The Big Mistake That Satoshi Made
https://blossom.primal.net/453c33bb5fbfc69357fbe861cb54809524b5dbe4da2b645173218fe3993a22d2.mp4
Discussion
Matthew K. 💯 👍
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdshsqgr5a20n9tsw2s8sfpphq9awg22wm73uygz5c8tgv63egwtz52ne7ym0kt38
We're finally getting to the real point in all this:
Open hardware home mining rigs like Bitaxe + mining pools like Ocean / DATUM and many many Plebs starting to actively participate in the mining 🧡⚡️🫒
Matt’s Missing the Forest for the Trees: Bitcoin’s Censorship Resistance Doesn’t Depend on Mining Pools
Mining Pools ≠ Miners
Pools are coordination services, not rulers. If Foundry or Antpool censors, miners:
Switch pools instantly (hashrate follows profit)
Solo mine (see Stratum V2+ template negotiation)
Launch new pools (Braiins, Ocean)
Reality Check: Miners lease hashpower—they don’t own it. The machine operators (often plebs) can revolt.
Satoshi’s Design Anticipated This
The whitepaper’s "nodes accept blocks only if valid" is key. Even if a pool tries to censor:
Full nodes reject invalid blocks (51% attack fails)
Economic majority (exchanges, merchants) orphan bad chains
Example: 2017’s UASF (user-activated soft fork) proved pools obey node consensus.
‘Spam’ is a Red Herring
OP_RETURN/inscriptions stress-test the system—exposing weaknesses to fix (like spam filters in Knots).
Full blocks = fee market development, not ‘failure.’ Satoshi literally wrote: "The cost of a transaction will be buried in the noise."
The Real Threat is Node Centralization
Matt’s right about one thing: Core’s reluctance to prune spam could hurt UX.
Solution? Run Knots. Use Stratum V2. Support peer-to-peer pools like Ocean.
Bottom Line: Bitcoin’s anti-censorship doesn’t rely on ‘nice’ pools—it relies on game theory:
Miners must follow node rules or lose billions in sunk costs
Users must run nodes or lose sovereignty
Fiat-minds see ‘centralization’ because they think in hierarchies. Bitcoiners know: No pool, no dev, no CEO can override SHA-256 + economic incentives.
P.S. Scared of pools? Point your miner at a P2Pool node today—decentralization is a verb.
nevent1qqs8qh3qll2asyasjh8ult76ssa779ptvy03umcddyq3407e8j973qqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgs8g8qr
MK - much appreciate your contributions/takes/work. I've learned much🙏🙏
IMHO your thesis around spam/pool centralization has one issue though, from your video:
*"Because who really wants MARA spamchaintokens?"*
Exactly. Eventually no one does.
Is spam (nonfinancial) or even bitcoin adjac (tokens) valuable over long timeframes? Will it compete over years (decades) with financial-only bitcoin transaction finality? I doubt it. Humans will eventually choose food and shelter over monkey jpegs.
I agree that filters *work*. By *work* they increase the cost (time/money) to transact around them. However, the fee market is actually the ultimate neutral uncorruptable filter. It is also relentless: they (VC, spam bros, alt token bros) have to pay, then pay, the pay again forever. If their *use* doesnt provide lasting value to humans, then it will be priced out. If it actually does, meaning it outcompetes bitcoin's hurdle rate, then we are collectively better off - perhaps open-time-stamps has a shot at this.
You hate spam, I hate spam, eventually even the spam enjoyers will bend the knee as they run out of resources to keep up with the cost of transaction finality onchain - and will decide, that they hate spam too.
Relay policy/nonstandardness efforts are not longterm as neutral and not truly uncorruptible as fees. Perhaps Core has arrived at a rough concensus that this is true and is *asking* the community to take on the filtering? You and others are responding and it is looking much better. Strong work.
The fee market has our collective backs - forever.
Fees are the ultimate neutral uncorruptible filter
nevent1qqs8qh3qll2asyasjh8ult76ssa779ptvy03umcddyq3407e8j973qqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgs8g8qr