_kami_gawa
su-do

Public Key

npub1j4442yrhl9dfnxe68gk6jefachmmmd6a4e4p4t0s7fvck997r6gqkghe65

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsf2664zpmljk5envar5tdfv57utaaakaw6u6s64hc0ykvtzjlpayqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq32amnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skueq78unhh

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1j4442yrhl9dfnxe68gk6jefachmmmd6a4e4p4t0s7fvck997r6gqkghe65

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-09-23 19:35:15 UTC

If you've bought Bitcoin through an exchange, under the new European DAC8 rules, exchanges will have to report your crypto holdings to your government every year.
If you don't declare that you hold BTC, the fine can range from 3% to 15% of the value of your Bitcoin for each year

2026-09-23 17:41:16 UTC

Holding
$BTC
in Italy is becoming quite a challenge.
The state attack is in full swing:
33% capital gains tax if you hold bitcoin
26% capital gains tax if you hold a bitcoin ETF
0.2% annual tax on unrealized gains if you hold bitcoin directly
They really want Italians to dump their hard money and buy paper Bitcoin instead.

2026-09-23 09:14:17 UTC

It's unbelievable to think that, nowadays in Europe, if you want to avoid WW3 you need to vote for Nazis.

2026-09-20 19:55:16 UTC

I took Bitcoin's most famous sentence — the one Satoshi embedded in the Genesis Block (Jan 3, 2009):
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
...and used it as a brainwallet seed (SHA256 → private key → pubkey → addresses).
Legacy P2PKH addresses

2026-09-12 13:11:34 UTC

17 years of #Bitcoin Core, animated.
48,700 commits, 800+ contributors, ~3M lines of code, all growing from a single genesis commit.
And the orange strip at the bottom? That's Satoshi ~111k lines, the foundation everything else was built on. 🟠
https://blossom.primal.net/8191cc644b100652c630a1f4fef3f134ebd7190d9b8e54260b1205c9871de493.mov

2026-09-10 23:17:52 UTC

Everybody is a cypherpunk until their coins get stolen.
Then it’s suddenly “call the police,” “the state should do something,” “this is theft.”
Your bitcoin is not yours.
You only control keys.
Whoever can spend it owns it.
Bitcoin does not care about your fiat morality.
Few.

2026-09-09 12:41:11 UTC

Blockstream deserves to fail. Mao is a scammers, we all know this. He just got a free pass from "" the community "" because he works with Back.

2026-09-09 08:21:44 UTC

Luis Sepúlveda’s Diary of a Sentimental Killer is such a tiny book with a great story.
Highly recommend if you just want a good time.

2026-07-24 09:20:01 UTC

Stripping the emotion from the 110 fork debate, the proposal is technically useless.
No protocol should patch one specific issue that can be replicated countless other ways.
We have far bigger problems focus on what actually matters.

