Bitcoin Core 30.0 reindexes 1.15× as fast as v29.1, 1.64× as fast as v28.2, and 2× as fast as v25.2. Measured by l0rinc in an apple-to-apple comparison, reindexing to the same height with the same assumevalid block on a machine with an i9 CPU.

Confused about consensus vs policy?? -Consensus says what’s valid. -Policy sets relay/template limits (e.g., OP_RETURN size). Core is relaxing OP_RETURN policy; Knots keeps it stricter. 👇

DadGuy Adam Back People say, “Bitcoin can be clogged or corrupted!” But that’s not how it works. Yes, it’s an open system but attacking it isn’t cheap. It’s costly and unsustainable. Game theory favors buying Bitcoin, not trying to destroy it. Why? Because it’s more profitable to hold than to

The cypherpunk OG.

When a bitcoin miner chooses to exclude a fee-paying valid transaction in the block it proposes, that's not "censorship", it is leaving the tx in the mempools and letting other miners include the tx in their blocks. The excluding miner foregoes the tx fee revenue, but a miner has

14g23h34 (Bitcoin Anon) Michael Saylor Well it's quite good, and he is an engineer and I am a strong proponent of don't fix what isn't broken, and KISS (keep things simple stupid), the Linux philosophy (do one thing and do it well). But also note Bitcoin has improved enormously over the years eg core 30 has 20% faster

Wake 14g23h34 (Bitcoin Anon) Michael Saylor Solving the double spend problem without trusted third parties was a genius mix of game theory, computer science and applied cryptography at the heart of what makes bitcoin work, where prior systems had too much human involvement to be hard money.

LFG print time

I was born an Idiot. I will die an Idiot. idiots

Not every upgrade is a protocol change. Saylor called the OP_RETURN limit increase a “third-degree protocol change.” But that’s not really accurate. As Adam Back pointed out, Bitcoin Core v30 brings a 20% faster block download and cumulatively, Core has become twice as fast

Saying : “If I wanted to destroy Bitcoin, I’d fund smart devs to make it better” might sound clever, but it oversimplifies everything. Bitcoin needs developers. It’s not frozen in time. It requires constant maintenance, performance improvements, and security upgrades -

Never forget.

If I wanted to stifle Bitcoin, cause stagnation, and prevent it from reaching its full potential... I'd try to convince folks that its most skilled developers are actually a threat.

I don't think the "bitcoin core hate" on X is everything. The hate Knots jerk off squad is not all bitcoin has. I know a lot of people in different Telegram groups like Sparrow Wallet 🐦 SeedSigner RoninDojo who don't use or rarely use X and most of them are not interested in

This is all that's letting the genocide continue in Gaza. Today, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, just like they have vetoed every previous vote.

If Saylor's voice decides about the direction of Bitcoin development then this network is done. It is not how bitcoin works and is supposed to work. I agree though that we will go through a tough test: Is bitcoins consensus held by cypherpunks or big players. I can see where big

Knut Svanholm ∞/21M I have to be honest, this kind of post shocks me. When you sat down with Adam Back ,you sounded reasonable. Adam is one of the few OG cypherpunks left, and he argues with logic about Core v30 and relay policy changes. But here, you’re doing the opposite: tying a technical detail

Listen when Bitcoin OGs talk. I do but I am an Idiot of course. Missing link - game theory.