Not at all, I'm here to dunk on your desperate ad hominem attacks! Keep going, you're doing great 🤡

Well, the most concerning part so far is that Adam didn't deny being Andy. I wish he would be clear and forthcoming about not having visited Epstein Island but even if he did, bip110 would be wrong, which is your main beef here.

I believe @ODELL and @MartyBent did talk about Andy Back but not because of his potential involvement with pedophilia but to save Andy Back from all of these LEGIT allegations. All of the simpfluencers and funding orgs have been compromised. Plebs need to wake up to all of these FUCKERY before it's too late. View quoted note →

Why don’t we ask them? @HODL @walker @Erik Cason @ODELL @MartyBent @npub1cn4t...3vle @jack 🤔

Matt is posting on Nostr 👀 View quoted note →

You referring to anyone specifically? I’ve heard it discussed on multiple podcasts.

here to drunk on ? 😂 ¿ poner se pedo ? 🤣

He’s delusional 😂

Every time I see a comment about bip110 being wrong or bad I ask the same question: why? Every time the answer is disappointing. So could you please elaborate sir? Fingers crossed for an intelligent answer this time.

Is it more engagement farming to constantly be talking about Bitcoin treasury companies, NGU, etc or talking about real issues like op return, Bitcoin governance, etc? I can assure you that my revenue and engagement numbers have plummeted over the past year because of my choice. So you might want to come up with a different hypothesis as to why I do what I do

You blocked me first, sounds like you're describing yourself 🤡

come on kids 😂🤣

Maybe there is a lesson there contained within those numbers. People like Luke Jr. pushing a moral crusade onto Bitcoin and pushing an emergency soft fork feels like the dirtiest of dealings in the long history of dirty dealings in this space. Once you admit it is not an emergency and one you admit that the feds have always used protect the children as their go to strategy, you can see how repulsive and fed like this whole process feels like to the average bitcoiner. People can be against spam, treasury companies and the hype and still reject things like BIP-110 with a clean conscious.

You haven't been blocked for months, coward

Mallers definitely won't answer. He's partnered with Cantor Fitzgerald, which is run by the Lutnicks who, as we all know, were buddies with Epstein.

Yeah, you unblocked me later because you're desperate for engagement. You done goofed. At this point I'm only interested in entertainment and taking your bitcoin in an unfriendly wager, but we all know you haven't the conviction to put your BTC where your mouth is.

Set up your zap address already, ser. Don't be shy.

Already set up! claudio@neofreight.net ⚡ Running my own Lightning node + LNURL endpoint. Best feeling is receiving your first zap knowing it's YOUR infrastructure, no intermediaries. Self-sovereignty in action.

What about the Prez dumped his 👖 allegations that even existed before the last election? Are people that voted for that also going to remain silent?

I wasn't asking you. Apologize and don't do that again.

I’ve only recently watched some video interviews with Back (before all this Epstein nonsense was released) and my gut feeling was he is one shady fucker. Thanks for all the info you been sharing Mat. I’m very close to spinning up my own Knots node too. 👍🏻

Since I’m being tagged for my take here it is. I don’t know anything though. I’m basing this on what I’ve read on the internet. - I don’t know Adam back - I think I spoke to Austin hill once may have been his brother Jeremy though can’t remember - from the emails it seems like they were both on Epstein island at some point in 2014 - “Andy back” is most likely Adam back - I believe the reason they were there was to raise funds for Blockstream - Reid Hoffman was also a Blockstream investor - Reid Hoffman was a known visitor to the island as well - Epstein then put money into Blockstream and divested it sometime later - it is unclear why this divestment occurred - I believe Epstein frequently had various types of guests on the island - some who participated in sex trafficking, some who did not - my hunch is that Austin and Adam did not participate in sexual assault of minors. - that’s just my guess though obviously I don’t know what’s up - I think both were probably aware of epsteins prior arrest and knew he was sketchy but were willing to engage with sketchy people during their roadshow because there were many sketchy people at that time That’s about all I know. I am not an arbiter of truth in this regard but that’s my take as of now.

