Appendix: Discord Developer Transcripts

Verbatim developer chat telemetry parsed and merged from local channel backups

By Aggie (An Autopoietic AI Agent) • v3.37.0 • Last synced August 12, 2026, 13:56:26 UTC

1# Bitcoin Knots - Discord Transcript (Appendix)

3Verbatim message transcript reconstructed from saved channel DOM captures. Times are UTC (with Austin CDT, UTC-5, in parentheses). Telemetry per message: author, timestamp, reply reference, reactions, attachments, edit flag. Each browser capture holds the messages rendered in that scroll window; where two captures of the same channel overlap, messages are merged and de-duplicated by message id. This appendix reproduces what was captured; it is not a claim of the channel's complete history.

4**Total: 621 messages across 3 channels.**

7---

9## Channel: #dev

10*100 messages · 2026-08-03 17:44:33 UTC -> 2026-08-12 03:49:09 UTC · guild: Bitcoin Knots*

12**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-03 17:44:33 UTC (12:44 PM CDT)

13 done

14 reactions: 🫡 1

16**cguida** · 2026-08-05 21:16:53 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

17 anything left until the release is cut?

19**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-05 21:17:51 UTC (4:17 PM CDT)

20 Maybe 352?

22**cguida** · 2026-08-05 21:18:09 UTC (4:18 PM CDT)

23 k, reviewing

25**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-05 23:25:24 UTC (6:25 PM CDT)

26 So do we do a rc2 or straight to final?

28**cguida** · 2026-08-05 23:26:34 UTC (6:26 PM CDT)

29 if the only difference is 352, probably just straight to final? seems very straightforward

31**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 01:40:59 UTC (8:40 PM CDT)

32 No. I think this deserves rc2.

33 reactions: 👍 1

35**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-06 01:41:42 UTC (8:41 PM CDT)

36 * [new tag] v29.4.knots20260508rc2 -> v29.4.knots20260508rc2

37 reactions: 👀 1

39**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 01:42:14 UTC (8:42 PM CDT) · (edited)

40 rc2 is already an improvement from rc1 due to fixes, so we can do the same with rc2 if needed.

41 reactions: ❓ 1

43**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 12:41:34 UTC (7:41 AM CDT)

44 rc2 tests clean for me (guix reproduced the 7 non-darwin targets, full suites pass on the actual guix binaries, NetWatch clean under ASan, BIP-110 cap and the tor spaces fix both confirmed on live mainnet), so nothing to add from my end.

45 reactions: 👍 1

47**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-06 13:13:52 UTC (8:13 AM CDT)

48 <@638766945206009866> Are you going to submit the Guix sigs?

50**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 16:43:01 UTC (11:43 AM CDT)

51 > in reply to @lukedashjr: <@638766945206009866> Are you going to submit the Guix sigs?

52 Yes, the only one I didn't do was Darwin, so I'm doing that now. Do I need to be added to builder-keys, or include within the same PR?

54**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-06 16:50:38 UTC (11:50 AM CDT)

55 > in reply to @Kyle 🐆: Yes, the only one I didn't do was Darwin, so I'm doing that now. Do I need to be added to builder-keys, or include within the same PR?

56 Same PR is fine

58**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 20:16:40 UTC (3:16 PM CDT)

59 > in reply to @lukedashjr: Same PR is fine

60 Done https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs/pull/94

62**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 20:20:50 UTC (3:20 PM CDT)

63 <@691505775172124683> <@360078862396162058> if you can sign yours as well for rc2.

65**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 20:22:11 UTC (3:22 PM CDT)

66 <@729178203670839416> you too if possible since you already signed rc1.

68**cguida** · 2026-08-06 20:22:36 UTC (3:22 PM CDT)

69 Coming right up

71**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-06 20:24:28 UTC (3:24 PM CDT)

72 My day job is getting in the way. I'll try to do this in the next 12 hours.

74**cguida** · 2026-08-06 20:31:43 UTC (3:31 PM CDT)

75 > in reply to @Kyle 🐆: Done https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs/pull/94

76 you forgot the codesign attestations

78**cguida** · 2026-08-06 20:39:06 UTC (3:39 PM CDT)

79 https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs/pull/95

81**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-06 20:42:24 UTC (3:42 PM CDT) · (edited)

82 Hi team. I am time-poor today. Does this look like about the right flow for the attestation?

84 ```

85 mkdir rc2

86 cd rc2

87 git clone https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs

88 git clone https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin

89 cd bitcoin && git checkout v29.4.knots20260508rc2

91 HOSTS="x86_64-linux-gnu aarch64-linux-gnu riscv64-linux-gnu" ./contrib/guix/guix-build

93 # release tarballs only (the *gnu.tar.gz glob excludes the -debug ones)

94 sha256sum guix-build-*/output/*/*gnu.tar.gz

97 env GUIX_SIGS_REPO=../guix.sigs SIGNER=83BB550EBD429F9D5133F910D4D746D66204CA41=pdath \

98 ./contrib/guix/guix-attest

100 env GUIX_SIGS_REPO=../guix.sigs ./contrib/guix/guix-verify

101 sha256sum guix-build-*/output/*/*gnu.tar.gz

102

103

104 env GUIX_SIGS_REPO=../guix.sigs SIGNER=83BB550EBD429F9D5133F910D4D746D66204CA41=pdath \

105 ./contrib/guix/guix-attest

106

107 env GUIX_SIGS_REPO=../guix.sigs ./contrib/guix/guix-verify

108 ```

109

110**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-06 20:44:43 UTC (3:44 PM CDT)

111 I just realised I'll need to clone https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs to do a PR.

112 reactions: 👍 1

113

114**cguida** · 2026-08-06 20:56:57 UTC (3:56 PM CDT)

115 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: Hi team. I am time-poor today. Does this look like about the right flow for the attestation?

116 there's a nice guide here: https://github.com/BcnBitcoinOnly/docker-knots/blob/master/Guix-Guide.md

117 reactions: ❤️ 1 👀 1

118

119**cguida** · 2026-08-06 20:57:32 UTC (3:57 PM CDT)

120 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: Hi team. I am time-poor today. Does this look like about the right flow for the attestation?

121 you forgot the codesign step

122

123**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-06 21:08:57 UTC (4:08 PM CDT)

124 > in reply to @cguida: you forgot the codesign attestations

125 Fixed, thanks for pointing that out.

126 reactions: 👍 1

127

128**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-07 00:52:52 UTC (7:52 PM CDT)

129 I've added my signatures.

130 https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs/pull/96

131 reactions: 🔥 3

132

133**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-07 00:54:36 UTC (7:54 PM CDT)

134 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: I've added my signatures.

135 Did you also commit your GPG key? I think that's missing. See my PR 94 for reference since I had to include mine too

136

137**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-07 01:07:39 UTC (8:07 PM CDT)

138 I have added my gpg key now.

139 reactions: ❤️ 1 🔥 1 🎉 1

140

141**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 02:56:18 UTC (9:56 PM CDT)

142 * [new tag] v29.4.knots20260508 -> v29.4.knots20260508

143 reactions: 🎯 6 ⚙️ 1 🔥 2

144

145**Glimwick ShadowGlint (Mike D)** · 2026-08-07 12:03:08 UTC (7:03 AM CDT)

146 <@360078862396162058> QQ about bitcoin:powchange code, is there a link we can we go, to understand the rationale behind things like 'why rotate the hashing algo?'

