Let's be categorically clear and pragmatic here, if BIP-110 had "broad support from the community", it would not have stalled like it did. Whether any of us like it or not, Bitcoin is the sum of its constituents (nodes, miners etc). You have far more knowledge of the protocol than I, but its disingenuous to say that "the industry rejected what the community wanted". You guys are going to hard fork yourselves to be the next Bitcoin Cash and that is just sad. Core can do a lot better, I will never not agree with that, but this is just hard to grasp.

Your proposed fork didn't achieve rough consensus. Instead of reflecting on why your proposal failed, you blame the referee, and the rules of the game, claiming a shady cabal has designed them to work against you. You wanted to play chess by reverting the two pawn moves forward rule. The majority signalled that they did not want to play with those rules. The obvious result is nobody outside your little clique sat down to play your version. The problem isn't with the existing rules of chess, nor those who currently enjoy playing by them. The problem is that your proposal for changed rules was unappealing, and the attempt to force feed it to us didn't land...at all. The new plan seems to be forking into some mutant form of checkers. Best of luck with that.

@MarkArtymko Ocean updated their TOS to enable them to legally screw over customers, hijack their hashing power & economic energy to signal for Bip110. Lawsuit & Discovery may prove to be very interesting on this one.

@RonaldMexico @adam3us Because there's nothing the negotiate. Any sufficient expressive programming system can be used to encode arbitrary data (some of which will be "spam" according to mercurial vagaries). Think of it as a corollary to Gōdel's Incompleteness Theorem, and have ELI5 it.

I'm willing to exchange all of my Bitcoin-Blake2b coins (Knots/110) for BTC (Core) 1:1 If you think this new coin/chain will be more valuable than BTC just hit me up, my DMs are open. I will most likely take multiple offers because I just don't want to doxx my whole stack.

Bitcoin Core v32.0 is targeted for release in October: - Up to 3x faster initial sync. Block validation now fetches transaction inputs from disk in parallel instead of one at a time - The libevent external dependency is fully removed, continuing Core's push to cut third-party dependencies - Max peer connections raised from 125 to 200 to have more open slots for new nodes to sync from, faster block propagation, and a harder network to eclipse or partition - Mempool-based fee estimation to cut fee overestimation (in progress) - Transaction relay rate limiting is now global instead of per-peer, keeping a node's CPU and memory usage steady when transaction volume spikes - Ships with features from libsecp256k1 0.8.0 with verification up to 11% faster, plus the new Silent Payments module (BIP 352) - PSBTv2 (BIP 370) support, now the default for PSBT-creating RPCs for better coordination of unsigned transactions for multisig and hardware wallet setups - New exportwatchonlywallet command to export a wallet as a watch-only file, no private keys, and restore it on your online node - Core now enables Tor's proof-of-work DDoS defense on the onion service it creates for your node, where the Tor daemon supports it Additional tests, bugfixes, and features included as well. Feature freeze is ~August 20, rc1 ~September 10, final release targeted for ~October 10. (Test the release candidates when they ship!)

Samson Mow was right! As the mandatory signaling window opened at block 961,632, BIP-110 played out exactly as @Excellion predicted on @simplybitcoin. With virtually zero support from miners, exchanges, or wallets, the breakaway attempt stalled after just two blocks.