2026-07-16 13:53:09 UTC

- reply

Here it is 😉
Let me start off by saying I’m not pro-BIP110, and I’m not anti-BIP110. If it actually succeeds as something that gains true consensus within the network and ends up being enforced by a majority of the network… cool. If so, then we’ll go with it because the network has spoken and accepted it, and all nodes, including non-BIP110 nodes, will be pulled along for the ride.
Unfortunately for proponents of the proposal, that simply isn’t currently the case by any measurable metric, nor does it appear to have a trajectory suggesting that will change, either.
There’s been a lot of misleading information about this whole thing, especially in the context of mining. Few quick key bullet points to briefly counter some hyperbole from proponents:
BIP110 is NOT inevitable. It CAN fail.
BIP110 can and will cause a chain split/fork in a minority hashrate situation.
BIP110 is NOT without risk to miners choosing to adopt it.
Miners not supporting BIP110 are not suddenly mining “invalid” blocks just because a proposal that isn’t yet adopted simply exists.
You’re not a bad person or evil simply because you don’t like or support BIP110.
(The fact that I feel the need to point out that last part is actually kind of sad…)
I was going to write a long post to help keep miners informed about things they need to remain aware of as this all plays out… before realizing I already did so months ago as a document I authored that I had hoped could be put out as a miner education piece at OCEAN. Sadly, it never got published. So I went ahead and updated it, and well, here it is:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14DfMSVYBHTHIOmW32JTOR6BAP7AITbinvrhl8rJuvvc/edit?usp=sharing
Again, keep in mind this was written months ago, intended to be as agnostic as possible in an effort to make it acceptable as a corporate post. That effort failed, so I'm posting it as a personal document today instead.
As a miner making important decisions about your operations, you need to be aware of all of this without the sugarcoating and frankly outright misleading information coming from some of the BIP110 proponents. You must be vigilant, and decide what’s right for you. While there is certainly some misleading information from the opposition as well, nothing I’ve seen is nearly as egregious as the extremely premature claims of victory and accompanying hyperbole pushed by the BIP110 side.
Summarizing my doc a bit, my personal suggestion to miners is this:
Signal if you support BIP110
Do not signal if you don’t support BIP110 or don’t care
Either way, monitor the network on/around/before block 961632.
If you continue to see non-signaling blocks from major pools you can be reasonably certain they’re not going to suddenly decide later to throw away millions of dollars worth of revenue to backtrack and signal for BIP110.
If they do by some chance start to signal for BIP110, you should monitor that and consider switching as required to stay on the heaviest chain.
Key point being that realistically, only one side can win. It’s either BIP110 succeeds and miners not on the BIP110 side fail, or BIP110 fails and miners on the non-BIP110 side succeed.
Moving on, let’s dive into some small fraction of my rationale.
🟠QUICK FACT: Between 7 and 15% of Bitcoin Nodes are signaling support for BIP110.
Depending on which centralized crawler you look at… no way to know for sure. My personal private crawler puts this number much lower, but that’s a discussion for another day. Suffice it to say, I think it’s logical and correct to say that even 15% is not a majority.
“But Jason! UASF got Segwit activated with fewer nodes!”
Yep, because many miners, merchants, users, etc all actually wanted Segwit. There was tremendous economic and community weight behind it. Without rehashing that whole thing (plenty of resources on the topic from before BIP110 that are worth a read), suffice it to say that BIP110 and Segwit activations are not quite comparable, as many have already pointed out. Segwit, for example, went into its UASF territory with around 1/3rd of the network hashrate already signaling support. With that kind of backing, the UASF to help push the MASF over the tipping point made a lot of sense.
It doesn't make sense here for BIP110.
🟠QUICK FACT: 0.6% of blocks over the past 60 days have signaled support for BIP110.
Pretty stark contrast to even Segwit’s low baseline support. Yes, I know it's increased slightly in the past couple of weeks, but no new entrants. Just more clearly rented hashrate from one of the same small proponants.
Something to keep in mind is that mining BIP110 signaling blocks via DATUM on OCEAN carries virtually no risk to the miner up until the fork point at block 961632. The cost is negligible, as you're effectively guaranteed to recoup rental costs, etc.
It's awesome that the ability to do so exists, and I wouldn't have it any other way... but just something to keep in mind when weighing signaling from such blocks in the grand scheme of things from a risk/reward/money-on-the-table perspective.
“But Jason! Miners have no incentive to signal until the last minute!”
I also see no evidence to suggest that this could be the case. Subjectively, I disagree with the premise, as it’s not in a mining pool’s best interest to destabilize the network in such a way. Part of the reason for early signaling and lock-in periods is to help coordinate upgrades in a smooth fashion. Waiting until the last minute negates that benefit entirely. I see no compelling rationale or upside to doing so.
