Why I believe @ocean_mining is synonymous with Knots/Bip110 is explained below. I know @boomer_btc will disagree & I even quoted @giacomozucco's reply tweet from last week on these points. ----------- 1. Ocean prided itself on being the reincarnation of Luke's Eligius pool & when Ocean launched, it said that it had already mined like 250,000 Bitcoin. So from day one this walked & talked like Luke's pool. (At least to me) 2. Therefore, in my opinion, Luke is the acting CEO, CTO & Co-CMO along w/ Mechanic. I don't even know who the CEO is and not even bothering to look it up because to me it don't matter at the moment. (If Luke is gone, then it will matter who the CEO is [Ideally Giacomo] & new CTO of course [Ideally @wk057]) 3. Under the hood of Ocean there might be other views of what the company is/does or stands for, but from the outside, that also does not matter. There is the way things are perceived & the way things are. The way things are perceived is what drives markets, people's emotions, and their capital. It's what decides what companies rise and fall. "If the village starts a rumor that Johnny fucked a goat, his tombstone will read 'Johnny the goat fucker', even if the goat denies it" - Billions (show) 4. I had actually forgotten that Giacomo is a board member, the only one I knew for a fact was a board member is Bob Barnett & I assumed Jack & Luke are. To me & many others who are against Bip110, it does not matter what the Shareholders or The Board thinks, we see Bip110 as an Existential threat to people's life savings. Both in the short term (with a potential chain split) & long term (with control of the code under 1 dev/maintainer). Ocean Pool is directly assisting what I perceive as an attack on Bitcoin. EVERY Board Member & Shareholder can disagree with this view, but it will not change the fact that Ocean is the biggest element enabling Luke/Mechanic gain traction in this attack to take over Bitcoin Code Development. 5. I view Matt Hill & Start9 in a very similar way... Start9 could have been a completely neutral company like Simply Bitcoin YouTube or BTC Sessions YouTube or even Jimmy Song, but Matt Hill changed this by openly being pro Bip110 "Attack". Ocean could have been a totally Neutral Company offering people the ability to mine Bip110, but because the face(s) of the company are Driving the Bip110 Short Bus... - Therefore, I agree with @adam3us that Ocean is [80-90%] aligned with the most vocal Bip110 supporters. * If for example every Board Member & shareholder was against what Luke/Mechanic are doing, then it only proves to me that Luke/Mechanic are in control of the company even more than I currently assume they are. If most Board Members & Shareholders are against what Luke/Mechanic are doing, why does it feel like nothing is being done about it and the Company continues to support them 'Unconditionally'? - Therefore my assessment is that The Board is split on Bip110, no one is able to Reign In Luke & the company is doing its best at navigating the impossible task of convincing the world that its 'most important' founding member (Luke, just to be clear) does not speak for the company... Good Luck!!!

Unless Mechanic & Luke are fired by @ocean_mining board after their attack fails, growth of the pool would actually be concerning for the future of the Bitcoin network! - Bitcoiners might want to reconsider chaising the extra yield as it endangers their entire HODL value!

My prediction for #Bip110#: - Going into Flag Day more miners will start signaling for the fork in order to give false hope to the Knotzis - The fork takes place with close to 3% of the network signaling because it costs nothing to signal. - The day of the fork about 1.5% of Hashrate will actually be mining 'Future' LukeCoin. - This low Hashrate will force Luke to implement an Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA) so that blocks can be mind approximately every 30-60 minutes. - They will also need to add replay protection just like BCH to lock down every 6th block or so - Within 48 hours of Flag Day, there will be another token: LukeCoin, MaxiCoin, AntoSpamCoin etc. (exchanges will be happy to list it) * The reason I believe they will spin off into a shitcoin is because all the leaders of the movement will be Cancelled and NOT Welcomed within the Bitcoin community going forward. Every conference that claims to be a Bitcoin conference will likely NOT allow them as speakers if the conference wants to be taken seriously. They will Lose ALL Relevance and influence going forward. Therefore, the ONLY way they can stay relevant & enjoy the fame they built over the last few years, is inside their own little bubble of spinning off into a shitcoin. They certainly are not the first & they wont be the last. I for one won't miss a single one of them.... !

Soydrik praising the courage of Andy, Saylor, Tone Vays, Pete Rizzo, Jameson Lopp, NVK, Shinobi and a united suit army, for having the courage to stand up for jpegs and use-cases on Bitcoin in defense against Bitcoin being a monetary protocol. The courage and integrity baffles the mind.

Tone, honestly man, how scalable is this? @ToneVays How do we get a billion people to go to a trade show to buy a hardware wallet because otherwise, it’s too dodgy??? Then what, every year or so I have to travel to conventions to buy the latest model of something that I have no clue how to; due diligence, inspect, validate or verify it’s as a safe, secure and sustainable device that cannot die in 10 years, copy data, or blow my arm off if activated by a bad actor. Adoption throttled by these friction points will be catastrophic for the scale required for Bitcoin - 1/2 million dollars.