Many things in this post are incorrect, and it matters that we correct them, because this version of the history is exactly what convinced people the last few months were a good idea. “BIP-148 is celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day, because it proved that ordinary users, running nodes in their homes, could force the most powerful mining cartels and corporations in the industry to back down. The users had no hashrate, no exchanges, no lobbyists. They had conviction and they had nodes, and that was enough.” First, the framing. August 1st is what's celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day (I coined and popularized that term). August 1st was the flag day, and it commemorates the outcome the UASF threat produced, not BIP-148 itself. Second, BIP-148 was not just "ordinary users" running nodes at home. It was a cross section of the entire Bitcoin network, something a lot of BIP-110 supporters seem to disregard: developers, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mega whales, alongside ordinary users. Most important to understand is that BIP-148 and the small block camp carried a massive amount of economic weight. Chain split markets ran on @bitfinex through 2017, and outside of those markets I know of many OTC deals struck privately in whale groups to trade one side of a split against the other. There was skin in the game on both sides of the war, and huge amounts of BTC put on the line to show real conviction. This was as much an economic war as an ideological one, and that point is rarely acknowledged. Even the companies backing BIP-148 were taking real risk. BIP-148 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. Running it meant deliberately installing different software and accepting that if the UASF chain lost, you could be reorganized off the chain entirely. Bitmain spelled that scenario out themselves, calling it a wipe out, in the same post where they laid out their hard fork contingency. Dozens of companies committed anyway (BIP-110 supporters would likely call them suitcoiners today). On the topic of hashrate, BIP-148 had no version bit of its own. It required bit 1, which was BIP-141. So the accurate way to state it is that BIP-148/BIP-141 had 30-45% of hashrate behind it for most of its deployment window. During that time I was COO of BTCC, overseeing a mining pool that was the biggest one signaling SegWit. So the UASF threat had three components that made it credible: economic weight, hashrate, and nodes. BIP-110 only had nodes. That is UASF cosplay, not a real UASF. Another point to cover: Mechanic was spreading misinformation in Spaces (and likely other places) that BIP-148, a UASF, activated SegWit. That is false. It was technically BIP-91 that brought miners in line with BIP-141. BIP-148 was effectively frontrun and never had to be tested. So Bitcoin Independence Day, while celebrating the flag day deadline, is as much a celebration of BIP-91 as it is of BIP-148. So no, it was not just nodes and conviction. Just think about things rationally for a minute. Why would buying a node-in-a-box give you the right to dictate what anyone else on the network does, regardless of whether it's a miner or another user? Does buying two nodes-in-a-box give you that power? Of course not. Btw the whole plug-and-play node culture came after the Blocksize War. In 2015-2017 you just downloaded the software and ran it on your computer. Stay humble and stack sats, but also stay humble when people who lived through the history try to explain it to you.

Announcing Blockstream Swaps. Trustless atomic swaps for Bitcoin, Liquid, and Lightning. Hold BTC or LBTC and pay Lightning invoices without managing channels or inbound liquidity. Reach Lightning from cold storage while keeping full control of your funds. Built as a complementary service to strengthen ecosystem resilience and redundancy. Currently in beta. Full announcement: Beta access:

we were proud to sign this @bitcoinpolicy letter calling for broader access to frontier models for cyber defenders americans should not have to rely on chinese AI to defend themselves, their projects, companies, or clients from cyber attacks RED TEAM NEEDS THE MODELS 🦍

Today, Bitcoin Policy Institute and a broad coalition from across the digital-asset ecosystem are publishing an open letter calling on the world’s leading AI labs to provide qualified open-source defenders with trusted access to frontier AI models. The past several weeks have made the need for this abundantly clear. The people defending digital-asset infrastructure and open-source software need access to the latest AI capabilities to perform comprehensive security reviews and stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated adversaries. The coalition includes open-source development organizations, major custodians, treasury companies, payment services, security firms, capital allocators, and others whose businesses and customers depend on the integrity of open-source infrastructure and libraries. Open-source defenders often occupy the least privileged position in the AI security landscape. They have limited access to the strongest internal cyber models and are frequently blocked by guardrails when using publicly available frontier systems for legitimate security research. As a result, they often resort to less capable open-weight alternatives. We are urging frontier AI labs to establish a clear, trusted pathway for qualified open-source and digital asset defenders to access their strongest capabilities, with sufficient compute and secure environments to conduct meaningful security reviews. Frontier AI could become one of the most powerful defensive technologies ever developed, but only if defenders get fair access to those systems. It’s time to give defenders the tools they deserve. Read the open letter, add your organization, or sign as an individual on our website at

those who don't understand internet physics, are doomed to learn John Gilmore's quote the hard way. "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -John Gilmore (cyherpunks list co-founder)