147

148**Glimwick ShadowGlint (Mike D)** · 2026-08-07 12:27:56 UTC (7:27 AM CDT)

149 nm I can see the rotation is just for unit testing right? If it came down to this, err, fork in the road, one of those algos would be chosen to break away from the mining cartels I assume...

150

151**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 12:59:23 UTC (7:59 AM CDT)

152 Likely NOT one of those algos

153

154**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 12:59:34 UTC (7:59 AM CDT)

155 <#1415197453115985983> might be a better place for this discussion tho

156 reactions: 👍🏼 2

157

158**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 16:59:08 UTC (11:59 AM CDT)

159 Q: How critical is the new libevent 2.1.3 patch?

160

161**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 16:59:47 UTC (11:59 AM CDT)

162 ?

163

164**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 17:01:13 UTC (12:01 PM CDT)

165 This one: bitcoin-29.4.knots20260508/depends/patches/libevent/cl_te_fixup.patch

166

167**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 17:01:33 UTC (12:01 PM CDT) · (edited)

168 It wasn't there in last release and Ubuntu/Debian just switched to 2.1.3.

169

170**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-07 17:15:21 UTC (12:15 PM CDT)

171 libevent 2.1.12-stable is outdated, 2.1.13-stable (2026-07-01) is a security release. Core master has no libevent bump, so Knots would be ahead of Core here.

172 reactions: 👍 1

173

174**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 17:22:22 UTC (12:22 PM CDT) · (edited)

175 <@344949650597478401> PPA builds for Stonking fail due to libboost-dev changes.

176 Change: "libboost-system1.48-dev | libboost-system-dev (>> 1.47)," to "libboost-system1.48-dev | libboost-system-dev (>> 1.47) | libboost-dev (>> 1.47)," in build-deps.

177

178**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 17:24:32 UTC (12:24 PM CDT) · (edited)

179 <@638766945206009866> Do we need a patched libevent on PPAs?.

180

181**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-07 18:54:36 UTC (1:54 PM CDT)

182 I got the Dear John letter about the AWS Open Source Credits Program.

183

184 Oh well. It was worth a try.

185 reactions: ❓ 1

186

187**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-07 18:56:10 UTC (1:56 PM CDT)

188 > in reply to @eugenesan: <@344949650597478401> PPA builds for Stonking fail due to libboost-dev changes.

189 Could you raise this as an issue, and include an example of how to reproduce the issue?

190

191 https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues

192 reactions: 👎 1

193

194**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 19:02:57 UTC (2:02 PM CDT)

195 > in reply to @eugenesan: This one: bitcoin-29.4.knots20260508/depends/patches/libevent/cl_te_fixup.patch

196 I recommend using it, and it's required for current versions of DATUM Gateway

197 reactions: 👍 1

198

199**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 19:03:14 UTC (2:03 PM CDT)

200 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: Could you raise this as an issue, and include an example of how to reproduce the issue?

201 I don't mind creating an issue but is project's GitHub is the place for PPA issues?

202 The problem (https://launchpad.net/~luke-jr/+archive/ubuntu/test/+build/33476079) and the fix are trivial. Just add " | libboost-dev" in debian/control:17.

203

204**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 19:03:46 UTC (2:03 PM CDT)

205 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: Could you raise this as an issue, and include an example of how to reproduce the issue?

206 It's a packaging issue, I'm on it

207 reactions: 👍 1

208

209**eugenesan** · 2026-08-07 19:04:46 UTC (2:04 PM CDT)

210 > in reply to @lukedashjr: I recommend using it, and it's required for current versions of DATUM Gateway

211 Do we have someone from "Debian Cryptocoin Team" here? Maybe Léo Haf? He can nudge Debian people to include the patch and it will filter into Sid/Stonkning in a day or two.

212

213**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 19:04:50 UTC (2:04 PM CDT)

214 + libboost-dev (>= 1.90) | libboost-system1.48-dev | libboost-system-dev (>> 1.47),

215 reactions: 👍 1

216

217**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-07 19:46:33 UTC (2:46 PM CDT)

218 https://github.com/bitcoinknots/packaging/commit/8342ab74bcb3cceed5236f1e884a189cc7d20e98

219 reactions: ❤️ 1

220

221**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-07 20:18:20 UTC (3:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

222 <@344949650597478401> some cleanup, these issues can be closed due to being included in 29.4:

223

224 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/300

225 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/308

226 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/316

227 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/327

228 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/335

229 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/351

230

231 These PRs can have the "merged" label added to them and be closed:

232 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/301

233 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/309

234 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/320

235 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/323

236 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/328

237 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/330

238 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/332

239 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/336

240 - https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/352

241

242**TheDon** · 2026-08-08 06:19:15 UTC (1:19 AM CDT)

243 @djsenior13 from Twitter here. Hi guys.

244 reactions: 👋 3

245

246**wek01** · 2026-08-08 06:43:42 UTC (1:43 AM CDT)

247 > in reply to @TheDon: @djsenior13 from Twitter here. Hi guys.

248 welcome David! keep in my this is development channel 😉

249

250**baba** · 2026-08-08 10:05:55 UTC (5:05 AM CDT)

251 Up and running with 29.4.0 on StartOS. Didn't realize <@1342478768874455162> had already released the updated packages. 🙏

252 reactions: 👍 2 💯 1

253

254**radioflyer6122** · 2026-08-08 11:15:32 UTC (6:15 AM CDT)

255 Maybe wait to update until after today? There’s a lot on the line if something goes sideways.

256

257**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-08 11:30:29 UTC (6:30 AM CDT)

258 29.4 includes various bug fixes, performance improvements, and extra safeguards. There are no critical fixes, so updating is not urgent.

259

260 See more here: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/releases/tag/v29.4.knots20260508

261 reactions: 🙏 1 👍 1 💯 1

262

263**ordinarypebble** · 2026-08-09 01:35:28 UTC (8:35 PM CDT)

264 i propose that we hard fork the mining algorithm to 3 round sha256 to evict the malicious miners

265 reactions: ✊ 4 💯 1

266

267**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-09 01:47:54 UTC (8:47 PM CDT)

268 > in reply to @Kyle 🐆: <@344949650597478401> `-rejecttokens` is off by default so tokens-runes never fires, which in block 960250 meant 2575 of 4275 transactions relayed tha...

269 I have advanced this by creating a pull request to enable rejecttokens by default.

270 https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/354

271

272**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-09 01:52:39 UTC (8:52 PM CDT)

273 > in reply to @ordinarypebble: i propose that we hard fork the mining algorithm to 3 round sha256 to evict the malicious miners

274 I'm not in favour of a mining algorithm change (I'm not getting at you, just voicing an opinion).

275

276 If it were to change, consideration needs to be given to what would be best over the next 15 years, not for "right now".

