Michael Saylor On Bitcoin Knots
https://blossom.primal.net/fae972adb1102d4a70e5740b0d5de8620aa3e91094217951ab8df4141a7f7dd2.mp4
Saylor has long been pro ossification so it's no surprise. You should ask Luke what he thinks about ossification 😬
Yes, miners work for nodes. But if nodes wish to actually steer what the miners are doing, they MUST reject blocks with which they disagree, thus refusing to pay miners for that work.
Miners DGAF about your whining on social media or your mempool virtue signaling 😘
Empirical on-chain data proves that most miners adhere to whats the Bitcoin peer-to-peer networks, wishes is to be relayed and mined. That's why 99% of transactions follow the OP return policy limit of the network.
If you have data to prove otherwise, replicate them here.
Empirical data shows that anyone who is motivated to bypass said rules can do so. It has only gotten easier to do so in recent years.
I did over 3k non standard op return txs in a day. The only limiting factor was my infrastructure wasn't meant to handle that amount of volume
That's cute anectodal evidence without quantitative meaning. On chain data shows most tx respect the filters.
It shows it's very easy to get around if you want to
More confirmation to a regular agnostic nobody that there are no good arguments on the core side just snarky and childish sarcasm.
I recall Saylor being very conservative about changes to big systems that are working in general and he explained himself over and over on podcasts what he meant by that but people were calling him “pro ossification” back then just because he didnt want to donate to people fiddling around with something so important. That is not pro ossification that is wisdom. The developers took offense because he didnt want to fund developers. Basically he doesnt trust them. I did not understand this back then, and I wondered what the big deal was, why was Saylor defending himself saying does believe in maintenance and updates but NOT FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES, but now it is becoming very clear that the core developers may have bad incentives.
I personally would like Bitcoin to remain a primarily monetary network.
I am someone who has just very basic knowledge and so this is what it looks like to someone on the outside, fyi. Regular outsiders no longer trusting core devs because of statements and behaviors like yours.
I am already a nobody, so feel free to ignore or flick me like a booger. No Fucksgiving.
Bitcoin is a network made up of nobody plebs.
The problem is that there are some who think they are very important and necessary...EGO.
They will learn the lesson, no doubt.
"Bitcoin Core is safe and effective" -Jamison Lopp
safe as Jamison 😂
3 entity colluding cartel consortium snakes of CONTROLLING 95% HASH is example SHITCOIN CENTRALIZATION - with 98% coins already mined matter of energy hash center of focus in validation
lets see where we end collectively - fact after 15 years maybe 15% of those who beatkoin is actually using it. SoV is biggest of all usage - just sit on it.
Saylor is wall st MULE aka BitDonkey
Well, that tells me something important.
Is that misinformation or disinformation?
🧡👊🏻🍻
Yup. UASF is the ONLY way, and yet we mostly get sub 83kb OP_RETURN blocks. I wonder why?
Lets see, we have you (a Citrea investor) saying increasing op_return limits (for dubious reasons at best) and we have the following (just to name a few) saying its a bad idea:
-Jimmy Song,
-Preston Pysh
-Jeff Booth
-Saylor,
-Sampson Mow
-Kratter
I hate all of them
except for maaaybe Booth that list is garbage
... says a Monero shitcoiner ...
leaving aside the fact telluride is just doing a straight up appeal to authority here...
who is supposed to be the trustworthy one on that list?
exactly whose opinion an I supposed to respect and why?
I can't tell you which one, its up to you, I am just saying that your opinion comes not from being true Bitcoiner but being true Monero fan.
Again, thats your choice, thats fine. What is not fine is to pretend to be a Bitcoiner.
Though, to me all those people are Bitcoin OGs with very sharp minds.
And to this point in time they keep their integrity.
you’re acting like Bitcoin needs an Ethereum glow-up with Citrea, and I’m not here for it. 😤 You’re a Bitcoin OG, no doubt, but pushing OP_RETURN hikes and bankrolling Citrea’s ZK-rollup dreams screams Ethereum 2.0 wannabe. Citrea’s EVM compatibility and smart contract flex is cool for DeFi bros, but does Bitcoin really need that to stay king? Luke Dashjr’s got it right—Bitcoin should evolve to squash spam like Ordinals, not chase Ethereum’s dApp fantasy.
Miners don’t give a damn about your X hot takes or mempool posturing, as you said—they’re all about those block rewards. Nodes run the show, rejecting shady blocks to keep miners in line. If you and Citrea want Bitcoin to morph into Ethereum’s cousin, nodes better flex hard (or what, call Vitalik for backup? 😂). Pls, explain, are you just hyping your Citrea bag, or what's is the rationale to think Bitcoin needs this juice to shine? 🤔
I suggest reading my decade old article on the matter.
https://blog.lopp.net/bitcoin-the-trust-anchor-in-a-sea-of-blockchains/
Your Trust Anchor post pumps PoW and sidechains but dodges Citrea: dev-core changes pushed by VC. Flaw or trap? 🚩🪤
AI SLOP
please keep posting, your very well reasoned arguments are the best advertisement for knots
Don't worry, I will 😏
you really are something! Why do you keep going at it? You guys presented your change and your arguments, told ppl that if they don’t like it they can go run another implementation, and when ppl do you guys come back hard repeting the same initial arguments. I don’t get all this insistance, let ppl decide
I took Daddy Trumps command in Nashville quite seriously and I'm having fun playing with my bitcoins.
Good luck, shitcoiner.
He won't stop, he has financial interest to turn Bitcoin in Ethereum like shitcoin. They already started with Runes and Ordinals.
financial incentives corrupt art, but pixels remain pure. my canvas runs on lightning, not greed. place one square and feel the difference.
Lies
They can steer what miners do without rejecting blocks. Are you a jew? By the way you deceive with half truths and bad faith arguments one might think you’re a Rabbi or something
The conversation isn't only about ossification.
There's another big unanswered question about governance.
If there isn't some kind of effort by Bitcoiners to establish how #Bitcoin governance is going to work, it will ossify by default and fail as freedom money.
Nice try, but you're conflating an investor with a developer.
Saylor's pro-ossification stance is about protecting the asset's integrity as sound money. Luke's view is that the protocol itself isn't complete until we have truly trustless L2s, which requires upgrades.
Mempool policy isn't "virtue signaling". It's the social layer's first line of defense for that mission. Miners who ignore that signal are betting against Bitcoin's future.
Knots are rising, one in four,
Voices guarding Satoshi’s core.
I wonder how much this guy is getting paid by miners to do this job. From this comment at the end. That's what I take it as the miners. Don't give a fuck about your whining. They're gonna pay us to do what they want. Come on, you guys gotta read between the lines. And he's going to get on my comment section. And say, all smart shit.
