Luke Dashjr

Roman #Catholic, husband, father of 11 children, #Bitcoin developer, and CEO @npub1e3r35vx7yluvn6tn9uhnf5jxuh5lzf2q0qnjwjfs5gxkj6xk63xsjgg6l2 ; INTP;
I condemn fake "Catholics", cryptobros & pedos; see full bio

Public Key

npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

NIP-05 Address

luke_nostr@dashjr.org

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwdhx7un59eek7cmfv9kq43yc4j

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

relay.snort.social

nos.lol

nostr.bitcoiner.social

nostr.mom

nostras.app

Author Public Key

npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-10-09 12:24:20 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-10-09 12:24:14 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-09-19 00:22:42 UTC

- reply

Discord doesn't require any kyc unless you try to join porn chats

2026-09-19 00:22:21 UTC

- reply

There's better platforms, but the issue is nobody uses them 😮‍💨

2026-09-10 21:37:10 UTC

- reply

Core isn't in Bitcoin anymore

2026-09-10 12:56:18 UTC

- reply

How does that make any sense?

2026-09-10 09:09:45 UTC

Mined bitcoins are unspendable for their first 100 blocks. There has been proposals to either delay spending them for 4375 blocks (~a month), or to zero the block subsidy for a month (so miners only get paid fees and nothing more).
The motive here is to deter a large batch of hashers who appear to only have profit as their motive, and are attacking Bitcoin's decentralization in the process.
No decisions are final, but you should join the discussion if you have an opinion:
https://discord.gg/Dkr5eRGxU

2026-09-04 21:47:43 UTC

- reply

Nope, go away scammer

2026-09-03 02:44:30 UTC

- reply

No , you are with your Spamcoin psyop

2026-09-03 02:44:04 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…j0cq

2026-09-02 19:49:24 UTC

Bitcoin is back online! Scammers in shock.
#nevent1q…57rn

2026-08-30 05:16:32 UTC

blake2b_headline=8-30 NYPost Deride And Conquer

2026-08-29 02:36:20 UTC

PSA: Potential Bitcoin PoW change Sunday. SHA2 miners should stop mining Saturday.
- @nprofile…m9s8 29.4.1rc4 will be released tomorrow, setup for mainnet rehearsal. This locks-in the final SHA2 block.
- After NYPost updates their Sunday morning print online, I'll post the canonical blake2b_headline parameter.
- If things go perfectly, Knots 29.4.1 final will be released Sep 1 on schedule, keeping the Aug 30 blockchain.
- If there's any issues (unlikely at this point), we address them and reset to the last SHA2 block for rc5.
If you intend to mine from day 1, I recommend getting setup with testnet4 (rc3) _now_ so you're ready for mainnet on Sunday.

2026-08-28 06:34:40 UTC

- reply

All the major things have been and will continue to be posted on nostr too

2026-08-28 06:33:20 UTC

- reply

You wouldn't be using Bitcoin anymore if you did.

2026-08-21 22:18:39 UTC

- reply

There's discussion about adding it to RDTS (so expiring)

2026-08-21 22:18:01 UTC

- reply

Someone made this
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dE9GtdJoox_BW0R_nLnuIgepovPEoU2Cp5p7XAF5mWs/edit?usp=drivesdk

2026-08-15 03:35:50 UTC

- reply

No, Bpedo is the same play. The only differences are 1) they don't agree with the fundamental purpose of BItcoin (at least Bcash was aligned in that!), and 2) they're attacking Bitcoin to suppress it.

2026-08-13 05:26:34 UTC

- reply

Mainnet is only getting like one block a day unpredictably

2026-08-12 04:12:59 UTC

- reply

It's not important that it be truly random, only that nobody got advance notice of it

2026-08-11 21:21:15 UTC

- reply

I'm not going to try to convince you to want bitcoins. I'm just going to make Bitcoin so valuable that you decide you want it on your own.

