Nostr notes by hodlonaut

CAPTURE An investigation across four articles into how informal ...

2026-06-15T14:12:53Z

CAPTURE

An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended.

Article Three: The Merge

https://www.citadel21.com/the-merge

https://www.citadel21.com/the-network

2026-06-06T05:11:32Z

https://www.citadel21.com/the-network

Thank you

2026-05-01T13:46:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…f8td
_________________________

Thank you

CAPTURE An investigation across four articles into how informal ...

2026-04-29T17:53:30Z

CAPTURE

An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended.

Article Two: The Lever

https://www.citadel21.com/the-lever

CAPTURE An investigation across four articles into how informal ...

2026-03-27T22:24:46Z

CAPTURE

An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended.

Article One: The Network

https://www.citadel21.com/the-network

How Bitcoin Core's developer selection, developer funding, ...

2026-03-13T16:11:53Z

How Bitcoin Core's developer selection, developer funding, and developer moderation were consolidated under a single informal architecture

quoting
naddr1qq…8qzn

In May 2019 a prominent Bitcoin Core developer called Matt Corallo posted a Twitter thread calling for DEI recruitment into Bitcoin development.

The same month, John Newbery hired a new co-organiser for Chaincode Labs' developer residency.

The man Newbery hired was Adam Jonas.

Jonas was not a protocol developer. He was a pro baseball player developer and scout before studying at the Flatiron School and then becoming their Director of Engineering.

He didn't just work at Flatiron. He was one of the first people the school trained, in its founding year, 2012.

Flatiron School is a New York coding bootcamp that makes DEI the explicit organising principle of its public identity.

Race- and gender-gated fellowships. A BLM-era DEI Taskforce. Cohort bonding sessions called "Feelings Friday."

A named core value: "Nurture Difference."

Newbery explained the Jonas hire in a Max Hillebrand Interview at Breaking Bitcoin Amsterdam in 2019: "Jonas's background is in education. He was working in the Flatine School and managing teams and projects there. So he has a lot of experience putting together these programs."

The qualification mentioned was programme architecture, from the Flatiron School.

"Feelings Friday" appeared at Chaincode's June 2019 residency. Sessions where cohort members process their emotions together.

Carla Kirk-Cohen, a 2019 resident, documented it on the What Bitcoin Did podcast 134 in August 2019: "We have Feelings Friday, at 4:30 on a Friday. We all grab a beer and unload our week's emotions."

Flatiron formalised the same named practice a year later.

Jonas carried it in.

Kirk-Cohen went on to be publicly named by Jonas as "our poster child" of the recruitment pipeline in an Adopting Bitcoin talk in December 2021. She subsequently joined the board of Brink, designated as an independent director.

On the Stephan Livera Podcast ep. 216 in October 2020 and The Anita Posch Podcast same month, Gloria recounts how Jonas cold-emailed her in January 2020 and urged here to apply again for a residency at Chaincode Labs.

She had applied to Chaincode the year before and been rejected. She had since lined up offers from Google and Facebook. She was about to remove all mention of blockchain from her resumé.

Jonas had been tracking her for over a year.

Jonas offered to set up a coffee chat at the Stanford Blockchain Conference with "some Chaincode Bitcoiners."

She said yes, and described how she expected to meet "nutty Bitcoin maximalists."

Instead she met John Newbery and Amiti Uttarwar.

Zhao sat with them for three hours.

Newbery told her, in what she recalled as his "very soft, British voice," that Bitcoin Core was "the most interesting project in the world."

Uttarwar told her to just clone the repository and try it.

She was accepted to Chaincode's residency that year, after meeting Amiti and John at the dinner. The year after being rejected.

Here's the thing... Uttarwar had followed the exact same path:

Rejected in 2018. Met Newbery at an Optech dinner in 2019. Accepted that same year.

Described here in a Coindesk piece "Amiti Uttarwar: Building Bitcoin's Future" from September 2021.

While Jonas was running the pipeline, he was also designing the institution (Brink) that would fund its output permanently.

Brink would become the single largest funder of Bitcoin Core developers. Over $17 million in documented donations.

The blueprint for it was written by the man running the residency, on his personal website, six weeks before it existed.

On October 16, 2020, Jonas published "Funding Bitcoin Development" on his personal site, arguing for a trusted nonprofit intermediary to fund Core developers.

Two days later he posted another blog post: "Starting a Bitcoin 501(c)(3)." A detailed operational blueprint. IRS process, approval timelines, legal gotchas.

Thirty-six days later, Brink launched.

It was presented as John Newbery's organisation. Jonas's name appeared nowhere in the public materials.

On launch day, Newbery told Jonas publicly: "Thank you for all of your help with Brink. Your initial research was what got the whole thing started."

That exchange is the only on-record acknowledgment that Jonas conceived it. It has never been addressed in any Brink public materials.

Six weeks after launch, Brink announced its first fellowship recipient.

Gloria Zhao.

The vote was cast by a three-person board: Newbery, Schmidt, and Harding.

The man who recruited her, mentored her, arranged her prior funding, and conceived the organisation was the man who cast one of the three votes.

No formal conflict-of-interest process is documented.

On the Anita Posch podcast, Zhao named, unprompted, the three people who brought her in:

"Amiti and Adam Jonas and John Newbery got me into Bitcoin Core."

Jonas's institutional influence and reach didn't stop at the recruiting pipeline and the funding.

In May 2024, Bitcoin Core's moderation guidelines were introduced at the weekly IRC meeting. The maintainer presenting them said: "ajonas wrote some moderation guidelines."

ajonas is Adam Jonas. Those same guidelines were used to mute Luke Dashjr on the OP_RETURN pull request and ban Antoine Riard from the Bitcoin Core repository entirely.

