💯
Login to reply
Replies (69)
He was all talk then. But when the rubber meets the road, he backpedals to preserve his industry connections and funding…at the expense of his integrity and Bitcoin itself.
Many. Such. Cases.
🎯🎯🎯
Need a link to the second post 🙏
Or at least the title of the show
Gimmi some 😊
💯 confirmed
I won’t be surprised if one day we learn that a lot of money has been flowing behind the scenes to certain individuals (Saylor, Odell, Samson etc) to change their tune/position as the mandatory signalling approaches.
Me too. There are also new revelations about Saylor and Epstein from the files.
Like what?
This is an important question.
Someone should create a catalogue of these special interest Bitcoin influencers with detailed profiles and descriptions - hall of shame style
is this the only one or are there more? would be interesting if this is before or after the only one i was aware of in which Saylor was not invited because he was awkward or something
interesting, thanks.
if I'm interpreting this correctly:
bin Sulayem: "I met Michael sailor he us one if us"
JE: "no , lots of drugs"
"no"-- as in not one of us? that's a pretty hopeful indication IMO
"lots of drugs"... ok--problematic--but not what "being in the files" is all about.
am i not seeing somethign here?
What has lots of drugs to have with being only into girls? Looks to me as code words for something.
Have to do*
my intepretation:
SS: "Is he one of us?"
JE: "no, lots of drugs"
SS: "ok, thanks for the heads up, I'll stay away since i'm only interested in g***s
i would have to look at speech patterns from SS, but a lot of people, ask questions like this, as a statement. His typos also leave a lot of room for interpretation.
His response "thanks for the heads up" also indicates that he is aware JE answered his statement as it were a question "is he one of us".
His answer kinda makes it clear that his
"I met Michael sailor he us one if us " was actually
"I met Michael sailor is he one of us"
in case anyone doesn't want to click on the DOJ link
it is not clear whether Epstein means just drugs or drugs + kids
you'd have to explain your logic to me. if the words aren't there, we could put anything we want in there.
Their operation have been known to hide meaning in code words like pizza and other disgusting examples
i see. It could be.
Logically, however, would you invite a stranger to your house to do illegal activities?
the logical answer is *No*.
SS demonstrates he doesn't know Saylor by his email to JE
meaning Saylor has invited a stranger to a party
if Saylor is logical, he would not expose himself to risk by doing illegal activities at a party to which he has invited strangers. If Saylor is in the JE ring, JE clearly disavowed him
there is however another possibility: that Michael Saylor runs his own drug and sex ring and was trying to double cross SS & JE.
mystery solved
this also makes sense, because what's the natural response to not being invited into the club?
make your own
i was just being ironic. maybe the logic has holes.
also, do you know what ISN't spam on our nodes?
Saylor's digital credit vehicles.
I wonder if he's taking the position he is because he has always been against tinkering with bitcoin. I don't even think he liked lightning.
people criticized him at the time. now's he's in the position of being asked his opinion for a fix on thing that he never liked in the first place.
the statement "your lack of planning is not my problem" comes to mind. Mechanic admitted to supporting some of the changes in the past that we would now like to undo.
Saylor quote-tweeting Adam is sus though, ngl.
I have no problem if he is using Bitcoin as money no matter whether store of value or medium of exchange.
But ..
all Bitcoiners should make their conclusions and take notes to not forget what is going on
i remember that era.
TBH, i also thought that "let's build it on bitcoin" was a good mantra.
but let's look at what he actually built versus what he brain-stormed: digital credit.
so it took a while to come around to "let's preserve bitcoin as perfect money".
i'm also at the point where, i don't think my bitrefill purchases need to be recorded forever on the bitcoin blockchain, so *if* saylor's "spend dollars not bitcoin" tweet meant "keep perfect money as pristine as possible" then kudos to him for getting there before me.
that is a generous read of course
but we see that he now positions himself in favor of spam and against BIP-110 which defends Bitcoin as Freedom Money and which will be profitable for him and his many investors as well
Lets not forget this too and that spam devalues Bitcoin and that Saylor is now in red too.
that's what i have to look into? is he advocating spam or just advocating against even *more* changes. the quote tweet of Adam Back is unfortunately a step in the wrong direction
the spam stuff ultimately doesn't help his business as he has built it.
so if we could just get someone to ask him "for or against taproot"...
and if he still has plans about ordinals
yeah, taproot is the real issue. that is what they don't want us talking about
It is proven that taproot is abused and expoited.
