Aaron van Wirdum

The plan has three stages.
1. Freeze coinbase rewards for 45 days.
2. If no “unintended side effects”, extend coinbase freeze for full year.
3. By the end of that year only allow DATUM-mined block rewards to be spent… somehow.
1 & 2 are to disincentivize “opportunistic shitcoin miners” that just want to mine and sell the coins for profit… or something.

2026-09-22 07:58:46 UTC

- reply

So yeah it looks like the new rules are being enforced by a majority of miners, which means that any blocks that don't enforce these rules keep getting wiped out, and there is no chain split.
Will be interesting to see if the coinbase freeze gets extended in the upcoming 45 days, given that this was pretty explicitely targeted at "bad actor" AlphaPool... who now helped ensure Luke's soft fork is the majority chain.

2026-09-22 06:06:27 UTC

- reply

The chain with the new rules is currently ahead, which means the blocks on the old rules were wiped out. In other words, no split currently.
Interestingly, the new chain is ahead because AlphaPool is mining on it. This is the exact pool they consider a bad actor and is why this soft fork was rolled put in the first place...
...and this pool won't even be able to spend these block rewards, perhaps ever!

2026-09-22 05:25:35 UTC

For anyone still interested in this clown show...
@nprofile…c93l tried to push through a soft fork on Bitcoin-jr with ~one day notice, to freeze newly generated block rewards.
The rules just went into effect, and now that blockchain has split between upgraded and non-upgraded nodes.
Whether the split is temporary or permanent (Bitcoin-jr v. Bitcoin-jr Classic) remains to be seen.
To watch it unfold live, grab some popcorn and tune into this fork observer vibe coded by @nprofile…pp5p: https://lukecoin.zndtoshi.com/

2026-09-18 01:25:18 UTC

- reply

Well Luke is not a Bitcoin dev anymore and Mechanic never was :)

2026-09-16 05:50:15 UTC

- reply

Haha dat was echt een heel slecht moment om het interview af te kappen.

2026-09-15 03:26:52 UTC

- reply

I just read somewhere that affected customers have been contacted by Revolut, so if you haven't been contacted you're probably(?) fine.

2026-09-15 01:56:28 UTC

- reply

Why too late? Is there some cutoff date that's relevant here?
I also closed my account earlier this year, or maybe late last year.

2026-09-10 13:19:15 UTC

- reply

Robot Jetten!

2026-09-10 09:53:39 UTC

- reply

lol

2026-09-09 09:53:33 UTC

Slaps.
https://suno.com/song/caafc4c5-6db9-4a72-8aea-94254d6ffd49?sh=P9JXx7zUA2h3yHMw

2026-09-06 10:01:50 UTC

Successfully sold my first chunk of bitcoin-jr (BJR AKA BTCB2).
First split it from BTC using @npub1v4v…xwu8’ splitting tool: https://github.com/hsjoberg/bcashjr-wallet/releases/tag/v0.0.1
Then sold for BTC on NeoxEX: https://neoxa.exchange/trade/BTCB2_BTC
Use both the wallet and exchange at your own risk (I only did fairly small amounts), but it does work.

2026-09-04 16:23:18 UTC

Ze German translation ist here!
Via @npub1zjm…ytc0: https://aprycot.media/shop/genesis/
https://image.nostr.build/3c62b89fa33688df51cd7f2bea25dfa9f2d56e410b896ed35fae60cf703a6439.jpg

2026-08-30 04:52:35 UTC

Luke out.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/joint-statement-of-ocean-and-luke-dashjr-302864347.html?tc=eml_cleartime

2026-08-11 15:51:52 UTC

The testnet forkwar to determine PoW algo for Bitcoin-jr is more exciting than the BIP110 fork war itself was tbh.

