"Oh, they've got the technically sound arguments."
They don't ever make any technical arguments because their technical argument is:
*"If you make the data carrier size bigger, there'll be more OP_RETURNs of a size bigger than the limit used to be."*
Like, okay. That's the extent of the technical discussion. It's not a technical debate, guys. We know it. We know it. And I've said it a million times before.
— Bitcoin Mechanic
i would just recommend DistroShelf but exporting apps with BoxBuddy is easier.
im actually making my own gui app for managing and isolating AppImages, Distroboxes, and Flatpaks in one place nicely. but its not done yet.
it has distrobox built-in, nice to use for non flatpak stuff and dev environments.
GUI apps like BoxBuddy and DistroShelf makes it really easy.
two are code mistakes on a product.
other one is just a mistake.
i just use fedora silverblue.
its 2026 linux desktop just works.
i switched because overall its a better experience.
voting is an illusion, keeps you away from the real problem.
you think you are fighting, but you are not.
both options are pre-selected, serving the same demons, just with different flavors.
The distinction between theory and practical decentralization:
many people can call things "decentralized"
but decentralization also requires a system that makes decentralization easier.
email is "decentralized" in theory, but its really not in practice:
- you have to run a server, or rent a server.
- you have to keep the server running.
- you can't switch back and forth between servers/providers without changing your identity.
- you are stuck on your provider.
so this means something decentralized should let you:
- switch between instances without changing your identity.
- should allow you to change providers.
- should allow you to start self hosting anytime without any downsides or effort.
- you shouldn't have to keep a server running 24/7, you should be able to go offline. so you shouldn't need a traditional server. you phone, your pc should be able to be the self hosted provider, that doesnt need 100% uptime.
- it should be easy to participate in the network.
so what is not decentralized in practice?
- matrix
- fediverse (mastadon)
- ethereum
what is decentralized?
- nostr
why?
in nostr your relays are not namespaces for users. users have key pairs, so they can easily change between relays without changing their identity.
a relay is just server that lets you store and query nostr events. and many nostr clients designed to work with many relays, discover relays, and broadcast smartly, so you can use multiple relays at once, you can decide to self host your events at any point.
if you are self hosting, you profile doesnt go down just because your self hosted relay went down. so you can run a relay on your phone using apps like Citrine, and using Orbot you can host it over tor onion addresses for free, from any network. (this can also be built-in in nostr apps in the future)
You can start using Nostr with Primal, and some default public relays. But then you can self-host or change your relay list anytime later. You can backup your events, or events mentioning you, and rebroadcast them if they go missing.
All without being have to start over.
If you have a Gmail, you can't switch to ProtonMail simply. Your address changes, your inbox changes, etc.
You can't switch Matrix instances as well.
You can't switch Fediverse providers without changing everything.
You can't simply start self hosting.
On nostr, you can. It's truly decentralized.
i got the domain:
zapwork.app
if anyone wants it, let me know.
so many so called bitcoiners shaken out this cycle.
just stack sats
and focus on your craft nostr:note1qfn4rzxvsvnyhxtrpurg5nk7awepv9squx56gc5dd7w5pppenqpqte8lc8
male astrology
vs bitcoin maxi
pick your side.
i mean my phone supports sd cards up to 1tb.
so 1tb.
wont last forever.
but maybe i can finish my own node with more optimized storage before it runs out of space.
got an sd card, so i can run a full node on my phone instead of running a pruned one
core is the gold standard
knots is the bitcoin standard nostr:nevent1qgsrzsrjc9h6jse7zd60vtjmqtypvw2xa55c48x78v25z5fu98gellcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsqgpxuye4hxzehklgv4h2nl007avlcrr3qr4d3re0420e5y5yjzu8tck7wqsu
gotta update my node on my phone. nostr:note1eceyzp259ktmjkvkf24ynlhepujpwsplfqu6vwtxtnggr6sc52ys7lz0u2
everybody asking "how to center a div"
nobody asking "why do you need a div"
only way we can stop them is keeping your power to yourself, without feeding them.
and best way to do that is bitcoin, buy bitcoin.
i started to feel they use woketards as reverse psychology. they created a group so degenerate, so hated, that nobody wants to agree with them. so by using the easily influenced woketards, they influence you.
bitcoin node stuff is just my priority after work stuff.
yes i might make some small stuff time to time.
but if im not focusing on the work project, then i work on the bitcoin node project.
it just work stuff never ends. hopefully more relaxed times will come if we can push through this version.
then i can continue working and experimenting on the bitcoin node stuff.
just a prototype not really a game.
reason why i have been remaking it since the first time i started coding.
