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 @npub1wnlu...n3wr 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.

Fountain

THE Bitcoin Podcast • The Biggest Threat to Bitcoin | Jimmy Song • Watch on Fountain

What's the biggest threat to Bitcoin? Is it Quantum? Developers? BIP110? Governments? Or something else entirely… In this episode, I sit down wi...

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..

Fanfares

Digital Sovereignty

8,000 sats - The book that fixes the internet ⚡

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.

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.

Fountain

What Bitcoin Did • Only Bitcoin Can Stop Government Corruption | Peter McCormack • Listen on Fountain

Peter McCormack is back on the show for a conversation on power, the state of the UK, and why the system is broken. We get into how debt, inflation...

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.

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.

Why Universities Oppose Bitcoin Universities and their representatives often speak negatively about Bitcoin and not without reason. The current monetary system, dominated by central banks, state banks, and large commercial banks, is deliberately designed to be complex. This complexity ensures that without specialized knowledge and formal education, it’s nearly impossible to access key positions. An academic degree serves as an entry ticket into a hierarchical system where power, influence, and the flow of money are closely intertwined. Only those with such a degree can reach the positions where decisions are made and once they’re there, they ensure that decision-making positions remain tied to those same academic credentials. The system thus sustains itself: only those with the degree are allowed to make the rules, and the rules ensure that only degree-holders can decide. At the same time, universities are the very institutions that teach people how the monetary system works. They educate and train people to operate within this existing system - a system from which they themselves benefit. By teaching the rules of the current system, they reinforce it, producing graduates who accept and perpetuate the structures that maintain the status quo. Bitcoin, however, challenges these structures. It is decentralized, transparent, and removes control over money creation from central institutions. In a Bitcoin-based world, artificial barriers like academic degrees would no longer be necessary to participate in or benefit from the financial system. Instead, real value creation would be the only measure: if you provide value, you receive value. If you don’t, you can’t simply profit by holding a position or a credential. This is precisely why universities and their graduates defend the old system so strongly. They are not just protecting the institutions, but also their own privileges, their positions and ultimately their jobs. With Bitcoin, not only would the value of many academic degrees decline, but many specialized career paths would disappear — careers that exist only because of the complexity and centralization of today’s system. The resistance to Bitcoin is therefore not just ideological, but often existential: it’s about preserving status, influence, and employment within a system that guarantees these privileges. In this way, Bitcoin threatens not only the monopoly on money, but also the social and economic hierarchies built around that monopoly. This is why it is opposed by those who benefit most from the current system. #bitcoin #university #hierarchies #monopoly

Bitcoin ist kein Investment. Bitcoin ist der Ausweg. Technischer Fortschritt ist immer deflationär: Wir produzieren mehr, effizienter, günstiger. Doch unser Geldsystem macht daraus künstliche Inflation: Wir drucken Geld → Preise steigen trotzdem → nur wenige (nah an der Quelle) profitieren. Bitcoin ist anders: Es kann nicht gedruckt werden. Wenn Innovation passiert, werden Dinge günstiger – und alle profitieren. Bitcoin gibt uns zurück, was uns das alte System genommen hat: ehrliches Geld. #Bitcoin #Deflation #exit

Skilled Labor Shortage: A Self-Made Problem? Social security systems increasingly remove the incentive for self-improvement. When people receive benefits without having to progress, the motivation to gain knowledge and skills often fades. But in a world that’s becoming more complex, we need exactly that: highly skilled professionals in essential, productive fields like engineering, manufacturing, and healthcare. The result? Fewer people understand critical economic processes, leaving key industries dependent on a small group of experts. If something goes wrong there, economic instability becomes a real risk. A system meant to support society could be weakening its foundation. #economy #sideeffects