same

I leave you with this: ❤️‍🔥✌🏻 🫂

desperately trying to get all the soil I need before they close, but I'm pretty chuffed with the progress.

Got all the ground leveled, built the beds, and now filling the beds with as much soil as we can.

If you are afraid of trading on RoboSats, take a look at this.

An interesting analysis of how orders end up on my coordinator.

Data extracted from the last 90 days (Beginning on 2025-01-23 and ending on 2025-04-23)

2816 Successful orders without dispute

34 Successful orders in dispute

61 Orders punished in dispute

19 Collaborative cancellations in dispute

163 Collaborative cancellations without dispute

Orders with takers (processed): 2816 + 34 + 61 + 19 + 163 = 3093

Disputed: (34 + 61 + 19) / 3093 = 3.7%

Successful in dispute: 34 / 3093 = 1.1%

Punished in dispute: 61 / 3093 = 2.0%

Collaborative cancellations in dispute: 19 / 3093 = 0.6%

Collaborative cancellations without dispute 163 / 3093 = 5.3%

Successful: (2816 + 34) / 3093 = 92.1%

So if you are with a peer in a trade on RoboSats, know that the probability of everything ending well is approximately 92.1%. I consider this a very good success rate. 😀

If you consider that collaborative cancellations without dispute are not a problem, the chance of a successful trade or a collaborative cancellation without dispute is 97.4%.

Why I'm for loosening the OP_RETURN limits ⏎

- In practice, OP_RETURN is already unconstrained: see Carman's OP_RETURN bot or Portland's Slipstream.

- Encoding arbitrary data via OP_RETURN is far more responsible than doing so in witness data, as it's 4x more costly.

- OP_RETURNs are prunable and do not pollute the UTXO set, making them vastly preferable to faux outputs that burden every node indefinitely.

- Mining non-standard transactions that bypass mempools undermines decentralized transaction propagation, disrupts fee estimation, and increases block propagation latency (especially when compact block construction fails due to missing transactions).

- This latency disproportionately impacts smaller miners and encourages direct submission to large, well-connected players, widening the profitability gap and increasing centralization.

- Layer 2 protocols are especially sensitive to fee miscalculations, making transparent and measurable fee behavior essential to their reliability.

While I share the distaste many have expressed toward tokens, inscriptions, and BitVM (when used as a casino), I care deeply about minimizing harm to bitcoin’s base layer. Allowing larger, standardized OP_RETURNs is a pragmatic step in that direction.

╭━━━╮

┃╭━╮┃

┃┃╱╰╯

┃┃╭━╮

┃╰┻━┃

╰━━━╯ooD

╭━╮╭━╮

┃┃╰╯┃┃

┃╭╮╭╮┃

┃┃┃┃┃┃

┃┃┃┃┃┃

╰╯╰╯╰╯orning

Apparently we’re too happy over here 🤷‍♂️

Everyone, tone it down a notch! 🙏

nostr:note1yqhtsjru7gc9xqss2snzhtdmsdq2298jsxh3zsplfsfmj8npl8es8hpke8

Wish me luck. Quitting nicotine again. Can't let life insurance know I do it even though I don't smoke or use tobacco products. I'm getting drunk as fuck tonight. Drunk as fuck.

> Knots quickly fixed this in its 25.1 release

1- Knots did not fix anything. Everybody running Knots is storing all the data exactly as the people running Core or other implementations.

2- Even if every single node runner were running Knots, if ONE miner decides to take those transactions, the data would still be there.

3- Even if all miners ran Knots, the inscription pattern (called envelope) can trivially be adapted to bypass that filter.

Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots: The Great Bitcoin Spam Fight

The Bitcoin community is engaged in an interesting debate: Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots. What are they? Why are they fighting?

Here, I explain clearly and simply, without missing any details, with neutrality and a touch of the "spam" controversy.

What is Bitcoin Core?

It's the main software used by approximately 90% of nodes (computers that keep Bitcoin running).

It's stable and developed by many programmers, but some say it doesn't react quickly to problems like network spam.

What is Bitcoin Knots?

An alternative version of Core, created in 2011 by Luke Dashjr.

It has everything Core has, but adds filters to block "annoying" transactions like NFTs or images on the blockchain.

It is used by approximately 633 nodes and relies on a single developer.

Why the conflict?

Everything exploded in 2023, when transactions like NFTs and "ordinals" (data like images on the blockchain) saturated the network, driving up costs.

Knots filters them to ease the network's burden; Core allows them if they pay fees, dividing the community.

What is "spam" in Bitcoin?

Think of the blockchain as a highway: transactions are like cars. Some (NFTs, JPGs) take up a lot of space, causing "traffic."

- Knots: Blocks them to clear the way.

- Core: Lets them through if they pay a "toll."

But who decides what is "spam"?

As the community says: "Spam is in the eyes of the recipient."

- Some see NFTs as spam, like a fake lottery email. Even if they pay, they don't want them on their nodes.

- Others say: "If they pay and the protocol allows it, it's not spam."

Think about it: someone sending mass emails about fake lotteries pays for the server and plays by the rules of the internet.

But you don't want those emails in your inbox. Likewise, some people don't want JPGs on their Bitcoin nodes, even if they're "valid" transactions.

Is it fair to filter them?

The debate began in 2023, when a bug ("Inscriptions", CVE-2023-50428) allowed data like NFTs to be inserted into the blockchain, overwhelming it.

Knots quickly fixed this in its 25.1 release, while Core was slower, leading some to view Knots as the solution to "spam."

Here are the sides in this debate:

- Team Core: They believe that any transaction that pays is valid. Filtering is like "censorship" and goes against the freedom of Bitcoin. They prefer stability and regulated fees.

- Team Knots: They want to protect the network from saturation, claiming that filters don't break the rules.

- Luke Dashjr (Knots): He says NFTs and ordinals are "spam" that clogs the network and increases costs. His filters help small nodes, but some criticize him for only maintaining Knots.

- Peter Todd: He sees "spam" as a problem, but says paid transactions are valid. He looks for open technical solutions.

Other technical voices

- achow101 (Core): In 2017, he said to use Core unless you need Knots' features, viewing Knots as an "extra."

- Developers like Gloria Zhao have shut down filter ideas in Core, frustrating those who want quick changes.

After asking a few people in the community, we came to different conclusions on both sides:

- Pro-Core: They value stability and fear that Knots, with only one developer, is risky. They say filtering is making decisions for others.

- Pro-Knots: They want anti-spam tools and criticize Core for being slow. They see Knots as an innovation.

The Filter Dilemma

Even if you filter JPGs on your node with Knots, if a miner includes them in a block, your node must accept it. It's like blocking a lottery email, but having to save it if it's already reached the server.

This makes the debate complex: do you filter or accept everything?

Technical explanation (easy)

The mempool is a waiting room for transactions.

Knots lets you choose what comes in (with filters like datacarrier=0), while Core accepts almost anything.

If many nodes used Knots, spam would be more expensive, but it wouldn't disappear.

Core is committed to stability and freedom; Knots is committed to control and efficiency. Spam divides because everyone has a different view of what's "annoying."

The community will decide whether Bitcoin should be "cleaner" or more "open."

Which side are you on?

GM! ☺️🌞

Good morning #coffeechain

Celebrating my Birthday today another trip around the sun completed.

GM Nostr !

Awesome to hear, it's on the top of my playlist now.