgment has eroded the very trust that Bitcoiners worldwide were willing, in good faith, to extend? Confront the drift. Purge the complacency. Reclaim the ethos: Don’t trust. Verify. --dewmap

NEW RESEARCH: #Bitcoin Core Technical Debt 26.8% of Bitcoin Core's codebase has high technical debt (1,108 of 4,134 files) - 2.7x above the industry healthy threshold of <10%. Analysis of 15,884 merged PRs shows: • Patch-to-refactor ratio: 3.0 (at the concerning threshold; 1:1 is ideal) • RPC subsystem: 61.5% high debt (critical; industry threshold is <40%) • Debt accelerates: Files with 50+ modifications have 9.7 patches per refactor (vs <5:1 standard) • Even new code: 31.5% high debt (vs <10% standard) • Consensus code: Better maintained - 38.5% high debt but refactored as often as patched (1:1 ratio) • Top debt files: init.cpp, main.cpp, rpc.cpp (scores 87-90, 13-15 years old, rarely refactored) Bitcoin Core exceeds multiple industry thresholds, indicating systematic refactoring is needed, especially in the RPC subsystem. github.com/secsovereign/b…

What Socrates said about democracy more than 2000 years ago. He said that demoracy must fall because it will try to tailor to everyone. The poor will want the wealth of the rich, and democracy will give it to them. Young people will want to be respected as elderly and democracy will give it to them. Women will want to be like men and democracy will give it to them Foreigners will want the rights of the natives and democracy will give it to them. Thieves and fraudsters will want important government functions, and democracy will give it to them. And at that time, when thieves and fraudsters finally democratically take authority because criminals and evil doers want power, there will be worse dictatorship than in the time of any monarchy or oligarchy. Socrates (470-399 b.c.)

Taking a step back, the entire #OP_RETURN is a symptom of something much bigger that stems from a single cause. It is caused by Mind Blindness. The people looking at #bitcoin in isolation, that it is an "experiment", don't understand that other people are real, that they actually exist, and are relying on bitcoin. They don't understand and can't weigh the importance of anything; to them, a side note in a "White Paper" or BiP from one person has the same weight as all the people on earth for the next 140 years. To them, bitcoin is something on paper or on their screens; it exists outside of everything, and all the "problems" they see are related only specifically to the specification on paper, and not to how, where and why bitcoin is used and why it was created in the first place. They're exactly like and interchangeable with Roger Ver, who is trapped in a mindset where only his own perspective is real, and everything else is imaginary, including all the people who use bitcoin. The bitcoin specification isn't something that exists in isolation; its rules and features are not there for their own purposes; bitcoin has no purpose in absentia of people; therefore, to exclude people from any calculation used to measure whether an improvement is actually an improvement can only lead to error. Without purpose, bitcoin is just another piece of software. If you remove purpose from your assessment of what should be added to bitcoin, you're leaving out the most important element of all...people. If these proposers cared only about the specification on paper, they would write their software for private use in their own test network "OP_RETURN_net" and let it run. They've written their changes, pushed them, they're live and it's all running. Why do they need other people to run their software? If for any reason you're not able to include the reality of other people in your assessments, then you should not be working on improving bitcoin, because to you, everything, every improvement is the same if something get's "better". On paper, removing limits looks good On paper, low fees forever looks good On paper, faster confirmation time looks good On paper, anything can be cast to look good But real people don't live on paper, and bitcoin was written to serve real people, not the masturbatory whims of people who don't care much about anything other than "the work". Improvements in one aspect is the myopic, mind bling way of looking at anything; the unintended second and third order effects are what Mind Blind people can't perceive and that's the danger. As I've said before, improving bitcoin is a good thing, but without a clear definition of what an improvement is, anyone, any person with any characteristic can make a claim that any change is an "improvement". Years ago there were some very strange people who wanted to add an identity layer to bitcoin. To them, this was an "improvement" simply because it added something that men in their culture have become inured to; constantly identifying yourself to do anything. Their disgusting proposal died but what it showed was that Socialists are literally everywhere, and will bring the Socialism with them when they make proposals. That's very dangerous. Bitcoin should do only one thing, and it should not change. It is not "progress" to see new point versions of bitcoin being constantly released; bitcoin isn't like other pieces of software; its entire purpose is a money supply that doesn't change. Progress is a modern day cult, filled with "Progressives" who will throw literally everything out of the window so that they are "moving forward". They're insane, and bitcoin was designed to keep psychologically normal people protected from them. Bitcoin's development can be protected by the people who use it. The simple act of selecting a client can keep the tweakers, the fiddlers, the Progressives, the elitists, the gullible, the Mind Blind, and ultimately, the State out of everyone's money. And bitcoin really is "everyone's money". It isn't the sole preserve of people who bark "ack" on a Mi¢ro$oft owned and Controlled software repository service. The power to control what the network is is in the hands of people who run the reference clients. If any group of developers refuses to knock it off and take advice, then everyone will abandon their client, and these thrill seekers will switch to trying to sabotage the Linux Kernel, where they will find a suitably extremely hostile environment to nonsense from a benevolent dictator with a proven record of keeping garbage out. These people want to enslave the network to their perverted and selfish aims, like the Ordinals crowd. They don't care about other people, even to the extent that they're frightening the skin off of users who have put their whole lives into bitcoin and have skin in the game. They just don't care about other people, and perhaps, can't care. You are going to have to keep an eye on this matter, and be vigilant, because some people with an aggressive compulsion to change bitcoin will never stop. You have the power to neutralize their urges by simply not runing their software. If the whole network stops "upgrading" then they are permanently neutralized and the problem is solved. Only bug fixes should be accepted by node runners; nothing else. No more threats. No more elitism. No more risk of losing money. Then everyone can get on with building on bitcoin, saving, sending and spending it, and building the future, where real people will be living and relying on what everyone is using and building today. -beautyon

