It's the other way around Dan. You're an attack on Bitcoin. Let's follow the money! Dan is General Partner at Asymmetric, Bitcoin DeFi Venture Fund I. Here are the companies in that fund 👇 BIP-110 adoption will most likely (probably certainly) have a significant negative

OPNet raised $5M to "build the infrastructure Bitcoin was missing". The VCs and angel investors gave it to them in expectation of receiving the $5M, plus some, back. How will OPNet return the $5M+? At the highest level, money will flow from customers, to OPNet, to the

A simple and crucial reminder that the bitcoiners that support BIP-110 have nothing to sell you.

BitMEX Research Bob Burnett Remu ⚡️ Alex Gladstein 🌋 ⚡ The Small Blockers prioritized Bitcoin nodes being as easy as possible to operate so that the maximum number of users could operate nodes, whereas the Big Blockers did not care. That will tell you all you need to know about which side is which, in the context of BIP-110.

1/ 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.

Can Isabel Foxen Duke Stop Bingeing On Bitcoin Spam?

.Murch you quite frequently post the very weakest of the arguments on the anti-spam side but I rarely see you engaging with the stronger ones. Shall we have a public debate about the matter?

1/ The removal of Bitcoin Core's OP_RETURN limit in June 2025 was justified as "harm reduction." Criticism was met with accusations of "censorship". Let's look at the record. Who knew the limit was blocking their protocols. Who was routing around it. And who was counting on

This post by Murch doesn’t sit well with me. Core views Knots nodes filtering as “gimping” themselves performatively. But Core and Knots nodes relay the same monetary transactions, therefore Core is philosophically supporting non-monetary uses which Knots does filter.

Kids, get in board, we’re ratioing island boy Andy Back. 😆

After a full analysis of BIP-110, running it against the entire chain measuring collateral damage to legitimate monetary transactions, I have concluded that I support it ideologically and technically, with the exceptions of the activation mechanism and rhetoric that I oppose.

This post is about spam on Bitcoin:

More people are running Knots than Core 30. More people are running BIP-110 than ran BIP-148. Are we there yet? No. Long way off. Why? Because very few would lose something as a result of segwit. It was just disliked for seemingly coming at the cost of a block size increase

1/ Yesterday, Matt Corallo entered a thread to deny that DEI ever influenced a single hiring or funding decision in Bitcoin Core development history. Let's look at what he said, and what the public record shows.

Oh… NOW I finally understand why Walker⚡️ has been such a disappointment during this BIP-110 debate. He made a deal with the devil Andy Back to peddle Blockstream’s buggy Jade wallet. Like Jim says… follow the money.

“Everybody is figuring out that our asset Adam Back took money from Epstein and went to his island. Any ideas to rehabilitate his image?” “Let’s give him a haircut, dress him up like Morpheus and interview him on CNBC.” “Genius”

Yes, Bitcoin Core v30 has a hidden soft fork with changes to nLockTime/nSequence. These changes were added to version 30 here: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi… Core didn't include it in the release notes so no one would notice. @Murchandamus pretends not to know, asking @Darosior…