Continuing on this, as part of my personal node monitoring setup, I specifically monitor nodes known to belong to various entities, such as other mining pools, exchanges, large lightning nodes, merchants, etc. A supermajority of which are monitored with explicit permission and confirmation/coordination.
🟠QUICK FACT: All major mining pools I monitor are currently running some variant of Bitcoin Core v30 or v31 (except OCEAN).
Expanding on that, most have updated their nodes since the proliferation of BIP110’s release, even since the release of Knots 29.3. Additionally, it is known that many mining pools run modified versions of their node software to facilitate various requirements of their specific infrastructure. Such changes would need to be ported to a BIP110 compatible client, tested, evaluated, and deployed ahead of time. I currently see no evidence that this is the case currently.
As far as I can tell, the pools are aware but ignoring.
“But Jason! Miners don’t determine consensus! Nodes do! Otherwise they’ll just cancel halvings!”
This is one of the funniest and most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard from the pro-BIP110 crowd. Comparing a consensus change that can be unilaterally enforced upon the network by miners and accepted by 100% of existing nodes (a soft fork), with a hard fork which no existing node will accept… is disingenuous at best.
Tightening rules (like BIP110): Soft fork, can be enforced by miners if they choose to do so. Loosening rules (like canceling a halving): Hard fork, can not be enforced by miners without effectively 100% buy-in from the entire network……. Which isn’t likely to happen.
Comparing the two is, bluntly, just stupid.
“But Jason! If you don’t upgrade to the latest consensus rules, you’re insecure! You’ll lose funds! You’ll mine invalid blocks! You’ll [insert additional hyperbole here]!”
This would be true of a consensus change that has, well, consensus. While BIP110 has made a valiant effort to gain that consensus, it has yet to have any measurable majority at what is now arguably the 11th hour. Not in nodes, not in hashrate, not in the social layers (consensus.health has a cool visual there where you'll find me in the middle).
If somehow BIP110 gains 51%+ of the network hashrate on/before block 961632… then, alright. It’s enforced, since as a soft fork a majority of miners can unilaterally enforce it in the absence of a fully adopted URSF (effectively a misnomer, as this would kind of be a hard fork).
“But Jason! It can’t gain consensus by already having consensus! You have to give it a chance!”
Firstly… no I don’t, even though I have. Second, it’s a rushed proposal that never had the time to even try and gain real consensus. It’s been 7 months since the release of the first BIP110 client. There’s ~3 weeks to go before “mandatory” signaling starts as of now (less by the time you read this). 90% of the time available has passed with no change in overall sentiment from any relevant players. If it hasn’t gained sufficient adoption in the past 7 months, it’s not likely to do so in the next 3 weeks.
"But Jason! CSAM! CSAM! Pedophiles! CSAM!"
I'll be the first to say, even I personally overstated the risk here early on when Core proposed its OP_RETURN change. I personally expected something particularly egregious to hit the chain almost immediately, and to the best of my knowledge that's not yet happened. Could it still happen? Yeah, I suppose.
But considering from a technical perspective, byte-for-byte the same contiguous arbitrary data can provably end up stored in the current chain or the BIP-110 chain without much issue... this particular argument for BIP-110 falls pretty flat to me at this point.
Do I want CSAM in the chain? Of course not. Am I a pedophile if I don't support BIP110? Also not.
...
I could continue to go on and on and on, but I'll stop here. I've wasted enough time on this. I'm sure I've done plenty to annoy both sides of the BIP110 debate at this point, as I don't adopt either stance. I'm sure I'll catch flack from all angles simply for daring to speak my mind on it.
Overall, I mostly think it was silly to approach addressing a real problem (the OP_RETURN default change in Bitcoin Core) with the maximum anti-spam manifesto based soft fork proposal... which provably cannot stop spam, arbitrary data, etc. 🤦‍♂️ (Yes, I know, proponents will claim it's not about spam... and will also make semantic arguments that it does stop data as well... neither of which appears to be correct.)
I'll close with the concession that I could be wrong. I'm not Nostradamus, and I can't accurately predict the outcome with 100% certainty. I can only go by what the data tells me, and so I give BIP110's success less than a 5% chance of actually succeeding... and I consider that generous.
You can take my opinions on this however you wish, but I highly recommend you don't discount the actual data points, remain vigilant, and do what's best for you and your mining revenue. Don't be gaslit by either side of the debate, and make your own decisions.
Here's a link to the same document linked above for ease of access: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14DfMSVYBHTHIOmW32JTOR6BAP7AITbinvrhl8rJuvvc/edit?usp=sharing

