Who TF still have bitcoin on an Exchange , just take it off

444,000 loading

Acid so strong , it melts cars 🚗

What’s that ??

Let’s freaking go

Never will , you guy are legends 🫡

Might aswell start using proton

people should buy long and cover it with a short

Original G

Where does all that bitcoin go

F my life , I’m scrapping for sats , and people dumping 123 btc like it’s change

Every single sat donated , is appropriated ❤️

0.1 #BTC CHALLANGE

targets

First target : 100,000 k sats

Second target : 250,000 k sats

Third Target : 800,000k sats

Fourth target : 1,500,000 sats

Fifth target : 2,500,000 sats

Sixth target : 5,000,000 sats

Seventh target 10,000,000 sats

Eights target : 25,000,000 Sats

Ninth target : 50,000,000 sats

Tenth target : 75,000,000 sats

Eleventh & final target 1 Bitcoin

Join me in my journey , to reach my 1 btc dream

I hope you become rich , just like Scrooge McDuck

Always

Several Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) have been proposed but never activated, often due to lack of consensus, security concerns, or changes in Bitcoin’s development priorities. Here are some notable ones:

1. BIP 101 - Increase Block Size to 8MB (2015)

• Proposed by Gavin Andresen, this BIP suggested increasing the block size limit from 1MB to 8MB, doubling every two years until reaching 8GB.

• It was controversial and never activated due to fears of centralization and network strain.

2. BIP 102 - Temporary 2MB Block Size Increase (2015)

• Another block size increase proposal, this time to 2MB as a temporary measure.

• It was seen as a compromise but never gained enough support.

3. BIP 109 - 2MB Block Size via Miner Signaling (2016)

• Proposed by Bitcoin Classic, it suggested a 2MB block size increase if 75% of miners signaled support.

• It failed to reach activation thresholds and was ultimately abandoned.

4. BIP 148 - User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) for SegWit (2017)

• This BIP aimed to force Segregated Witness (SegWit) activation by rejecting non-SegWit blocks after a certain date.

• While BIP 148 itself did not activate, its pressure led to miners adopting BIP 91, which enabled SegWit activation in a different way.

5. BIP 75 - Payment Identity & Interoperability (2016)

• Proposed a standardized way for wallets to exchange identity and payment information.

• It was not widely adopted due to privacy concerns.

6. BIP 300 & BIP 301 - Drivechains (2017, Updated 2023)

• Introduced a way to implement “sidechains” using a new security model.

• Controversial due to security risks, and has yet to gain widespread consensus.

7. BIP 50 - Chain Fork Post-Mortem (2013)

• Not a proposal for activation, but rather a documentation of a major chain fork in Bitcoin’s history.

• Highlights issues that could arise in future soft forks.

These BIPs reflect Bitcoin’s ongoing debate over scalability, security, and decentralization.

Here’s an interesting tidbit about Bitcoin that often flies under the radar: the concept of “dust” transactions. In the Bitcoin network, “dust” refers to tiny amounts of Bitcoin—fractions of a satoshi (the smallest unit, 1/100,000,000 of a BTC)—that are so small they’re not worth the transaction fees to spend. These micro-amounts can clog up the blockchain, and wallets often restrict sending them to keep the network efficient.

What’s less known is that dust can be used strategically in what’s called a “dusting attack.” Hackers or scammers send tiny amounts of Bitcoin to thousands of addresses, then track those transactions to deanonymize users by linking their wallets to real-world identities through patterns of spending. It’s a privacy risk most casual users don’t think about. To counter this, some privacy-focused Bitcoin users rely on tools like coin mixers or simply avoid spending dust outputs altogether.

Bitman Scrooge Mcduck

I’m good now , thank to all those great people