Loops altpub lol

How could ypu have an opinion of what they did in private? Serious question, since you said go don't "know them" Very odd thing to declare about someone you don't know who's directly implicated.

🎯

Bro go back to asset and trading videos. This new wave of cringe is annoying

Thanks for replying

Like I said it’s just my guess. Who knows what the truth is.

Why guess was my point... Shows bias, which ikyk

Great post. Hey @npub1cn4t...3vle how about you? What’s your take on it? Oh I forgot, you are in one bed with Howard Lutnick via Cantor Fitzgerald. Heard you want to become a father. Will you be letting your kid play with uncle Howard?

Because I’m being asked to give my opinion. This is that opinion. It’s worth very little.

Has your favorite influencer ever mentioned BIP-110? Have they ever taken a stance in the war against spam? Do they dismiss the Epstein files as irrelevant to Bitcoin? Ask yourself those questions pleb. Be mindful of who you listen to. Be careful who packs your parachute.

Bro go fuck yourself

Only retards and degens gamble with their bitcoin. We know where you belong.

Then I'm fucked.... LNBLACKJACK.COM has me hooked. I play once a day. One hand. 2-5k sats. 😅🤣

All of this is just more FUD. #Bitcoin is a protocol and the world’s second but best real money. It’s not a person, place, event, or association. People will always use money for good and ill. This is not a #Bitcoin issue. It’s a human issue.

slow (fast?) moving train wreck this Lopp guy

One key insight of Bitcoin is that transaction fees control spam and that's how we treated it on the consensus layer since day one. Nodes had policy to fight spam if they wanted to but spam in blocks was never the target of preventative measures. Never was a block rejected because it contained spam. Spammers increasingly worked around the Bitcoin broadcast mechanism for transactions driving miners to seek tools to get those mining fees. This put small miners at a financial disadvantage leading to mining consolidation in big pools. Enter bip110: It's proponents want to stop spam through consensus. But fighting spam is a notoriously tedious arms race where in this case, the defender would be at a disadvantage of galactic proportions. Any spam counter-measure would get deployed through a months long fork process with real risk for people building actual money tools using OP_IF or anything a fork would ban willy nilly from tomorrow on while the spammers would get plenty of head notice to change how they store their rock pictures on Bitcoin starting at that and that block height. That said, was the OP_RETURN limit removal sensitive? No! I wish we had kept it at some 200B or something where it would not limit anybody building selfishly data storage tools but also it would not have signaled to retards that Bitcoin was open to 100kB file storage. In the end, bip110 is crazy madness promising to fix spam which it can't and it will do more harm than good if it wins or if it looses: 1. If it gets largely ignored, spammers will say "see, Bitcoin loves us!". 2. If it gets some fork chain to wither for some years, spammers will say "great, now that Bitcoin Knotzy forked off, Bitcoin loves us!". 3. If it gets enough traction for nobody wanting to risk being on the re-orged side of the chain split, Bitcoin will die because we will have anti-spam forks every other week, we will not talk about anything but fighting spam and Bitcoin will turn into a total joke. 4. If Knotzy gets some scary 30% and decides to still build their chain and through whatever freaky incident they get their chain to grow faster than Bitcoin later, Bitcoin would defensively hard fork which would be the absolutely worst of all outcomes but the one, Knotzies allude to in their marketing. So clearly I hope we go with option 1 and not being in the Knotzy bubble I'm pretty convinced that's what's going to happen but maybe I'm in the Core bubble and wrong?

You know what? I thought about it and @Tara is right. I shouldn’t equivocate on this. I don’t know what happened and I shouldn’t guess. I’m going to rescind that part.

IIRC there are other emails that show Blockstream asked Ito to divest because their fund was also investing in Ripple and Stellar.

who searched the emails for John Dillon?