started with unity, then i was just using unity ecs and low level graphics api of unity, then most recently i have been trying to make it with my own engine, an ecs library, and webgpu graphics api.
i have videos of the old unity one: https://www.youtube.com/@shibasitch
currently im using my own engine with this ecs library: https://friflo.gitbook.io/friflo.engine.ecs
but might change to this one as well: https://github.com/Felid-Force-Studios/StaticEcs
using webgpu for the graphics api, because its not outdated like opengl, and not as complex as using vulcan directly.
scenery like these, makes me wanna continue working on my "space game" and learn more about world generation and experiment. etc.
fuck aliens
HUMAN SUPREMACY
what a year
but when you look at the fundamentals of the protocol. monero is not better.
and if it scales destined to be less decentralized because of the fact that it would take more disk space and processing power to run it.
many dont realize it but bitcoin has a disk storage issue even with its block size limit. 800gb is way too much.
and monero doesn't fix that, makes it worse.
how does thay make monero better
Monero does not have a limited supply and there is no guarantee that there is no hidden inflation, so it is not suitable for long-term savings.
In any case, Monero is a privacy tool and is not perfect either.
nostr:nevent1qqsgkjs320fmwja39y5pr9jv677vqpaw6x9mvgv03872c4lr0p78xws9nmumw
an it doesn't stay decentralized when scaled.
i hate nostr apps that ask for signing permissions while being idle.
wtf do you need to sign this random base64 for? why should sign anything blindly.
if im not publishing anything, then you shouldn't ask me to sign things.
if you are for some reasons talking to your own server and need authentication, just create your own token. let me sign the public key you generate for the communication.
im not randomly saying accept anything you say, idk if you are publishing it on relays or not, what does that weird kind number mean. do i have to check online every time?
its simple, of you are not publishing anything on the relays, then dont fucking require me to sign anything...
if im not pressing on something, don't fucking try to sign spam shit.... like decrypting chat. have a fucking decrypt button...
works?
lpotq6xt6tju5cedioi2qfi3prc2p7hdrimz2jyu4r35hk5g2gwq.b32.i2p
my nostr relay running on my phone.
Tor receives significant funding from US government and other governments.
It is centralized (9 directory nodes) and still used for privacy. 
Directory nodes: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/
idc about tor privacy.
onion addresses are cool. i like onion address, being able host/connect anything from anywhere.
you dont have to, there isn't many financially viable ways to store blob data on bitcoin.
nostr:nprofile1qqsv2g4wyh4fgdf85qlqk82yflkarlw3uun0vswlqjzu2mqqejd0qzcys3wz3 04678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb649f6bc3f4cef38c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f
nostr:nprofile1qqsv2g4wyh4fgdf85qlqk82yflkarlw3uun0vswlqjzu2mqqejd0qzcys3wz3 sp1qqwdknqgz7v2ph8hxjc9t2nz3frqazjkhu7c5ar5w03tn0amw3ugrsq5zmaznxjuce70l6p47t5vm25qngxnwqgk025csgr735uds0y9wsgjkuhfc
just search "BSV CSAM" on any search engine. it was a mess and node runners had to make their own client with filters. and invent pruning methods.
there is a rush because v30 comes out this week.
also you can watch videos of the "Bitcoin University" on YT , he aggregates many information in his videos. he has hours of content on it (probably, didnt count).
there is also a video of BitcoinMechanic called "Bitcoin OG and Legend Jason Hughes Explains the Damage Of 100KB OP_RETURN".
some old post from satoshi:
https://nostr.download/c9c2c3ec58e1d16d1e7662fad6bb46631fdbcbd7e7ac9433abfed1cd1c1c350d.webp
OP_FALSE OP_IF and its variants are structure. if it wasnt a structure we would be able to filter it. we would had need machine learning to filter it. any IDE can detect unreachable code.
and BSV already did the exact same change. and we saw what happened. its not panic, if its real. also its not like people on the knots side doesnt make any technical arguments, there are many technical arguments made by knots side (its just there is also left side of the bell curve).
you can make technical arguments and also point out things like CSAM vulnerability at he same time. two things can exists and be true at the same time.
and CSAM is also a technically a valid concern based on history, what happened to BSV.
> On the exploit framing, I understand the analogy to using YouTube for storage or a bank database for encoding data. But there’s a key difference. Those are private platforms with terms of service. Bitcoin is a permissionless protocol. The question isn’t whether inscriptions are the intended use, but whether Bitcoin can remain permissionless while enforcing intended use.
bitcoin is a money protocol, break any other use case is not against the protocol. and again bitcoin doesnt live on the ether, in runs on people's devices. bitcoin is permissionless money.