2026-07-16 13:21:22 UTC

Crazy times we live in. By the way, Jason is very much smart and skilled.
People have lost the plot.
https://blossom.primal.net/ed3d3d33896c5f134f543c1bf730a3e41dd8dcfd00069f1518d423bde20ca187.png

2026-07-09 17:30:04 UTC

Built a WhatsApp client that fucks #ChatControl.
It layers RSA E2E encryption on top of WhatsApp itself your messages are encrypted before they ever hit the wire.
In few days will share a url, for now you can run it locally.
Supports Tor as well.
https://github.com/dani69654/hchat
https://blossom.primal.net/4fc65fe70379614682b47c08e5447abebc5373f3c333dc21748a8b5933e9cdf8.png

2026-06-25 13:52:05 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/6f9c66339aea7019a43c72f69957c9c1e2d545870b9183aaa51a37ccae2124d4.mp4
🫡

2026-06-05 21:55:11 UTC

Goodnight lads. Enjoy the weekend, spend your time doing things you love, far away from the computer

2026-06-03 15:09:20 UTC

Long story short, if 110 activates as UASF, its chain could split. Eventually its mining diff adjusts down, a miner finds out he can make money mining the chain. The chain catches up with the spammy one and ends up wiping it out. Fun times ahead.

2026-05-31 21:29:42 UTC

In the beginning of 2024 Binance ended support for Ordinals, and two months ago Magic Eden shutdown its Ordinal marketplace.
Now not even the Solana degen casino Phantom supports Bitcoin Ordinals, BRC-20 or “Rare Sats” anymore
The world is healing

2026-05-05 19:48:02 UTC

Hope you dudes will find love if you haven't already.
It's a game changer.

2026-04-29 13:33:06 UTC

- reply

https://x.com/BTCtreasuries/status/2049296498962186412

2026-04-29 13:21:48 UTC

Fucking hell
https://blossom.primal.net/38d98f520d093502c098acac71e2f61884a932150b810ca550510aaccfd4a507.png

2026-04-16 09:56:23 UTC

- reply

Those selling Bitaxes seem to be losing it, probably because they’re worried people will stop buying their machines.
Others label it “cloud mining” to imply it’s a scam.
Some are just irrationally upset and keep insisting that renting hash power doesn’t make you a miner.
For the record, I’m not renting hash power from Braiins. I just don’t understand why this topic triggers people so much.

2026-04-16 09:30:52 UTC

Only retards would criticize plebs renting hash power that would otherwise be rented by Foundry and company.
Nobody complains against foundry but people seem to get triggered when an Anon on twitter rents few PHs.

2026-03-19 08:38:45 UTC

- reply

I agree 100% but it does not answer my question 🥲

2026-03-18 14:16:04 UTC

To all 110 supporters.
If BIP110 activates, miners are expected to favor compliant blocks over small fee differences.
But what stops attackers from flooding the mempool with high fee spam like we already had, pushing miners to risk non compliant blocks for bigger rewards?

2026-02-27 09:28:38 UTC

So now Magic Eden is pivoting to gambling and is shutting down its BTC marketplace.
Udi separated idiots from their bitcoins.
I don't like this at all, but I'm happy you noobs lost your coins forever. You deserve it.
Have fun staying poor.

