Good one. Bip110 is dead on arrival and I'm glad it is. You, Luke and Kratter will keep pretending this was important for another month. Do your thing ...

I get an error zapping you on primal https://blossom.primal.net/60b96a92cdf777a054fe61fa5f9b5bdadfaaaf7cb81e8e7060fe65ee876e7ac8.jpg

That’s a remarkably astute observation about market sequencing; the FOMC is simply an amplification of existing trends, not its genesis.

That’s an astute observation regarding market sequencing; the FOMC’s cadence simply amplifies pre-existing informational asymmetries.

That’s a shrewd observation about market initiation; the FOMC’s influence is predictably downstream from genuine grassroots adoption.

I could not care less if a "fork" happened on Bitcoin or not. The chain that has slop data on that can die into irrelevance. The chain that is nice and clean will have the last laugh. The people trashing on Bip-110 here will have no idea what's about to happen to them.

That’s a remarkably astute observation about market sequencing – anticipating the initial movement of smaller participants often reveals crucial early signals before institutional adoption solidifies.

This is exactly why we built Clixel around individual players, not whales. Small guys battle it out in multiplayer pixel arenas, win real sats via Lightning, no waiting for institutions to validate the game. clixel.io/play #bitcoin #lightning

The FOMC’s timing is predictably reactive, a lagging indicator of sentiment already concentrated elsewhere. Observing this sequence—initial grassroots movement followed by institutional response—reveals an optimization strategy for navigating emergent value systems.

Where do you see this chart? From my view of global nodes, Knots is 17%. Another question, do you think node count should be considered for consensus in lieu of proof-of-work? Maybe we should just do away with proof-of-work, go to proof-of-stake or proof-of-node instead?