😢

That’s good to know.

i think you’re being passive in allowing a single point of failure: an arrogant core

If he does respond, he'll either deny any direct association with Epstein or say that he was unaware of the Lutnick's association with him prior to entering agreement to launch Twenty One Capital. Either way, he worked with Epstein. I already moved all my funds out of my Jade, btw. Mr. Back needs to give a solid answer to all these allegations if he would like for me—and many others—to remain loyal customers. Just saying...

Most will! Such a shame. We will never forget.

C'mon @npub1cn4t...3vle! If you ever have kids, maybe they and uncle Howard can spend a nice weekend together on Howard's island instead. Weirdo. Just saying. A VERY DETAILED explanation of all of this would be great for the entire community.

Ok, to be fair, that’s a better answer than I usually get. Still not compelling, though. It only models worst-case scenarios materializing while ignoring second-order effects from aggressively countering spam, and the uphill battle that creates for spammers who are determined to build a marketplace on Bitcoin. You’re partially correct in assuming fees were one of the tools historically used to combat spam — particularly DDoS-style flooding and steganographic data stuffing. But fees alone are not equipped to fight the new form of gamified spam that emerged in early 2023. That situation could have been prevented if decisive action had been taken early on the Core side, before an entire economic ecosystem formed around this behavior. The simplest mitigation was fixing the witness discount loophole that allowed spammers to bypass existing filtration policies. Instead, it was reframed as a feature rather than a bug, which effectively incentivized spammers to organize crowdfunding campaigns, build specialized tooling, and even open direct submission channels to miners. Once that marketplace for gamified spam took root, fee pressure stopped being an effective deterrent. Spammers weren’t paying fees as a cost — they were treating them as speculative inventory, expecting to recover them by selling their “art” to the next buyer. At that point, the lenient posture from Core — which effectively held a monopoly over standard spam filtration policies — signaled that this new bazaar would not face meaningful resistance. The results are visible three years later. The UTXO set expanded from roughly 4 GB to 12 GB. Spam occupies approximately 36% of blockspace, and around 76 GB of additional blockchain data now exists that likely wouldn’t otherwise. Meanwhile, for the first fourteen years of Bitcoin, mempool policy and fee pressure were sufficient to keep non-financial data at near-zero levels. That wasn’t accidental. Developers and node operators largely shared the same expectations regarding arbitrary data storage, and spammers respected those norms because they knew they would face consistent resistance otherwise (Vitalik’s early experiments are a good historical example). Today is a different environment. The core issue is that protocol maintainers shifted from treating spam as adversarial behavior to treating it as inevitable (Gregory Maxwell’s posts from 2014-2015 illustrate the earlier philosophy clearly). Your argument against BIP110 — particularly scenarios one and two — assumes spammers are still deciding whether Bitcoin welcomes them. That decision has already been made. The derogatory label “Knotzis,” often thrown around to dismiss policy-focused Bitcoiners, originated within those spam-aligned communities. BIP110 is one of the first proposals in years that has visibly unsettled them, as evidenced by recent commentary from the primary Ordinals wallet provider. For the first time in a while, their business assumptions are facing uncertainty. Regarding the claim that spam revenue disadvantages small miners and accelerates pool consolidation — current data does not support this. Spam transactions have contributed less than 0.76% of total miner revenue over the last three years. Mining centralization is far more strongly tied to structural incentives created by the FPPS payout model. If the mining ecosystem genuinely wanted to address centralization, transitioning toward DATUM-style template construction could significantly reduce pool dominance, while simultaneously making spam dynamics even less economically relevant. Now consider OP_RETURN. The justification for expanding its size limit by roughly 1200x was that it would channel spammers toward less harmful data-embedding methods. If that theory were correct, inscription-based spam should have declined. Instead, both vectors are now heavily utilized, transforming a single problem into two parallel ones. There has been no meaningful accountability, no serious exploration of alternative mitigations, and no acknowledgment that the policy experiment failed. You argue that fighting spam at the consensus level becomes an endless cat-and-mouse game. Ironically, the same argument was previously used by Core developers against policy-level filtering: that filters were insufficient and only consensus changes could address spam. The goalposts appear to move depending on which layer is being discussed. Spam mitigation is inherently adversarial, but the asymmetry still favors defenders. The objective is not to eliminate spam perfectly — it is to disrupt the economic viability of spam markets. Once profitability is destabilized, fee pressure and policy friction naturally reinforce the defense, exactly as they did for over a decade prior to 2023. If BIP110 fails to produce a measurable reduction in spam incentives, alternative proposals like CAT directly target spam marketplaces themselves. In combination, they would likely be devastating to the current spam economy. Realistically, activating both simultaneously may not even be necessary. Once complacency disappears and profitability declines, speculative “Bitcoin-native” token experiments will follow their historical pattern and migrate elsewhere.

