Where is the best place to create a nostr follow pack?

Where is the best place to create a nostr follow pack?

Finally updated my personal website 🔥 Still got some work to do and a bunch of SEO but it’s so much better already 🤌🏽

No. 2 Sometimes art is the answer. "..so thank you Satoshi not only for bitcoin, but for what it unlocks in you." - MADEX

Bitcoin Art Magazine

About Bitcoin Art Magazine

Bitcoin Art Magazine is an independent publication focused on the artwork shaped by Bitcoin as censorship-resistant, sound money.

@Saidah - Ask a Bitcoiner 21 Questions @Dr. Ammous

42k sats are hidden inside this episode of @Ask a Bitcoiner 21 Questions with @Dr. Ammous 👀

Clue no. 1 @Saidah - Ask a Bitcoiner 21 Questions 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

Hell yeah 12-15k LFG 😍🔥

I am excited to announce our first official featured artist archival print drop at @Bitcoin Art Magazine ⚡️ Daddy, What did YOU do during the monetary revolution? & Yo Mama So F(I)AT by @Yonat Vaks Both prints are Limited Edition of 21 and both are 50% sold out already 🔥 Order here:

Bitcoin Art Magazine

Bitcoin Art Prints | Limited Edition Archival Fine Art Prints

Explore limited edition Bitcoin art prints from leading artists inspired by Bitcoin culture, philosophy, and creative expression.

Swipe for photos >

Just revamped the whole Asanoha site, click around and let me know if you find any bugs?

Bitcoin art for the Sovereign Remnant

Bitcoin art for the Sovereign Remnant

Finally got testimonials live on the website 🔥 If you have something really really nice to say about @Bitcoin Art Magazine make a post and tag me 😁

Bitcoin Art Magazine

Bitcoin Art Magazine

The world's first Bitcoin Art Magazine. Featuring the art of Fractal Encrypt, Madex, Mear One, Bitcoin Trading Cards, Asanoha and many more.

👀👀👀 View quoted note →

Are you here for the separation of money and state anon? View quoted note →

Have you watched this yet anon? View quoted note →

Are you in the @Bitcoin Art Magazine Telegram chat?

Telegram

Bitcoin Art Magazine

The world’s first Bitcoin Art Magazine. Official chat for updates & artist questions. This group is for sharing & discussing anything that is Bit...

Most systems in life function better under centralized governance, but digital cash is one of the rare exceptions where a decentralized system is clearly superior. A centralized culture is far more effective at preserving and upholding its core principles than a decentralized one. Without a strong culture around Bitcoin that actively defends those principles, you end up with scammy shitcoiners running nodes and pushing changes that erode Bitcoin’s foundations. To truly preserve Bitcoin’s decentralized, borderless, open-source, and peer-to-peer nature, people must be centrally aligned around the idea that these characteristics are non-negotiable. When participants interpret the protocol however they like, you get Ethereum, XRP, and thousands of other distractions that waste time and undermine the separation of money and state. You cannot genuinely support decentralized, borderless, open-source, peer-to-peer money while also maintaining your own personal philosophy about what it “really is.” These are Bitcoin’s core principles: • DECENTRALIZED • TRULY SCARCE • CENSORSHIP RESISTANT • A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER • INCORRUPTIBLE (These five properties set Bitcoin apart from every other cryptocurrency) • PERMISSIONLESS • AUDITABLE • TRANSPARENT • IMMUTABLE • BORDERLESS • HARD TO COUNTERFEIT • PSEUDONYMOUS • FRICTIONLESS • TRUSTLESS • PEER-TO-PEER These are not suggestions open to interpretation, they are factual, measurable characteristics. Developing your own personal philosophy around them should not be encouraged. Anything that opposes these principles, whether at the code level or the cultural level, opposes Bitcoin and the separation of money and state. Participants who reinterpret, develop their own “unique philosophy”, or dilute these core principles should not be tolerated. They should be treated with hostility by the culture surrounding Bitcoin for opening the door to changes that erode Bitcoin’s foundations. This also applies to Bitcoin artwork. If it does not align with the mission to separate money and state, then it is not Bitcoin art. Bitcoin art does not need fiat art school pseudo-intellectual, conceptual mental masturbation. It needs artists who are monetary maximalists, fighting with pen, pencil, and brush to destroy fiat.

There’s a lot of people who need to remember that Satoshi created Bitcoin to separate money from state. He very clearly said so in his first public announcement introducing the Bitcoin software after releasing the whitepaper in October 2008 and the genesis block in January 2009. In a February 11, 2009 post on the P2P Foundation forum announcing the Bitcoin software, Satoshi wrote: “The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.”

Satoshi Nakamoto Institute

Bitcoin open source implementation of P2P currency | Satoshi Nakamoto Institute

I've developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It's completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, becaus...

