Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're mi...

SatsAndSports

npub1zthq85gksjsjthv8h6rec2qeqs2mu0emrm9xknkhgw7hfl7csrnq6wxm56

hex

54c0d92032de73fddbebedd9929e4a349ffed423cd373f2570369f68c12ba000

nevent

nevent1qqs9fsxeyqeduulam047mkvjne9rf8l76s3u6dely4crd8mgcy46qqqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsp9msr6ytgfgf9mkrmapuu9qvsg9d78ua3ajntfmt580t5llvgpes2q23x9

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-08-14T07:53:45Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

33099fb3af94de49ac524ae7343f07c4faf7ba7f276c6f95e423e478a6ad9b94...

Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're misunderstanding what happened with BIP110

(I enjoy following you, as I feel that you are different from many bitcoiners here on Nostr, and it's useful to follow different perspectives)

The big miners didn't really reject BIP110, they simply ignored it. They just kept mining Bitcoin blocks as usual. Dathon Ohm lied when he said the big miners did a "secret hard fork".

Some users configured their nodes to reject Bitcoin blocks, and therefore it's no surprise that they ended up on a different chaintip; sorry if this is uncomfortable to read, but it's true

BIP110 was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose. It would have made it more difficult to run a node, by forcing data into the UTXO set; and that's the worst outcome for node decentralisation

The Knots and filtering movement is harmful to mining decentralisation, as it makes it difficult for small miners to see what's going to be mined. The "Tolerant Minority" fought back, to defend decentralisation, by helping small miners to see all the fee-paying transactions; they did this by relaxing their mempools to relay more transactions

So, it's good that BIP110 was ignored by Bitcoin. And the BIP110 leaders told many lies about "game theory", as well as generally being egotistical maniacs

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "54c0d92032de73fddbebedd9929e4a349ffed423cd373f2570369f68c12ba000",
  "pubkey": "12ee03d11684a125dd87be879c28190415be3f3b1eca6b4ed743bd74ffd880e6",
  "created_at": 1786694025,
  "tags": [
    [
      "alt",
      "A short note: Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think..."
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "33099fb3af94de49ac524ae7343f07c4faf7ba7f276c6f95e423e478a6ad9b94",
      "wss://nos.lol/",
      "root",
      "f527cf970ce260e74261214bf612e8f75a59db1835ed7e4053326c3f65e232ee"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "f527cf970ce260e74261214bf612e8f75a59db1835ed7e4053326c3f65e232ee",
      "wss://noornode.nostr1.com/"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Amethyst"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Hi. I hope you don't mind me replying, but I think you're misunderstanding what happened with BIP110\n\n(I enjoy following you, as I feel that you are different from many bitcoiners here on Nostr, and it's useful to follow different perspectives)\n\nThe big miners didn't really *reject* BIP110, they simply ignored it. They just kept mining Bitcoin blocks as usual. Dathon Ohm lied when he said the big miners did a \"secret hard fork\".\n\nSome users configured their nodes to reject Bitcoin blocks, and therefore it's no surprise that they ended up on a different chaintip; sorry if this is uncomfortable to read, but it's true\n\nBIP110 was harmful to Bitcoin's monetary purpose. It would have made it more difficult to run a node, by forcing data into the UTXO set; and that's the worst outcome for node decentralisation\n\nThe Knots and filtering movement is harmful to mining decentralisation, as it makes it difficult for small miners to see what's going to be mined. The \"Tolerant Minority\" fought back, to defend decentralisation, by helping small miners to see all the fee-paying transactions; they did this by relaxing their mempools to relay more transactions\n\n\nSo, it's good that BIP110 was ignored by Bitcoin. And the BIP110 leaders told many lies about \"game theory\", as well as generally being egotistical maniacs",
  "sig": "6cded66828f41f799659f31af6a2b7c970efaf65dd45b885c61d3b06899914f158dec389c87159a7f92578d5e1109f39478a6acf823d03aaf72d5cb7bf723d7f"
}