fff / is on Nostr

"5bfa3340474aa6331e59297be00f19cd728df61fd6087885938c0f9151abf0cb3ebd3ad43725d5154d0e969aed2b722d9edc3f376769ed66fed54c0e88269c6d"

Last Notes

2025-05-08 12:26:57

- reply

what do u want em to do instead? say they are ceo of bitcoin and everyone who disagrees with em is a shitcoiner.. oh wait :P

2025-05-08 11:23:21

- reply

Thus the boy took the steps his father took to become a man.. the ants at his feet feeling the same crushing mindless desire begetting desire for more-ness. Proof-of-work is Buddha's "The work is done", yet none see loving-kindledly 😞

2025-05-04 17:27:01

- reply

Just in.. 100% of people who drink water.. pass away :(

2025-05-02 13:13:00

- reply

Wtf is a bitcoin mini? A maxi is as human as you are. Why the needless labels?

2025-04-30 12:27:52

- reply

That is not at all what the PR is about.
The whole fight is about a single policy line in Bitcoin Core that limits the data you can embed with OP_RETURN to 80 bytes. Peter Todd’s pull request would delete that limit along with the config flags that let node operators raise or lower it, arguing the cap is pointless because miners already accept larger payloads through private channels or patched nodes, while the cap pushes would-be data publishers into even messier hacks like unspendable Taproot outputs that swell the UTXO set forever. Supporters say bigger OP_RETURNs keep junk out of the UTXO set, simplify the code base, and leave block size economics to the fee market. Critics reply that dropping the ceiling encourages cheap on-chain spam, strips node runners of a control knob, and increases legal or bandwidth risks for anyone syncing the chain. The proposal does not touch the block-weight limit set by SegWit and it does not loosen script-execution rules; it only decides whether Core should nanny how much data a user can stuff after a single OP_RETURN. Your stance boils down to which cost you dislike more: fatter raw blocks that still prune cleanly or a forever-growing UTXO and the need to run a fork like Bitcoin Knots if you want the old safeguard back.

2025-04-08 13:13:27

- reply

This is exactly how grooming n slavery arise. Love begets hate.. ur def familiar with love triangles so u can't even deny. Loving-kindness? That's a fresh n whole diff conversation but too fearful to have here :P

2025-04-08 13:03:30

- reply

Zap4follow == proof-of-desperation meets proof-of-work. To make it work, you need nostr to have a reputation system kinda like LinkedIn but u sign a vouch for X person's pubkey. I dislike LinkedIn tho so if you guys add this, consider me g o n e.