2026-02-18 17:53:05 UTC

I’ve been working on a small server anyone can run to earn sats by exposing simple GET and POST endpoints. Payments use #cashu #e-cash, so everything stays fast and lightweight.
If you want to experiment or earn a bit on the side, feel free to spin it up.
Repo: https://github.com/dani69654/api_for_bitcoins
#api_for_bitcoins
cc @npub12rv…85vg
@npub1cj6…86t6

2026-01-28 13:35:38 UTC

Most of those still backing Core today aren’t defending principles, but resignation. A kind of nihilism that says nothing can change, so fighting isn’t worth it anymore.

2026-01-27 07:36:45 UTC

GM
We are so lucky to be alive today, don’t waste this gift

2026-01-26 23:08:47 UTC

GN frens

2026-01-26 22:54:16 UTC

Why don’t presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?

2026-01-26 10:32:29 UTC

Many people who oppose BIP-110 also oppose Core 30 and suggest "just not upgrade to 30." It's crazy how the community argues about solutions but agrees that 30 and the current core are garbage.

2026-01-21 10:40:26 UTC

Stolen from @nprofile…whw4 😂
https://blossom.primal.net/5940d92e404144cc35940e6f4734e60906bfaa7ace6af97df99492f5fef3fdc0.png

2026-01-20 18:56:27 UTC

- reply

You keep saying the alternative was “much worse” and that “it never really mattered who A or B was.” I disagree. I don’t think the situation has ever been as bad as it is today.
Focusing just on Bitcoin, Trump launching scam coins, including Melania, was a serious blow to the ecosystem. It undermined more than ten years of effort to build credibility and made Bitcoin look like a scam to a global audience.
No offense intended, but I genuinely didn’t expect this level of irrational behavior. I know most Americans are great people, but from the outside the country currently looks deeply polarized, angry, and heavily influenced by propaganda.
Trump literally makes China look much better compared to the US.

2026-01-20 08:02:40 UTC

- reply

People don’t dislike you personally. They dislike that you, like many other "Bitcoiners" in the US, ended up echoing the rhetoric of a corrupt, pedo politician with a deeply troubling history.

2026-01-19 11:12:57 UTC

Hey Bitcoiner, pause for a second.
Your feed is probably full of “you don’t have enough #Bitcoin”, or $21M predictions from Charlie Lee and Samson Mow.
Look at what @nprofile…79xu is building: #CoinJoin coordinated via Nostr.
This is what being a Bitcoiner means.

2026-01-17 10:16:43 UTC

Running bitcoin

2026-01-13 14:32:46 UTC

A small demo of the Chrome plugin I’ve developed, currently under review. It automatically cross-posts Twitter content to #Nostr.
The goal is to help grow the Nostr ecosystem by making it easier for more people to join.
What do you think? #asknostr
https://blossom.primal.net/206ea10638585600c258670c3d5cadcbb2985b9448b5b1e9d57e859b2e70d21e.mov

2026-01-08 12:35:58 UTC

- reply

You literally zap 49 sats 🤓

2026-01-08 10:43:12 UTC

- reply

Udi has the same eyes people have after .5 of MDMA

2026-01-08 07:45:08 UTC

- reply

Walking, especially alone in nature, slowly turns into deep meditation after an hour or two.
Take a walk, people. No music. No podcasts.
#nevent1q…ucds

2026-01-07 14:01:24 UTC

- reply

Can I use it to send zaps then? I ‘ve used Cashu last year but only to move e-cash around

2025-08-05 16:50:06 UTC

- reply

I don’t need to be remembered by anyone. Study Bitcoin

2025-08-03 11:10:17 UTC

@nprofile…270c you are exactly this
https://blossom.primal.net/5bd8973ee89bf21c058bf557f95ba79364a4cf29788bf319770e7ca1cae1a0e0.png

2025-07-28 07:01:03 UTC

GM #bitcoin
https://blossom.primal.net/0e5e198db8f4bc40a3c70c3a7dacfff5c97d8f167730491d90faf310fff43932.png