Hide&Seek

~~~~~~~~~~

Public Key

npub10r37rgdjcj6yprg4fdayd58dqfxpwnr8u59nun45q4mfg3vajg0s63625r

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs83clp5xevfdzq3525k7jx6rksynqhf3n72ze7f66q2a55gkwey8cpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hskznq30

Publishing to

nostr-pub.wellorder.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub10r37rgdjcj6yprg4fdayd58dqfxpwnr8u59nun45q4mfg3vajg0s63625r

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-05-22 11:51:46 UTC

- reply

At least now we know that one wasn't an intelligence operation. 😂

2026-05-20 07:49:42 UTC

- reply

Could be, he didn't make much things obvious to start with 🤣

2026-05-20 00:39:42 UTC

- reply

I disagree, he definitely condamned metaphysics as the fantasy of suffering people trying to escape this world. He calls it afterworlds, or backworlds, and there's a chapter about it in Zarathustra.
He also took any belief and values to be a necessary human creation, but seemed ro claim that outgrowing those and chosing your own values and belief was the ultimate act of creation for yourself and mankind. (And has been the ultimate act of creation from the prophets of the past)
I'm not sure what to make of Nietzche exactly or what he had in mind with going in this direction, but a very simple to way to sumarize is thought is that he proned a form of radical self-sovereignty that wanted anything ruling upon the individuals out of the window.
That being said, I don't think that excludes spirituality per say, and I don't think that's a statement on whether or not metaphysical things do exist.

2026-05-15 00:26:25 UTC

- reply

How comes?

2026-05-12 00:38:52 UTC

- reply

They forgot the arabs. Fucking racists! 🤣

2026-04-26 14:19:14 UTC

- reply

Not as insane as centralized/multisig money... Hence bitcoin (is this community seriously devolving??)

2026-03-29 01:12:15 UTC

- reply

Is that really what he meant? I mean it's really weird indeed but I wonder what did he has in mind precisely, in term of implementation...

2026-03-27 07:43:24 UTC

- reply

An intelligence test is by definition impossible, because real intelligence implies the ability to dodge an intelligence test if the context requires it. 🤯

2026-02-25 23:28:19 UTC

- reply

You are just being voluntary obtuse in order to win an argument. Anyone can pretend not to understand a point. Also, you talk like you are charge, but it's not like anyone is going to adjust anything at that point, right? It's just one small group trying to impose their views to everyone else no matter the disagreements, and going to fail achieving anything at all for that very reason. 🤔

2026-02-25 17:09:13 UTC

- reply

I feel like I didn't address your point. The bip110.org page clearly states that it is incompatible with BitVM, which I consider as a monetary use case.
The second thing, that's more technical and feeling a bit lazy to explain in detail, is that it forbids OP_IF in new tapleaves. Now, they say old transactions can still spend if they have that OP_IF, but it's not exactly true. Transactions can be chained — using pre-signed transactions — into multi-steps trees that are commited to ahead of time, and if one of these has as OP_IF in there, it'll be forbidden to be spend. I think it's a relatively marginal case, but I wouldn't say it's esoteric either. Bitcoin is an open system of programable money, and it's pretty likely that various people had build homemade contracts or small systems here and there having this in. If BIP110 were to pass, we would see some of the cases appear from time to time about funds blocked by it, from people being oblivious of the situation or the details of the forks.
Clearly this isn't my main reason to oppose BIP110, but it shows how sloppy that whole thing is. I'm much more concerned about the signal it would send to other builders working tirelessly to scale this thing, if a BIP hurting their work were to pass... Building on Bitcoin is demanding enough as it is; but having to secure funding for a tech that has just been made indefinitely impossible by some reckless fork is going to be a whole new level of pain.

2026-02-25 16:48:26 UTC

- reply

Well, I think I did both in my previous notes. BitVM, Ark and lightning are all going to suffer from this, and we're not talking about some speculative work, we're talking about updates that have been researched & pending way longer than BIP110. The update process in Bitcoin is not about pushing & bullying but about proving to the community that your solution is the absolute best one we can think off, and that the downside have been carefully thought about.
So not only BIP110 is a bad upgrade, but it would indefinitely prevent other, much better designed upgrade that have properly been trying to build consensus for longer than it has. 🤔

2026-02-25 15:12:42 UTC

- reply

Oh wow I would really love to see that

2026-02-25 14:04:21 UTC

- reply

Honnestly I think it's hard to generalize the answer, because the non-monetary market oscillates between two states: hyped or dormant.
Hyped markets, such as during the inscription craze, can actually outprice monetary usage & that's precisely what caused all the resentment against these use cases - they are also incredibly hungry in block space and significantly deter scaling efforts, on a system that is already low throughput. Luckily, this state isn't sustainable - it's a bubble - but it's definitely a nuisance.
Dormant markets can definitely be outpriced, though the UTXO clutter and block burden from the past doesn't go anywhere, right? What's happening right now is that, because onchain activity is so low, miners will fill the blocks with whatever garbage at whatever price - which is always better than 0. In other words, for miners, there's always an incentive to fill the blocks no matter what. This is why I think we entered an era of forever-full blocks, because miners can now marginally stimulate markets that will buy the stranded block space for storage or meme.
This whole thing gives the statistical illusion that spam has been able to constantly occupy a significant portion of our blocks, and that it will be able to keep doing so; But that's conflating two different states of the market. In the first state, it was a real nuisance because it was outpricing bitcoin users, clogging the throughput. In the second, current state, it's not outpricing anyone, it's just that bitcoin is not being used at full capacity. Arguably, the spam market is now so weak that we could easily outprice it if more people were to use bitcoin - it's not clogging the throughput anymore, but it is definitely filling the blocks, adding unecessary weight to the blockchain.