> Now on consensus versus policy, you’re right that policy allows parallel rules without chain splits. That’s valuable. But when the debate becomes not just what policy individuals choose, but what policy should be standard or what pools should be boycotted for not filtering, we’ve moved from free market policy to prescriptive policy.
many policy has been part of the bitcoin for a very long time. they are part of what bitcoin is. only reason they are not consensus is just in case, so we dont accidentally trap ourselves. these are yes mostly standard. and many has the purpose of mitigating the blob data storage usage from the early satoshi days.
> Your vision of a free market of network policy with custom filter scripts and plugins is actually more aligned with permissionless principles than mandating everyone filter the same way. Let nodes compete, let fee markets work, let the best approach win.
exactly knots go up, and everyone has right to believe other implementation is shit, and go do wars on it. everyone has right to preach knots, and teach others why its the best option we have. its social. and because technically core arguments makes no sense, if people think longer than 10 mins.
> Filtering based on structural limits is objective. Filtering based on whether data belongs here requires ongoing human judgment about what’s legitimate Bitcoin use.
that's why filters are dynamic. i would go further and say that we need isolated custom filter scripts and plugins. free market of network policy.
for example i can make a plugin that delays the propagation of blocks by weight of the txs that doesnt fit into my filtering policy. simulating a slow connection. making it more likely to be a stale block.
> On Taproot: if policy prevented inscriptions before and Taproot removed that barrier, then the Bitcoin community achieved consensus to expand what’s allowed. Calling it an exploit now is reframing a consensus change as a bug.
that's why i used to phrase "excuse", the goal of size limit policy being removed had nothing to do with that use case. its a side effect of poor decision making, and lack of attention on the codebase by normal plebs as i said "changing the multiplier of gravity will have untended side effects". and script size limit was a policy, not a consensus.
> On the money argument: inscriptions are paying full freight in fees. They’re expensive. If someone wants to pay $50 to inscribe data, they’re not attacking the fee market, they’re participating in it.
> The timechain isn’t storage by design, agreed. But fee markets should make storage economically prohibitive, not developer policy deciding what counts as storage versus payment.
its called an exploit, because its an exploit. if i start using your nostr relay to spam chunks of a blob data as posts, then im exploiting your relay. if i use my bank's transaction history to encode and store random blob data, then im exploiting their database. if i use youtube as cloud storage by encoding blob data into videos, thumbnails and video title and descriptions, then im exploiting the youtube.
they are attacking because script space is not intended as storage space.
talking about some policy like "objective" or "subjective" is miss-leading as well. policy is policy. if consensus said "max script size is x, and max op_return size is y, or tx size has to be idk an odd number". then you wouldn't be able to make the same argument. because consensus is consensus.
with consensus, if you disagree, you either have to split and lose or accept what the majority says. in consensus "yes" and "no" can't exists together on the same chain. in policy you dont have to split, you can add any rules you want as long as you are staying inside the frame of consensus. different policy rules can exists in parallel in the free market of network policy.
its free speech, just like i can choose what to gossip with others physically, i can choose what to gossip with other nodes around me.
in a community culture might not be a written rule, but it protects it. and lack of it would ruin it.
> Where does content filtering stop once we accept it as legitimate?
blob data on the timechain is not legitimate. there is no category. its simple.
there aren't many financially viable ways to store blob data on the chain. if we filter some as they get popular, eventually there will be no p2p way to store blob data. unless core creates another opening again. but until then hopefully core will be irrelevant in the free market node software.
if they can have tools to decode it, then you can filter it.
policy exists not because they are less important than consensus, but because its more beneficial for them to be dynamic. because we dont wanna lock ourselves in.
and also i believe having more dynamic options between nodes keeps the protocol more decentralized.
if we suddenly have a ceo of bitcoin (core maintainer) changing what its, is it still bitcoin? you cant just change playing field and expect everything to keep working. if you change the multiplier of gravity you would break many things.
if you remove all of the policy, its not the same bitcoin anymore.
and tapscript didn't exist while satoshi was active.
also there was nothing stopping inscriptions from being existed before taproot, except the script size limit policy for witness. which was also removed for tabscript with the taproot fork. so policy has stopped exploits like these many times before. until its removed for another excuse.
because of policy vitalik left bitcoin and built the ethereum shitshow. let them build their own country, because they are not welcomed fucking with people's money.
bitcoin doesnt run on the ether, it runs on people's devices, that what makes it different and decentralized. and just like in any protocol you have to filter spam, exploits of protocol, and other attacks.
timechain is not a storage. it exists to prevent double spend. if we had another solution, it wouldn't have existed.
or they are just woke or semi-woke. saying phrases like "all bytes equal".
good video btw