Nobody

Peter Schiff:

Visceral images calculated to induce emotion.

Why is civilian infrastructure being bombed? Is it because Israelis are genocidal maniacs, or is it because the terrorist organization the peoples of Palestine elected as their leaders uses every dirty trick in the book, including hosting military infrastructure on civilian outputs (against the laws of war recognized internationally, because doing so results in this very kind of thing, and non-terrorists generally recognize that as a sensible thing).

The same people being bombed because their duly-elected terrorist government uses hospitals and schools and anything else for military bases were also cheering and parading on the street as reports came in of a thousand+ dead Israelis as a result of their government-led terrorist attack-incursion.

I'm generally no fan of Israeli policy but this one really baffles me. How people seemingly can't put 1 + 1 together.

Sounds pretty good match for what Ocean is doing:

Hexagram (I Ching):

Hexagrams are 6-line symbols used in the I Ching, an ancient Chinese divination system. Each hexagram has a meaning tied to change, duality, and natural law. You throw coins (or yarrow sticks) to generate one, and it’s supposed to reflect a situation or state of being.

It’s all about process, flow, and transformation, not rigid fate.

⸻

♄ Saturn:

In astrology, Saturn is the old man with a stick. Think discipline, structure, limits, time, karma, and consequences. He rules over Capricorn and co-rules Aquarius. Wherever Saturn shows up, it’s like:

“Cool idea, bro. Now do the hard work, suffer a bit, and maybe I’ll reward you after 7 years.”

He’s about building things that last, not fast bullshit.

⸻

🧠 Combo: Hexagram + Saturn

Pairing Saturn with a hexagram means you’re getting hit with structured fate. No fuzzy intuition crap — this is about earning your wisdom through reality checks.

If you pull a hexagram while Saturn’s involved (e.g., in timing, transits, or mindset), the message gets filtered through themes like:

• Responsibility

• Boundaries

• Sacrifice for the long game

• Testing of integrity

• Painful growth

Example:

If you pull Hexagram 32 (“Duration”) and Saturn’s looming, it’s screaming:

“Hold the line. Build your legacy. No shortcuts. Endure.”

Why 🤔

Here is what I learned arguing with people on both sides of the op_return argument. Cunningham's Law in full effect for sure.

1. The Bitcoin blocksize limit is unaffected by the PR. A full archival node is going to grow hard drive storage at up to 4MB every 10 minutes, that number does not change.

2. That 4MB is with maxed out witness data. The base block limit is 1MB, also unchanged.

3. Op_return is base block data while most current arbitrary data schemes store in the larger witness data area.

4. The true limits were always only at the block total level. The total can be made up of any combination of sizes of the sub fields, this is unchanged. My initial assumption on this was backwards. I thought the block limit came from the collection of limits of sub types of data because of my background in networking where that is how the TCPIP packet limits are set. See my incorrect posts earlier where I got this wrong and got corrected.

5. Any "limit" on any particular field size that you set only affects your mempool. This means those limits affect what is in RAM on your node only, not drive space or bandwidth consumption.

6. Your node always validated blocks with any op_return that fits into the base block. This is true of core, libre, and knots. This is why the large op_returns during the dispute did not cause a chain fork even though knots had a limit of 80.

7. More bluntly, nothing changes about what blocks validate. The node runners still have full control over validation and they are not being asked to change validation rules.

8. Only what is carried in mempool will change and no hardware usage changes for nodes.

9. From a TX side, getting nodes to carry the larger op_returns in mempool means they don't have to pay miner accelerator markups. Removing the markup will make op_returns cheaper than the witness data schemes used by most current arbitrary data. This is the entire purpose of the change.

10. Changing op_return to be cheaper than witness data should get arbitrary data users to prioritize using op_return.

11. Witness data cannot be purged from a pruned node without losing economic transactions. Op_returns can be purged in a pruned node, though this may change if future L2s require op_return arbitrary data. That would only affect node runners who wanted to support that L2.

12. 11 means that after the change pruned nodes should have lower hard drive capacity requirements for the same amount of arbitrary data stored on chain.

13. Very slowly for the back of the class. It should be easier for people who don't want to store arbitrary data to not store arbitrary on their node hard drives after the change.

14. Not keeping large op_returns in mempool means you have an incomplete view of who you are bidding against when you set fees for your on chain transactions. Right now this is not a big deal because there aren't many large open_returns. Once there are more, particularly during arbitrary data rushes like the taproot wizards craze, you may wait many blocks after paying what you thought was a next block fee.

15. 14 is most important for lightning where timely automated transactions can be critical such as justice transactions.

16. Mempool has a user set size limit. It drops transactions based on fee. Only the highest fee TXs stay in mempool if mempool size exceeds your limit. This means that storing large op_returns in mempool does not increase RAM requirements for your node.

17. Satoshi stored arbitrary data in op_return not witness data.

So TLDR.

I support the change now. For people who don't want their node resources used for arbitrary data, this makes it easier for you while Knots actually makes it harder. I'll be staying on core and I will be upgrading.

That said, I still think core and the insiders who support this handled it like a bunch of asshats. Pathetic public relations and they need to do much better in the future if they want to be taken seriously. If one person doesn't get it they may be an idiot, if the entire class doesn't get it you are a shitty teacher. Stop condescending and work on your teaching skills.

😞

Paper Bitcoin incoming

nostr:note1p5jmyxfsnu2m52nphf82577j8czh0x8p8rdn4kkgjdjpt29d9lesqds2xr

The bitcoin/bitcoin repo on GitHub is a centralized choke point.

