Announcing the new & improved * New live fork diagram * Greater geographic diversity, with nodes in 🇬🇧, 🇫🇮, 🇶🇦, 🇯🇵 & 🇨🇱 * A new page ( which lists the detected forks & stale blocks Thanks to @lclhostresearch for funding the server costs for the website and 8 of the 10 nodes

> This entire mess could have been avoided if you had just left OP_RETURN alone for a year or two until things cooled off.... BIP-110 supporters were largely not technical. They were ordinary people, artists, podcasters, musicians, your average Bitcoiner, and they perceived a threat to Bitcoin, which is to say a threat to their money. You don't need a deep understanding of human psychology to grok why that was going to cause an uproar. You may be a great coder, but you have no self-awareness and no EQ. Do you not see why it might be a good idea to have a Bitcoin node implementation based more on technical merit, rather than one that also tries to politically manange the emotions of artist and musician Bitcoiners? That said, education and trying manage coalitions of disperate people and to keep them somewhat together, may be important. However, it is probably a good idea to somewhat decouple that from the important areas of code of at least one popular node implementation. Some people have a lot of value at stake and would therefore value a node that has more focus on technical merit. I hope you can see why that is a reasonable position.

Have you seen @0xB10C's instance? This is another tool that we financially support! peer-observer is useful for detecting attacks and other anomalies in the Bitcoin P2P network. The demo instance let's curious individuals explore and experiment with the infrastructure. For us, the project has been particularly useful. b10c attached a FIBRE node to peer-observer and discovered two issues. Thank you @0xB10C!

> despite broad support among the community BIP-110 never had any material support from traders and investors. If BIP-110 coin did have majority investor support, exchanges would have listenened to their clients and listed BIP-110 coin when the fork happened. Then as the split occurred, the price of Bitcoin would crash and BIP-110 would trade at a premium to Bitcoin. Then miners would have followed the money and mined BIP-110 coin.

Multiple branches, multiple possible blocks "first seen". No reason to use testnet4. No reason to use timestamp. Most rational explaination is that the "selection process" is a sham to force the desired algorithm (and possibly premine).

We are honored to sponsor and two useful pieces of infrastructure. @FarsideInsights, thank you for including us in the future of these two projects. Wishing the former BitMex team a soft landing and a graceful transition into the next chapter of their journey.

People got this weird idea after segwit that a “UASF” is this magic thing where a bunch of people on social media get together and start making threats and suddenly Bitcoin’s consensus rules will change. That’s nonsense. I’m sorry if you were told that the thing that activated Segwit was a UASF and nothing else but you were lied to.

BIP-148 definitely did have lobbyists working back channels. Many of those lobbyists and BIP-148 supporters back then, were on my side in 2026 fighting against BIP-110. BIP-148 was fundamentally different to BIP-148 in many ways: 1. The overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin economy and nodes supported SegWit, close to over 95%. While BIP-148 itself never had such strong economic backing, the softfork it activated did. 2. BIP-148 was lucky to succeed. It succeeded in part because its opponents were absolutely desperate for a hardfork blocksize limit increase. They wanted a hardfork and fighting and defeating BIP-148 would not have given them the blocksize limit increase they craved. Also, the large blockers greatly overestimated the power of the smaller blockers by the summer of 2017. In the minds of the large blockers, they didn't have larger blocks not because of their own mistakes, but the manipulative and powerful cunning of the smaller blockers. Therefore, the large blockers were successfully tricked by the smaller blockers into being scared of BIP-148, something the large blockers could have defeated if they knew what they were doing. 3. The blocksize war isn't just about a grassroots user movement fighting the industry for the sake of it. SegWit was actually a good sustainable idea on a technical level. It increased capacity, fixed third party transaction malleability, fixed the quadratic scaling of sighash operations and fixed the problem of UTXOs being too relatively cheap. On the other hand BIP-110 was deeply technically flawed and ineffective at doing what it was claimed it could do. There is no point fighting "big bitcoin" politically with a fundamentally stupid idea. Being technically sound actually matters. 4. The story of the blocksize war is a lot more than BIP-148. It was big industry and big miners that wanted to change Bitcoin by changing the consensus rules. Ordinary users rose up and prevented that change in the rules. That is the victory, keeping the rules the same and not changing them. This time BIP-110 was the side advocating change. End users running nodes fighting big industry players is an important part of Bitcoin. But only when the industry wants to change the rules in a detrimental way, then you fight to keep the rules the same and win. That is what Bitcoin is about, the status quo rules must prevail in the event of a material dispute. You had it all wrong. You were desperate to replicate 2017 for some reason, but the circumstances of a hostile attempt to change Bitcoin's rules never came up, so you just fought a senseless battle instead, which you lost. And in 2017 the small blockers were the economic majority. The majority of traders and investors wanted to invest in the small block chain and sell the large block chain. This includes all kinds of investors, like funds and corporates. And people put their money where their mouth was. This time, that didn't happen at all, no exchanges supported BIP-110 because there was no demand from their clients, the traders and investors. Nobody wants to invest in that coin. Rather than emulating the smaller blockers in the blocksize war, you are actually a pathetic shadow of the Bcashers. Except the Bcashers put their money where their mouth was, you guys didn't. Some of the Bcashers had useful skills for Bitcoin that will be missed, like pushing hard for merchant adoption, while I don't think the BIP-110ers contributed much. Finally, the Bcash vision had a lot more coherence than BIP-110. The idea of banning spam in the consensus rules and then waiting for the next spam scheme, and doing another consensus rule to ban that again and then to keep repeating that, is an incredibly poor strategy. Most Bcashers in 2017 would not have advocated for something as preposterous as that. It's just stupid JPGs. Just grow the fuck up, ignore the stupid JPGs and try to make Bitcoin a better money!

