no but i've literally been saying that segwit was a mistake ...

mleku

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku

hex

a77d366414e32a0fd2bb372b2d42972694ea12b92b494044809732fa9b0448e2

nevent

nevent1qqs2wlfkvs2wx2s062anw2edg2tjd982z2ujkj2qgjqfwvh6nvzy3csprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktc2v205d

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-06-21T11:44:09Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

0e46c564d7e2855f33d856d55cb6cf3873482d741d2486c91919946c92247c29...

no but i've literally been saying that segwit was a mistake since before the UASF, you can dig up my thoughts on this way back in 2017 if you search for segwit and schnorr, possibly elfspice elfpsice l0k1 and loki handles. i tried to find it but couldn't find it but i remember it distinctly.

i based my opinion on the simple premise: the purpose of all the proposals at that time were about addressing the signature malleability problem. schnorr was the one that touched the least amount of protocol changes. it was the pre-compromise of the bitcoin developer group, after they changed to "bitcoin core" and the interaction between them and the BCH and BSV crowd that pushed through segwit. the poison was implanted, taproot added a further exploit mechanism to it, and then 2021 onwards the whole scene has degraded substantially into dogshit. adding a P2SPKH to the protocol and pure mempool restriction of the use of segwit (limiting size of witnesses) and rejecting taproot transactions is the meat of my proposal.

i'm not going to champion it because frankly, i've already written bitcoin off at 8 years max before it degrades into ethereum 2.0 and those who care about it have all the very same technical information as i have got and assembled to justify my position.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "a77d366414e32a0fd2bb372b2d42972694ea12b92b494044809732fa9b0448e2",
  "pubkey": "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f",
  "created_at": 1782042249,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "b03b6c2422cac0f7e31f4250f7d4cb3af0090f2fb66fc50c876762b2e8a4dae9",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "root",
      "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "0e46c564d7e2855f33d856d55cb6cf3873482d741d2486c91919946c92247c29",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "reply",
      "314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "smesh",
      "https://smesh.mleku.dev"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "no but i've literally been saying that segwit was a mistake since before the UASF, you can dig up my thoughts on this way back in 2017 if you search for segwit and schnorr, possibly elfspice elfpsice l0k1 and loki handles. i tried to find it but couldn't find it but i remember it distinctly.\n\ni based my opinion on the simple premise: the purpose of all the proposals at that time were about addressing the signature malleability problem. schnorr was the one that touched the least amount of protocol changes. it was the pre-compromise of the bitcoin developer group, after they changed to \"bitcoin core\" and the interaction between them and the BCH and BSV crowd that pushed through segwit. the poison was implanted, taproot added a further exploit mechanism to it, and then 2021 onwards the whole scene has degraded substantially into dogshit. adding a P2SPKH to the protocol and pure mempool restriction of the use of segwit (limiting size of witnesses) and rejecting taproot transactions is the meat of my proposal.\n\ni'm not going to champion it because frankly, i've already written bitcoin off at 8 years max before it degrades into ethereum 2.0 and those who care about it have all the very same technical information as i have got and assembled to justify my position.",
  "sig": "5017bf9588518432e28268b7bc0e3a07df5ab86f694eaf516b92a7ac197d84fe914adf1224c711a789d2b72f4d71545bb42bccd8ec25cef8ed58948b74c7ab88"
}