i never thought I’d say this, but…

i’m feeling deeply homesick.

not just for a place—but for a world where people remember how sacred life is.

what broke me on this trip wasn’t the chaos or discomfort,

but the moment i heard a local leader say:

“i think we need to drop some bombs on those motherfuckers.”

not long after, walking home, i opened the news:

they dropped them. fr.

they spoke it with ease.

and then- it happened.

we rarely realize how powerful our words are.

how much energy we transmit.

every sentence plants a seed.

every thought is a wave.

pause for a moment.

feel the pain in your heart—the part that clings to fear,

because it’s all it has ever known.

ignore that, and you feed the noise.

the numbness.

the war.

but no matter what,

you have a choice.

every word, every action… ripples. through all of us.

**choose wisely**

BITCOIN CAN ONLY CHANGE THE WORLD

IF WE ARE WILLING TO CHANGE OURSELVES.

CTV + CSFS: a letter to the technical bitcoin community from 43 engineers

Full text at ctv-csfs.com

Growth in OP_RETURN usage doesn’t prove your point at all, Jimmy.

You should want more usage of OP_RETURN instead of the witness data or bare multisig outputs. It’s simply less harmful.

The austerity dream is dead.

nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncpzdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ukzcnvv5hx7un8qy28wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yumpw3mxztnwv46qdmvajt was right (again).

Nothing stops this (fiscal spending) train.

🚂

You do you, but I continue to increase my fund’s exposure to global hard assets.

Thanks, let's dive in, shall we?

What issue were you experiencing with the Pi4?

I'm asking because there is a common misunderstanding that the entire UTXO set needs to fit into RAM, but that is not the case. The UTXO set is mostly stopped on disk. You only need a couple gigs of RAM for Bitcoin Core to run decently, although more is certainly helpful. UTXO set growth means slower IBD and generally more disk reads during validation, but it's a graceful degradation, not a cliff.

Does someone want to explain to me how OP_RETURNs increase the blockchain growth, hardware requirements, or otherwise increase the cost of running a node? I keep seeing that concern, and that seems completely counter my expectations. I'd love to see a detailed explanation of how that follows.

Since Jack understands that bitcoin is money, I would love to have one of these over the Saylor Bolt card. Save one for me 🥹

People who advocate for spending dollars = i don’t trust you

> Half-penny and paisa were in common circulation until inflation wiped it out. cents and dimes will also go away as well given the rate of dollar inflation.

Which changes nothing. If half-penny were in common circulation then it would be the smallest individual unit in common circulation. There's always one (and only one) unit that ticks that box.

> Try changing the 21Million cap and you will see that no nodes will accept it: no one wants to willingly dilute their worth. That is what I mean by Bitcoin's global truth.

The cap cannot be changed. What can be changed is how the cap is expressed. I can be 1.90m or 190cm, doesn't change my height.

>Lightning uses milli-sats. What happens to the base money then, just keep redefining the base unit?

If the millisat becomes the smallest individual unit in common circulation the that's what happens. If the currency is called Sats it just becomes a case where Sats isn't the smallest. That's how dollars and penies work.

Zooming out, the key point is what I call the grocery store test. If you can’t price things you'll find in the grocery store in Unit X—and have that pricing be easily parsable by the human brain—then Unit X should NOT be the name of the currency.

The dollar, the pound and the rupee all pass the grocery store test. Therefore they are all workable names for a currency. Bitcion does not pass the grocery store test. You cannot price one can of soup at 0.00001 BTC and another can of soup at 0.0001 BTC and have the brain be able to see that second can is10 times more expensive. Brain isn't wired for such ratio parsing. You have to price everything in Sats and Sats alone.

Every major currency in the world passes the grocery store test (because of how the brain works).

Therefore if we use Sats for the grocery store then the word and symbol for Bitcoin will have no job in that context. They'll gets fired by Sats. Which, if that's what you want, then ok.

See "in common circulation". Neither the half-penny nor the paisa are in common circulation, neither physically nor digitally. Case closed.

You are the one who brought physical length into the discussion, and we need physics for length. Both a meter and an angstrom can be expressed in terms of the Planck length. There is no other "base unit" for length. To say one meter is some kind of official global base unit for length is goofy. It's just a unit some people picked to compare to in some situations, and any other unit can also be compared to.

Bitcoin's 21 million bitcoin is completely arbitrary, decided by humans. Last time I checked humans didn't have all that much into into the speed of light, but hey, I wasn't in the room.

That's just another false comparison.

For length, the quantum unit for everything is the planck length. Anything else is arbitrary. Calling 1 meter a "base unit" for this or that is just something someone decided one day.

In currency, the base or quantum unit is the smallest indivisible unit in common circulation. For dollars, that's $0.01. There are no half-pennies in circulation.

For Rupees it's one Rupee.

If the currency is named after the quantum unit then you can get away with any slang for any higher amount, the whole ratio thing no longer applies because it’s not the same problem.

If the currency is *not* named after the quantum unit, as is the case with dollars (cents being the quantum), then the ratio problem does indeed come into play. So you have to find an apples to apples comparison.

>So just like 10crores = 10,000,000 rupees, 1 bitcoin = 10,000,000 sats.

But the name of the currency is "rupees", do you see the difference? It's named after the base unit.

By your logic, 1 bitcoin = 100,000,000 Sats *and the currency is Sats*. Bitcoin happens to be but a slang denomination of a large amount of the currency we all know formally as Sats. It's all backwards you see?

That said, that for me is fine. Rebrand the entire thing as Sats and I'm okay with that, at least it's clean.

Oh please, lakhs and crores are another obviously false comparison. These as slang for amounts exist under the umbrella of rupees (or whatever else is being counted). A dollar doesn't exist under the umbrella of something else.

Ratio wise, you do realise the difference between dollars and cents and. sats and bitcoin?

In the whole wide financial world, do we have a word for 100 million of something for which there exists a common word for just1 of that something? Or even 10 million? Or even 1 million?

There is a reason all such word pairs fall under a certain ratio. 1:100 is well within limit, 1:100,000,000 is absurd.

False comparison.

Drop the sats. Just bitcoin. It's cleaner.

Yeah they just bloat the UTXO set by using unspendable outputs. Stop being a hater and get it right bro.

⚡️POLL - Do you consider nostr:nprofile1qqsy67zzq5tc9cxnl6crf52s4hptdwhyaca5j7r8jwll535tdadedvcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejqcs6pd2 one of your main news accounts on Nostr? Do you regularly rely on it to stay updated?

if core ships an update i do not like then i will refuse to update my nodes

if the trend continues then i will support an alternative implementation

everything else is noise