Murch

Does bitcoiny things at Chaincode Labs

Public Key

npub1j5mp526z5fkz9wkrk6mt5nzu43xndyrwkr8mnqngdqwytgcpc5vqcnsd5c

NIP-05 Address

murch@murch.one

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsf2ds69dp2ympzhtpmdd46f3w2cnfkjphtpnaesf5xs8z95vqu2xqpzfmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuegppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5arkewl

Publishing to

wot.utxo.one

nostr.mom

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1j5mp526z5fkz9wkrk6mt5nzu43xndyrwkr8mnqngdqwytgcpc5vqcnsd5c

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-06-03 02:32:00

- reply

Yeah bots that repeat the same words in a weird order

2025-05-31 17:16:11

@nprofile…wca6 made a splendid new zine! About Silent Payments this time. Check it out! https://image.nostr.build/6babb785cb90f2b0219a7c3f061e65c4558e6c0f4c8f6791fd0472ffc0b905a2.jpg

2025-05-29 02:14:42

If you were at the Las Vegas #bitdevs today and you're owed the nitty gritty details of Pay to Anchor, TRUC transactions, 1p1c, and ephemeral dust, here is the Stack Exchange topic that was referenced:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/126098/5406

2025-05-25 15:49:23

Curious if this is an unpopular opinion:
It was with too hard to get a BIP processed in the past and now people put BIPs on a pedestal.
But BIPs are author documents. Especially in Draft stage, they do not present community consensus — they're the authors’ personal recommendation to the Bitcoin community.
It seems good to me that we get a few controversial BIPs. It clears up that it's still the readers’ responsibility to make up their mind.

2025-05-23 01:21:10

- reply

BIP353 has probably not really arrived yet, has it?

2025-05-23 01:05:03

- reply

Non-custodial is probably not less work than a nip-5, I take it? 😅

2025-05-23 00:40:57

- reply

That was pretty easy, so that's a good argument.
What I've tried so far, was to set up receiving with Phoenix. I figured a bolt12 invoice might work, or the BIP353 username would, but neither seemed to work from Amethyst when I tried in my own profile. I moved recently and haven't set up my homenode again, so I was considering doing that one of the coming weekends, but maybe I'm missing a way easier way of doing it?

2025-05-23 00:34:31

- reply

Would that work from amethyst, or do I need to operate the wallet from the website?

2025-05-22 20:15:02

- reply

Mh, still ob the fence whether to bother with yet another social media platform, so I've put little effort into seeing it up so far

2025-05-22 20:13:42

- reply

Thanks! I answered a lot of the frequent questions on Stacker News a couple weeks ago:
https://stacker.news/items/971277
Since it became a pretty big thread, here is a table of contents for the previous thread: https://stacker.news/items/978404
I also thought that Antoine did a great job of addressing most talking points in this debate on delving:
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/addressing-community-concerns-and-objections-regarding-my-recent-proposal-to-relax-bitcoin-cores-standardness-limits-on-op-return-outputs/1697

2025-05-22 04:26:22

It's raining BIPs, hallelujah...
Recently merged:
BIP53
BIP54
BIP172
BIP177
BIP321
BIP443
On the cusp:
BIP77
Maybe a good time to remind that BIPs are author documents that represent the authors’ recommendation to the Bitcoin community.

2025-05-22 00:29:37

- reply

Yeah, I get that all the hype around silly pictures in the blockchain gets on the nerves. FWIW, all the Bitcoin Core devs are working on the native currency for the Internet, as far as I can tell, they largely feel the same.
To us it mostly feels like a question of priorities and benefit per cost. Except for Luke, I don't know if any Bitcoin Core contributors that think filters have any effect at all on transactions for which there is sufficient economic demand. 53% of all transactions in the last year have had inscriptions or op_return outputs. These transactions paid hundreds of millions of dollars in transaction fees.
I don't think there is an appetite for crippling Bitcoin Script over this by soft forking in mitigations. So, Bitcoin Core devs mostly choose to spend their time on other things.
Most Bitcoin Core devs have plenty skin in the game, with their careers tied up in Bitcoin for many years. Don't get too worked up, it's not as big of a deal as some make it sound.

2025-05-22 00:16:10

- reply

Ocean had only found 11,895 blocks, and that's if you count the ones found by Eligius.

2025-05-22 00:08:10

- reply

Thanos for being open to this conversation

2025-05-21 10:41:39

- reply

Yeah, agree, it seems mostly like trolling to make a point or riding on the attention.

2025-05-21 00:07:35

Does someone want to explain to me how OP_RETURNs increase the blockchain growth, hardware requirements, or otherwise increase the cost of running a node? I keep seeing that concern, and that seems completely counter my expectations. I'd love to see a detailed explanation of how that follows.

