bUt FiLtErS dOnT wOrK

Adam Back doesn't understand Bitcoin. Insane but true.

I think he might have been captured by the Feds after creating POW and Hashcash. If you read the emails, Adam basically tried to “son” Satoshi. He didn’t read Satoshis whitepaper and brushed him off and told him to check out Wei Dai’s B Money I like and admire Adam and the work he has done but just listening to him speak almost sounds like he has been castrated

You can tell they definitely don't work because every time we turn them on, they get big mad.

You’re mad at Core. Knots is Core software. When are you selling?

Except on HRT to help with the loss of balls

So he didn't build on bitcoin because of op_return? Didn't he insist on turing completeness?

#studybitcoin This note really captures the heat of the Bitcoin Core vs. Knots saga. Let me unpack it in context of what’s going on… --- 1. The Historical Flashback The post is referencing a well-known story: Around 2013–2014, Vitalik Buterin considered building Ethereum on top of Bitcoin. He ultimately decided against it because Bitcoin’s developers (including Adam Back, Luke Dashjr, and others) were not interested in turning Bitcoin into a general-purpose “world computer.” One of the sticking points was OP_RETURN, the part of Bitcoin’s scripting language that lets people embed arbitrary data in transactions. Core devs imposed an 80-byte cap to prevent abuse. That restriction made Ethereum-style functionality impossible on Bitcoin… so Vitalik went and launched his own chain. So when the post says “OP_RETURN stopped Vitalik from building ETH on Bitcoin”—that’s historically accurate. Bitcoin Core drew a line: “We’re money, not a computer.” --- 2. Why It’s Relevant Now Fast-forward to today (2025)… Bitcoin Core plans to remove the OP_RETURN cap in v30 (October 2025). Critics (including Knots supporters) say this reopens the floodgates for on-chain spam, NFTs, inscriptions, Ethereum-like experiments, etc. Supporters argue: If users pay fees, they should be free to use blockspace as they want. So the irony: the very thing that kept Ethereum off Bitcoin in 2015 may now be undone by Core—potentially making Bitcoin attractive again for the same “bad actors” (as the poster puts it). --- 3. The Allegations in the Post The original poster is drawing a sharp line: Core = aligned with Ethereum service providers, Taproot Wizards, “shitcoiners,” bad actors Knots = keeps Bitcoin clean, monetary, sovereign This is ideological framing. It’s not just about code—it’s about who Bitcoin should serve: Only sound money maximalists? Or anyone who pays for blockspace, even if they’re embedding art, JPEGs, or running Ethereum-style protocols? --- 4. The Reply in Context The reply says: > “You’re mad at Core. Knots is Core software. When are you selling?” This is partly a troll, partly a real point: Knots is indeed a fork of Bitcoin Core, kept consensus-compatible. It doesn’t rewrite Bitcoin from scratch—it builds on Core. So critics of “Core” often still run Knots… which means they’re still downstream of Core’s work, just with added filters and stricter defaults. The “When are you selling?” jab is a way of saying: if you really think Core is corrupted, why are you still in Bitcoin at all? --- 5. The Deeper Saga Bitcoin Core devs lean toward neutrality: Bitcoin should be a base layer, flexible and uncensored. Knots devs (Luke Dashjr & co.) lean toward sovereignty: Bitcoin should defend itself against misuse, keep blockspace scarce, and not become a data dumpster. This debate is now peaking because of the upcoming OP_RETURN policy change—a symbolic reversal of what once kept Bitcoin from turning into “Ethereum on Bitcoin.” --- ✨ In short: This post is calling out Core devs for “betraying” the philosophy that once pushed Vitalik away. Knots is positioning itself as the defender of Bitcoin’s monetary purity. Core is accused of sliding toward Ethereum-style permissiveness. And the community is being forced to pick sides… or at least pay closer attention to what client their node is running. --- Do you want me to break down the technical side of OP_RETURN (how it actually works and why the limit matters), or would you prefer I map the political/ideological camps in this debate more clearly (Core devs, Knots supporters, miners, node runners)? View quoted note →

Also it should be stated that we've already been through this nonsense when that bitcoin Jesus whatever the fuck his name was made BSV. Basically the same shit.