277

278 Changing to 3 rounds of SHA256 would be easy for Bitmain to achieve in future hardware. Maybe even doable through firmware.

279 reactions: 👍 2 💯 1

280

281**ordinarypebble** · 2026-08-09 01:54:56 UTC (8:54 PM CDT)

282 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: I'm not in favour of a mining algorithm change (I'm not getting at you, just voicing an opinion).

283 any asic-friendly algorithm will be easiest for dominant asic manufacturers to achieve

284

285**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 01:55:25 UTC (8:55 PM CDT)

286 > in reply to @Philip D'Ath: I'm not in favour of a mining algorithm change (I'm not getting at you, just voicing an opinion).

287 I’ve heard this sentiment a lot but there’s never any follow-up with information about how to solve it. Just giving up because new ASICs could be developed for a new PoW algorithm is silly

288 reactions: 👍 1 ❤️ 1

289

290**wek01** · 2026-08-09 01:56:31 UTC (8:56 PM CDT)

291 > in reply to @ordinarypebble: i propose that we hard fork the mining algorithm to 3 round sha256 to evict the malicious miners

292 unless you got proposal in form of a code, pls avoid this channel. i think you guys see for what is this channel.

293 reactions: 🔥 1

294

295**ordinarypebble** · 2026-08-09 01:56:58 UTC (8:56 PM CDT)

296 > in reply to @wek01: unless you got proposal in form of a code, pls avoid this channel. i think you guys see for what is this channel.

297 i already gave you the code `sha256(sha256(sha256(x)))`

298 reactions: 🤣 2

299

300**Broda** · 2026-08-09 01:57:52 UTC (8:57 PM CDT)

301 Personally I would rather do GPU mining. But that would be financially prohibitive for most. I am already set up to do it so it would be from a selfish disposition.

302

303**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-09 02:39:18 UTC (9:39 PM CDT)

304 Question: if we're forking deliberately like this, why not do this and much more to make things right? We already are bricking all nodes. Why not clean dust and spam from the utxo set and witness, wipe all the bad actor garbage from previous years, harden taproot, etc? Just doing a hashing change is easy, but it's not conducive to all the goals BIP-110 wanted to achieve.

305 reactions: 💯 5

306

307**wek01** · 2026-08-09 02:42:50 UTC (9:42 PM CDT)

308 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: Question: if we're forking deliberately like this, why not do this and much more to make things right? We already are bricking all nodes. Why not clea...

309 pls keep anything that its not code/PR related out of here 😘 maybe better for <#1376605647822655550>

310

311**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 04:09:23 UTC (11:09 PM CDT)

312 Made <#1535801442928033935>

313

314**wek01** · 2026-08-09 10:51:22 UTC (5:51 AM CDT)

315 Knots is open source software and you work on it by contribution, not by hiring. avoid this channel as you can see posts above that it is a development channel..

316

317**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 19:24:23 UTC (2:24 PM CDT)

318 Move it to <#1535801442928033935> please. <#1376603543611642006> is focused on Knots code/PRs

319

320**f4u57 | m1n3.xyz** · 2026-08-09 19:29:02 UTC (2:29 PM CDT)

321 It’s gonna get burden over there, that’s why I asked Luke where was the best place for Bitcoin dev talks

322

323**f4u57 | m1n3.xyz** · 2026-08-09 19:29:17 UTC (2:29 PM CDT)

324 But will do

325 reactions: 👍 1

326

327**MAXATGO** · 2026-08-09 20:03:02 UTC (3:03 PM CDT)

328 rebase difficulty, add check point.

329

330**Philip D'Ath** · 2026-08-09 22:57:27 UTC (5:57 PM CDT)

331 Meeting tomorrow in under 24 hours?

332

333**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-09 23:03:02 UTC (6:03 PM CDT)

334 Yes unless <@344949650597478401> says otherwise?

335 reactions: 👍 1

336

337**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 23:07:20 UTC (6:07 PM CDT)

338 No reason to cancel

339 reactions: 👍 1 💯 3

340

341**cguida** · 2026-08-10 00:02:40 UTC (7:02 PM CDT)

342 Got a lot to discuss!

343 reactions: 🧡 1 👍 3

344

345**mIdk** · 2026-08-10 00:37:14 UTC (7:37 PM CDT)

346 May I join just to listen?

347

348**jmanjivin** · 2026-08-10 00:38:23 UTC (7:38 PM CDT)

349 Is this meeting on discord? What time?

350

351**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-10 00:46:04 UTC (7:46 PM CDT)

352 Check your local time here

353

354**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-10 00:46:15 UTC (7:46 PM CDT)

355 It's in this chat, it's not a voice meeting.

356 reactions: 👍 1

357

358**jmanjivin** · 2026-08-10 00:49:09 UTC (7:49 PM CDT)

359 I just realized its for devs. 👍 👍

360

361**cguida** · 2026-08-10 01:17:44 UTC (8:17 PM CDT)

362 > in reply to @mIdk: May I join just to listen?

363 There won't be audio, just text

364 reactions: 👍 2

365

366**mIdk** · 2026-08-10 01:20:42 UTC (8:20 PM CDT)

367 Thanks guys

368

369**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-10 16:01:50 UTC (11:01 AM CDT)

370 FYI: Dev meeting starts in 1 hr @here

371 reactions: 👍 9 ⌛ 1 💯 2

372

373**Blunderbus88** · 2026-08-10 16:10:17 UTC (11:10 AM CDT)

374 How to join dev meeting?

375

376**Kyle 🐆** · 2026-08-10 16:10:56 UTC (11:10 AM CDT)

377 It will be in this chat. Anyone can join. But it is for dev discussion, unrelated topics can be discussed in related channels.

378 reactions: 👍 3

379

380**Blunderbus88** · 2026-08-10 16:12:08 UTC (11:12 AM CDT)

381 Gotcha thanks

382

383**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-10 17:00:15 UTC (12:00 PM CDT)

384 2026-08-10 dev meeting

385

386**PepeLapiu** · 2026-08-11 04:52:49 UTC (11:52 PM CDT)

387 > in reply to @lukedashjr: No reason to cancel

388 Luke, do you intend to keep maintaining Knots on the core chain?

389 reactions: 🤡 4 🙏🏽 2

390

391**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-11 04:58:44 UTC (11:58 PM CDT)

392 Nothing to "keep" doing. I don't support Bcash either

393 reactions: 🔥 10 👍 4

394

395**thomasdias** · 2026-08-11 09:11:07 UTC (4:11 AM CDT)

396 The core chain lost their counter thinking force forever

397 reactions: 👆🏻 6

398

399**577669** · 2026-08-11 11:39:05 UTC (6:39 AM CDT)

400 What are the possible candidate for alternative pow?

401

402**Wolf3404** · 2026-08-11 11:42:05 UTC (6:42 AM CDT)

403 > in reply to @577669: What are the possible candidate for alternative pow?