In just a few years, bad actors shielded by a strangely docile #Bitcoin Core have transformed its immaculate ledger into the most expensive open sewer in history. The playbook was diabolically simple: Exploit known protocol loopholes that Core refuses to close, and spawn a parasitic zoo of degenerate shitcoins (Ordinals, BRC-20, Runes, NFTs whatever this week’s scam token is called). Then flood the chain with fiat-funded garbage inscriptions until the cancer is too big to remove without “breaking compatibility.” When the maximalists who spent a decade laughing at Ethereum’s clown casino finally screamed foul, Core’s response was the now-infamous: “What is even spam?” And, with the solemnity of a priest blessing sewage, Core shipped v30, handed every grifter on earth an industrial excavator, and rebranded the resulting stench as “freedom,” “innovation,” and “adapting to the new culture.” Look at the numbers. They don’t lie: almost 40% of the entire UTXO set, created in barely two years, is now cartoon apes, pixelated cocks, and immortal trash. This isn’t the beginning of a beautiful new ecosystem. It’s the opening act of a hostage situation. Those “88 million inscriptions” that supposedly paid 7,000+ BTC in fees? Not organic demand. Obvious bribes, fiat conjured out of thin air by entities who face no budget constraints, funneled straight to miners to launder vandalism into legitimacy. Anyone who thinks infinite-money printers will ever be stopped by “market forces” has traded adversarial thinking for bedtime stories. There is no real community here, no lasting economic activity, no future, just a giant pump-and-dump dressed up as culture. The handful of true believers clutching their sacred JPEGs don’t need protocol changes. They need therapy. When pushback finally arrived, Bitcoin #Knots, sensible BIPs, #CAT, actual attempts to defend the original protocol, the mask slipped completely. Overnight, the people defending sound money became, in the ultimate rhetorical nuke, “Nazis.” And so, in this newly confused ecosystem poisoned by the woke mind virus, the official position of the now-known-as “Coretards” became: “Because someone might misuse a scalpel tomorrow, we must let the gangrene consume the leg today.” Saying “this is spam and it should be addressed” is apparently the real attack on freedom. Bitcoin Core didn’t just make a technical mistake. It caught the civilizational mind virus that teaches societies to celebrate their own decomposition and to crucify anyone still sane enough to point at the rot. That’s not hyperbole. That’s the autopsy. We all have to take a step back and acknowledge the level of delusion on display: The suicidal overconfidence of Core loyalists convinced they represent some silent majority. Core should have shut this NFT circus down from day one. Now their credibility is gone. Coretard is their legacy. --dewmap

If #Muslims are so enthusiastic about living under Sharia law, why not pack up and move to places where it’s actually enforced—like Afghanistan? Funny how Sharia is always demanded in secular, free societies, but somehow loses its appeal where it’s fully implemented. Apparently, Sharia is best enjoyed as a slogan—not as a lifestyle.

Saudi Arabia needs investment and rapid (impossibly so) education of skilled youth. It lacks both and is therefore now faltering. So it retreats into appeasing those it most fears can destabilize it: the Muslim Brotherhood and their mentors in Ankara and Doha, as well as the haunting specter from Damascus. But it is a death spiral. It will drive investment away and leave its youth more radicalized and uneducated. Moreover, it has no path for recovery. It wasted a critical 7 years playing hard to get — a rather arrogant overestimation of its solidity and indispensability — when it needed to expeditiously join the Abraham Accords and aggressively transform itself not with grandiose projects but with nitty-gritty education, business and industrial incentives.