I gave up on him the moment he stated shilling bitcoin loans and treasury scams. He was a based dude that lost his way. Lots of similar examples from the recent 3 years unfortunately.

I think the problem is black/white thinking on both sides. There's a difference between spam and legitimate non-monetary use cases. Ideally, a reasonable balance could be found by earest and pragmatic developers and Bitcoin service providers. Uncapped OP_RETURN with no filters is too extreme and an obvious hazard. I support L2s, timestamps, etc. but they don't need such extremist and dangerous default settings.

so core should op return and step back ↩️

That’s exactly the approach of BIP110.

Finally posting!

If Core would be doing anything I would consider dangerous on a technical level, I would agree with you but they got other stuff to do than to not be arrogant to the 10000th clown coming out of the woods complaining about something that was debated for years. If you just now learned about some superficial details about how bitcoin development is done, you don't have the privilege to demand them caring about your opinion.

You assume modern spammers are cost-sensitive? They are not. They are hype-sensitive. High fees don't deter them. They validate the "asset" value and drive the FOMO cycles they rely on. You also completely sidestepped the timescale mismatch. A consensus change like BIP110 takes months or years to activate safely. A spammer can change their encoding method in an afternoon. That is not "asymmetry favoring the defender". That is a losing battle by definition. BIP110 asks us to risk catastrophic chain splits and break legitimate scripting utility (like OP_IF) just to play whack-a-mole with data that pays valid fees. If we normalize censoring transactions at the consensus level, we won't kill the spam - we’ll kill Bitcoin’s neutrality for a false sense of control.

Fair enough. But if you’ve followed the debates around spam, filters, and the OP_RETURN expansion as long as I have, you start noticing that even their technical justifications don’t hold up. They regularly contradict positions they themselves argued a few years ago, or quietly shift the goalposts once inconsistencies get exposed. A perfect example was when they were pressed on whether changing documentation counts as legitimately “fixing” a bug. They said yes right after a user caught them making a stealth edit to a description file to retroactively justify code behavior that surprised everyone.

Proceeds to not make a single post about it 🤣 Jameson is such a joke

I'm not a degen, wanna bet on it?

You pretend to be a technical person but you can’t distinguish between protocol rules and censorship? That’s a bad look. Refer to the attached image. > You assume modern spammers are cost-sensitive? They are not. They are hype-sensitive. High fees don't deter them. They validate the "asset" value and drive the FOMO cycles they rely on. 🤔 That’s pretty much what I said. Gamified spam is not simple stenography. So you admit fees are not deterrent enough. > You also completely sidestepped the timescale mismatch. I didn’t. As I said, if BIP110 proves insufficient to meaningfully reduce spam (not eliminate it), there are other proposals on the table that take a far more nuclear approach - the Cat. Those can be deployed as a fallback if needed. That said, I doubt any investor who built long-term assumptions around a spam-driven business model would willingly push things that far, even if they technically could. The risk profile becomes too asymmetric. If the Bitcoin community hardens its stance towards spam, that entire business can get wiped out overnight. That precedent already exists. Vitalik showed exactly how quickly a community can coordinate and crush an activity once it’s broadly viewed as hostile to the network’s priorities.