In July 2022 Gloria Zhao became a Bitcoin Core maintainer.

Only two and a half years had passed since her three hour coffee chat at Stanford with John Newbery and Amiti Uttarwar.

Typical time to reach maintainership is five to ten years.

On June 9, 2025, Gloria Zhao merged PR #32406, removing Bitcoin Core's OP_RETURN limit.

It was the most contested merge in recent Core history.

/end

Sources:

https://x.com/TheBlueMatt/status/988835275605504000 https://youtube.com/watch?v=FcElRZA8aT4 https://flatironschool.com/diversity-inclusion/ https://flatironschool.com/blog/carla-stickler-from-broadway-star-to-software-engineer/ https://startupsandsociety.medium.com/doubling-down-on-culture-and-values-flatiron-schools-response-to-the-blm-movement-24cef4e0b22 https://youtube.com/watch?v=HzTf8FdNFMs https://stephanlivera.com/episode/216/ https://youtube.com/watch?v=71b_LMP551Q&t=529s https://coindesk.com/markets/2020/12/08/amiti-uttarwar-building-bitcoins-future https://brink.dev/sponsors https://adamjonas.com https://x.com/jfnewbery/status/1331277518595354625 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/gloria-zhao-and-brink-are-set-to-give-bitcoin-mempools-an-upgrade https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2024-05-02 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/first-female-bitcoin-core-maintainer https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406

Human nature insures there will never be a time when Bitcoin does ...

2026-03-12T07:41:45Z

Human nature insures there will never be a time when Bitcoin does not need to be defended and fought for.

Complacency is an attack vector.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what ...

2026-03-11T07:29:47Z

By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles.

Meaning a (cleverly hidden) capitulation of Bitcoin as a decentralized project.

You could say that the “CENSORSHIP!” argument from Core and their supporters on the concept of nodes filtering is a roundabout way of critizing decentralization itself.

Nodes were always supposed to be the sovereign check, they decide what they accapt and relay.

When we keep loosening policy to align with whatever is the current grift “use case”, and by extension what is short term profitable for miners, it trains the entire ecosystem to treat restrictive node behavior as pointless theater.

Over time this hollows out node sovereignty: running a full node becomes more about passively observing the chain that miners + L2s + data-spammers have already decided on, rather than actively enforcing a monetary-first standard.

As a cuck bonus it also leads to higher resource costs for every honest node (bandwidth, RAM, storage) à fewer independent verifiers in practice

Decentralization starts looking like a performance act. Miners produce the blocks, a handful of relays and L2 sequencers steer the flow, and nodes just… validate after the fact.

It’s not a hard-fork capitulation (consensus rules haven’t changed), but it is a cultural, philosophical and operational one. The most profound capitulation in practice.

The philosophy flips from “Bitcoin should resist non-monetary garbage even if it costs us some short-term fee revenue” to “whatever pays miners gets standardized because resistance is futile.”

Once you accept “miners will do it anyway” as the justification for policy, you’ve already handed the character of Bitcoin over to the highest bidder. Nodes stop being the immune system and start becoming just a polite audience.

The OP_RETURN uncap looks a lot like another quiet step toward a two-tier network (miners + insiders set the tone, everyone else just watches. Keep doing this and running a node risks becoming a branding exercise instead of the actual source and guarantee of Bitcoin’s decentralization.

Yes

2026-03-10T12:58:34Z

In reply to nevent1q…zety
_________________________

Yes

Spent some time researching this #naddr1qq…3g0q

2026-03-10T11:32:58Z

Spent some time researching this

quoting
naddr1qq…3g0q

There's a narrative circulating that Citrea had nothing to do with the OP_RETURN uncap.

This article explores what the people who pushed the change actually said.

Starting with Peter Todd. He filed PR #32359. The OP_RETURN removal PR that started the public controversy.

On Stacker News he wrote:

"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."

Todd: "And yes, that's the thing that has changed since."

He's explaining why the PR was reopened after years of dormancy.

The thing that changed: Citrea. Named explicitly, by the man who filed the PR, as the reason it was filed.

Before Todd filed anything, Poinsot had already published a mailing list post arguing for relaxing the limits.

Poinsot confirmed this himself at the May 1 IRC meeting: "I explained the rationale on the mailing list. Todd only opened the PR days after that."

The argument was Poinsot's. The name on the PR was Todd's.

Antoine Poinsot of Chaincode Labs names Citrea Citrea explicitly on his own blog, described their specific technical situation in detail.

How the Clementine bridge needs to pass 144 bytes, writing that "it was recently brought to my attention that Citrea faced this situation."

On April 29, 2025, the day the PR was locked for being "too heated", Matt Corallo wrote publicly:

"The entire reason for this debate is removing a filter that is going to result in a project (Citrea) shipping a product that generates material UTXO bloat."

His words. Public record.

Moving on to the May 1st Bitcoin Core IRC meeting, the inner circle session where the strategy was set.

Citrea was named three times, by three separate participants.

Greg Sanders (instagibbs, Spiral/Block) set the meeting agenda and framed the options.

At 16:44: "You don't have to love Citrea's design, but actively reducing harm should be the default where possible."

The agenda-setter frames the entire change as harm reduction for Citrea's use case.

Poinsot at 16:54: "Also, to be clear this type of transaction in Citrea is very unlikely to end up onchain. I raised the point because it illustrates an issue with our policy."

He names Citrea as the motivating case. Five weeks before the merge.

Pieter Wuille (sipa) at 16:57: "there is very good probability that citrea, or whatever individual project, just doesn't take off."

The most technically eminent figure in the room also names Citrea.

Three participants. Zero disputes Citrea as the live motivating case.

