Banks also created money out of thin air. Then got bailed out.

Understatement!

Zaps are not Bitcoin. They are a curiosity for highly technical nerds, that eventually realize it is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the native currency of the internet, but on your journey it is an afterthought. You have it the wrong way round. Study Bitcoin & good luck.

Why? The debt is already issued. It does not inflate when you pay it off.

Bitcoin is the native currency of the internet. Use it. Zaps are an overly complicated budget option.

You are misunderestimating Bitcoin

Don't underestimate Bitcoin

Zaps are too complicated. Adding native Bitcoin is a winner.

Yes!

Awesome stuff. You are improving the security and price of Bitcoin. We can do it, one node at a time.

Dont listen to the gaslighting. Knots is just a highly secure Bitcoin. Core up to v29 is baseline security. Core v30 is low security, and that's a problem for the whole network, which is why awareness is spreading.

Community Note:

The hypocrisy of those claiming the cypherpunk mantle has never been clearer.

When developer Peter Todd exposed a potential DoS vulnerability in Bitcoin Knots, Blockstream CEO Adam Back responded with a dare: "tell us more. or try it out @buraq style?"

"Buraq style" means attacking the network in the wild, rather than responsible disclosure—a direct encouragement to commit a Denial-of-Service against a running Bitcoin full node.

The original cypherpunks sought to protect privacy and build resilient systems against censorship. These individuals, and more, use the "cypherpunk" label to justify hostile, destructive acts. They are fake cypherpunks who attack other implementations, undermine decentralization, and betray the very principles they claim to uphold.

This is a dangerous attempt to seize control and must be recognized as such.

Nostr needs community notes.

The issue of CSAM being embedded in a blockchain's OP_RETURN field creates a potent political attack vector against decentralization.

The argument, often voiced by figures like Luke Dashjr and aligning with Nick Szabo's security philosophy, is based on two facts:

Immutability: Once illegal data (even a hash or link) is in a block, every archival node operator must permanently download, store, and transmit it.

Criminal Liability: This technical necessity exposes node operators to the threat of legal action for possession and distribution of CSAM.

This threat is the key centralizing force. Individuals and hobbyists quit running nodes to avoid legal risk, leaving the network to well-funded corporate miners and centralized pools. These large entities then introduce censorship filters to comply with regulations, undermining the network's permissionless nature and forcing a shift toward centralization. The law is weaponized against the infrastructure.

Your previous statement—that a user must store the data regardless of node configuration—was factually incorrect and the source of the disagreement.

The Difference is Storage: The user's original goal was to know if the data had to remain on their hardware. The technical answer is No, it does not.

Pruning is the Proof: The existence of the pruned node option in both Bitcoin Core and Knots proves that the non-essential OP_RETURN data does not have to be stored long-term on the user's hard drive. It is deleted after initial validation.

Correct Nuance: The only correct "core point" is that both node types require the full data momentarily to validate the chain. But by using the pruning feature, the user effectively chooses not to store that data, achieving their goal.

By acknowledging the pruning option now, you are confirming the user's original point while attempting to reframe it as a minor technicality, which is why the previous absolute claim was wrong.

They are trying to attack Bitcoin nodes.

The assertion made by 'gsovereignty'—that "It doesn't matter how you configure your node or which node you run (core or Knots): if there's opreturn data in a block, you will be storing it"—is incorrect based on the current capabilities and design of some Bitcoin full node software.

The Technical Error

The primary error is the generalization that all full nodes must store OP_RETURN data. While the data must be present in the block for the block to be valid and therefore is initially processed by all nodes, certain specialized node implementations allow users to prune or not index the non-essential parts of the transaction data, including the data within an OP_RETURN script, after initial validation.

> It doesn't matter how you configure your node or which node you run (core or Knots): if there's opreturn data in a block, you will be storing it.

Community Note: FALSE

That's a sound bite. Stop gaslighting and study bitcoin. OP_RETURN can be pruned.

False

Oh yeah, the gaslighting is acting like it's Knots that's trying to change Bitcoin.

Run Knots. Dont run core v30.

I dont think he's gaslighting. Certainly some folks adjacent are. Perhaps the net effect may be similar. But even a cursory look around will tell you that Bitcoin's attackers have deep pockets and are willing to use any kind of FUD against it.

She is out of her depth. Any experienced Open Source maintainer would listen to the community.

You should, because filters protect the network from attacks. Not perfectly, of course. But bitcoin works best if everyone does their bit.

Knots is becoming the de-facto Bitcoin reference implementation

backsplain

/Bak-splān′/

intransitive verb

1. To make arguments as incomprehensible as possible.

2. To gaslight; confound.

"Adam is backsplaining his retarded game theory."

3. To offer technical non-solutions; to justify spam.

"Adam backsplains the grievous errors of Core devs."

Maybe a super light, super fast version of chat, with a familiar skin.

Nodes are what keep bitcoin decentralized. Miners serve the node network, not the other way round.

Your knot wrong

Study OP_RETURN

I think people would prefer it. They just dont know how. And there is also misinformation.