This will be dead with hours

In fact, I'm pretty sure that they'll get literally zero blocks during mandatory signalling

So don't worry about these hypothetical details 😊

Such a strange hill for you to end your Bitcoin career on

they're probably a bot. I blocked them a while ago, and I double-checked some of their content

I think they're spamming follow notifications deliberately

This was never "Core Vs Knots"; the BIP110ers will never learn if we keep to that false framing

Core and Knots were on the same side, keeping filters that were harmful to small miners, and which were making it hard to run a node (fake pubkeys)

The Tolerant Minority are the winners; we stepped in and relaxed the de facto relay policy months before Core30

We saved Bitcoin, and we didn't ask permission from Core or Knots to do it

You mention "control'. The Tolerant Minority are in control of relay policy. Core don't make those decisions any more; see subsat fees, and fullRBF, and now large op_returns

If anyone wants to argue about this topic, they should argue with the Tolerant Minority, and stop arguing with another group (Core) that aren't in control

"Filters don't work, but they send a message"

The default filters became harmful - not "ineffective" - over the summer of 2025. They harmed the small miners. Are you aware of this, and are you happy to harm small miners because you'd prefer to "send a (meaningless) message?

Months before Core30 was released, many folks (including me) configured our nodes to accept large op-returns.

Therefore, Core didn't remove any limit on what could be relayed and mined on the Bitcoin Network. The Bitcoin Network had already made its own autonomous decision, months before Core30 was released, to allow this. We didn't wait for permission from Core or Knots to do this. We didn't wait for "technical consensus"

In that context, the default policy in Core had only one effect: harming small miners, by making it difficult for them to earn fees

The heroes and winners of this are the Tolerant Minority. We take action to help small miners, and we take action to keep fake pubkeys out of the UTXO. We are successful and unstoppable, and we don't care about your "message"

----

Luke is smart enough to know all this. He has told dozens of lies, deliberately fooling people. He knows that the effect of his policies is harmful to Bitcoin

Philosophy is cool and all, but if the hashrate falls to very low values in the future, we're going to have to be pragmatic about the security budget

I love the idea of Ark as a 'Channel Factory', allowing billions to have fully sovereign Lightning nodes. However, if Ark is *too* efficient in this case, then a typical block might have only one transaction!

(By the way, that's partly why I'm currently against CTV; I want Ark, but I don't want it to be *too* scalable; I want many medium-sized Arks, not one mega-Ark)

On balance, I think it'll all be fine and there won't be a problem with the security budget. But there could be a problem, and that problem could eventually be fatal. So I like to think about it

The article discusses Runes, but I think it dismisses them too quickly. The Lightning network could be extended to fully support Runes (no soft fork required), and it's possible (but admittedly, very unlikely) that one of the Runes becomes very valuable. As many Runes 'currencies' have tail emissions, it's possible that they could provide the right incentives to miners

Anyway, there's always 'demurrage', a soft fork to apply a tax on old UTXOs, which would motivate people to move their coins more often and create. The rule could be that, when spending a UTXO older than X years, at least Y% of the outputs must be anyone-can-spend outputs that are locked to a few years in the future. Such outputs are equivalent to the block subsidy in practice

I don't think I've ever used GLM. I mostly just stuck with the big three (Opus, GPT, Gemini) and only tried a few others when they were discussed a lot on Twitter

I can access GLM via one of the API keys I have, so I should try it out sometime

That's too vague

The wording should be explicit about calculations, e.g. the hash rate in a 2016-block difficulty-adjustment window

Liar