We have some difficult news to share. Unfortunately, one of our shipping providers has experienced a data breach that exposed sensitive order data. This affects new customers in the US, UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal who received an order within the 90 days prior to August 8th, 2026. The data exposed: - Full names - Shipping addresses - Phone numbers - Email addresses The incident affects 11,742 customers with full exposure (name, email, phone number, shipping address) and 1,947 customers with partial exposure (name, city, email). The breach is limited due to Trezor’s strict 90-day data storage policy (we were also able to negotiate the same terms with fulfillment partners, who follow the same policy). All affected customers have been contacted separately by email. Our systems and devices remain secure, but affected customers could experience an increase in phishing attempts. NEVER enter your wallet backup on a website or share it with anyone, and only check for updates on official Trezor channels. We are deeply sorry to the community and those affected. We are investigating this situation and will post updates on our blog:

If you don't take responsibility for your own hand in directly spawning the BIP-110 movement, it will just happen again. Maybe you can't see it, but your "side" was just as nasty in its attacks, especially given you and other Core devs' close association with angry vitriol-spewing people like Brian from Bitcoin Magazine. Did you really not expect that anger and vitriol to be returned tenfold? All of it amplified by the Zhao/Newberry improprieties and a long list of other clumsy, guilty-looking missteps. All I did was hint at structural problems within Core, problems Jon Atack later discussed openly. Nothing I said was inaccurate, much less libel. This entire mess could have been avoided if you had just left OP_RETURN alone for a year or two until things cooled off. Everyone knew it was only a default, which is exactly the point: changing it or not changing it made no practical difference. 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. Also, if I just went whichever way the wind blows, the Big Blockers likely would have won the Blocksize War.

These views do not reflect the views of @ocean_mining and are mine exclusively: Saturday 8/8 saw the rejection of BIP110 by the Bitcoin industry despite broad support among the community. This shattered a long-standing belief that Bitcoin's anti-fragility and hard-monetary properties would continue thanks to its decentralized network of nodes who were run by people who understood Bitcoin and would fight to preserve it. I have been confident in Bitcoin's future and championed it as a tool for freedom. My reasons for doing so both required that it maintain and treat as a mission-critical priority the decentralization and ultimate authority of the network of nodes determining and enforcing its rules. They are no longer relevant. The degree to which this undermines Bitcoin's future cannot be overstated. Proof of Work is completely pointless if the criteria for what constitutes validity is decided by the ones doing the work. Pools have said "Our blocks are still valid, even if they violate rules we were told to respect." They did so within a small cartel of centralized pool operators clearly acting on behalf of industry players who operated behind closed doors ensuring that their public, breathtakingly arrogant, and nonsensically premature dismissal of BIP110 as a failure would not ultimately turn out any other way. They were not bluffing, they knew. By contrast, BIP110 supporters operated in public. We used neutral metrics that everyone had access to, and made the basis of our confidence publicly known. Sincere attempts were made to gauge community sentiment and engagement was public on all venues where discussion was permitted. Public engagement with influential Bitcoiners who opposed BIP110 demonstrated clearly that their opposition was not in good faith. This led to questions about their characters and intentions which were promptly corroborated by timely Epstein leaks. This meant that it was no longer frivolous dismissal of "the other side" out of pure tribal instinct as is standard within any conflict, and instead it would become laughably naive to continue assuming good faith on their part. Regardless, the spectacular, resolute dismissal of BIP110 necessarily reveals an equivalent stark and chilling reality with regard to decision-making about Bitcoin's consensus rules. No one, not even BIP110's most staunch critics can dismiss the implications of this. When Bitcoin is under attack, spontaneous defense that can withstand whatever onslaught it faces will simply be dismissed as "not economic", "a Sybil attack", "non technical", "censorship" or some other attempt to discredit and undermine it by the attackers. My expectation for the future is that for Bitcoin, reverse-Trojan horse theory continues to play out: The dollarization of the ecosystem will continue, and Bitcoin's ultimate goal - the separation of money and state, will be forgotten, while its captured players work towards the exact opposite end - its unification. Bitcoin is not the first protocol to become captured. It needed to become the exception, not the rule. The mechanism by which it did that is decentralization. Work is being done to hard fork Bitcoin with a new Proof-of-Work algorithm. I have said repeatedly in the past that in certain scenarios, should mining become captured and centralized to too great of a degree then the only defense the network would have would be to hard-fork to a new Proof-of-Work algorithm. I stand by this perspective as a truth fundamental to Bitcoin and everyone must agree with this stance if they are to believe Bitcoin is not whatever a necessarily few mining pools say it is. If you believe the miners acted on behalf of a silent community who secretly opposed BIP110 then I will respectfully disagree but agree that your conclusion about a PoW change being unwarranted must follow. You have misjudged the BIP itself and are simultaneously oblivious to the mechanisms that were abused to deny it, along with the intentions of the people working them. You also did not indicate your dislike of the BIP via discernable metrics (i.e not running a URSF and committing to its rejection) - instead you relied on a few pools to decide on your behalf. So what am I going to do? Wait with a stalled out Knots node. Another block will be along later rather than sooner, but I'll take it. That is what my entire Bitcoin stack sees as the state of the network. If a PoW change HF comes along with the next update to @BitcoinKnots that makes blocks start showing up faster I will upgrade to it and enjoy the benefit. I have no desire to attempt to call this new chain "Bitcoin" - Bitcoin is a case study in protocol capture and instead of dying, becomes a tool for the sickest of purposes. I can think of nothing more evil than centralized Bitcoin. It is whatever tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist told you Bitcoin was. But for all my day-to-day activities, all the software I use, Bitcoin is simply stuck at block 931,633. At current hashrate the next block will take ~32 hours. I sincerely doubt that anyone wants to find another 2000 blocks at this pace so HF is the only practical option.