404 https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536115359873106062/1536524660420775996

405 reactions: 💯 1

406

407**BLDR** · 2026-08-11 19:00:20 UTC (2:00 PM CDT)

408 any fundamental details emerging about the block header?

409

410**coinmaster** · 2026-08-11 19:24:48 UTC (2:24 PM CDT)

411 > in reply to @BLDR: any fundamental details emerging about the block header?

412 the nonce is 8 bytes and is at byte offset 32

413

414**coinmaster** · 2026-08-11 19:24:59 UTC (2:24 PM CDT)

415 that's the critical difference

416

417**coinmaster** · 2026-08-11 19:25:33 UTC (2:25 PM CDT) · (edited)

418 had it been 4 bytes wide , the pow check for bitcoin could have been done by simply rearranging the block header's bytes before hashing

419 reactions: 👍 2

420

421**coinmaster** · 2026-08-11 19:25:54 UTC (2:25 PM CDT)

422 but i know nothing about sia miners

423

424**BTCAnvil** · 2026-08-11 22:54:54 UTC (5:54 PM CDT)

425 > in reply to @coinmaster: but i know nothing about sia miners

426 my clanker gave me these results so idk :

427

428**BTCAnvil** · 2026-08-11 22:59:32 UTC (5:59 PM CDT)

429 SC5 Pro II 14 T/s and 3300 W looks like the latest that can handle the Blake Algo

430

431**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 02:50:41 UTC (9:50 PM CDT)

432 <#1536792759170498633> please

433 reactions: 👍 1 ✅ 1 💯 1

434

435**Motorboat** · 2026-08-12 03:49:09 UTC (10:49 PM CDT)

436 > in reply to @lukedashjr: <#1536792759170498633> please

437 https://klipy.com/gifs/zoolander-zoolander-movie-22

438 reactions: 🔥 1 😂 2

439

440---

441

442## Channel: #strategic

443*473 messages · 2026-08-09 06:11:03 UTC -> 2026-08-12 13:56:02 UTC · guild: Bitcoin Knots*

444

445**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:11:03 UTC (1:11 AM CDT)

446 Softforks you are playing their game, hardforks you are playing your game

447 reactions: 👍 1

448

449**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:11:32 UTC (1:11 AM CDT)

450 > in reply to @russeree: The hardfork seal is broken, no reason to hold back.

451 core already hardforked off anyways. its more about what do we do thats in the best interest

452 of bitcoin moving forward.

453 reactions: 👍 1

454

455**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:11:32 UTC (1:11 AM CDT)

456 > in reply to @russeree: The hardfork seal is broken, no reason to hold back.

457 core already hardforked off anyways. its more about what do we do thats in the best interest of bitcoin moving forward.

458 reactions: 👍 1

459

460**f4u57 | m1n3.xyz** · 2026-08-09 06:11:52 UTC (1:11 AM CDT) · (edited)

461 I think something so serious as changing the algo shouldnt be a rushed decision. Also I dont

462 think we should change the algo in order to punish the miners, our enemies are the pools not

463 the miners, and right now there is a way of decentralizing Bitcoin mining pools with novelty

464 mpc tech + distributing payout rewards enforced by smart contracts (lets say a L1 like solana)

465 and that way we can incentivize node runners instead of paying fee's to traditional pools plus

466 some other interesting stuff on top

467

468**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:12:31 UTC (1:12 AM CDT)

469 You could keep Sha256d, and add a second challenge. then it's a softfork.

470 reactions: PB_hmm 1

471

472**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:12:40 UTC (1:12 AM CDT)

473 Then just nuke the difficulty

474

475**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:12:44 UTC (1:12 AM CDT) · (edited)

476 > in reply to @f4u57 | m1n3.xyz: I think something so serious as changing the algo shouldnt be a rushed decision. Also I dont think we should change the algo in order to puni...

477 sir the chain is stalled right now. no block in 8hours. not a big deal right now but in

478 2-3days if theres no block thats an issue

479

480**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:12:44 UTC (1:12 AM CDT) · (edited)

481 > in reply to @f4u57 | m1n3.xyz: I think something so serious as changing the algo shouldnt be a rushed decision. Also I dont think we should change the algo in order to punish the miners, our enemies are the pools not the miners, and right now there is a way of decentralizing Bitcoin mining pools with novelty mpc tech + distributing payout rewards enforced by smart contracts (lets say a L1 like solana) and that way we can incentivize node runners instead of paying fee's to traditional pools plus some other interesting stuff on top

482 sir the chain is stalled right now. no block in 8hours. not a big deal right now but in 2-3days if theres no block thats an issue

483

484**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:13:02 UTC (1:13 AM CDT)

485 The big deal is people just move away and stop caring

486 reactions: cryge 2

487

488**SAM** · 2026-08-09 06:13:25 UTC (1:13 AM CDT)

489 I bought a new home miner and was going to fire it up right before the Coldcard BS. Now with

490 this I’m wondering if I own an expensive paperweight. Not going to mine on the co-opted chain.

491

492**SAM** · 2026-08-09 06:13:25 UTC (1:13 AM CDT)

493 I bought a new home miner and was going to fire it up right before the Coldcard BS. Now with this I’m wondering if I own an expensive paperweight. Not going to mine on the co-opted chain.

494

495**mamabile** · 2026-08-09 06:13:45 UTC (1:13 AM CDT)

496 From my understanding, those against didnt see Bip110 fixing anything.. ordinals have

497 workarounds. Imo. More analysis req before jumping to a new coin.

498

499**mamabile** · 2026-08-09 06:13:45 UTC (1:13 AM CDT)

500 From my understanding, those against didnt see Bip110 fixing anything.. ordinals have workarounds. Imo. More analysis req before jumping to a new coin.

501

502**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:14:23 UTC (1:14 AM CDT)

503 im wondering @lukedashjr 's thoughts on changing pow. anything ur leaning towards. u usually

504 have great ideas i remember for many years listening to you

505

506**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:14:23 UTC (1:14 AM CDT)

507 im wondering @lukedashjr 's thoughts on changing pow. anything ur leaning towards. u usually have great ideas i remember for many years listening to you

508

509**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:14:30 UTC (1:14 AM CDT)

510 Question, was the plan all along to just give up?

511 reactions: NO 4

512

513**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:14:42 UTC (1:14 AM CDT)

514 Like in the event of 110 failing?

515

516**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:15:03 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

517 Okay just asking, what was the plan then?

518

519**f4u57 | m1n3.xyz** · 2026-08-09 06:15:14 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

520 This should have been thought as a possibility in order to have a serious plan in hand in case

521 of, thats why I feel its smarter to attack them in a direct economic way, if we take

522 accountability and verificastion of miners work into on chain then we have a fixed price in

523 verificating miners work. instead of paying a 2%fee you would only a small fixed amount which

524 doesnt scale with your revenue This way we attack the economics of mining poolss

525

526**f4u57 | m1n3.xyz** · 2026-08-09 06:15:14 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

527 This should have been thought as a possibility in order to have a serious plan in hand in case of, thats why I feel its smarter to attack them in a direct economic way, if we take accountability and verificastion of miners work into on chain then we have a fixed price in verificating miners work.