At the same meeting, instagibbs explains why he prefers unlimited over a targeted increase:

"I'm fine enough with 2, but prefer 3 out of humility of not knowing the next zk proof size people want to use."

ZK proof size. The exact technical requirement of the corporate entity named throughout the meeting.

Alsno note How Gloria Zhao frames opposition as "drama".

The day after that meeting, on May 2nd, instagibbs opens PR #32406, the PR that actually got merged.

He files it and immediately posts in IRC: "fanquake please lock for now."

Locked before any outside comment is possible. This is the PR Gloria Zhao merges on June 9.

PR #32406 was unlocked on May 5, but critics who wanted to engage technically had been muted.

Luke Dashjr: muted.

BitcoinMechanic: muted. Luke Dashjr: muted.

BitcoinMechanic: muted.

On May 12, Gloria Zhao closes PR #32359, the commissioned PR Todd filed, naming Citrea in his own words as the reason.

The replacement: PR #32406, filed by instagibbs the day after the inner circle IRC meeting, locked before any outside comment.

Zhao closes one. Zhao later merges the other on June 9.

AJ Towns on May 14, in a public X reply to Poinsot:

"Oh man, don't call direct relay to miners/pools a 'bridge', especially when the conversation started with citrea..."

A Core insider publicly stating that the conversation started with Citrea.

Matt Corallo on April 29, the day of peak public opposition:

"The entire reason for this debate is removing a filter that is going to result in a project (Citrea) shipping a product that generates material UTXO bloat."

Jason Hughes (VP, Ocean Mining), after the merge:

"52 days. That's all it took for a non-Bitcoin project to co-opt Bitcoin Core's development and direction."

He counted the days from when Citrea's need was raised to when the change was merged.

Now here's where it gets even more interesting.

Jameson Lopp is one of the most vocal public defenders of the merge.

He publicly defended muting Luke Dashjr and BitcoinMechanic on the PR. He wrote articles attacking critics.

Lopp is an investor in Citrea. This was not disclosed in any of it.

In February 2026, Lopp published "A Layman's Guide to BIP-110", defending Citrea's reputation in the controversy.

He quotes his own X posts: "Citrea's bridge does not need larger OP_RETURNs to operate."

He is an investor publicly defending his portfolio company.

Putting the timeline together.

April 17: After learning of Citrea's situation, publishes mailing list campaign arguing for relaxing limits

April 27: Todd files PR #32359, names Citrea as the reason

April 30: PR #32359 locked because "too heated"

May 1: Inner circle IRC meeting: Citrea named 3x

May 2: instagibbs opens PR #32406, locked immediately

May 5: PR #32406 unlocked, critics immediately muted

May 12: Zhao closes #32359

June 9: Zhao merges #32406

Every step of that sequence is on the public record.

IRC logs. GitHub. Stacker News. DMs. Blog posts. Tweets from the people who did it.

Documented on the public record by the principals themselves.

But now, retroactively, the argument is: "Citrea had nothing to do with it."

Adam Back says the limit doesn't matter, you could set it with dice.

Lopp says Citrea uses witness data anyway.

Here's the problem with that.

If the specific limit level was arbitrary.

Dice-tossable even.

Then the choice to go unlimited, over unprecedented community opposition wasn't driven by technical necessity.

It was driven by something else.

PR #32381, Poinsot's own smaller PR, got Concept NACKs from 5 reviewers.

Poinsot's response to the NACKs: close it. "We should do #32359 instead." The full uncap.

At the May 1 IRC meeting, when the choice was between a modest increase and unlimited:

instagibbs chose unlimited because of ZK proof size uncertainty, so they wouldn't have to "revisit this again."

Future-proofing for ZK rollup clients. On the record.

Instagibbs authored a public gist speaking "for the project" on the change.

It contains no mention of:

Citrea

PR #32359

the commissioned PR

Luke's rejected patch

The CVE filed when Luke's patch was rejected

The public document presents a history from which the entire origin story was removed.

It said the change had "earned broad, though not perhaps unanimous, support."

So: did Citrea have something to do with it?

Peter Todd says yes, named them as the reason he filed.

Poinsot's blog says yes, describes their technical situation in detail.

Corallo says yes, "the entire reason for this debate."

instagibbs says yes, "you don't have to love Citrea's design."

Towns says yes, "the conversation started with citrea."

One more thing.

The jesterhodl comment that got him blocked from PR #32381:

He named Citrea. Described their specific technical requirements accurately. Proposed a proportionate alternative.

Poinsot blocked him.

Corallo called it clearing "stupid drama."

Sources for all of this:

https://x.com/lopp/status/1968366951442596170 https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ https://x.com/adam3us/status/2024224207698067797 https://x.com/adam3us/status/2024851801455947794 https://stacker.news/items/971297 https://antoinep.com/posts/relay_policy_drama/ https://antoinep.com/posts/relay_policy_drama/ https://x.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1917220829890502702 https://erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2025-05-01.html https://erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2025-05-02.html https://x.com/ajtowns/status/1922647411710652467 https://x.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1917220829890502702 https://x.com/wk057/status/1932099385975771486 https://x.com/lopp/status/1917591792754778226 https://x.com/lopp/status/1917012647804801226 https://x.com/lopp/status/1917691277681770662 https://blog.lopp.net/knot-a-serious-project/ https://x.com/lopp/status/1919105071213666464 https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/ https://x.com/ajtowns/status/1921931361549697173 https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359 https://protos.com/moderators-censor-bitcoin-devs-as-op_return-war-rages-on/ https://x.com/adam3us/status/2023732882544472424 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381 https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce

Thank you for reading.

In July 2023 and September 2023, two pull requests hit the ...

2026-03-05T16:26:50Z

In July 2023 and September 2023, two pull requests hit the Bitcoin Core repository.

One tried to tighten data limits. One tried to remove them entirely.

