‪In response to the linked x post.

https://x.com/zachherbert/status/1976427320643649725

There was a proposal in *BIP 300, 301” I think on sidechains. This would allow for experiments, sub economies and data systems. They could use OP_RETURN to anchor to the time chain. The Bitcoin miners would secure the sidechains and benefit from Bitcoin use on those connected chains. Each sidechain is its own system that is decoupled from mainnet. Those sidechains could run these other usecases thereby isolating and protecting Bitcoin from technical and legal risk. The sidechains architecture really seems to be a good approach ‬

🧵0/12 Intro: Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” warns that central planning distorts subjective values, leading to authoritarianism. In Bitcoin’s mempool debate, this parallels Core’s push for permissive defaults (e.g., expanding OP_RETURN to 100kB) while limiting user configs—essentially centralizing policy. Knots advocates counter with individual mempool sovereignty: Let nodes express personal values, aggregating into organic consensus for resilient, evolving decentralization. Freedom vs. control—let’s dive in. #Bitcoin #Hayek #Mempool

🧵1/12 Echoing Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”: Central planning fails because values aren’t a universal checklist—they’re subjective, locked in individual minds. No central authority can juggle the infinite complexities of society without distortion. Enter tyranny disguised as “progress.” #Hayek

2/12 Hayek’s mic drop: Planners pretend they can prioritize everyone’s needs into one tidy hierarchy. But values are personal chaos—your priority is my afterthought. Free markets let prices emerge from this mess. Impose top-down order? You stomp freedom, spark backlash, and slide into serfdom.

3/12 Now, Bitcoin’s mempool showdown: The mempool is your node’s tx waiting lounge, where fees compete for blockspace. Drama peaks with Ordinals/inscriptions spiking fees as “spam.” Bitcoin Core v30 removes old filters, balloons OP_RETURN from ~80 bytes to 100k+, and eyes axing individual node config options. Hayek vibes intensifying. 🚨

4/12 Core’s move: Shift network defaults to permissive, allowing massive data dumps. But here’s the twist—they’re also limiting personal choice by planning to strip away users’ ability to set custom mempool policies. It’s “neutrality” that forces conformity. Sounds like central planning, eh?

5/12 Enter Bitcoin Knots advocates: They champion individual sovereignty. Run Knots, tweak your mempool policy to reflect your values—filter spam, prioritize monetary txs, whatever. Your node, your rules. This is freedom of expression in code: Relay what aligns with you, ignore the noise.

6/12 Why individual mempools = freedom-preserving decentralization: Consensus emerges as the aggregate of all nodes’ policies. Network propagation strengthens for tx types the majority values organically. No dictator needed—evolution via participant selection. Usecases live or die by real demand, not decrees.

7/12 Central mempool planning (à la Core’s defaults + no configs)? That’s censorship wrapped in “efficiency.” Who defines “valid” beyond fees? Today, relax OP_RETURN for data blobs; tomorrow, throttle privacy tools or L2s? Authoritarian control creeps in, eroding Bitcoin’s uncensorable core. Hayek’s serfdom road, blockchain edition.

8/12 Arguments FOR individual sovereignty (Knots-style):

• Adaptive resilience: Nodes vote with policies; spam surges? Fees + filters self-correct without hard forks.

• True innovation: Organic selection rewards useful usecases (e.g., DeFi over junk data).

• Decentralization max: Empowers small nodes—keep costs low by filtering bloat.

• Hayek alignment: Disperses subjective values across the network, avoiding central failure.

9/12 More PROS: Natural evolution—tx types gain traction based on aggregate node support, not dev whims. Preserves Bitcoin as money first, data second. Users express values directly, fostering a robust, freedom-centric system.

10/12 Counter-arguments AGAINST (and rebuttals):

• “Removing limits enables innovation; filters are censorship!” Rebut: True censorship is forcing defaults without config options. Knots enables choice; Core restricts it. Fees still govern—filters just amplify user voice.

• “Neutrality means relay everything valid!” Rebut: Consensus allows it, but policy is local for a reason. Forcing permissiveness centralizes power in defaults, inviting bloat and higher node costs. Hayek: Neutrality without choice = planned chaos.

• “Knots is single-maintainer risk!” Rebut: Better than Core’s groupthink. Community can fork/contribute; it’s open-source. Risk is mitigated by alignment with conservative values—proven over years.