2025-05-19 23:42:15

- reply

Would you like to share your concrete concerns, so I can address them?
I have not received any money or other incentives to have a specific position in this matter, not am I aware of any other participants in this discussion being paid to represent a specific position.
To me the arguments for lifting the limit make sense by themselves. My skepticism to the viability of filtering transactions with significant demand aren't exactly new, I pretty much write the same thing on last year's pull request for "match more data carrying" which I found to be similarly poorly motivated.

2025-05-19 14:57:29

- reply

No, I did not conflate contributors and maintainers. In Bitcoin Core nothing gets merged until it has been reviewed by several regular contributors, usually several times. Sure, one of the five maintainers (who are part of the regular contributors) is usually the last reviewer and will merge a PR if it has had enough review and they're satisfied, but they don't merge things that haven't been reviewed by other knowledgeable developers, mostly from those 40 regulars.

2025-05-16 04:56:18

- reply

You're welcome, and that's what I think mostly as well: (high-value)monetary transactions will have the highest bidding power in the long run and that's what will curb the data transactions. Thanks for being open to hearing various sources.

2025-05-15 23:21:28

- reply

Stop wondering whether that was a joke

2025-05-15 21:34:48

- reply

Yeah it isn't much, just about 28,000 lines of code difference across 550 files and 1400 commits. https://image.nostr.build/5be4acb9eb8e563bf409bad25f6594b157eb862fedce6c9411c564477979a433.jpg

2025-05-15 20:47:04

- reply

Theoretically you could have done the same reveal truck with p2sh, but the redeem script had to fit into a single 520 byte push. Segwit introduced the witness section and witness discount, Taproot removed the 520 byte limit for witness stack items. Altogether, you could then do big scripts for less in the witness.

2025-05-15 18:22:01

- reply

The main reason to do it is the same reason as 2013: it's preferable for people to write into op_return outputs than into unspendable payment outputs. Dropping the limit makes OP_RETURN a reliable replacement for the latter which is currently standard and essentially unpreventable.
Data in OP_RETURN is significantly more expensive than data in inscriptions, so I have a hard time understanding the concern that the overall block space occupied by data transactions would increase.
Whether more should have been done about inscriptions seems like a separate debate that mostly muddies the water here.

2025-05-15 18:13:52

- reply

Biometrics are user IDs, not passwords.

2025-05-15 14:55:18

- reply

Bitcoin Core currently estimates feerates based on the time transactions of various feerates spend in the mempool before they appear in blocks. We ignore any transactions that we have not seen in the mempool.
We also have work in progress to estimate feerates based on the transactions in the mempool. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30392

2025-05-15 05:20:19

- reply

1. I don't understand why people think Peter Todd is a regular contributor to Bitcoin Core. I don't think I've seen him make that claim, I've certainly not seen other contributors make that claim, and as far as I can tell, he has made three commits since 2016.
https://image.nostr.build/c12a73d4e689ab00cfe4c16a1f0cba822f06d7467c42c2e6abf7f1e5e5272bc9.jpg
2. You will have to ask Peter why he said that and how he meant it.

2025-05-14 18:06:46

- reply

No, people contributing to the upstream project are part of the process in the upstream project. Their review also benefits the downstream project as their code contributions are released with the downstairs project, but they are not participating in the downstream project's process.
Your restarting it like this makes me think that the distinction is not clearly understood.

2025-05-14 14:36:21

- reply

Oh, my apologies, I didn't realize what the source of the second screenshot was. Thanks

2025-05-14 06:54:18

- reply

https://njump.me/nevent1qqstvvt6eddat0z5tkzmma3y7a9z3clyg7le58evm8yaz9vtnu53secpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygy4xcdzks4zds3t4sakk6aych9vf5mfqm4se7ucy6rgr3z6xqw9rqpsgqqqqqqs3ftc5h

2025-05-14 06:53:34

- reply

I'm just pointing out some facts, you do you

2025-05-14 06:50:43

- reply

What are you referring to?

2025-05-14 06:49:06

- reply

Maybe it's because we're not at the center of drama every other week

2025-05-14 05:42:56

- reply

https://nitter.space/LukeDashjr/status/1921234140717805769 https://image.nostr.build/72cbf2f65f8044d2ebe12ddeb1081fa5f6eb7fdc84ec64064d8a5750c8ce6972.jpg https://image.nostr.build/72cbf2f65f8044d2ebe12ddeb1081fa5f6eb7fdc84ec64064d8a5750c8ce6972.jpg
https://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2024-05-02.html#l-596

2025-05-14 01:25:46

- reply

I do. What's up with the leading questions? Are you working up to my code being released in Knots? I'm well aware of that, and that's an obvious possibility from most of my work being freely licensed.