They were moving in opposite directions. The people behind them knew what they were doing.

***

PR #28130, July 2023: Peter Todd files to remove the OP_RETURN mempool limit entirely.

PR #28408, September 2023: Luke Dashjr files to extend -datacarriersize to cover the SegWit/Taproot inscription loophole.

Luke tightening. Todd eliminating. Both active at the same time.

***

Todd NACKs Luke's PR, calling it censorship.

PR #28408 is killed. PR #28130 is closed without adoption — but it has done its job: established the position publicly and seeded the argument for next time.

Kill the defence. Advance the attack. The pincer has two arms.

***

What Todd does not disclose when NACKing Luke's patch: he operates Libre Relay.

Libre Relay is a direct-to-miner relay service routing non-standard transactions — including inscription-heavy ones — to miners, bypassing mempool policy entirely.

***

Todd's argument: filters are ineffective because miners include non-standard transactions anyway.

Libre Relay is part of the infrastructure that makes this self-fulfilling.

He built the bypass. Then cited the bypass as proof limits don't work.

***

April 2025: Todd files PR #32359 to remove the limit.

He later admits on Stacker News:

"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."

***

Citrea: a VC-funded ZK-rollup whose business model needed more on-chain data storage.

The PR was not an organic expression of Todd's technical views.

It was a brief, handed to him by an unnamed active Core developer, to solve a corporate client's problem.

***

Samson Mow calls it "PR laundering" — routing through Todd to produce the appearance of independent initiative.

Antoine Poinsot (Chaincode Labs) connected to early discussions.

The same Poinsot who disputed Luke's CVE in October 2024. Both ends of the sequence.

***

Jameson Lopp publicly advocates for the PR.

He does not disclose he is an investor in Citrea — the same company whose data needs triggered the PR.

***

The PR draws 423 thumbs-down against 105 thumbs-up.

Ava Chow had stated publicly in December 2023: "If it is controversial, then we don't touch it."

June 9, 2025: Gloria Zhao merges it anyway.

***

PR #32406 does something beyond uncapping OP_RETURN.

It removes -datacarrier and marks -datacarriersize as deprecated — the switches letting node operators filter data-carrying transactions from their mempools.

Luke Dashjr authored those options in 2014.

***

The justification: the flag is "obsolete" and a "footgun."

Gloria's announcement tweet confirmed the deprecation explicitly.

The escape hatch was being closed behind the change.

***

Under sustained pressure, Core maintainer Ava Chow reversed the deprecation via PR #33453 — merged hours before the v30 release window in October 2025.

User configurability preserved — for now.

The 100KB default was not reversed.

***

Thirty-one Bitcoin Core contributors sign an open letter supporting the merge.

The letter uses the word "censorship" to describe any opposition.

***

Gloria's public statement on X:

"Demanding that Bitcoin Core prevent certain transactions from being mined reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between open source software users and developers."

She deletes the account on May 15, 2025.

***

The community response is the largest organised opposition to a Core change since the 2017 block size wars.

Bitcoin Knots — Luke's alternative implementation — surges from ~2% of the network to over 21%.

5,114 Knots nodes at time of v30 release. BitRef data confirmed.

***

Dennis Porter, who had raised over $200,000 for Core developers:

"My faith in their work is now broken. I will no longer be financially supporting Core development."

***

Nick Szabo — pioneer cryptographer, silent on social media for five years — returns for v30.

"I strongly recommend not upgrading to Core v30."

He also flags criminal liability for node operators storing illegal content they can no longer remove.

***

Bitcoin Core v30 ships October 11, 2025.

Within weeks, downloads are pulled. The release contains a bug capable of deleting Satoshi-era wallet.dat files during migration — potentially destroying funds held by early holders who had not backed up separately.

***

A release delayed for weeks due to governance controversy shipped with the most serious wallet safety bug in years.

Knots supporters noted the contrast immediately.

***

One supporter's statement is worth preserving.

Ark Labs Ecosystem Lead Alex Bergeron stated publicly he intends "to use all of the additional OP_Return space and WILL use it to make Bitcoin more like Ethereum, except better."

A proponent confirming what critics warned.

***

2023: reject Luke's patch. 2025: merge the uncap using the open loophole as excuse.
2021: try to remove Dashjr as BIP editor. 2025: mute him on the OP_RETURN PR.
2014: Luke builds the configuration option. 2025: try to deprecate it in the same merge.

Not a series of independent events.

VC money is a helluva drug. Symptoms include: - sudden inability ...

2026-03-05T16:22:09Z

VC money is a helluva drug.

Symptoms include:

- sudden inability to define the word "spam", previously straightforward concept, now philosophically complex

- the word "censorship" begins to apply to things that were previously called "node policy"

- previously held view that "arbitrary data does not belong on a monetary ledger" becomes "who are we to say what belongs?"

- strongly held technical positions develop a mysterious flexibility

🔥

2026-03-05T13:35:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…3fr5
_________________________

🔥

In 2025 Bitcoin Core removed a decade-old mempool policy default ...

2026-03-05T09:42:35Z

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:

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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."

***

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.

***

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."

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

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)

***

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.

***

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.

***

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

***

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.

Any fiat financial outfit having the chance to do it but not ...

2026-02-25T21:57:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…at66
_________________________

Any fiat financial outfit having the chance to do it but not doing it would surprise me 🤷‍♂️

“So then, the (21M) cap is irrelevant when Jane Street can ...

2026-02-25T21:39:57Z

“So then, the (21M) cap is irrelevant when Jane Street can fabricate unlimited synthetic supply through undisclosed derivatives stacked on top of its own ETF inventory.”