2026-08-11 13:09:25 UTC

So here's the plan for selecting Bitcoin's new PoW algorithm:
Nobody knows the new algorithm right now, and nobody will until we all know at the same moment.
At 14:00 UTC August 11th, we will begin watching Bitcoin's Testnet4 chain for new blocks.
The very next block found, look at the block hash.
The last character will choose the new algorithm.
(Note that testnet4 blocks are typically timestamped wrong!)
As soon as I see that block, I will reveal the mapping showing which algorithm that character represents.
Throughout the last 24+ hours, the community has discussed and made a short list of candidate algorithms.
I compiled that list into a weighted (according to their suitability) set of options for the mapping list.
You can prove I didn't rig it, by SHA256 hashing the mapping text file.
It will match 71a7960874f3352f4ba600ce67bd6f8e96702565abea93021fa86349d99a45e8

2026-08-07 22:02:53 UTC

~22 hours until signaling BIP110 becomes mandatory for Bitcoin miners.
Mining blocks without signaling will then forfeit all block rewards!

2026-08-07 12:46:47 UTC

- reply

There's many people able to repeat the attack at this point.

2026-07-31 18:34:21 UTC

- reply

Bad idea

2026-07-31 07:21:09 UTC

- reply

https://github.com/Coldcard/firmware/blob/c3f7529a9a57133e05294269c4622fa81fc268ee/releases/ChangeLog.md

2026-07-31 07:20:51 UTC

- reply

Also, I'm not about to do a full security audit for them, but this update does NOT appear to sufficiently fix things even for Mk4/5... (but I could be wrong)
(Happy to provide details to @nprofile…rrsm or verified Coinkite devs)

2026-07-31 07:19:56 UTC

Are you kidding me??? (Coldcard firmware update from Coinkite)
https://npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk.blossom.band/62052573f3b8e27d967d73e44838e456ad22416d6961627ac324edbb8ee9b5ab.jpg

2026-07-31 07:16:57 UTC

Quite a few people suggesting/using dice to mitigate the Coldcard vulnerability.
Note that common dice are not designed to be cryptographically secure.
If you are going to do this, you probably should buy precision casino dice. And even then, have another source of entropy.

2026-07-28 15:54:34 UTC

- reply

Exactly. Validity is an important requirement. And nodes defined that. Which includes BIP110.

2026-07-28 09:43:51 UTC

- reply

"longest chain wins" is the bcash mantra.
Go back to bcash if you're not ready to accept that nodes are in control

2026-07-25 15:30:42 UTC

- reply

Complete nonsense

2026-07-25 15:30:21 UTC

- reply

No, UASF is for everything now. Miners don't get to make the decisions.

2026-07-24 22:03:17 UTC

- reply

It's nonsense

2026-07-23 06:29:57 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin has had proper spam filters for 17 years, NOT just fees

2026-07-23 02:16:15 UTC

- reply

It was needed 8 months ago, and the problem IS critical.
BIP110 has consensus.

2026-07-22 20:36:34 UTC

I support BIP110 because Bitcoin is essential to the future of mankind and the last 8 months have proven it to be the best immediate solution to the critical injury inflicted by Core 30.

2026-07-20 21:15:58 UTC

On Saturday, a troll made a false "consensus failure" report about Bitcoin Knots.
To put it simply: if Core corrupts your data, Knots sometimes can't detect the corruption.
Since Core is late updating to BIP110, it can in some case corrupt the database after activation.
This is not a surprise nor a bug in Knots, much less a serious issue.
Core also won't detect it; nor have most previous softforks guarded against it (eg, Taproot did not).
The simple answer is: don't run software that corrupts your data.
The deficiency in Core that can cause this corruption is only a risk starting in August.
Upgrade to the latest Knots 29.3.knots20260508 before then.
On Sunday, another fake "bug" was claimed by Murch.
It's a complete fabrication. There is nothing to do.
In both cases, there was zero disclosure to the project at all (much less responsible disclosure) - this is clearly a bad faith FUD campaign and will probably continue.
If any real concerns were to surface, @nprofile…m9s8 would post an announcement.

2026-07-20 05:07:15 UTC

- reply

Knots already did years ago

2026-07-19 04:35:39 UTC

- reply

BIP110 does not cause a chain split.
People trying to stop it might do one to retaliate, though

2026-07-16 18:12:09 UTC

- reply

And we shouldn't fork off Taproot, just close the vulnerabilities it introduced

2026-07-16 18:10:56 UTC

- reply

Witness is part of the block....