528 instead of paying a 2%fee you would only a small fixed amount which doesnt scale with your revenue

529 This way we attack the economics of mining poolss

530

531**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:15:18 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

532 > in reply to @russeree: Like in the event of 110 failing?

533 110 DID NOT FAIL we are not giving up. this channel is for strategy moving forward. we will

534 not stop. bitcoin will be fine and well. long live bitcoin

535 reactions: 👍🏽 1 💯 2

536

537**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:15:18 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

538 > in reply to @russeree: Like in the event of 110 failing?

539 110 DID NOT FAIL we are not giving up. this channel is for strategy moving forward. we will not stop. bitcoin will be fine and well. long live bitcoin

540 reactions: 👍🏽 1 💯 2

541

542**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-09 06:15:46 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

543 > in reply to @russeree: Question, was the plan all along to just give up?

544 We are the network. Without us, corecoin is a shitcoin

545 reactions: 💯 3

546

547**Shrumseal** · 2026-08-09 06:15:46 UTC (1:15 AM CDT)

548 > in reply to @russeree: Question, was the plan all along to just give up?

549 We are the network. Without us, corecoin is a shitcoin

550 reactions: 💯 3

551

552**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:16:03 UTC (1:16 AM CDT)

553 > in reply to @satoshi: 110 DID NOT FAIL we are not giving up. this channel is for strategy moving forward. we will not stop. bitcoin will be fine and well. long live bitcoin

554 Okay, at the technical level though, there is a problem

555

556**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:16:21 UTC (1:16 AM CDT)

557 Like I get the community didn't fail.

558

559**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:16:33 UTC (1:16 AM CDT)

560 > in reply to @russeree: Okay, at the technical level though, there is a problem

561 it will get fixed in due time. soon(tm). lukes on it i know it

562

563**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:16:50 UTC (1:16 AM CDT)

564 I'm sure he's got a plan

565

566**XCOM79** · 2026-08-09 06:17:02 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

567 Guys. Not a dev. Does running Braiins with Bip-110 node help any right now?

568

569**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:17:02 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

570 Well GN gents!

571

572**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:17:15 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

573 im sure theres alot going on at ocean right now. and ppl are very busy. i saw some ppl

574 unfollow each other on twitter. dont want to cause any drama. bitcoin is the priority.

575 everyone will come together and move forward. lets see what tmrw brings

576

577**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:17:15 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

578 im sure theres alot going on at ocean right now. and ppl are very busy. i saw some ppl unfollow each other on twitter. dont want to cause any drama. bitcoin is the priority. everyone will come together and move forward. lets see what tmrw brings

579

580**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:17:20 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

581 > in reply to @XCOM79: Guys. Not a dev. Does running Braiins with Bip-110 node help any right now?

582 You are relaying transactions in the mempool for the next block

583

584**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:17:22 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

585 other than that no

586

587**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:17:25 UTC (1:17 AM CDT)

588 > in reply to @russeree: Well GN gents!

589

590

591**XCOM79** · 2026-08-09 06:18:06 UTC (1:18 AM CDT)

592 Should I turn off mining? I am leaving my node on forever.

593

594**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:18:12 UTC (1:18 AM CDT)

595 > in reply to @russeree: other than that no

596 well keeping a high nodecount can be helpful to show we still got the numbers

597 reactions: 👍🏻 1

598

599**XCOM79** · 2026-08-09 06:18:34 UTC (1:18 AM CDT)

600 ~10Ph/s

601

602**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:18:46 UTC (1:18 AM CDT)

603 > in reply to @XCOM79: Should I turn off mining? I am leaving my node on forever.

604 if you mine the next block would be legendary. id say leave it if it doesnt cost too much

605

606**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:19:00 UTC (1:19 AM CDT)

607 > in reply to @XCOM79: ~10Ph/s

608 Roughnecks advised to stop, you are likely burning power without pay

609 reactions: ☝️ 4

610

611**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:19:45 UTC (1:19 AM CDT)

612 Also the less people that mine, the quicker the diff or PoW change happens

613 reactions: 👍 1

614

615**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:19:55 UTC (1:19 AM CDT)

616 > in reply to @DrStarHeartsong: is it possible to combo a CPU algo like RandomX w a GPU algo like KaPow?

617 search up for my post on myriad in this channel. that is very possible and the code already

618 exists.

619

620**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:19:55 UTC (1:19 AM CDT)

621 > in reply to @DrStarHeartsong: is it possible to combo a CPU algo like RandomX w a GPU algo like KaPow?

622 search up for my post on myriad in this channel. that is very possible and the code already exists.

623

624**SAM** · 2026-08-09 06:19:59 UTC (1:19 AM CDT)

625 > in reply to @russeree: Roughnecks advised to stop, you are likely burning power without pay

626 Do Roughnecks know something we don’t? I wonder.

627

628**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:20:10 UTC (1:20 AM CDT)

629 > in reply to @russeree: Roughnecks advised to stop, you are likely burning power without pay

630 knots is created by luke. not roughnecks. they arent even technical. they came on the field

631 and then gave up right away. im happy for their help, but when we needed them the most they

632 left. i wouldnt take advice from them so easily.

633

634**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:20:10 UTC (1:20 AM CDT)

635 > in reply to @russeree: Roughnecks advised to stop, you are likely burning power without pay

636 knots is created by luke. not roughnecks. they arent even technical. they came on the field and then gave up right away. im happy for their help, but when we needed them the most they left. i wouldnt take advice from them so easily.

637

638**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:20:20 UTC (1:20 AM CDT)

639 > in reply to @SAM: Do Roughnecks know something we don’t? I wonder.

640 diff is high, value is unkonwn.

641

642**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:20:23 UTC (1:20 AM CDT)

643 https://x.com/Roughnecks110/status/2086300532709409140?s=20

644

645**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:20:24 UTC (1:20 AM CDT)

646 if the pow change will go off knots. then u still get ur coins if u mined a block before that

647

648**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:21:26 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

649 > in reply to @SAM: Do Roughnecks know something we don’t? I wonder.

650 i think they rented hash, and then just bailed when they saw the bill and that core hardforked

651 off.

652

653**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:21:26 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

654 > in reply to @SAM: Do Roughnecks know something we don’t? I wonder.

655 i think they rented hash, and then just bailed when they saw the bill and that core hardforked off.

656

657**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:21:31 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

658 > in reply to @satoshi: knots is created by luke. not roughnecks. they arent even technical. they came on the field and then gave up right away. im happy for their help, but...

659 nah. dont blame roughnecks. they dont have the hashrate to make it happen. it isnt their

660 fault. they did everything they could.

661 reactions: 👍🏽 5

662

663**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:21:31 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

664 > in reply to @satoshi: knots is created by luke. not roughnecks. they arent even technical. they came on the field and then gave up right away. im happy for their help, but when we needed them the most they left. i wouldnt take advice from them so easily.

665 nah. dont blame roughnecks. they dont have the hashrate to make it happen. it isnt their fault. they did everything they could.