My point in an earlier note was that, whether or not you manage to defeat that spam, it won't take long before the block fills again durably because of mass adoption. Either way, forever-full block is a state of things we'll have to adapt to. Now, if we could dodge another spam hype or two, that would definitely be a great thing — but doing so through a BIP that hurts bitcoin fundamentals & legitimate projects is definitely a bad trade.
Good engineering requires to be level-headed, patient, focused, and be willing to look at the problem from as many angles as possible in orders to discover the best trade-offs. Only the highest quality solutions should be allowed to make their way into bitcoin consensus. There's a reason why most proposal fails, and it's a very healthy state of things. :)

2026-02-25 09:09:21 UTC

- reply

Well, you are right, the technical arguments matter more. My issues are:
- The restrictions are too aggressive and hurts moneraty use cases and scaling solutions, even though the authors are not fully honnest about this.
- Among other issues, the proposal blocks any further upgrade to the consensus, which we will need to improve scaling through Ark & Lightning. (imagine if it were to last...)
- I don't believe a temporary fix makes sense considering the risks that come with changing the consensus, I don't want Bitcoin to go for Monero-like yearly updates/debates.
- Moreover, temporary already implies the solution is known to suck, and no good solution is available yet. I prefer to wait for a proper fix and activate that.
I think it would be more sensible to go for straightfoward, atomic, consensual fixes and respect the process of convincing the community more widely, as previously accepted forks did. Of course it won't be possible to go as far in terms of restricting spam, but it will also avoid stupidely hurting our owns.

2026-02-25 08:12:36 UTC

- reply

I think this is a bit disingenuous, because the tradeoff will be exactly the same a year from now. And that's the very reason why 'there's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution'.
I find it fascinating that both the BIP110 crew and the core v30 one borrow abundantly from the covid era rhetoric & strategies in order to impose non-consensual changes on the community.
You guys are really a beautiful pair! Going at each other's throats, but united in your belief that Bitcoin is yours to rule over... Unable to realize that the community's resistance is rooted in reasonable, logical, and poorly addressed objections

2026-02-23 16:50:58 UTC

- reply

Well once again if you cap op_return, that leaves only witness-embedded spam that you can prune away. Your graph actually confirms that it doesn't amount to much, so I'm pretty confused about how you're reading it? The point is, we could have gotten rid of that op_return part with a simple, consensual fix but instead they wanted to push it too far to prove something, and what'll we get is no fix at all because this thing is crappy and won't activate.

2026-02-23 16:09:18 UTC

- reply

I'm familiar with this but either ways the facts are not siding with the idea of an emergency. Most ordinal projects are dead, investors are ruined, and tx fees have been ridiculously low for months.
Besides, you are conflating two very different issues, just like BIP110 is doing. Capping OP_RETURN, which has outlived its utility, to protect nodes from hosting contiguous illegal content is arguably very important. Dealing with witness-embedded spam is secondary and optional. Witnesses can be pruned away, and it's not even sure jpegs are coming back. The were economically viable just because of a hype that is long gone and, would it come back, unsustainable by nature.
As I said, by trying to achieve aggressively everything at once, this BIP is not only harmful to legitimate monetary projects lead by genuine bitcoiners, it's also condemning itself to fail, missing an historic opportunity to fix a long-standing vulnerability.

2026-02-23 14:45:46 UTC

- reply

Maybe because different people have different opinions? Btw, this is not "my" framing, this is their framing:
"The one-year deployment allows the community to evaluate the impact while developers work on a longer-term solution. Some restrictions would severely constrain future upgrades if permanent, but are acceptable for a limited time to address the immediate crisis."
In other words, this solution sucks, but we have nothing better right now & there's an urgent matter that needs to be adressed right now. (which urgent matter, we are left to our imaginaion 😂)
Sincerely, I find it painful to discuss this matter with you since you talk like you know, and yet didn't even read the proposal itself. Also, that moving the goalpost each time proven wrong... That's not serious: Bitcoin deserves better considerations & care when it comes to touching the consensus. 🤔

2026-02-23 13:55:31 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/b2e63d222922eaaddb38b291772e88994ec516380c03c303ddeb75f4fd3c4bf5.jpg
I gave you my source. Also, I think you misunderstood how it works: it will prevent any consensus upgrade for the time it is active... And we all know how long emergency, temporary measures can last. Though in by view, "temporary" measures on something like Bitcoin make no sense start with. Either it's good and we keep it, either it's not and it never touches consensus. 🤔

2026-02-23 06:22:51 UTC

- reply

A chain split will create two chains, like when Bitcoin Cash happened and lost the split. It became a minority chain no ones care about; anyway there were funds loss because at first transactions would happen on both chains at once and stuff like that, it was a messy process & we definitely don't need that now.

2026-02-23 03:30:28 UTC

- reply

And BitVM... lol.

2026-02-08 10:23:34 UTC

- reply

I love it, it's really awesome!

2025-12-26 11:29:18 UTC

- reply

It's distributed. Block war already demonstrated that even with a majority of hashing power, you still can't force a change. Core v30 showed that the same applies to devs... But it's a complex & evolving dynamic, and there's no hard guarantees; only works with a strong, commited, well-informed community. Will we be able to keep that going? ✊

2025-12-20 10:27:17 UTC

I like Primal UX but them asking me for private info just to create a lightning wallet weirds me out. What should I try instead, any ideas? 🤔