2025-05-13 21:17:33

I have been seeing some claims that "Bitcoin Knots is part of the Bitcoin Core project", that "Bitcoin Knots is just another release of Bitcoin Core", and that "Bitcoin Knots has more contributors than Bitcoin Core".
Bitcoin Core has about 40 regular contributors with over a thousand past contributors. The Bitcoin Core project releases its software on bitcoincore.org. Bitcoin Core releases are signed by several Bitcoin Core contributors and other community members. Releases are attested to by this community.
Bitcoin Core’s source code is released under the MIT License. The MIT License is a permissive open-source license permitting anyone to do almost anything with the licensed code.
Bitcoin Knots is a project fork of Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Knots appears to be developed by a single developer pushing directly to master without peer review. Bitcoin Knots releases are composed of Bitcoin Core’s source code modified with a patch set of about 1400 commits. The same individual unilaterally issues releases. There is no indication that anyone else has ever contributed code or review directly to Bitcoin Knots. Bitcoin Knots is not endorsed by the Bitcoin Core project.
Claims to the contrary appear to be based on a unique individual perception of reality.

2025-05-08 06:35:05

- reply

I tried to explain a bit here: https://stacker.news/items/971277

2025-05-08 06:30:31

- reply

Maybe we can do that when we have the one-shot broadcast via Tor for transactions

2025-05-07 14:54:35

- reply

You would also count f2pool

2025-05-07 14:53:31

- reply

Yeah, actually. Right now it's basically certain that transactions with larger OP_RETURN outputs get included. People that don't care how quickly it gets confirmed have no issue, but it happens unreliably, so users that feel the need to write time-sensitive data commitments may prefer writing them to payment outputs in fake pubkeys. So yeah, it would be better if Op_RETURNs got mined reliably.

2025-05-07 14:36:29

Ich habe gestern mit Rene von Blocktrainer über die OP_RETURN Diskussion gesprochen:
https://www.fountain.fm/episode/jAkvIefy9cTpbe02eQvA

2025-05-06 15:48:31

- reply

Could you clarify what you mean when you ask "why Libre Relay is not enough"?
Enough for what? What do you think is the goal here?

2025-05-06 15:44:14

- reply

See e.g. https://mempool.space/tx/a527c6f4f4e7148f5b84cfb3a896dd02e9477fe9cf1f4b03c32f5c056c8a648c
https://mempool.space/tx/3183bd6ceebc2d39c0a3cfa0d06eb84d1161eaac1c26605e2eab62bfe48c1420
https://mempool.space/tx/64a4b1efaeedfe88596c118f7ba5b48cac498cbdb51bc3e8366edd0d20da2662

2025-05-06 06:02:22

- reply

What makes you so sure? Have you tried it? From what I hear and see, the OP_RETURNBOT creates larger OP_RETURN outputs just fine.

2025-05-06 05:55:30

- reply

Hey, dumb question. Given that is not possible to get large OP_RETURNs mined how come that more than twenty have been created this week alone?

2025-05-05 19:28:38

Ava is reviewing OP_RETURN live: https://www.twitch.tv/achow101

2025-05-05 17:19:19

- reply

Mike Tidwell and I have collected a bunch of questions and answers around the OP_RETURN debate here: stacker.news/items/971277
I would hope that this collection helps with understanding the perspective of Bitcoin Core contributors.

2025-05-05 17:10:45

Mike Tidwell and I have collected a bunch of questions and answers around the OP_RETURN debate here: stacker.news/items/971277

2025-05-02 17:34:16

- reply

Thanks, will fix

2025-05-02 17:01:32

- reply

Mh?

2025-04-28 19:11:05

I wrote a lengthy answer on a question about P2A and Ephemeral Dust: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/126098/5406
Please let me know if you find another mistake.

2025-02-22 01:35:41

- reply

Thanks for giving it a read and the kind assessment!

2025-02-21 20:57:05

- reply

Yeah, some of the number ranges are reserved for specific topics and the first few are reserved for Process BIPs.