2026-08-11 15:01:41 UTC

Bdashers decided to use a testnet block header to randomly determine the proof-of-work algorithm for their forkcoin, but now testnet has been forked and they don’t know what to pick. (lol)

2026-08-09 09:51:50 UTC

Just in case the Bdashers’ wipeout argument does stick around: Bitcoin nodes can always reject the BIP110 chain even in the *extremely* unlikely scenario that it would overtake the Bitcoin chain at some point, by running bitcoin-cli invalidateblock 0000000000000000000169eb6f811ddbd0daf343af7b62180cdb13e7c78dbc16.

2026-05-28 06:32:05 UTC

The German translation of The Genesis Book is now available for preorder!
Ganz toll.
https://aprycot.media/shop/genesis/

2026-04-26 22:34:17 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/0d772c8d99a7f3750ac47dfb5116e65775ee31607316e3b5d64bc6f783710e21.jpg

2026-02-25 06:16:53 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin Core developers have explicitly said users are free to run different software: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
What people like myself are sick of are the lies and deceptive rhetoric around all of this, and the toxic environment it creates.
https://image.nostr.build/8efdfa24cd99d27503dcc1f4b90d64cf9e15a6d01c8c0ab64ae6efddd155ede1.jpg

2026-02-24 20:01:36 UTC

- reply

You didn't address @nprofile…tqyx's point-- instead you just got triggered by the word "censoring".

2026-02-21 15:39:03 UTC

- reply

Judging by all this recent drama — which they indeed rightfully ignored in favour of sound technical engineering -- it would probably be many of the current Core devs.

2026-02-21 10:31:17 UTC

- reply

The day Bitcoin Core developers bend to the pressure of a misguided Twitter mob riled up by populist social media influencers, instead of merging code based on their best technical judgement, is the day the codebase should be forked to re-establish sound engineering practices.

2026-02-17 13:33:36 UTC

- reply

Yes most OG Bitcoiners are against arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin. That’s why we fought to keep blocks small. F(r)ee market economics should do the rest in an open, permissionless and censorship resistant system.

2026-02-11 06:15:32 UTC

I received a few requests to write an article or record a podcast on BIP110, but frankly I don’t see the point right now.
Until someone is willing to put their money (no one has taken on @npub1emd…c9aw’s fork futures offer) or hash power (not even Ocean is signaling support) where their mouth is, it’s little more than a DOS-attack on our attention and time.

2025-11-11 09:39:17 UTC

FWIW I agree you don’t have to be an anarchist to use Bitcoin.
…But Bitcoin *is* an anarchist form of money.
If you don’t like that, use fiat.
#note10cp…0f7z

2025-10-26 13:29:58 UTC

Ok so apparently rolling back the chain in case of a CSAM OP_RETURN is also proposed as an activation mechanism for this “anti-spam” soft fork drafted by @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk.
Also, even if no such OP_RETURN is mined, they want to activate this as a UASF within ~three(!) months.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017/commits/3c718237072c107ced8c3531a487354fbdae55df
https://image.nostr.build/b6d732899dbcc676b1d281bb337c872419cc56c6b90de0cb8a1996b0c2eaf658.jpg

2025-10-23 17:03:16 UTC

- reply

I’ve heard you say before there can be no CSAM in Inscriptions because CSAM in Inscriptions can only be “misinterpreted” as CSAM.
I doubt many people would agree with this… but let’s park that.
How is 101kb of CSAM in OP_RETURN not CSAM??

2025-10-18 14:26:02 UTC

So my main takeaway from this discussion is that @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk sees a legal and/or moral difference between data in OP_RETURNs and data in (say) Inscriptions.
*Even if* it’s the exact same data!
(The argument, to the best of my understanding, is that data in OP_RETURNs is “sanctioned” *as data* by Bitcoin Core now that the policy limit is lifted— whereas data in Inscriptions can only be “misinterpreted” as data.)
It does make me wonder how many people in the Knots camp actually understand that this is the level of nuance they are ultimately fighting over. (It seemed that even @npub1wnl…n3wr kind of learned this live as they were recording…)
#note19ud…xcnp

2024-10-03 19:47:04 UTC

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/takes/aaron-trump-does-not-give-a-damn-about-bitcoin