Now we know the answer to the price mystery. And color me not surprised.
Paper bitcoin…

https://x.com/1914ad/status/2026757796390449382?s=46&t=DG1JEc-EXQnoc72Rmx9dOA

The main justification from Core for the OP_RETURN uncap is ...

2026-02-24T18:37:17Z

The main justification from Core for the OP_RETURN uncap is “harm reduction”.

The argument is that inscriptions done via the segwit/taproot hack have potential to do more damage than inscriptions via OP_RETURN.

Thing is, LukeDashjr made a PR in 2023 to fix the vulnerability introduced by taproot.

PR #28408

It would “effectively limit arbitrary data carried via newer methods (including SegWit witness data and Taproot scripts), which inscriptions/Ordinals were using to bypass the existing OP_RETURN-based limits and embed larger payloads.”

If that had been merged, the current harm reduction narrative wouldn’t even be there.

It wasn’t merged. Core didn’t want it.

Peter Todd was among those who Nacked it with this rationale:

“The transactions targeted by this pull-req are a very significant source of fee revenue for miners. It is very unlikely that minres will give up that source of revenue. Censoring those transactions would simply encourage the development of private mempools - harmful to small miners - while making fee estimation less reliable.”

Note the use of the word “censoring” to describe fixing a very recently introduced vulnerability that opened up for ordinals.

Self inflicted wound, willingly not patched up, used as rationale for a new self inflicted wound.

You fail to understand the difference between x and 1200x? And ...

2026-02-24T11:11:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…y262
_________________________

You fail to understand the difference between x and 1200x? And cook that down to a lie about me being ignorant about the existence of op_return’s existence since inception?

Great jobb mRhOdL 👍

And yes, users can change the default, but very few will.

You think it will stay that way forever?

2026-02-24T10:50:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…l32c
_________________________

You think it will stay that way forever?

Working on it.

2026-02-24T10:48:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…7v89
_________________________

Working on it.

Nostr event nevent1qqs8ns28q3xjsut479nhmknmvm3s5rh0jhzwwmdsszpuawt4mhexasszyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p220da4e

2026-02-24T10:42:09Z

Premise: Bitcoin's core value is to be Money. As pristine ...

2026-02-24T10:05:16Z

Premise: Bitcoin's core value is to be Money. As pristine money as possible.

Fee competition and congestion due to grift spam works as a tax on monetary use, which is obviously negative towards being pristine money.

But more seriously imo is that using Bitcoin for other purposes than money, introduces hidden economic dilution/inflation.

Spawning thousands of competing tokens, memecoins and NFTs on Bitcoin, leveraging its security and reputation, diverts capital and attention from BTC itself.

Speculators and normies chase these derivatives out of greed, instead of holding BTC for its scarcity and monetary properties.

This is like expanding the "pie" of BTC as a value carrier with junk assets. BTC's monetary premium gets diluted as the chain becomes a crowded data/token platform rather than pristine money.

Conclusion: Any standardizing or facilitating of non monetary use of Bitcoin undermines its core mission and value proposition.

Which has no place among stewards of our best shot to beat future ...

2026-02-22T10:34:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…4wx4
_________________________

Which has no place among stewards of our best shot to beat future tyranny

So you disagree with Adam that this standard is of no ...

2026-02-22T10:31:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…w890
_________________________

So you disagree with Adam that this standard is of no consequence? Meaning that the whole civil war in that case was predictably created for no meaningful gain at all?

Keeping up?

I’m afraid the conclusion to our little back and forth is that ...

2026-02-22T10:22:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…7jvv
_________________________

I’m afraid the conclusion to our little back and forth is that you are the one REALLY not getting it 🤷‍♂️

4/5 people pushing controversial change maintains ...

2026-02-22T10:17:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…4ux7
_________________________

4/5 people pushing controversial change maintains decentralization? 😂😂😂

Please, can someone explain to me how these two things can be ...

2026-02-22T10:16:13Z

Please, can someone explain to me how these two things can be logically compatible:

- the uncap (100kb) of op_return “doesn’t really matter”, and its value could basically just be decided by “tossing a dice”. It’s a nothingburger and in no way a philosophical pivot.

and

- the uncap being so important that it had to be forced through despite great opposition and controversy, predictably creating a civil war. And now the heels are being dug in harder than I’ve ever seen and people calling it out are labeled as “attacking bitcoin”.

The “pressure” as you call it, was there long before they ...

2026-02-22T10:03:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…jx4c
_________________________

The “pressure” as you call it, was there long before they decided to merge the op_return uncap. From developers on GitHub. And from the Bitcoin community as a whole.

A small contingent of core devs decided to arrogantly push it through anyways.

Nostr event nevent1qqs2nenearsg84qw2p2qft7pjx49lyahdqhzhsdvjtrwul259se80cgzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2jeg5r7

2026-02-22T09:38:42Z

Me too

2026-02-21T15:14:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…09rp
_________________________

Me too

Thanks. I agree

2026-02-21T14:29:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…qlsv
_________________________

Thanks. I agree

If it really was irrelevant, that would make Core’s insistence ...

2026-02-21T11:36:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…c0nf
_________________________

If it really was irrelevant, that would make Core’s insistence on uncapping it, and predictably creating this chaos for no reason, even HARDER to explain

I know that I would prefer to have Core show ability to course ...

2026-02-21T11:25:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…5drd
_________________________

I know that I would prefer to have Core show ability to course correct and return to signaling that Bitcoin is money, not grift ledger.

Amen

2026-02-21T10:28:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…3jhc
_________________________

Amen

That's missing the bigger picture. OP_RETURN was deliberately ...

2026-02-21T10:13:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…3ze5
_________________________

That's missing the bigger picture.

OP_RETURN was deliberately limited (80 bytes, one per tx) as a DISCOURAGEMENT mechanism for non-monetary data on the base layer.