TLDR:
- OP_IF data storage — 99.11%
- Non-OP_IF data storage — 0.049%
- Small data inscription — 0.140%
- BitVM-like — 0.015%
- Other spend-condition scripts — 0.68%
- Data storage (first three combined) — 99.3%
By Steve
New study: 3 years of revealed Taproot scripts on-chain
12.4% of bytes in the Bitcoin blockchain have been revealed Taproot spending scripts since July 2023
Over 99% of the bytes in those scripts were data storage via the dead-code OP_IF method
Explanation and GitHub link:
Most people think of owning bitcoin as having a bitcoin address, and then having bitcoin sent to that address. This is correct.
An advanced way to use bitcoin is to have the bitcoin sent to a script that is more complex than simply a bitcoin address that is controlled by a single private key.
These advanced scripts are things like multi-sigs where, for example, 2 of 3 private keys can be used to control the funds. When bitcoin is sent to one of these scripts, the blockchain does not know the full text of the script because the chain initially only records the fingerprint (a hash) of the script.
The full text of the script is only revealed when someone spends the bitcoin that was sent to it.
In November of 2021, Taproot introduced a new style of script spending, but the basic nature of revealing the full text of the script only upon spending is the same.
An important aside here is that Taproot has the ability to hide scripts that could have been used to spend the coins. This can happen via a "key-path" spend, or by script branches that were committed but were not needed to spend the coins.
Thus this analysis pertains to the Taproot scripts that were indeed revealed in order to spend the coins using a Taproot script-path style spend.
There have been over a hundred million of these revealed scripts on chain. However instead of complex spending conditions, the scripts have been used almost entirely for on-chain bulk data storage - over 99% by bytes count.
Key takeaways of this study:
1) Revealed taproot spending scripts account for 12.4% of block space in the Bitcoin blockchain by bytes since July 2023.
2) The revealed scripts can be categorized in a straightforward manner (explained below) and it is clear that over 99% of them (by bytes) are data storage using the dead-code OP_IF construction.
The detailed category descriptions are:
OP_IF data storage — More than half the script's bytes are arbitrary data tucked inside an OP_IF branch that is guaranteed never to run (dead code), so the data isn't logic at all — it's just parked on-chain as permanent storage. This is the inscription pattern (ordinals, BRC-20, Atomicals), and the vast majority carry a known inscription marker such as "ord" or "atom".
Non-OP_IF data storage — More than half the bytes are data stored in large pushes out in the open, rather than hidden behind a dead OP_IF branch (a push counts as data only when it's too big to be a key or a hash).
Small data inscription — The script contains an inscription (an OP_IF data envelope), but the data is 50% or less of its bytes — typically a tiny inscription whose surrounding script overhead is about as large as the data itself. It's still data storage, just too small to dominate the script, so it's kept out of the >50% data-storage totals rather than inflating them.
BitVM-like — An executable script that performs a large hash-based computation instead of checking a signature — the shape used by BitVM-style verification. Defined precisely as an executable script with no signature check and at least 20 hash operations.
Other spend-condition scripts — Everything left over: genuine spending logic that actually controls the coins, with no data-storage envelope at all. In practice these are ordinary conditions like single-signature, multisig, timelocks, and hashlocks.
The results of running the classification on the past three years of revealed Taproot script-path spends are by bytes:
- OP_IF data storage — 99.11%
- Non-OP_IF data storage — 0.049%
- Small data inscription — 0.140%
- BitVM-like — 0.015%
- Other spend-condition scripts — 0.68%
- Data storage (first three combined) — 99.3%
Anyone can verify the results of this study using their own node's copy of the blockchain and the GitHub link below.
https://github.com/Unbesteveable/taproot-scriptspends
View quoted note →
Holy shit. I didn’t know it was that bad. Are you accounting witness data as “block data” too?
I’ve been banging my drum about quantum for a while. Taproot only really caught my eye once Nic said it would be used for “quantum resistance” which I have known is bullshit all along.
How quickly can we fork off taproot?
Witness is part of the block....
And we shouldn't fork off Taproot, just close the vulnerabilities it introduced
How sure are you the entire BIP isn’t a vulnerability to what the protocol is supposed to conserve?
give us stronger sidechain primitives and we'll let you do whatever the fuck else you want to do
that's another question for a Saylor interviewer: how has his thinking evolved on ordinals then versus now.
i bet the answer would be "no to ordinals" since $STRC was his "eureka" moment. He has stated that once they got there, all of their other bitcoin product ideas were unfortunately more of a hindrance than a help.