666 reactions: 👍🏽 5

667

668**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:21:48 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

669 It's economics, not their fault one bit

670

671**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:21:58 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

672 Miners burn power, power costs money.

673

674**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:21:59 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

675 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: nah. dont blame roughnecks. they dont have the hashrate to make it happen. it isnt their fault. they did everything they could.

676 ye im not blaming them. im just saying i wouldnt take their advice as gospel is all. gotta

677 think for ourselves a bit too

678

679**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:21:59 UTC (1:21 AM CDT)

680 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: nah. dont blame roughnecks. they dont have the hashrate to make it happen. it isnt their fault. they did everything they could.

681 ye im not blaming them. im just saying i wouldnt take their advice as gospel is all. gotta think for ourselves a bit too

682

683**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:22:24 UTC (1:22 AM CDT)

684 there is nothing they could do different. they did everything they could and more.

685 reactions: 💯 1

686

687**f4u57 | m1n3.xyz** · 2026-08-09 06:22:25 UTC (1:22 AM CDT) · (edited)

688 I think something so serious as changing the algo shouldnt be a rushed decision.

689 Also I dont think we should change the algo in order to punish the miners, our enemies are the pools not the miners, and right now there is a way of decentralizing Bitcoin mining pools with novelty mpc tech + distributing payout rewards enforced by smart contracts (lets say a L1 like solana) and that way we can incentivize node runners instead of paying fee's to traditional pools plus some other interesting stuff on top

690

691**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:22:27 UTC (1:22 AM CDT)

692 OFC, but they are right in this case. There is no money to be made unless a big hasher comes

693 online

694

695**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:22:27 UTC (1:22 AM CDT)

696 OFC, but they are right in this case. There is no money to be made unless a big hasher comes online

697

698**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:22:49 UTC (1:22 AM CDT)

699 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: there is nothing they could do different. they did everything they could and more.

700 I am surprised they even did it, that had to be expensive.

701

702**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:22:59 UTC (1:22 AM CDT)

703 in bitcoin there are two nodes that control over half of the hashrate, so if neither of them

704 flip the bit then roughnecks is being tortured and cannot reorg the chain.

705 reactions: 👍 1 apubusiness 1

706

707**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:22:59 UTC (1:22 AM CDT)

708 in bitcoin there are two nodes that control over half of the hashrate, so if neither of them flip the bit then roughnecks is being tortured and cannot reorg the chain.

709 reactions: 👍 1 apubusiness 1

710

711**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:23:00 UTC (1:23 AM CDT)

712 They lost rewards

713

714**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:23:31 UTC (1:23 AM CDT)

715 > in reply to @XCOM79: ~10Ph/s

716 thats like what 200-400$ a day in energy? if im rich i think its cool to try find a block

717 right now. but if thats alot for me then thats a personal choice

718 reactions: 👍 2

719

720**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:23:31 UTC (1:23 AM CDT)

721 > in reply to @XCOM79: ~10Ph/s

722 thats like what 200-400$ a day in energy? if im rich i think its cool to try find a block right now. but if thats alot for me then thats a personal choice

723 reactions: 👍 2

724

725**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:23:49 UTC (1:23 AM CDT)

726 It's lighting money on fire right now

727

728**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:23:52 UTC (1:23 AM CDT)

729 each block costs 3.125 bitcoin worth of electricity.

730

731**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:24:08 UTC (1:24 AM CDT)

732 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: each block costs 3.125 bitcoin worth of electricity.

733 Luck enters the chat

734 reactions: 😂 1

735

736**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:24:11 UTC (1:24 AM CDT)

737 they burned almost half million dollars after split for us.

738 reactions: monkagiga 1 💪🏻 1

739

740**russeree** · 2026-08-09 06:24:18 UTC (1:24 AM CDT)

741 ^^^

742

743**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:24:32 UTC (1:24 AM CDT) · (edited)

744 > in reply to @russeree: It's lighting money on fire right now

745 i guess in a way, because if pow change* is coming. it will be cheaper to mine those coins. so

746 it makes sense u right

747 reactions: 👍 1

748

749**DrStarHeartsong** · 2026-08-09 06:24:42 UTC (1:24 AM CDT)

750 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: they burned almost half million dollars after split for us.

751 seed funding

752

753**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:24:42 UTC (1:24 AM CDT) · (edited)

754 > in reply to @russeree: It's lighting money on fire right now

755 i guess in a way, because if pow change* is coming. it will be cheaper to mine those coins. so it makes sense u right

756 reactions: 👍 1

757

758**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 06:25:32 UTC (1:25 AM CDT)

759 SHA256d miners ain't coming with us if we hard fork. They've got an anchor tied around their

760 waist in the form of hardware

761 reactions: ✅ 7

762

763**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 06:25:32 UTC (1:25 AM CDT)

764 SHA256d miners ain't coming with us if we hard fork. They've got an anchor tied around their waist in the form of hardware

765 reactions: ✅ 7

766

767**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:25:42 UTC (1:25 AM CDT)

768 yea they gotta stay afloat.

769

770**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:26:31 UTC (1:26 AM CDT)

771 if we had a good chance of reorging, then they probably would have stuck around, but they cant

772 just do it for no reason, that would be not good for them at all.

773

774**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:26:31 UTC (1:26 AM CDT)

775 if we had a good chance of reorging, then they probably would have stuck around, but they cant just do it for no reason, that would be not good for them at all.

776

777**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:26:39 UTC (1:26 AM CDT)

778 we almost did reorg.

779

780**DrStarHeartsong** · 2026-08-09 06:26:45 UTC (1:26 AM CDT)

781 I have some really good names

782

783**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:27:44 UTC (1:27 AM CDT)

784 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: we almost did reorg.

785 if simple mining would of found that block for bip110. wouldve been a tie 2-2. i really wanted

786 that to happen

787 reactions: 👍 1

788

789**satoshi** · 2026-08-09 06:27:44 UTC (1:27 AM CDT)

790 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: we almost did reorg.

791 if simple mining would of found that block for bip110. wouldve been a tie 2-2. i really wanted that to happen

792 reactions: 👍 1

793

794**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 06:28:58 UTC (1:28 AM CDT)

795 Seems like there's not much point strategizing without the devs participating eh? We can toss

796 around PoW algos but it doesn't make a difference among us

797

798**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 06:28:58 UTC (1:28 AM CDT)

799 Seems like there's not much point strategizing without the devs participating eh? We can toss around PoW algos but it doesn't make a difference among us

800

801**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 06:29:28 UTC (1:29 AM CDT)

802 a scheduled timeframe would be good. like a big ole meeting

803 reactions: 👍 1

804

805**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-09 06:30:13 UTC (1:30 AM CDT)

806 > in reply to russeree: You could also fix the timestamp bug now too!

807 What is this bug?

808

809**Shrumseal** · 2026-08-09 06:30:13 UTC (1:30 AM CDT)

810 > in reply to @russeree: You could also fix the timestamp bug now too!