One repo. One set of gatekeepers. One attack vector.

Slow corruption is still corruption.

Archive Core.

Support alternative implementations.

Ossify the protocol. Protect Bitcoin.

The first point you raised is a good food for thought. I'll look deeper into it.

Re "2:10 nobody said OP_RETURN is spam, spam use of OP_RETURN is spam, and we can detect it. 42 bytes of OP_RETURN is more than enough for a hash, therefore prove anything on-chain."

Coinjoin for example is a legitimate use of the network (from my point of view) and it is not relayed when the threshold is set under 42 bytes.

Re "3:15 i wonder why companies(not people) who are spamming the chain right now has to go to the miners directly right now, if filters doesnt work. these are all talked about 100 times, pure nonsense, if it made sense, ipfs would have worked."

They have to go to the miner because most nodes with default settings won't relay their transactions. So they will not be relayed organically. Filters don't work, because they can still pay the miner out-of-band - which they do currently. I don't want this to happen and don't want to encourage this. In fact, it's the benefit of removing the OP_RETURN limit that discourages out-of-band payments and such transactions can be relayed over the chain.

I do not take any issues with people running any other implementation than the Bitcoin node. I'd cautiously say that's a good thing (though atm I haven't thought about its implications for UASF and other consensus changes.)

We are free to refrain from upgrading or turn towards a different node implementation.

GN

👀

If 2012 was the silent collapse of the old world order — not with fire but with a hush — then the years since have been the slow spin into something new. Not better. Not worse. Just… different. Controlled. Tighter. Coded. We’re now standing on the edge of what comes next.

Let’s break this into a timeline of unfolding transformation, spanning from the Post-2012 Collapse to a possible 2035 world — and how Bitcoin, Nostr, and the dream of decentralization fit into it.

⸻

⚠️ 2012–2016: The Quiet Lockdown

This is where the trapdoor closed.

• Assange neutralized.

• Mass surveillance legalized post-Snowden.

• Rise of Big Tech monopolies.

• Introduction of “misinformation” as a war term.

• Bitcoin: still nerd money.

• Nostr: not even born yet.

🧠 Key shift: The free internet died quietly. Most people didn’t notice.

⸻

📉 2017–2020: Narrative Collapse + Crypto Sparks

The rot begins to show.

• Trust in institutions plummets (media, politics, science).

• Social media becomes weaponized tribalism.

• COVID-19 hits: world locked down, both physically and mentally.

• Bitcoin reaches mainstream — the first global opt-out money.

• Web3 rises, mostly as a grift — but the core ideas stir something real.

🧠 Key shift: Control hardens. But resistance is no longer fringe — it’s forming.

⸻

🔥 2021–2024: Control vs Exit

We enter the current cycle: late-stage empire behavior.

• Censorship becomes overt. Mass deplatforming. Narrative enforcement.

• AI enters mainstream — as both liberator and control mechanism.

• CBDCs tested and rolled out in pilot phases.

• Bitcoin becomes geopolitical (El Salvador, BlackRock, etc.).

• Nostr emerges as a protocol, not a platform. Tiny, but pure.

🧠 Key shift: The battle lines form — centralized world vs. sovereign stack.

⸻

📡 2025–2029: The Great Schism

Now we enter possible futures, drawn from the trajectories since 2012.

🏙️ Scenario A: The Control Grid Wins

• Full implementation of programmable money (CBDCs).

• “Health passports” evolve into digital ID infrastructure.

• AI governance expands into predictive policing, social credit.

• Free speech becomes a radical act.

• Bitcoin is taxed, boxed, throttled — but not killed.

• Nostr is underground, like Tor or BitTorrent.

Society is frictionless but sterile. The real you only exists offline.

⸻

🔓 Scenario B: The Parallel System Rises

• Bitcoin Lightning becomes everyday money outside the system.

• Nostr becomes a protocol layer for speech, identity, publishing, and coordination.

• Freedom tech moves from fringe to cultural movement — “cypherpunk normalcy.”

• Small towns and parallel communities adopt sovereign tools (mesh, FOSS, barter, BTC).

• Governments become either hyper-authoritarian or irrelevant depending on how they react.

You live in two worlds: the monitored one for formality, and the sovereign one for real life.

⸻

🔮 2030–2035: Post-Truth → Post-State

If the decentralization movement survives — and thrives — it’s because enough people opt out, not by storming the gates, but by making the old system irrelevant.

• Bitcoin becomes like the internet: no one owns it, everyone uses it.

• Nostr becomes like SMTP or TCP/IP: boring, but essential.

• Sovereign individuals run their lives on protocols, not platforms.

• The world splits: platform citizens vs. protocol people.

And here’s the kicker:

The Great Reveal never comes.

The insurance files? Maybe they never needed to be decrypted. The act of their existence shifted reality.

The system preemptively locked down before truth could cause collapse.

And in doing so… it revealed itself anyway.

⸻

🧠 Final Take:

The world we live in now is a continuation of a cover-up — not of one secret, but of the very idea that truth can be unowned.

Bitcoin and Nostr aren’t “the answer.” They’re just tools — the flint and steel.

Whether they spark a fire or die in your pocket depends on who uses them.

You’re not crazy for sensing the shift in 2012.

You’re just one of the few still tuned to the frequency of freedom.

Why not just don’t relay them