Nobody does tbh.

Had to look it up. Roger Ver. What a punchable dude... Sheeit. B cash forked off, then BSV forked off that. Minor point IMO, but still had to correct my note here.

I was there for that one. And then it went to Craig Wright. One thing I've noticed during this particular argument. The core side is using one of the same arguments that was used by the BSV BCH side, which is: you're too stupid to understand why this is the right thing. That argument is always a red flag for me.

Always. Just bullying in general - I've never seen an instance where the bully wasn't wrong. Thanks for chiming in - its good to hear OG opinions.

I think rather he's just philosophically captured, like most Brits are. Not captured directly by the state, that's Peter Tard.

maybe "not directly employed but being handled"

Nobody fully understands all of the particulars. But some pretend to. The people who understand the best are the ones who understand that they don't understand.

you're retarded

question from a noob about running a node. I have a node running an older version of core, does it affect me if core tries to do something? I don't plan on updating it, it works and i don't trust new version might not have a trojan BS.

Well if we look at Bitcoin as a physical process from: a predefined entropy field energy —> computation resolved entropy field an immutable block of information It’s clear we haven’t even understood the base physics of bitcoin. It’s actually insane we are talking about protocol changes without having a grounded understanding of the physical process beneath the protocol. How can we make grounded logical decisions about protocol changes without understanding Bitcoin and the transformation of resolved entropy as registration in the ledger? Where are the physicists? Protocol devs certainly aren’t thinking about Bitcoin this way. Everyone has an opinion about the protocol that nobody physically understands, including myself. Is this not a huge problem?

I could say the same of the economics. But they are both basically the same thing. You're dealing with hidden information of individual physical actors as well as rational actors, in a complex chaotic system in empirical reality with many influencing variables that are completely incalculable. Welcome to economics.

You don't start to magically understand everything you need to know about how to dictate actions just by being a physicist.

Agreed, however the definition of Bitcoin remains undefined, it’s broadly “agreed” that every the user defines it. Every single actor has their own definition of Bitcoin, yet the physical transformation constructing every block, utxo and transaction is not subjective, it’s objective. We don’t actually understand the objective physical transformation of Bitcoin. Every protocol change remains subjective because of this. You don’t engineer systems based on subjectivity, and we risk destroying the thing we seek to preserve forever due to folly over jpegs. If Bitcoin is something bigger than “money”, the devs ought to know. Such a definition just might humble all of us again. 🤷‍♂️ just my opinion.

What is this, primacy of the lead developer's consciousness? Answer this one question: is the exchange rate of a loaf of bread to dollars at Store A objective?

No, but the measured “price” of a satoshi in joules is not subjective based on physics; it’s objectively defined each block via the entropy of the search space, current supply and the entropy of the utxo set for each block height. So what you are getting at is the subjective worth of joules at any instance of time sats are spent. Thinking in dollars doesn’t help, as it is an unanchored and changing measurement device. Scarcity matters in regard to what Bitcoin measures each block.

and still maintaining the open source software that Bitcoiners use.

No auto update

Source: Trust me, bro

You must be new here. I lived through this shit and got the receipts.

X (formerly Twitter)

vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) on X

@JihanWu @rogerkver The very earliest versions of ETH protocol were a counterparty-style metacoin on top of primecoin. Not Bitcoin because the OP_R...

X (formerly Twitter)

Adam Back (@adam3us) on X

@VitalikButerin @ethereumproject should 2-waypeg #bitcoin as transactional currency & network effect #sayNoToAltSilos http://t.co/8F5SmF2u3d

Turns out you are the retard that didn’t know this happened lol