I hope but if the answer is no ordinals then he should support #BIP110 and he doesn't. BIP-110 is soft fork that is even temporary, its not changing Bitcoin, it fixes some exploits and limits big data abuse of Bitcoin to a state it was before 2022.
you're prob right. i haven't done the deep dive. i'm just going off of vibes of people. if i have to make a choice, i prefer bip110 vibes than anti-bip110 vibes.
if bitcoin is supposed to last 1000 years, we're doomed
Why only 1000 years?
they better have really big hard drives then. or just prune them all.
1TB every 16 years
1000/16 = 60 TB.
gemini says they are coming out in 2028... so we are in luck.
🤙 they can have couple hundred more years to make them we are not in a hurry
ok good, we'll fight that battle some other day.
do you ever worry about the Bip110 thing like it's "right team, wrong battle" sort of deal?
I am all in on Bitcoin. Financially, culturally, spiritually. A fight always brings risk. But if we don't fight for what we think its right, we loose. I think I am in the right team, in the right battle and in the right time. God willing we will win. Spammers, scammers and bad actors can go fuck themselves. Bitcoin is Freedom Money!
yeah, i bought 4tb drives 2 years ago. i expect 8 is now available. next year probably 16. then 32 in 2028, at least. idk if gemini is making a reasonable estimation. pretty sure 8tb is the thing now. chip fabs are going crazy making AI chips and that is cutting into flash chips.
honestly, the crash of AI bubble can't come soon enough. they are diverting so much resources into it that have nothing to do with what people actually need
Ditto. i can't imagine the alternative at this point... gold? private businesses we start on Nostr?
we just have to do the ground work that we can do, stack the probabilities in our favor, and let bitcoin's Vanna White spin the wheel of fortune and watch it land on BIP-110.
Is there a summary/ourline of exactly how to _close vulnerabilities_ without completely removing it?
Knots already did years ago
like the naked pubkey? unlimited witness push?
taproot is 100% vulnerability. that @Luke Dashjr isn't saying that tells you everything.
does luke benefit from taproot somehow?
idk but it's a patent lie to say that taproot can be "patched" - yeah maybe apply a witness push limit but it's wide open for quantum cracking.
idk. it sounds like BIP360 takes care of quantum stuff. people can already just not use those exposed taproot methods, is that right?
maybe this would be a good way that Taproot dies--people are too afraid to use it bc of quantum threat of the exposed pubkey before spending.
does it just boil down to an argument is taproot good or bad for bitcoin? i haven't seen enough people arguing about it to even know.
--
Claude: "Luke Dashjr is the person who raised this exact issue publicly — a March 2021 mailing-list post titled "PSA: Taproot loss of quantum protections," flagging that Taproot loses a safety property pre-Taproot addresses had, specifically so the wider dev community would be aware before activation finished. In that same post he says he doesn't personally see it as a NACK-worthy issue, but he's the one who put it on the record."
Here's what happened. I pulled Luke Dashjr's original March 2021 PSA to the bitcoin-dev mailing list and Andrew Poelstra's rebuttal.
How it got through without a NACK:
Luke Dashjr himself killed any chance of a NACK in his own PSA. His opening line: "I do not personally see this as a reason to NACK Taproot." He raised the alarm while simultaneously disarming it. You can't NACK something when the person raising the concern explicitly says "don't NACK it."
Andrew Poelstra (Director of Research at Blockstream) provided the technical cover. His rebuttal contained the core deceptions that shut down further debate:
"Taproot keys are already hashes of their internal keys" — this is the tweak argument. Q = P + H(P||script)*G. He framed the tweak as equivalent to hashing the pubkey. It isn't. The tweak commits to the script tree. The output is still an elliptic curve point. Shor's algorithm attacks the curve point, not the tweak hash.
"Adding another hash would be strictly redundant" — the claim that hashing the output key adds nothing because the tweak already "hashes" the internal key. This conflates two completely different security properties: script-tree commitment versus quantum-resistant pubkey concealment.
"Taproot actually has better quantum resistance than legacy outputs" — a statement that is demonstrably false. Legacy P2PKH hides the pubkey behind SHA256+RIPEMD160 until spend time. Taproot exposes the tweaked pubkey permanently.
The xpub argument — Poelstra claimed that because xpubs are already widely exposed, "close to 100%" of keys are vulnerable anyway, so the extra hash wouldn't help. This ignores that xpub exposure is a wallet hygiene problem, not a protocol design problem. You can fix wallet hygiene. You can't fix a protocol that permanently exposes pubkeys.