It was never meant to be a general-purpose data dumpster.

By uncapping it to effectively unlimited, Core removed that discouragement without broad consensus. They did it despite:

- Strong opposition on GitHub (4:1 against in related discussions/PRs)
- Warnings from prominent voices (Nick Szabo, Giacomo Zucco, Samson Mow, Jimmy Song, Luke Dashjr, etc.)
- No real attempt to build social consensus first

This wasn't "conservative security-first." It was a reckless philosophical pivot towards turning Bitcoin more toward a general data settlement layer at the expense of its focus as sound, scarce money.

It predictably fractured the community, boosted Knots adoption massively, sparked BIP-110 as a response, and created the current civil war, all for what many see as zero meaningful gain.

Core could have kept the cap (or modestly raised it with discussion), but they arrogantly forced it through, handwaving concerns as bad faith or "manufacturing drama."

That's the real issue: bad stewardship from Core.

Core's arrogance and recklessness in uncapping OP_RETURN in ...

2026-02-21T09:47:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…sn5k
_________________________

Core's arrogance and recklessness in uncapping OP_RETURN in the face of broad and real controversy is imo where the ego is found. It predictably created the current situation.

I get zero impression that Luke and Mechanic are driven by pure ego and desire for control/power, rather that they're trying to protect Bitcoin from eroding away from its core mission of being money separate from the state.

You know what would be REALLY bad for Bitcoin? If everyone ...

2026-02-12T08:01:11Z

You know what would be REALLY bad for Bitcoin?

If everyone blindly trusted a centralized dev team, bent to appeals to authority and willfully ignored gigantic red flags.

If no one defended Bitcoin’s core principles and ethos.

That would be REALLY bad for Bitcoin.

As in a death sentence for the mission of separating state and money.

Independent minded people who don’t bend to peer pressure used ...

2026-02-11T09:54:05Z

Independent minded people who don’t bend to peer pressure used to be considered a feature, not a bug.

Core v30 changed that for some reason.

A) I think v30, the rationale, the haste, the circumstances, the ...

2026-02-10T16:51:13Z

A) I think v30, the rationale, the haste, the circumstances, the philosophical implications, the arrogance, the handwaving, the disdain for broad community outrage and more, shows beyond doubt that something is very wrong with Bitcoin Core and/or how it works right now.

B) That means I am taking a stand against it

C) This DOES NOT necessarily mean that I know for a fact BIP-110 is the best countermove, but it DOES MEAN that I think some form of strong action has to be mustered against it, if Core shows no willingness to accept they have acted recklessly and unwise, and start working to remedy the situation and heal the social fracture.

D) As of now I support BIP-110

*part of

2026-02-08T22:55:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…x3q5
_________________________

*part of

Wow… you actually think you’re parting a priesthood that ...

2026-02-08T22:54:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…8a2c
_________________________

Wow… you actually think you’re parting a priesthood that stupid plebs shall not question? Wild

You went straight to appeal to technical authority?

2026-02-08T22:46:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…crx2
_________________________

You went straight to appeal to technical authority?

I don’t have a team. I’m a concerned bitcoiner looking for ...

2026-02-08T22:42:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…xpfq
_________________________

I don’t have a team.

I’m a concerned bitcoiner looking for the best way to make a principled stand that Bitcoin is money and not data storage.

And saying the argument is over is clearly plain wrong.

Solid argument there

2026-02-08T22:29:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…zy0g
_________________________

Solid argument there

Is one of the main arguments against bip-110 that not enough ...

2026-02-08T22:04:12Z

Is one of the main arguments against bip-110 that not enough people support it?

Would some of the “reckless” and “dangerous” criticism go away if support was much higher? And would that criticism then deservedly go towards Core and v30 instead?

Is it a topic you prefer to stay out of? What should the ...

2026-02-07T10:46:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…h8t5
_________________________

Is it a topic you prefer to stay out of?

What should the discourse focus on? Do you think there should be no pushing back against «wizards or whatever» standardization of spam through 1200x increase of OP_RETURN in Core v30?

Asking because I would really like to hear your fleshed out thoughts on this.

Why are you so retarded?

2026-02-07T06:43:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…z5qp
_________________________

Why are you so retarded?

Adam ignoring this gives me more than enough answers. Just so ...

2026-02-06T21:48:46Z

Adam ignoring this gives me more than enough answers.

Just so fucking disappointed 😢

YES

2026-02-06T20:19:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…qe4f
_________________________

YES

Doing well! 🫡🧡 Hope you are too.

2026-02-06T20:18:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…vk3x
_________________________

Doing well! 🫡🧡

Hope you are too.

Hi Gigi! Are you not worried about the obvious philosophical ...

2026-02-06T15:51:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…pxy0
_________________________

Hi Gigi!

Are you not worried about the obvious philosophical shift of Core?

Miss you.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!! Core v30 increased OP_RETURN size 1200x, ...

2026-01-30T19:35:10Z

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!!

Core v30 increased OP_RETURN size 1200x, to 100kb.

I just realized this is the same size BSV has had since 2009, bragged about by Faketoshi as one of the improvements over BTC to facilitate “having every bit of (the world’s data on chain”.

And proudly trumpeted by BSV propaganda blog Coingeek in this article as a great improvement over BTC’s 80 bytes.

Bitcoin Core basically merged six year old Craig Wright code in v30.

Absolutely fucking unbelievable.

I was technically incorrect in saying Core v30 directly ...

2026-01-30T17:30:10Z

I was technically incorrect in saying Core v30 directly "enabled" Citrea's launch. As far as I now understand it would have proceeded anyway.

I apologize for this.

Still… the op_return uncap does expand the practical toolbox for projects like Citrea to embed non-monetary data (proofs, anchors, commitments) more cleanly and reliably on Bitcoin, meaning it incentivizes such activity.