One day at kindergarten, the teacher says to the class of five-year-olds, "I'll give $2 to the child who can tell me who was the most famous man who ever lived." An Irish boy put his hand up and said, "Please miss, it was St. Patrick." The teacher said, "Sorry Sean, that's not correct." Then a Scottish boy put his hand up and said, "Please miss, it was St. Andrew." The teacher replied, "I'm sorry Hamish, that's not right either." Finally, a Jewish boy raised his hand and said, "Please miss, it was Jesus Christ. The teacher said, "That's absolutely right Moishe, come up here and I'll give you your $2." As the teacher was giving Moishe his money, she said "You know Moishe, you being Jewish, I was very surprised you said Jesus Christ." Moishe replied, I know Miss, in my heart I knew it was Moses, but business is business!"

Exposing Simon Dixon's Double Standards: Beneath the Mask of a Sovereign Individual npub1546jstdajzf6gw4plvr6z4kpcaxtvl3h0zjdv5gw8tx8uup5d6rq8ef9mt presents himself as a champion against elites, a Bitcoin defender through self-custody, and an anti-imperialist urging everyone to "follow the money." But when you dig deeper into his views, what emerges is a web of contradictions: principles of freedom applied selectively, with criticism driven by personal and religious biases. 1. Selective History in Geopolitics: He passionately condemns Zionism as colonialism marked by displacement, genocide, and apartheid, framing Israel as a proxy for American military-industrial imperialism. At the same time, he completely overlooks similar historical actions by Arabs and Muslims—from the 7th-century conquests (seizing the Levant and Palestine "by right of the conqueror") to Ottoman expansion, which involved cultural shifts and subjugation. He rails against Western or Zionist empires but stays silent on Muslim ones. This isn't genuine anti-imperialism; it's biased selectivity with an anti-Western and pro-Islamic tilt. A real libertarian would reject all conquests equally as violations of individual rights. 2. One-Sided View of Islam: Dixon portrays Islam as a personal path of peace, tolerance, and resisting oppression (quoting verses like "no compulsion in religion" and limiting jihad to self-defense). Yet he never mentions the dhimmi system—the institutionalized subjugation of non-Muslims in Islamic societies: jizya tax for "protection," restrictions on bearing arms, building new places of worship, equal court testimony, or criticizing Islam. This creates a clear hierarchy where non-Muslims are second-class citizens, involving economic and social coercion that's incompatible with true equality and non-aggression. By glossing over this, Dixon romanticizes Muslim history as "harmonious," implicitly justifying domination. As a Muslim, his drive comes from a religious sense of duty to "serve humanity," but it makes his anti-oppression stance selective—freedom only on his terms. 2. Fixation on Saylor and Dictating the "Right" Way to Bitcoin: Day after day in posts, podcasts, and videos, he accuses npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m of serving elites, centralizing Bitcoin via debt, and sabotaging the revolution (custody vs. self-custody). He claims $MSTR is a tool for price manipulation through FUD and potential forced sales. But on a free market, a sovereign individual should be free to handle their capital any way they choose—whether through leveraged treasuries, ETFs, or derivatives. The risks are theirs alone. Dixon doesn't just highlight dangers (which could be helpful); he passes moral judgment and prescribes the "one true path" (self-custody only). His manipulation theory falls apart under scrutiny: $MSTR shares drop in response to BTC stagnation, not the reverse—the market naturally punishes leverage. This obsession comes across as fixation, perhaps psychological or tied to promoting his own agenda/business. Conclusions: Behind the "follow the money" mantra lies not objective insight but a subjective ideology—anti-Western, pro-Islamic, laced with collectivist tendencies. Dixon excuses historical hierarchies (like dhimmi), condemns others' choices, and pushes a "revolution" where freedom is reserved for those who align with his vision. He's valuable for pointing out risks in centralization and leverage, but his stance isn't libertarianism—it's propaganda riddled with double standards. True freedom means no one dictates your choices: how to hold BTC, whom to criticize, or which history to focus on. No one owes the "revolution" anything against their will. Always test these gurus for consistency—otherwise, their "truth" is just a disguise for control. #Bitcoin #Libertarianism

Thank you @Samson Mow ! #bitcoin #bitcoin_knots #knots

#bitcoin #bitcoin_knots #knots #bitcoin_core