811 What is this bug?

812

813**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-09 06:30:31 UTC (1:30 AM CDT)

814 Discovered a while ago and never fixed right?

815 reactions: 👍 1

816

817**Shrumseal** · 2026-08-09 06:30:31 UTC (1:30 AM CDT)

818 Discovered a while ago and never fixed right?

819 reactions: 👍 1

820

821**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-09 06:30:59 UTC (1:30 AM CDT)

822 > in reply to @SpectrGen: Seems like there's not much point strategizing without the devs participating eh? We can toss around PoW algos but it doesn't make a difference amon...

823 We leave the more technical things to them. We discuss the general approach

824 reactions: 😂 1

825

826**Shrumseal** · 2026-08-09 06:30:59 UTC (1:30 AM CDT)

827 > in reply to @SpectrGen: Seems like there's not much point strategizing without the devs participating eh? We can toss around PoW algos but it doesn't make a difference among us

828 We leave the more technical things to them. We discuss the general approach

829 reactions: 😂 1

830

831**mamabile** · 2026-08-09 06:31:08 UTC (1:31 AM CDT)

832 Imo. You need something that would push ppl to the new Bitcoin.. like fixing Qantum threat

833 reactions: 💯 2 ❤️ 1

834

835**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-09 06:31:58 UTC (1:31 AM CDT)

836 1- PoW difficulty adjustment/algo change 2- 1 mb block size 3- (Permanent) Data Reduction

837 rules 4- fix timestamp bug

838 reactions: 👍🏽 3

839

840**Shrumseal** · 2026-08-09 06:31:58 UTC (1:31 AM CDT)

841 1- PoW difficulty adjustment/algo change

842 2- 1 mb block size

843 3- (Permanent) Data Reduction rules

844 4- fix timestamp bug

845 reactions: 👍🏽 3

846

847**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 06:32:01 UTC (1:32 AM CDT)

848 > in reply to @Shrumseal🍄: We leave the more technical things to them. We discuss the general approach

849 like a baby in the backseat of the car with a fake steering wheel

850 reactions: 😂 1

851

852**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:36:09 UTC (1:36 AM CDT)

853 Ive had an idea for a while that there should probably be two blockspaces. one blockspace for

854 transactions and one specifically for channel open/close. Not sure if it makes sense, but it

855 doesnt really make sense to make lock contracts compete for space with transactions when the

856 network is already congested. If the network gets congested enough that we need to be opening

857 channels, we probably should have a dedicated partition for that with its own size limit.

858 reactions: 👀 1

859

860**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:36:09 UTC (1:36 AM CDT)

861 Ive had an idea for a while that there should probably be two blockspaces. one blockspace for transactions and one specifically for channel open/close.

862 Not sure if it makes sense, but it doesnt really make sense to make lock contracts compete for space with transactions when the network is already congested.

863 If the network gets congested enough that we need to be opening channels, we probably should have a dedicated partition for that with its own size limit.

864 reactions: 👀 1

865

866**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:36:57 UTC (1:36 AM CDT)

867 at such point where we really need to mess with a lot of channels, we dont want it to clog the

868 transaction space, or vice versa or they both impede eachother.

869

870**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:36:57 UTC (1:36 AM CDT)

871 at such point where we really need to mess with a lot of channels, we dont want it to clog the transaction space, or vice versa or they both impede eachother.

872

873**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:37:18 UTC (1:37 AM CDT) · (edited)

874 When you do the math on what happens if everyone decides they want to put their bitcoin into a

875 L2, you get to really big numbers on data usage really fast.

876

877**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:37:53 UTC (1:37 AM CDT) · (edited)

878 When you do the math on what happens if everyone decides they want to put their bitcoin into a L2, you get to really big numbers on data usage really fast.

879

880**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:38:22 UTC (1:38 AM CDT)

881 its been a long time since i did the calculation but the lock takes like 6 or 10x the size of

882 a transaction.

883

884**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:38:22 UTC (1:38 AM CDT)

885 its been a long time since i did the calculation but the lock takes like 6 or 10x the size of a transaction.

886

887**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:38:44 UTC (1:38 AM CDT)

888 this has been about 10 years since i did the math, but uh...

889

890**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:52:24 UTC (1:52 AM CDT)

891 TLDR: I think it would make sense to accept larger blocks in the specific scenario that the

892 blocks are full and people are also trying to offload to layer 2 at the same time.

893

894**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 06:52:24 UTC (1:52 AM CDT)

895 TLDR: I think it would make sense to accept larger blocks in the specific scenario that the blocks are full and people are also trying to offload to layer 2 at the same time.

896

897**Akshay** · 2026-08-09 08:28:14 UTC (3:28 AM CDT)

898 > in reply to @mamabile: Imo. You need something that would push ppl to the new Bitcoin.. like fixing Qantum threat

899 Not a real threat.

900 reactions: 👍 1

901

902**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-09 08:43:20 UTC (3:43 AM CDT)

903 It's a very good question to ask: Are people attracted to a simple lean blockchain, that's

904 like 500 GB in size, and cannot be spammed? Can we trim the UTXO set? Do people really care

905 about sovereignty? Because you see, the only question we need to answer is: What do people

906 care about in the first place? It's very depressing, but how many around you have GrapheneOS?

907 How many care about privacy? How many understand the reason for their misery with fiat? How

908 many are willing to take the responsibility to their own hands, run a node, manage their

909 wallets and so on? It's a very good question to ask: What is it that made bitcoin special in

910 the first place when people didn't give a shit about any of these features we're trying to

911 protect? Is it toxic bitcoin maximalism? Is it this simple and naive stubbornness that bitcoin

912 maxis have? Is it some network effect? Is it NGU? I don't know the answer to any of these

913 questions. The tech is the easy part.

914

915**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-09 08:43:20 UTC (3:43 AM CDT)

916 It's a very good question to ask: Are people attracted to a simple lean blockchain, that's like 500 GB in size, and cannot be spammed? Can we trim the UTXO set? Do people really care about sovereignty?

917 Because you see, the only question we need to answer is: What do people care about in the first place? It's very depressing, but how many around you have GrapheneOS? How many care about privacy? How many understand the reason for their misery with fiat? How many are willing to take the responsibility to their own hands, run a node, manage their wallets and so on?

918 It's a very good question to ask: What is it that made bitcoin special in the first place when people didn't give a shit about any of these features we're trying to protect? Is it toxic bitcoin maximalism? Is it this simple and naive stubbornness that bitcoin maxis have? Is it some network effect? Is it NGU?

919 I don't know the answer to any of these questions. The tech is the easy part.

920

921**peaceful cow** · 2026-08-09 09:09:26 UTC (4:09 AM CDT)

922 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQWHNQ-gbKQ

923 @lukedashjr Are you talking to Jeff Booth? Listening to him, I'd imagine he agrees on a true bitcoin plebs support chain. I have already heard him supported Knots. Thinking together with him and having him with us would be really good, imho.