• “Data will happen anyway!” Rebut: Yes, but easy relay accelerates it. Keep barriers; let market truly decide via effort/cost. Don’t subsidize spam by default.

11/12 In a freedom-preserving decentralized system, mempool sovereignty mirrors Hayek’s market: Emergent order from individual choices trumps top-down tweaks. Core’s path invites serfdom—bloat, centralization, regulatory hooks. Knots? Liberty’s lifeline. Run a node, choose your policy.

12/12 TL;DR: Own your mempool, defend your freedom. Knots aggregates individual values into evolutionary consensus. Core’s “progress” = authoritarian defaults. Hayek would run Knots and HODL. Your move? #Bitcoin #Mempool #Knots #Hayek NOSTR/X crosspost. 🔑🚀

This OP_RETURN debate is taking a toll. The participants of the network are taking sides. Even legends that survived the Blocksize war are finding themselves on opposing sides.

This is the network deciding what it will become. What you think matters. What you do matters. If you do t understand the issue, learn about it. Don’t be fooled about personalities and ad hominem attacks. Dig deep and decide what the vision of Bitcoin is for you.

Is Bitcoin freedom tech and the most important defense for individual liberty and sovereignty? Do you believe Bitcoin is money? Is that enough?

Or is Bitcoin just really cool tech, the first decentralized, censorship resistant network meant for general purpose storage? It openly supporting the storage of arbitrary data (including illegal data) how we want to use freedom tech?

The fate of Bitcoin rests with us. We decide. Do we preserve what works, or expand unnecessarily?

This is terrible

Help please. I am building my first Noster app and I’m wondering if there is a good resource for creating and messages on a testnet. Or do I create a throwaway account?

Self custody isn’t just a choice. It’s *freedom*.

Every satoshi you control outside of exchanges, wallets you own and keys you guard — that’s sovereignty. No middleman, no blackout risk, no third party that can freeze or confiscate your wealth.

Bitcoin’s power flows from *you* holding your private keys. Don’t let someone else hold your life’s savings.

The question isn’t “Why self custody?” — it’s “Why NOT?”

Get your corn off exchanges

#BeYourOwnBank #Bitcoin #SelfCustody #NoTrust #Sovereignty

Keet

Thanks for that! I’ve actually applied to every job that I can. It’s been slow getting responses.

I’ve gotta keep trying!

Damn, sometimes days just feel blue. I remember, to be here is a miracle.

I’m finally being vocal in my skepticism when I hear a friend parroting naive, feel-good socialist talking points.

Does it need to be called out or am I just wasting life force energy. I need to understand if I need to take a stand for my kids sake.

Thoughts welcome.

What is that exactly?

Dang, I have a long way to go

Thanx nostr:npub1wjdxhypza86t4tn44hula0fpwv9zecthucq3sym4pg83fvapqv0sufq6ga

Anyone who doesn’t understand Austrian economics is susceptible to being ideologically compromised by the magical thinking of socialism

I am hard at work recruiting 😎

I’m a full stack developer looking for opportunities in the bitcoin space. I have eight years experience in both big tech and startups and would like to spend my life for building bitcoin. Please reach out if interested.

LOL

nevent1qqsfsckpavnkdsljrlpnzly4jjpkz7xwxfu8hgfqqegrdr0kw2hww6cp9dmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9aex2mrp0yh8xmn0wf6zuum0vd5kzmqu3gej5

I want to leave the fiat mine too.

First thing I thought of too

This looks really interesting!

nevent1qqswr0dxk07xxnmyfy3esgex0x22z4s3h7vcnkukns0ky7yv8akfg8cppemhxue69uh5qmn0wvhxcmmvly8fss

Bigger transactions might not break Bitcoin today, but they’re like termites: slow, sneaky, and centralizing the network over time.

You’re right that Bitcoin’s block size is limited (1 MB base size, ~4 MB weight with SegWit), and historically, larger transactions haven’t caused immediate catastrophic issues. But my point about second- and third-order effects isn’t about disk storage alone—it’s about the long-term incentives and pressures on the network’s decentralized structure. Let’s break it down:

1. Larger Transactions and Node Burden: You mentioned that disk size isn’t an issue as long as UTXOs fit in main memory. While storage is cheap, running a full node involves more than just disk space. It requires bandwidth, CPU, and memory to validate and propagate transactions. If larger transactions (e.g., excessive OP_RETURN data or bloated multisig setups) become the norm, the cumulative effect increases the resource demands on node operators. Over decades, this could discourage individuals from running nodes, especially in regions with limited hardware or internet access. Fewer nodes mean a more centralized network, as only well-resourced entities (e.g., corporations, data centers) can keep up.