My core criticism stands. v30 represents a stark philosophical pivot from Bitcoin's ethos as uncompromised sound money, to standardizing and facilitating grift-friendly data embedding under the guise of "harm reduction."

This sends a disastrous signal: Bitcoin is now open for "innovation" that prioritizes non-monetary payloads, expands spam attack surfaces, invites chain bloat and centralization risks, erodes first principles, and unites grifters while fracturing the social layer.

quoting
nevent1q…t07p
Core v30 enabled this.

«No philosophical pivot» my ass.

Disgusting. 🤮

I am pivoting too.

Will run Bip-110.

Fuck the grifters. Bitcoin is money.

Plebs matter because they're Bitcoin's immune system. ...

2026-01-30T17:05:59Z

Plebs matter because they're Bitcoin's immune system.
Agenda-free, grift-intolerant hodlers and node runners who enforce the "money, not grift database" ethos.

Corporate bros and grifters typically angrily dismiss them ("plebs never mattered") which is an obvious big tell proving their power.

- Plebs' nodes reject invalid chains.

- Plebs’ hodling & boycotts influence miners to follow the valuable fork.

- Plebs’ adoption patterns create demand corporations chase.

- Pleb discourse on X and other places expose grifters' deceit in real time, rallies pressure on devs/miners, and shift narratives to protect first principles.

- Plebs help turn the exposure of moral corruption into coordinated economic/consensus force.

- Without plebs, Bitcoin is destined for full corporate capture and philosophical dilution.

Agreed

2026-01-29T15:54:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…rpl7
_________________________

Agreed

Core v30 enabled this. «No philosophical pivot» my ass. ...

2026-01-29T14:19:24Z

Core v30 enabled this.

«No philosophical pivot» my ass.

Disgusting. 🤮

I am pivoting too.

Will run Bip-110.

Fuck the grifters. Bitcoin is money.

What is even spam, they say. 🚩 The Bitcoin plebs never ...

2026-01-28T21:39:59Z

What is even spam, they say. 🚩

The Bitcoin plebs never mattered, they say. 🚩

You’re not technical enough, they say. 🚩

There is market demand, they say. 🚩

You are still living with a 2011 to 2014 mindset, they say. 🚩

This is ALL FAQ stuff which has been rehashed, they say. 🚩

Principles is pleb slop, they say 🚩

There has been no philosophical shift in Core, they say. 🚩

“Don’t trust your eyes, your instincts, or your moral ...

2026-01-28T09:45:21Z

“Don’t trust your eyes, your instincts, or your moral compass. Read this blog post by <insert very technical authority figure> and stop spewing your dAngErOus wrongthink”

Sorry, that’s not how it works for me.

I do believe that bitcoin is money and that all other ...

2026-01-28T09:41:15Z

I do believe that bitcoin is money and that all other «transactions» are spam.

I think it’s pretty obvious and self evident.

Bitcoin was created to separate state and money, not to scam people with Quantum Cats.

Trying to cloud what Bitcoin is, reminds me of trying to pretend there are countless genders and that men can be women.

It’s unprincipled relativism, and it will probably destroy Bitcoin if it not stopped.

I have a hunch that… …many influential people stay quiet on ...

2026-01-28T09:10:35Z

I have a hunch that…

…many influential people stay quiet on the topic of Core’s philosophical shift because they are afraid of social backlash, professional consequences or the performance of their investments.

Sounds cool, but not sure it’s a very accurate analogy

2026-01-24T19:32:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…yf8c
_________________________

Sounds cool, but not sure it’s a very accurate analogy

Thank you for your contributions!

2026-01-24T19:30:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…jrky
_________________________

Thank you for your contributions!

Nostr event nevent1qqsd5h7g7tjjkv6lsw036xh4mheraqef2dv5j3ststw0jcj0kwc3e3qzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2y73ccz

2026-01-24T11:39:33Z

Would appreciate to hear people’s takes on BIP110

Still here now and then!

2026-01-20T19:42:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…zqpn
_________________________

Still here now and then!

Thank, you! Life is indeed good! 🙏

2025-10-18T15:31:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…zfsd
_________________________

Thank, you! Life is indeed good! 🙏

What’s the sentiment on bitcoin nostr? Core v30 or knots? Or ...

2025-10-01T19:42:38Z

What’s the sentiment on bitcoin nostr?

Core v30 or knots?

Or core v29 or older?

My fiancé is making jewelry, and she’s pretty good at it. ...

2025-08-08T21:13:51Z

My fiancé is making jewelry, and she’s pretty good at it.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMyDcPjtXAb/?igsh=anY2NWtnNXNseDB5

X is down atm Nostr not so much

2025-03-27T19:18:31Z

X is down atm

Nostr not so much

What?

2025-02-23T21:32:06Z

In reply to nevent1q…uln3
_________________________

What?

So cool. Surreal for me to see. Say hi to your daughter and tell ...

2025-02-23T21:30:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…59wl
_________________________

So cool. Surreal for me to see. Say hi to your daughter and tell her I loved it 🧡

Congrats!! Great perseverance from you and the team! 🙏

2025-01-23T10:14:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…vzxz
_________________________

Congrats!! Great perseverance from you and the team! 🙏

- Norway’s biggest milk producer launched “climate milk” a ...

2024-11-29T22:43:32Z

- Norway’s biggest milk producer launched “climate milk” a little while back, from cows given methane inhibitors to make them fart less.

- people didn’t want it, it didn’t sell

- so now they mix this frankenmilk with normal milk, and don’t mark the containers

- and by 2027 ALL Norwegian cows MUST receive these chemicals

Another disgusting and disturbing example of globalist insanity being forced on people against their will.