2025-02-21 11:59:22

BIP 3 got merged. 🥳
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1712 https://image.nostr.build/9f8c48c6f9ff293517390767ae59da675175ce7afd1df4214169f4a5cd5c6a78.jpg

2025-02-14 01:47:22

- reply

Although this a few blocks ago might be even more so it: https://image.nostr.build/325e550ccb893789fe994515e79974ad5f4fca340f2c5be3d29f9825b1f39d9a.jpg

2025-02-14 01:44:57

- reply

Yes

2025-02-03 22:29:38

Anyone want to read my new BIP Process proposal?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1712

2025-02-03 22:05:35

- reply

The sender wallet would rebroadcast it. Some receivers may also rebroadcast

2025-02-03 17:45:31

- reply

Celsius

2025-02-03 17:44:51

- reply

Twitter became unbearable, so I am exploring other social media options

2025-02-03 17:39:52

- reply

If that tapers off now, too, that would be the likely explanation

2025-02-03 17:39:18

- reply

I'm wondering whether the increase in BRC20 lately was mostly the ancient transactions in the mempool getting processed.

2025-02-03 17:37:58

- reply

Depends on what you mean with "good". On the one hand, demand for block space is now lower, on the other hand, it's less likely that Bitcoin devolves into a casino platform like Ethereum

2025-02-03 17:30:51

Runes have dropped off recently. https://image.nostr.build/d721da996209e56fa63e9c365dde4cbecb21a2acf3e96b62cd9e15e4858f712e.jpg

2025-01-31 20:28:14

- reply

Was there you a specific point that you wanted to raise per linking to this report?

2025-01-31 20:24:45

Giving Nostr, Bluesky, and Stacker News another spin. Might even blog a bit more again.
https://image.nostr.build/884148249d55d37ed261b677997129e297955b03bb7d84701ff8c437be3a4da7.jpg

2025-01-31 17:05:55

- reply

Maybe they restarted their node and didn't backfill their mempool

2025-01-31 16:18:44

Last night, the mempool shrunk to a depth of less than four blocks worth of unconfirmed transactions before it bounced back. It seems that we will soon see non-full blocks. https://image.nostr.build/e772400e34502e2647be1ca0e5c9e707934648b832c59c29752249a10568b1de.png
#mempoolreport

2023-06-21 00:36:51

- reply

BTW, 0.12 also disabled “coin-age priority” by default as a mechanism to select transactions for 10% of the block: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.12.0#relay-and-mining-priority-transactions

2023-06-21 00:30:55

- reply

CPFP was introduced in 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6654/commits/5add7a74a672cb12b0a2a630d318d9bc64dd0f77

2023-06-21 00:15:50

- reply

I accept no responsibility, but I’m happy to explain: https://b10c.me/blog/007-spending-p2tr-pre-activation/

2023-05-22 11:08:13

Happy Bitcoin Pizza Day!
🍕🍕

2023-03-10 20:56:47

We put out a new episode of the Chaincode Podcast yesterday. We had Andrew Chow chat with us about the Bitcoin Core wallet, PSBT, HWI, and more.
https://podcast.chaincode.com/2023/03/09/andrew-chow.html

2023-03-10 18:34:38

- reply

I think I’d rather not special case it, but I saw that someone is working on a PR that will generally skip witness data before the `-assumevalid` block if you’re in prune-mode.

2023-01-13 14:12:08

Happy Friday!

2022-12-24 01:25:33

Does anyone know why NIP-19 uses bech32 instead on bech32m? 🤔

2022-12-24 01:01:11

I can attest to “-10°C, moderate winds, feels like -20°C” being quite cold. 🥶

2022-12-23 21:00:54

We will do a topic week about LDK 2023-01-04–10: https://bitcoin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1155/5406

2022-12-23 20:52:50

- reply

I see, also cool

2022-12-23 18:41:44

- reply

WDYM, Blockstream satellite acts as a relay for your nostr messages if you pay for it? :D

2022-12-23 18:30:16

- reply

Wondering whether there is there a way to synchronize message filters between multiple devices, or a way to set up email sorting server-side? Have not found anything good yet, though.

2022-12-23 18:28:56

I use an email account on four different devices. I have message filters set up in Thunderbird that sort everything into folders. But if that computer is not running, obviously the emails do not get sorted.
I do not want to manually recreate the filters on multiple devices. WWYD?

2022-12-22 14:21:50

GM,
The mempool is a bit deeper this morning since there was a 31-minute block followed by an 80-minute block in the wee morning hours. The mempool has not cleared in 4.5h since. Current depth is 4 blocks, next block fee is 4 ṩ/vB.
#mempoolreport

2022-12-22 05:27:42

Barely arrived, already “may or may not be notable”.—Nice that you can just do it yourself.

2022-12-22 05:21:34

- reply

That's not too shabby

2022-12-22 00:43:11

- reply

Thanks, I'll try

2022-12-22 00:37:07

- reply

Aha! So this thing is on. Thanks Bob, nice to meet you.

2022-12-22 00:32:35

/me yells in to the void