2. OP_RETURN and Spam Concerns: The debate around OP_RETURN (currently capped at 80 bytes) isn’t a hoax—it’s about balancing utility with efficiency. OP_RETURN is meant for small data commitments (e.g., timestamps, hashes), not arbitrary data storage. Some argue for increasing its size to support use cases like inscriptions or token protocols, but this risks bloating the blockchain with non-financial data. For example, in 2023, Ordinals and Inscriptions caused a surge in transaction sizes, with some blocks approaching the weight limit, driving up fees and node sync times. This isn’t theoretical—Bitcoin Core developers like Peter Todd have flagged these as vectors for abuse that could strain the network if unchecked.

3. UTXO Set vs. Ledger Growth: You’re correct that the UTXO set (currently ~100 MB) is the critical part for node memory. But unrestricted transaction sizes or spam (e.g., via excessive OP_RETURN or dust outputs) can still bloat the blockchain itself, which nodes must download and store. A 1 TB drive might handle today’s ~600 GB ledger, but if spam transactions grow unchecked, the ledger could balloon faster than necessary, making initial block download (IBD) for new nodes slower and more costly. This subtly pushes smaller operators out, concentrating node operation among fewer players.

4. Historical Context and Future Risks: You noted that larger transactions happened in the past without collapse. True, but Bitcoin’s scale has changed. In 2017, the block size debate led to SegWit to optimize space without hard-forking. Today, with millions of users and growing adoption, the stakes are higher. If we normalize inefficient transaction practices, we risk a tragedy of the commons where short-term gains (e.g., stuffing data into the blockchain) erode long-term decentralization. Look at Ethereum: its state bloat (~1.5 TB for a full node) already makes running a node impractical for most users, centralizing its network further.

5. Course Correction as Immunity: My point about “course correction” is that Bitcoin’s community—developers, miners, and node operators—actively debates these issues (e.g., on X, BitcoinTalk, or dev mailing lists) to prevent harm. The 80-byte OP_RETURN limit, spam filters in Bitcoin Core, and fee market dynamics are examples of this immunity. Ignoring these safeguards could weaken Bitcoin’s resilience over time.

If you think this is still exaggerated, consider this: Bitcoin’s value lies in its decentralization. Anything that incrementally raises the cost of running a node—whether through spam, bloated transactions, or unchecked data—chips away at that. It’s not about an immediate crash; it’s about slow, compounding effects that could make Bitcoin less censorship-resistant in 10–20 years.

Time with family

nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9uq3xamnwvaz7tm0venxx6rpd9hzuur4vghsntn3y0 I’m thinking of launching a shop to sell merch for Bitcoiners. One thought is to create a belt buckle to raise money for Bitcoin Knots development. All proceeds would directly to funding the project.

I don’t have a shop yet but would be willing to build one if you are cool with the idea and I get feedback that there is interest.

Please all, let me know what you think and if you’d be into this kind of merch.

I’m going for subtle advocacy. Gear we can wear to be proud but not dox ourselves in public. Like “If you know, you know”

Of course this concept art is a little more explicit. Other ideas are more stealthy and subtle.

What “it” are you referring to? If we are talking about Bitcoin Core then the clock started a couple years ago for those that have been watching.

The spam filter is just the final straw before the Bitcoin immune system kicked in to eradicate the problem through more decentralization. It is moments like these where the light of Bitcoin, the wisdom to see and the urge to protect freedom awakens in the Bitcoiner and we answer the call in service of truth.

We perhaps have some glimpse of the stakes and know the future will thank us for making choices today that make freedom and prosperity more possible. To do otherwise is the way of fiat.

🌍 New repo drop: https://github.com/tibocin/groundswell

Groundswell is an open-source Bitcoin advocacy project:

✉️ Letter-to-the-editor templates

🧠 Local-level persuasion

🛠️ Easy to edit, free to remix

Write. Submit. Spark a shift. Then share your letter back.

Your voice. Your paper. Our network.

Let’s build the Groundswell. #bitcoin #NOSTR

Yes. Look at 2nd and 3rd order effects over decades. Larger transactions as a norm increases the risk of centralization by increasing the burden of node operators as they maintain their copy of the ledger. Course correction is immunity in action.