Source: https://www-document-no.translate.goog/2024/08/16/tines-fremtidsmelk-fra-kuer-som-raper-mindre-metan-ble-en-fiasko/?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp

I haven’t been this bullish and excited about the future in a ...

2024-11-16T21:34:10Z

I haven’t been this bullish and excited about the future in a long time.

https://m.primal.net/MXLp.jpg

2024-11-15T20:19:16Z

You didn’t get lucky. You were smarter, had more conviction and ...

2024-11-13T16:21:58Z

You didn’t get lucky.

You were smarter, had more conviction and bigger balls.

You earned this.

The phone calls are coming https://m.primal.net/MCCo.jpg

2024-11-13T16:05:03Z

The phone calls are coming

Let’s just rip straight to $100k Long overdue anyways

2024-11-06T20:20:45Z

Let’s just rip straight to $100k

Long overdue anyways

Four years ago - the Covid scam dystopia was running full blast - ...

2024-11-06T16:35:03Z

Four years ago

- the Covid scam dystopia was running full blast
- Biden just got “elected”
- I was being aggressively sued and harassed by faketoshi
- BTC was sub $20k
- The woke mind virus was still on the rise

How things have changed! 🙏

This is a dark day for warmongers, groomers and enemies of free ...

2024-11-06T10:09:50Z

This is a dark day for warmongers, groomers and enemies of free speech.

COPE AND SEETHE!

Nostr event nevent1qqs9z5s0ek58nxl8dqg006lutmy28e0qhjraqkxef7m52h4rqlcasxqzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2u5e4qx

2024-11-06T10:09:15Z

I am very happy and very optimistic about the future!

Nostr event nevent1qqsdt8v9y7u486a5cjrkjnns248kh49qe4j9upql6qcf9pqndfscm8qzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2n43ddu

2024-11-05T12:53:17Z

FREEDOM!

Yes, some of that too

2024-11-03T20:52:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…urx0
_________________________

Yes, some of that too

I agree with Graham Hancock that humanity is a species with ...

2024-11-03T20:51:03Z

I agree with Graham Hancock that humanity is a species with amnesia.

I will add that it seems like we’re also a species with dementia, since we manage to forget so quickly that communism and erosion of freedom is a very bad idea.

Why is that edgy?

2024-11-03T20:23:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…nhy3
_________________________

Why is that edgy?

It’s not brave to support the exact same narratives and causes ...

2024-11-03T16:47:33Z

It’s not brave to support the exact same narratives and causes as the state and mainstream media.

It’s actually cowardly as fuck.

Nostr event nevent1qqsglc62xgdrgjcrt6zfgm76wp9mfdlcc0ygsy663548gsrlsh3vr6szyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2gn8vsn

2024-11-02T22:07:12Z

First they come for the squirrels.

Nostr event nevent1qqszym0t0ksejpf59rkcpxpnhun0rz0etuvj27v0gn9jjy236zfgasgzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2z6cpqz

2024-11-02T15:06:24Z

I really like non-insane people!

The straight lying from mainstream media is reaching a fever ...

2024-11-02T15:06:03Z

The straight lying from mainstream media is reaching a fever pitch.

More and more people see right through it.

The rest are getting hopelessly brainwashed into a delusional state of confusion about basic reality.

There is risk everywhere. But the greatest risk is to steal your ...

2024-10-31T18:39:19Z

There is risk everywhere. But the greatest risk is to steal your own quality of life because you live in fear.

Nostr event nevent1qqsvjdp8pug0a2rymm7npzpwzm4nrgw2q4gffc23px3k7hjhafd872gzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2vp2fva

2024-10-29T21:29:18Z

Mainstream media have dug their own grave. Now they get to RIP in it.

Nostr event nevent1qqspkvyssejrkmjf6gljeg6rfh53fv307ht60833pc6gq4650gk7awczyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2yv8kac

2024-10-28T19:42:37Z

We will never see bitcoin below $50k or above $70k again.

Woke left about to embark on a little road trip ...

2024-10-27T10:29:27Z

Woke left about to embark on a little road trip

Nostr event nevent1qqsdsq40g0v7f9a6hwhyv8se238reaqjngstcvs9r7lkwsd4dak848szyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2tjauld

2024-10-27T09:00:53Z

Gloves need to come off for common sense.

I’ve been postponing this for too long :)

2024-10-27T08:52:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…jwhn
_________________________

I’ve been postponing this for too long :)

Up for a starcraft 2 bitcoiner tournament? 😁

2024-10-27T08:52:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…86r5
_________________________

Up for a starcraft 2 bitcoiner tournament? 😁

Nostr event nevent1qqs2lnmeszs0938wkfpjmyrewjhgw9jtftlhqvugk6fwz50m5h3kp9qzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p268ler2

2024-10-26T21:43:11Z

It would be cool if they didn’t lie so much to us.

The drones have spoken https://m.primal.net/LiGv.mov

2024-10-25T20:49:41Z

The drones have spoken

About to enjoy this talk. My Bitcoin Pizza, with Extra Nostr 👌 ...

2024-10-25T11:58:18Z

About to enjoy this talk.

My Bitcoin Pizza, with Extra Nostr 👌

Nostr event nevent1qqsx4p36k50s36dhj8texskqyp0ynj0dnzujlzjwr0qnhcnwqher5ygzyrzf6549wvmx0y4e5mjg29v8c2qy97eylftzt3kk0wxftjr4rt9p2kltqc2

2024-10-23T19:52:55Z

The more centralization, the more coercion.

Absolutely not. Why would the elite consider him an enemy and ...

2024-10-23T11:02:04Z

In reply to nevent1q…hway
_________________________

Absolutely not. Why would the elite consider him an enemy and viciously attack him if he was part of them?