And yet with all he has accomplished he still managed to lose 216 bitcoin 🤣

I get it. He is your messiah.

frustrated with both core and knots

would like to see a conservative well reviewed and maintained third option

will do my best to make that a reality

until then i will simply not upgrade my nodes

Linus is a tyrant of a software project, not the future of humanity. Also luke is a creep, putting him in charge of humanities future is retarded.

Luke is tyrant, that shit won’t be responsibly maintained.

I would donate towards that effort 🫡

🚩 False Dichotomies

1. “A network is either permissionless or authoritarian. Open or closed. Censorship-resistant or censored.”

✘ False dichotomy.

• Networks exist on a spectrum: some are semi-open (e.g. federations, permissioned blockchains, P2P overlays).

• Permissionlessness can also be partial (open to connect, but with rate limits or whitelists).

• “Authoritarian” is a rhetorical label — most systems balance openness with practical controls.

⸻

🚩 Spam & Security Assumptions

2. “Open networks inevitably run into spam and impersonation.”

✘ Misleading.

• True they are vulnerable, but mitigations exist beyond just PoW: rate limits, staking, identity attestations, proof-of-human systems.

• Saying “inevitable” ignores 30+ years of real-world open systems like email (with spam filters, DKIM, reputation systems).

3. “Sybil attacks, DDoS attacks, resource exhaustion… can only be solved via PoW + WoT.”

✘ Wrong.

• Proof-of-Stake, proof-of-space/time, trusted hardware, economic bonding, and many other mechanisms also mitigate sybils.

• Web-of-Trust (WoT) has historically failed to scale (PGP being the canonical example).

⸻

4. “I include sats in this equation implicitly, because sats are just difficulty-adjusted PoW.”

✘ Wrong.

• Sats are ledger entries, not work itself. The work (hashing) secures the chain; it doesn’t imbue the units with intrinsic PoW that can be “re-spent” elsewhere.

• PoW isn’t portable: you can’t reuse Bitcoin’s PoW to defend against email spam, DDoS, or sybils. The work is consumed once in block validation.

• Claiming sats = PoW overstates what they can do outside the Bitcoin ledger.

⸻

🚩 Identity & Money Claims

5. “Identity has to be cryptographic, which means taken and defended, as opposed to given.”

✘ Overstated.

• Cryptographic keys = control, but most identity in practice is socially anchored (governments, institutions, web-of-trust attestations).

• Purely cryptographic identity (keys alone) fails when keys are lost, stolen, or reset.

6. “Money has to be bearer instrument … cash, not credit.”

✘ Misleading.

• Most modern money is credit-based (bank deposits, treasuries). Bearer instruments (cash, gold, crypto) exist but are not the only form of “money proper.”

• This is more of a philosophical preference than a factual truth.

⸻

7. Keys and sats have the power to usher in a new era of the internet.”

✘ Overclaim.

• Keys already underpin the internet (TLS, SSH, DNSSEC). They don’t, by themselves, fix spam, identity, or governance.

• Sats are not a generalized anti-spam tool. Even with protocols like bithash on nostr, using payments as a universal rate-limit is impractical: too costly for normal use, easy to bypass via custodians, and risks centralizing around payment hubs.

• Cryptographic signing ≠ trust. Signing proves a message came from a key, but not that the key belongs to who you think, or that the content is truthful. Saylor’s “private-key identity” vision collapses without external social/organizational anchors.

• In short: keys + sats can improve certain systems, but they cannot alone restructure the whole internet.

8. “The Web is dead. Long live the web.”

✘ Rhetorical flourish, but misleading.

• The Web is evolving (Web3, federated services, p2p overlays). It’s not “dead,” just changing.

⸻

✅ In short:

• He sets up false dichotomies (“open or authoritarian”).

• Misrepresents sats as “just PoW.”

• Ignores non-PoW solutions to spam and Sybils.

• Treats WoT as viable at scale when history shows otherwise.

• Frames bearer-money-only as a necessity when in reality credit money dominates.

• Declares “Web is dead” for rhetorical drama, not accuracy.

Todd is trying to destroy bitcoin. He is systematicly getting changes pushed though that individualy don't seem that bad but are adding up to be a serious threat. The general idea is to continuously benefit miners at the expense of node runners until Bitcoin is just another Ethereum "world computer" garbage dump. Why he still has any credibility is beyond me.

I hope there will be more (prunable) op returns in a year and fewer fake signatures. Is that not what you would hope?

What's your counter to "if they cant use op_return then they will include it in the witness and thats worse because witness it cant be pruned and creates an unspenable output, further bloating the utxo set" ?