Bitcoin Core's Inscriptions Funny Business
https://blossom.primal.net/960d29b2318ae75fdf214046410a25a65e3127840341a7f9017bb21c03e8e5a1.mp4
Discussion
good job Matt. I'd like to zap you some sats, pls show your ⚡️address (your nostr zap button is not working ...)
KBTC Knots Bind The Chain 🪢🙏🏻
Finally, this is getting the attention it deserves. 🤌
If you’re looking for the smoking gun behind the 2023 spam attack, this video lays it all out.
Until now, only a handful of small accounts had been shouting from the rooftops about the stealth change Core made in 2024 — a change that conveniently let them avoid patching the Taproot exploit.
Worse, they used it as an excuse to reject Luke’s PR, which aimed to fix it.
You’ve heard the narratives about “what is spam” and “what is a valid transaction,” but have you heard “what is an exploit”? They actually argued that a glaring exploit wasn’t an exploit at all. You can’t make this up.
nostr:nevent1qqsg33n5cw8ppx9t7evmrccyhhkze9tseq785mtz47z8waj5kw8j2yqt6my9v
beware Matthew Kratter is a scammer
Says the FED troll?
kratter is the one with ties to peter theil not me
He has proven himself by telling the truth and educating Bitcoin Plebs for long long time.
You on the other hand are just a pathetic liar and no one cares from which (FED) institution you come and whether its accredited or not.
Here matters the TRUTH!
target the idea, not the person. typical fiat clown world tactics
he’s a scammer. sorry if the truth hurts your feelings 🤷🏻♂️
He is not a scammer and calling him scammer this directly means that there is something wrong with you. Because Matthew is telling the truth. The verifiable truth. To me you really smell like FED but in any way your propaganda is disguting.
Many Core devs are compromised. They attack Bitcoin from inside.
Run Bitcoin Knots.
Another example of compromised Core dev who is attacking Bitcoin Culture and Values.
21 Million Bitcoin Forever! But see the below:
Corruption unleashes the worst from people.
I am not currently, nor have I ever been invested in or employed by Taproot Wizards. If I had, it would be disclosed on lopp.vc
You should probably hire a fact checker since you're clearly quite bad at it.
You are a disgusting shitcoiner and a liar.
"We're hearing things like Citrea is better than Ethereum," Chainway Labs co-founder Orkun Mahir Kılıç told CoinDesk. "It'll be better with time, because there's like $1 trillion, as of now, sitting in the Bitcoin blockchain. It is the most secure, battle-tested and decentralized blockchain. And we are bringing decentralized finance to it." 🤡🤡🤡
Zero credibility left Matthew.
By seeing the truth and rejecting it you show 0 brain activity.
A breakdown of key Bitcoin Core devs involved in the datacarriersize redefinition (PR #27832) and rejection of the anti-spam fix (PR #28408), which allowed inscription spam to persist.
Devs Who Supported the Redefinition (ACKed or Merged PR #27832):
• Marco Falke (maflcko): Authored the PR, focused on clarification without opposition.
• Anthony Towns (ajtowns): ACKed the change, suggested dropping redundant options like -datacarrier.
• Greg Sanders (instagibbs): ACKed the change.
• Michael Ford (fanquake): Merged the PR.
Devs Who Supported the Rejection of the Fix (NACKed or Opposed PR #28408):
• Sjors Provoost (Sjors): Concept NACK.
• Peter Todd (petertodd): Concept NACK; argued it would encourage private mempools and harm fee estimation.
• Antoine Poinsot (darosior): Concept NACK.
• douglaz: Concept NACK.
• aviv57: Concept NACK.
• eragmus: Concept NACK; argued inscriptions don’t significantly spam the UTXO set and filtering worsens out-of-band issues.
• mmgen: Concept NACK.
• alpeshvas: Concept NACK; called the discussion “noise.”
• michaelfolkson: Concept NACK.
• Pieter Wuille (sipa): Concept NACK; concerned about disrupting feerate estimation and compact block relay.
• Gloria Zhao (glozow): Concept NACK; summarized arguments against, noting ineffectiveness and potential harm to nodes. (Note: In Issue #29187, she suggested broadening the scope as an alternative, but opposed this specific fix.)
• Mark Erhardt (murchandamus): Concept NACK; argued market forces handle spam and filtering reduces miner revenue.
• 1440000bytes: Approach NACK.
• Anthony Towns (ajtowns): Approach NACK; cited CI issues and opposed default changes, suggesting an opt-in instead.
Devs Involved in Closing the Fix PR:
• Andrew Chow (achow101): Closed PR #28408 as maintainer, citing controversy and lack of consensus; locked the conversation due to heat.
Masks are down. NACKers are compromised and can't be trusted.
There’s porn on X twitter. Is X liable?