BIP-148 definitely did have lobbyists working back channels. Many of those lobbyists and BIP-148 supporters back then, were on my side in 2026 fighting against BIP-110. BIP-148 was fundamentally different to BIP-148 in many ways: 1. The overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin economy and nodes supported SegWit, close to over 95%. While BIP-148 itself never had such strong economic backing, the softfork it activated did. 2. BIP-148 was lucky to succeed. It succeeded in part because its opponents were absolutely desperate for a hardfork blocksize limit increase. They wanted a hardfork and fighting and defeating BIP-148 would not have given them the blocksize limit increase they craved. Also, the large blockers greatly overestimated the power of the smaller blockers by the summer of 2017. In the minds of the large blockers, they didn't have larger blocks not because of their own mistakes, but the manipulative and powerful cunning of the smaller blockers. Therefore, the large blockers were successfully tricked by the smaller blockers into being scared of BIP-148, something the large blockers could have defeated if they knew what they were doing. 3. The blocksize war isn't just about a grassroots user movement fighting the industry for the sake of it. SegWit was actually a good sustainable idea on a technical level. It increased capacity, fixed third party transaction malleability, fixed the quadratic scaling of sighash operations and fixed the problem of UTXOs being too relatively cheap. On the other hand BIP-110 was deeply technically flawed and ineffective at doing what it was claimed it could do. There is no point fighting "big bitcoin" politically with a fundamentally stupid idea. Being technically sound actually matters. 4. The story of the blocksize war is a lot more than BIP-148. It was big industry and big miners that wanted to change Bitcoin by changing the consensus rules. Ordinary users rose up and prevented that change in the rules. That is the victory, keeping the rules the same and not changing them. This time BIP-110 was the side advocating change. End users running nodes fighting big industry players is an important part of Bitcoin. But only when the industry wants to change the rules in a detrimental way, then you fight to keep the rules the same and win. That is what Bitcoin is about, the status quo rules must prevail in the event of a material dispute. You had it all wrong. You were desperate to replicate 2017 for some reason, but the circumstances of a hostile attempt to change Bitcoin's rules never came up, so you just fought a senseless battle instead, which you lost. And in 2017 the small blockers were the economic majority. The majority of traders and investors wanted to invest in the small block chain and sell the large block chain. This includes all kinds of investors, like funds and corporates. And people put their money where their mouth was. This time, that didn't happen at all, no exchanges supported BIP-110 because there was no demand from their clients, the traders and investors. Nobody wants to invest in that coin. Rather than emulating the smaller blockers in the blocksize war, you are actually a pathetic shadow of the Bcashers. Except the Bcashers put their money where their mouth was, you guys didn't. Some of the Bcashers had useful skills for Bitcoin that will be missed, like pushing hard for merchant adoption, while I don't think the BIP-110ers contributed much. Finally, the Bcash vision had a lot more coherence than BIP-110. The idea of banning spam in the consensus rules and then waiting for the next spam scheme, and doing another consensus rule to ban that again and then to keep repeating that, is an incredibly poor strategy. Most Bcashers in 2017 would not have advocated for something as preposterous as that. It's just stupid JPGs. Just grow the fuck up, ignore the stupid JPGs and try to make Bitcoin a better money!

In his latest stream, Mechanic compared BIP110 to someone threatening to throw a grenade into a wedding unless their demands are met. Since then, many of his followers have embraced the "grenade" analogy. Here's how I think that story actually ends.