2026-07-16 10:18:34 UTC

- reply

That just means you're stupid

2026-07-13 16:37:43 UTC

- reply

*Rejecting* BIP110 is the hardfork.
BIP110 is a softfork.

2026-07-13 09:42:24 UTC

- reply

BIP110 fixes a threat bigger than any theft/inflation bugs.

2026-07-13 04:40:13 UTC

- reply

BIP110 is already safe, despite SuperTestnet's FUD

2026-07-13 04:39:50 UTC

- reply

The block size limit was never set in bitcoin.conf - maybe you mean the size of blocks you produce as a miner? Knots still has that.
Knots supports coin-age priority mining too. You do still need _some_ fee to get it relayed to miners, though.

2026-07-13 01:00:43 UTC

Removing rules is a hardfork.
That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110.
Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt.
And unlike softforks, hardforks need consensus to succeed.
There is no consensus on rejecting BIP110.

2026-07-09 09:34:21 UTC

- reply

These are mixing up words, but the concepts sound coherent.
People mix up words all the time.

2026-07-07 17:58:54 UTC

- reply

It doesn't fail. If it could fail, that would mean Bitcoin is fatally flawed and will never work.

2026-07-07 08:42:02 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-07-07 08:41:18 UTC

- reply

"Inscriptions" are spam, not data/image storage, despite what the scammers want you to believe.

2026-07-07 05:15:16 UTC

- reply

It accomplishes what it intended to: closing the CSAM attack vector.

2026-07-07 01:40:22 UTC

- reply

Others have proposed that. But the witness discount was created for good reasons. I don't think a blunt removal is the right approach. Maybe some more thought to weight as a concept instead? The Knots Discord has a #future-softforks channel that would be perfect to begin discussion of "what next" after BIP110 is active.

2026-07-07 01:37:59 UTC

- reply

That being said, running older/Core nodes _does_ leave you insecure if miners attack the network.
So you should still upgrade ASAP.

2026-07-07 01:37:40 UTC

With respect to BIP110:
Knots 20260508: Yes
Old Knots: Yeah, but ask miners' permission
Core <=29: Yeah, but ask miners' permission
Core 30+: Okay, iff miners agree
LibreRelay: Okay, iff miners agree
Literally no node software actually *opposes* BIP110.

2026-07-07 00:23:41 UTC

- reply

All merchants. If they trust Square for everything, it's Square that needs a full node.

2026-07-07 00:23:01 UTC

- reply

BIP110 does not protect against it until activation.

2026-07-06 10:53:19 UTC

- reply

Doing nothing is acceptance

2026-07-06 08:05:08 UTC

- reply

Yes, it's been possible since the Core30 release in October. We're getting close to fixing it with BIP110

2026-07-06 03:27:23 UTC

- reply

In the meantime, talk to your favourite merchants and businesses. Ensure they don't fall for the "BIP110 has failed" gaslighting, and that they've upgraded their nodes.

2026-07-06 03:27:12 UTC

- reply

You will know. If you use Bitcoin anyway, that is intent.

2026-07-06 03:26:07 UTC

Scammers and bad actors have been claiming BIP110 was "dead on arrival" or otherwise failed from the first day Dathon Ohm published it.
It was fake news then, and it's fake news now.
BIP110 has consensus and will still succeed if we hold the line.

2026-07-04 23:42:41 UTC

- reply

Now do if running a node requires committing a crime

2026-07-04 15:42:19 UTC

Happy Dependence on God day!
Remember, every moment that we exist, we exist only because God continually wills and conserves us in being. Were He to withdraw that conserving will for even an instant, we would cease to exist.

2026-07-03 20:30:41 UTC

- reply

It does. But the main goal isn't to prevent spam, it's to prevent CSAM legal attacks against Bitcoin.

2026-07-03 18:46:50 UTC

BIP110 creates a rare opportunity for bitcoiners we should take advantage of:
Unlike most consensus changes, it is extremely simple: with only 5 modified lines of code and 72 added, across 5 source code files, we can explain it in a way anyone can understand.
Take a look. Review BIP110 yourself:
https://bitcoinknots.org/learn/bip110-code-walkthrough.html

2026-06-30 06:39:15 UTC

- reply

There's only one "side" right now: RDTS.