Have you watched our latest episode? Subtitles in English! Just click the CC, if you’re outside an English speaking country and want English then click CC then settings:)

Very clear breakdown by @hodlonaut of why Knots adoption is growing so fast: 1/ In 2025 Bitcoin Core removed a decade-old mempool policy default — a configurable limit on how much non-financial data nodes would relay. OP_RETURN was effectively uncapped. Not a consensus rule. A default setting. But defaults govern what most of the network does. Which governs what miners see. Which governs what gets mined. The justification: it wasn’t working anyway, data was getting in through a loophole. What wasn’t disclosed: that loophole had been deliberately kept open. Here’s the documented sequence. 🧵 2/ 2014: Luke Dashjr creates the -datacarriersize configuration option. Its description: "Maximum size of data in data carrier transactions we relay and mine." Broad by design. Covers all transaction components. That's the operative text for ~10 years. 3/ Late 2023: Developer Marco Falke changes the -datacarriersize description in v26.0. New wording inserts "scriptPubKey" — outputs only. Inscriptions use the input/witness section. That single word change surgically excluded inscription spam from the option's scope. Image 4/ That change was not a typo fix. AJ Towns ACKed it. The diff is documented. The before/after screenshot exists. The configuration option Luke built to protect the network had its scope quietly narrowed — while he was still maintaining the project. 5/ Sept 2023: Luke submits PR #28408. Purpose: extend -datacarriersize to cover the SegWit/Taproot witness loophole inscriptions were using to bypass existing limits. A direct fix. Using the exact configuration option he built. Nine years earlier. 6/ Gloria Zhao rejects it. On-record comment: "History of this config option suggests datacarriersize is meant to limit the size of data in OP_RETURN outputs, so this statement is untrue." She cites curated historical PRs to support the narrowed reading. 7/ She does not mention that the operative description in the codebase had been changed in v26.0 by Marco Falke. AJ Towns — who ACKed that documentation change — then gives an Approach NACK on Luke's patch. The same man enabled the rejection and then ratified it. 8/ Peter Todd also NACKs. Calls Luke's patch "censoring" transactions. He does not disclose he operates Libre Relay — a direct-to-miner relay that routes inscription transactions around mempool policy. He built the bypass. Then called closing it censorship. 9/ PR #28408 closes. 11 Concept NACKs vs 9 Concept ACKs. The loophole remains open. Jan 5, 2024: Luke opens Issue #29187 and formally designates the bypass as a security vulnerability: CVE-2023-50428. "Active exploitation... very harmful to Bitcoin even today." 10/ Oct 2024: Contributor darosior disputes the CVE. "The large majority of contributors disagree this is a security vulnerability. I believe the CVE system is being abused." Next day, achow101 closes the issue. The vulnerability is officially declared not a vulnerability. 11/ April 2025: Peter Todd files PR #32359 to remove the OP_RETURN limit entirely. He later admits: "This pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return." 12/ Citrea: a VC-funded ZK-rollup whose business model needed more on-chain data storage. Jameson Lopp publicly advocates for the PR. He is an investor in Citrea. This was not disclosed. 13/ Samson Mow calls it "PR laundering" — routing through Todd to fake independent initiative. Antoine Poinsot (Chaincode Labs) connected to early discussions. The same Poinsot who disputed Luke's CVE in October 2024. He sits at both ends of the sequence. 14/ June 9, 2025: Gloria Zhao merges the uncapped OP_RETURN change. The primary public justification: inscription data via the witness loophole is less prunable, so OP_RETURN should be uncapped to redirect it. The harm reduction argument. 15/ That argument is entirely dependent on the witness loophole remaining open. If PR #28408 had been merged in 2023, the loophole would be closed. The harm reduction argument would not exist. It would have had nothing to reduce harm from. 16/ The person who rejected the patch that would have closed the loophole is the same person who merged the change that used the open loophole as its justification. That is not a coincidence. That is a sequence. 17/ The last entry in Luke's closed CVE issue reads: "glozow mentioned this on Jun 9, 2025 — policy: uncap datacarrier by default #32406" The issue opened to fix the vulnerability referenced from the PR that exploited the unfixed vulnerability. GitHub closes the loop. 18/ Every step is documented: → Docs narrowed (v26.0, ACK: Towns) → Patch rejected using narrowed docs (Zhao, Chow) → CVE designated (Luke, Jan 2024) → CVE closed (darosior, achow101, Oct 2024) → Removal PR commissioned (Todd) → Uncap merged (Zhao, Jun 9 2025) 19/ Adam Back claimed the narrowed definition "was always the original intent." The original 2014 text has no mention of OP_RETURN, scriptPubKey, or outputs. That restriction was introduced in v26.0. He treated an amendment as original intent. 20/ The PR had 423 thumbs-down against 105 thumbs-up. Ava Chow had said publicly in Dec 2023: "If it is controversial, then we don't touch it." It was merged anyway. Luke Dashjr was muted on the PR. Bitcoin Mechanic was muted on the PR. 21/ Bitcoin Core's response: → 31 devs sign a letter calling opposition "censorship" → GitHub moderators mute the loudest critics And: → Nick Szabo breaks 5-year silence: "run Knots" → 22% of the network switches to alternative software 22/ The documentation was rewritten. The patch was rejected using the rewrite. The loophole was kept open. The open loophole became the justification. The justification enabled the uncap. The person who rejected the patch merged the uncap. All on the public record. /end