The timeline was the kill. By March 2021, Luke himself noted that "Taproot has already moved on to the activation phase and it is likely software will be released within the next month or two." The design was frozen. The window for changes had closed. The PSA was filed for the record and then the train kept moving.
The thread was only 29 messages. nobody put their foot down. Luke said "don't NACK it." Poelstra said "already hashed." The activation timeline applied pressure. The concern was documented, dismissed, and discarded. That's the whole story.
-----
long story short, the lukedashjr protesteth too much.
People often assume Luke meaning things that he didn’t actually meant or implied. I’ve noticed he’s keen on explaining things more clearly if you ask nicely. Not advocating for him. Just my observation. Ask and you shall be answered.
the quantum vulnerability exists regardless. poelstra just straight up lied about it. spend authority is from the secret key *generated by the tweak* not from the original secret. it's absolutely a reason to NACK it when the time when shor's algorithm can be used to discover that spending authorization secret becomes viable and some time after that, economical (energy cost).
luke knew there was an issue and didn't flag it as a reason against taproot. nobody properly examined the issue of the witness push non-limit. literally the whole thing has the character of the christmas day federal reserve act. and not wanting to bring up the subject "i said the naked pubkey is a problem" while saying "not a reason to reject it" rightly *should* bite luke considering that reason might have slowed things down and maybe the whole spam problem would have been cut off at the root before it got into the network.
there is nothing in taproot that redeems it. it's intended use is shitcoin smart contracts. it is quantum vulnerable. it has enabled filling the blockchain an average around 12% block space and caused substantial congestion at certain times in 2023 and 2024. it should be deprecated.
to be fair he was the only one who even raised the lack of hash on the signature. and considering who was paying poelstra who straight up lied about the quantum vulnerability... andy back on the island. doing his job compromising bitcoin.
there is no monetary use for taproot. almost immediately its underspecified witness push was abused. bitcoin lost credibility out of this. back and lopp both were instrumental in this. taproot is an attack. and so is CTV, another pet project of andy's spook front that nobody is speaking against enough.
we could have CTs using bulletproofs but instead we are reeling from taproot. schnorr signatures were what we should have had instead of segwit. peter wuille proved that you can verify them fast, just nobody had the algo ready in 2017.
* lack of hash on the pubkey
It’s all to make Bitcoin programmable. A de facto CBDC. Quantum vulnerable is just the cherry on top.
> and so is CTV, another pet project of andy's spook front that nobody is speaking against enough
Not me. Jeremy Ruben mentioned over 700 times in the Epstein files. Not supporting anything written by this guy no matter how cool it sounds. I will also never forget how the CTV sandwich losers were attacking filters despite being there to improve monetary efficiency. Coward and spooks. Fuck them.
Its again one of the countless SLopp manipulations.
He is trying to distract from the reality which is Bitcoin is Freedom Money.
His goal is actually (programmable) data storage. But that is currently not acceptable so he is using deception.
Like the small attack steps used in the Fabian attacks.
SLopp and his cronies of bad actors, cypherskunks, shitcoiners, spammers and scammers not only hate Bitcoin node runners, they hate the Bitcoin is Money definition.
Most CTV supporters are also against BIP-110. To me CTV is highly highly suspicious.
And retarded. Literally advocating for improving monetary efficiency and then being against filters and bio-110.
and their mate in the paypal mafia, elon musk, promotes their shit on X and suppresses those who disagree with the blockstream attack narratives. i get so tired of hearing about x this and x that, bitch, fuckin you love elon so much why don't you marry that fucking aspiring global bankster emperor.
CTV is literally shitting in the well that everyone is drinking from. utxos attached to covenants are encumbered forever and any bugs in their scripting effectively fucks them up forever. and it's completely against the spirit of sovereign control that UTXOs are even fore.
Nostr is the future of bitcoin
bitcoiners who use X, are credulous, incurious dupes who don't see any conflict between bitcoin and a guy who has long declared he wants to make a single global banking system and literally was shilling dogecoin for his P&D buddies.
I need to research it I haven't yet but seeing its proponents ... impressions of them are really bad.
They will come around, hopefully not too late
i think part of it is that nostr has been retarded by NGO-philanthropist money to build a travesty of old twitter as nostr.
now that damus and nostr.build have been defunded there is a power vacuum for the control of attention (mind control) and now it's possible for someone to build a user-controlled attention filter out of nostr.
the result will be multi-variant - better markets. better discussions. better group chat. actual DMs that work. attention is now spreading more naturally on nostr as a result of this and this means that people will recognise who actually sees the needs and is designing and building solutions.
I hope you’re right