2026-06-29 20:38:50 UTC

- reply

Wrong

2026-06-29 20:37:22 UTC

- reply

That's not possible. Only invalid blocks will get reorg'd (and only to obsolete no-longer-full nodes). BIP-110 blocks will never be reorg'd (aside from the ordinary course of races)

2026-06-29 20:35:28 UTC

- reply

Just like everyone else, OCEAN must enforce the consensus rules of the network, but there is no official position on BIP-110 yet.
There is no reason to think profitability will be lower after IBP-110 activates. Even if someone throws together a Bcash-like counter-fork, BIP-110 will still have fixed the vulnerability to Bitcoin, so Bitcoin will logically also be worth more.
The only risk of reorg are purely invalid blocks. Upgraded miners and users are unaffected and not vulnerable to any such risks.

2026-06-28 20:41:44 UTC

- reply

No, BIP 110 only fixes bugs.

2026-06-28 16:13:00 UTC

- reply

Thanks to Core 30, yes

2026-06-28 16:11:57 UTC

- reply

It doesn't invalidate any transactions, much less past ones.
Whoever is feeding you this nonsense is a liar

2026-06-28 16:11:02 UTC

- reply

No, it doesn't. That's complete nonsense

2026-06-24 04:26:14 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-06-23 08:08:51 UTC

- reply

Then don't. Do things yourself instead of complaining when others do what's needed

2026-06-23 08:07:01 UTC

- reply

1. You are, by supporting a diverse ecosystem of multiple node implementations and not leaving Knots as the only option.

2026-06-23 08:05:26 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin today is the result of a few hardforks

2026-06-23 05:46:59 UTC

- reply

BIP 110 has already succeeded. Miners stopping mining Bitcoin in response would be a reason to change PoW, but there's no reason they would do that

2026-06-23 05:27:02 UTC

- reply

(The tools are hardforks and PoW change only; PoW removal is not such a tool; there's still no sane alternatives to proof-of-work!)

2026-06-23 05:26:47 UTC

- reply

Both are important tools the Bitcoin community always has available if ever needed, and people shouldn't be afraid to discuss them; but the current situation does not warrant their use.

2026-06-23 05:26:39 UTC

Certain bad actors are trying to distract you with lies about me supposedly calling for a hardfork or proof-of-work change/removal.
Let me be perfectly clear: I do not at this time support either.

2026-06-05 11:07:07 UTC

- reply

RDTS has sufficient community support

2026-06-01 03:52:34 UTC

- reply

That was also subverting it
Martin Luther was an antichrist

2026-05-31 05:03:16 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-05-31 05:02:49 UTC

- reply

Completely irrational.

2026-05-31 04:59:57 UTC

- reply

That's a lie.

2026-05-31 04:59:39 UTC

- reply

RDTS is already being deployed as a MASF

2026-05-31 04:15:38 UTC

- reply

Is there a way to get past such psychological bugs?

2026-05-30 09:58:02 UTC

- reply

"We reject Core30's proposed addition of data storage to Bitcoin"

2026-05-30 09:39:49 UTC

- reply

Core30 intentionally enabled attackers to force every Bitcoin user to distribute CSAM.
This is a fatal wound because nobody is going to be willing to use Bitcoin if it requires them to do that.
(Remember, Bitcoin only works if _most people_ are using full nodes.)
RDTS rejects/undos the changes Core30 made. It prevents the CSAM attack.
Rejecting RDTS requires creating a counter-fork like Bcash.
To oppose or reject RDTS is therefore an explicit action to enable people to force CSAM on Bitcoin.
Therefore, if someone actually tries to reject RDTS, the name of their fork is Bpedo.

2026-05-30 09:33:07 UTC

- reply

No, because a counter-fork to reject RDTS would be explicitly protecting the ability to force others to distribute child porn.

2026-05-30 09:32:07 UTC

- reply

The current Bitcoin is activating RDTS

2026-05-30 09:31:23 UTC

- reply

I do not, liar. Bpedo is the counter-fork to reject RDTS. Bitcoin is RDTS.

2026-05-08 22:23:46 UTC

- reply

It's obvious to anyone paying any attention.
OP_RETURN = bad. Period.