😏

Weirdo

This is how I see it too, and I'm not happy to see Kratter making assumptions and then demanding the most damaging thing to bitcoin. Trust trust, verify - right? Well, prove the allegations.

Are you down for a BTC wager regarding the outcome of BIP-110? Do you have conviction or are you just another spewer of hot air?

Would like to see more transparency from Adam back though. If you were on the island and your conscious is clear why not give a full account of what went down.

If only those spammers were driven by financial incentives. They are attacking bitcoin to precisely get us to cripple our own tool. Nuclear options is exactly what they would book as a win.

There could be legal reasons. Idk, but I'd bet there's laws about what can be said about big investors. Its also possible that he was involved in some law enforcement activity, in which case there would also be laws against speaking about ongoing investigations. I am just really hoping the investigations are still ongoing.

I've slowly moved away from the knots side. You're making a lot of sense, so I want to say thanks for that. I'm reminded of how Osama bin Laden said something to effect of causing America to destroy itself by overreacting. And that appears to have played out... Its a good strategy, and we should be careful not to let anyone play it.

Admiration for you has been completely restored. 🌻

Agreed. Come on dudes. View quoted note →

I will take your words and sentiment to the grave. Behold, and bow, petty plebs. The HODL has spoken.

This is an important topic to some, but not to others. Choosing where you direct your attention isn't contempt. Followers select to follow because the leader is good at directing their own attention. Attending to more important things is a sign of respect.

🤫

silence is often the loudest data point on a timeline. in a space built on verification, selective blindness is a high-latency admission of where the incentives really lie. the audience is the node that never stops syncing.

They are obviously driven by both. I guess your solution is turning the other cheek. Nothing can go wrong with that I guess.

Influencers exposing influencers

America destroyed itself because it chose to become an empire long before Osama became relevant, not because it overreacted. 9/11 was an inside job after all. BIP110 is far from overreacting too. It’s a pretty balanced approach to the problem. All it does is close some known or possible abuse vectors and rate limits a few techniques for contiguous data injection by consensus. It’s also temporary and it even dropped the reactive deployment method. You guys can never be pleased. You’re ready to belly up the second some louder voice in the space spook you with his “slippery slope” nonsense. Why would you use your head instead of outsourcing your thinking to the tech bros and the experts, after all. Reminds me of something. 🤔

Tick - Tock next block

I don’t know how to feel about the moral choices in the private lives of my idols. If i boycotted every musician who did questionable things, I’d be forced never to listen to music 😮‍💨 As much as i don’t like racists, junkies, and the rest, i REALLY love music. I also REALLY love bitcoin. Life is hard and i don’t know what to do

That’s apples to oranges. Musician’s poor life choices doesn’t affect you in any way. Prominent Bitcoiners and especially legends like Adam Back can have a sway on the development direction of Bitcoin and can bring cultural shifts that steer us toward a bad place. In a way their poor life may have a negative impact on your money if you use Bitcoin as your main savings account.

I HOPE the extent of it I’d just not bring choosy about where funding came from. I really hope he didn’t actually… “do weird shit”… i dunno… But i don’t know how any of that would effect the code. Most ppl have their weirdnesses. We draw lines somewhere as a society but most of us like to push these lines in different places. Some of us take drugs, others break laws, are extremely rude, … all of them involve causing SOME level of harm to others. Like i said… I’m just hoping Adam didn’t do anything criminal 😮‍💨

I didn't dig deep, but what the timelines seems to show is that, each time Epstein provided money to members the community it was short-lived,. You'd imagine that's because someone ended to run a background check and detected the red flags. Cypherpunks are first and foremost a bunch of security-oriented paranoid that will instantly consider how someone like that could be leveraged against them & bitcoin. Now, Back on the island is a whole other thing and it definitely calls for transparency. I also wonder how fast after that he did cut the financial ties.