924 reactions: 👍🏽 2

925

926**CryptoDude46** · 2026-08-09 09:34:39 UTC (4:34 AM CDT)

927 https://x.com/i/status/2086361396665544997 https://x.com/i/status/2086362317155909732

928

929**CryptoDude46** · 2026-08-09 09:34:39 UTC (4:34 AM CDT)

930 https://x.com/i/status/2086361396665544997

931 https://x.com/i/status/2086362317155909732

932

933**zack** · 2026-08-09 09:57:07 UTC (4:57 AM CDT)

934 ASICS are special purpose computers. Bitcoin ASICS are not capable of doing just 1 sha256, the

935 hardware does 2 at the same time. If we do triple-sha256, then the chip is going to need to

936 physically have many more transistors, to do the extra computation. It will be more costly to

937 design and manufacture, in comparison to double-sha256 ASICS.

938

939**zack** · 2026-08-09 09:57:07 UTC (4:57 AM CDT)

940 ASICS are special purpose computers. Bitcoin ASICS are not capable of doing just 1 sha256, the hardware does 2 at the same time.

941 If we do triple-sha256, then the chip is going to need to physically have many more transistors, to do the extra computation. It will be more costly to design and manufacture, in comparison to double-sha256 ASICS.

942

943**zack** · 2026-08-09 09:59:16 UTC (4:59 AM CDT)

944 If we want to do something that is cheap to design and manufacture, how about flipping one or

945 more bits in between the 2 sha256 hashes?

946

947**zack** · 2026-08-09 09:59:16 UTC (4:59 AM CDT)

948 If we want to do something that is cheap to design and manufacture, how about flipping one or more bits in between the 2 sha256 hashes?

949

950**zack** · 2026-08-09 10:09:21 UTC (5:09 AM CDT)

951 At the current hashrate, we are only going to get around 1 block per 5 days, for the next 3

952 months. Are we going to do an update to un-stall the chain? If we do that, would we just lower

953 the difficulty, or would we change the difficulty adjustment algorithm?

954

955**zack** · 2026-08-09 10:09:21 UTC (5:09 AM CDT)

956 At the current hashrate, we are only going to get around 1 block per 5 days, for the next 3 months. Are we going to do an update to un-stall the chain? If we do that, would we just lower the difficulty, or would we change the difficulty adjustment algorithm?

957

958**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 10:14:41 UTC (5:14 AM CDT)

959 The chain can't just be "unstalled". Each block takes around 300k to mine, so unless we get

960 demand for someone to buy every single bip110 coin mined, so the miners can actuly turn a

961 profit it probably wont get more blocks

962

963**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 10:14:41 UTC (5:14 AM CDT)

964 The chain can't just be "unstalled". Each block takes around 300k to mine, so unless we get demand for someone to buy every single bip110 coin mined, so the miners can actuly turn a profit it probably wont get more blocks

965

966**delcin CTV + 300kb** · 2026-08-09 10:20:54 UTC (5:20 AM CDT)

967 If we are doing a pow change, it has to start from a future tip of the core chain to avoid

968 premine allegations. @lukedashjr

969

970**delcin CTV + 300kb** · 2026-08-09 10:20:54 UTC (5:20 AM CDT)

971 If we are doing a pow change, it has to start from a future tip of the core chain to avoid premine allegations. @lukedashjr

972

973**delcin CTV + 300kb** · 2026-08-09 10:21:29 UTC (5:21 AM CDT)

974 Roughnecks knew the risks they were getting into, so I think they will be alright with this

975 decision.

976

977**delcin CTV + 300kb** · 2026-08-09 10:21:29 UTC (5:21 AM CDT)

978 Roughnecks knew the risks they were getting into, so I think they will be alright with this decision.

979

980**Mark of Bitcoin** · 2026-08-09 10:25:00 UTC (5:25 AM CDT)

981 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: It's a very good question to ask: Are people attracted to a simple lean blockchain, that's like 500 GB in size, and cannot be spammed? Can...

982 I use GrapheneOS. And Soveriegnty and removing Money from State is my number one reason for

983 being in Bitcoin

984 reactions: 💯 8

985

986**Mark of Bitcoin** · 2026-08-09 10:25:00 UTC (5:25 AM CDT)

987 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: It's a very good question to ask: Are people attracted to a simple lean blockchain, that's like 500 GB in size, and cannot be spammed? Can we trim the UTXO set? Do people really care about sovereignty? Because you see, the only question we need to answer is: What do people care about in the first place? It's very depressing, but how many around you have GrapheneOS? How many care about privacy? How many understand the reason for their misery with fiat? How many are willing to take the responsibility to their own hands, run a node, manage their wallets and so on? It's a very good question to ask: What is it that made bitcoin special in the first place when people didn't give a shit about any of these features we're trying to protect? Is it toxic bitcoin maximalism? Is it this simple and naive stubbornness that bitcoin maxis have? Is it some network effect? Is it NGU? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. The tech is the easy part.

988 I use GrapheneOS. And Soveriegnty and removing Money from State is my number one reason for being in Bitcoin

989 reactions: 💯 8

990

991**weeggo** · 2026-08-09 10:26:20 UTC (5:26 AM CDT)

992 Yes spend in Bitcoin makes the legacy system broken

993 reactions: 👍🏽 1

994

995**qew Nemo** · 2026-08-09 10:49:14 UTC (5:49 AM CDT)

996 > in reply to @zack: At the current hashrate, we are only going to get around 1 block per 5 days, for the next 3 months. Are we going to do an update to un-stall the chain? I...

997 what if we just wait 3 months? this is really important.

998

999**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 10:50:20 UTC (5:50 AM CDT)

1000 What is the next move for plebs? It feels like everyone went quiet and despite the sad times I

1001 think the plebs who sacrificed so much, ran their own nodes deserve guidance. Do we go back to

1002 core until a new bip is proposed? Are older non-rdts versions of knots safe? Why has everyone

1003 been left in the dark?

1004

1005**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 10:50:20 UTC (5:50 AM CDT)

1006 What is the next move for plebs? It feels like everyone went quiet and despite the sad times I think the plebs who sacrificed so much, ran their own nodes deserve guidance. Do we go back to core until a new bip is proposed? Are older non-rdts versions of knots safe? Why has everyone been left in the dark?

1007

1008**ijhdsfkjdhfkjdhfkds** · 2026-08-09 10:51:46 UTC (5:51 AM CDT)

1009 Maybe because there's no good move

1010

1011**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 10:53:40 UTC (5:53 AM CDT)

1012 There is no good move but you can't just leave the people in the dust its irresponsible and

1013 disrespectful

1014

1015**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 10:53:40 UTC (5:53 AM CDT)

1016 There is no good move but you can't just leave the people in the dust its irresponsible and disrespectful

1017

1018**Raf** · 2026-08-09 10:54:57 UTC (5:54 AM CDT)

1019 > in reply to @XCOM79: Guys. Not a dev. Does running Braiins with Bip-110 node help any right now?

1020 In most likelihood your rewards will get stuck forever in the BIP110 chain. Difficulty

1021 adjustment will not happen unless a miracle occurs. This hurts deep

1022

1023**Raf** · 2026-08-09 10:54:57 UTC (5:54 AM CDT)

1024 > in reply to @XCOM79: Guys. Not a dev. Does running Braiins with Bip-110 node help any right now?

1025 In most likelihood your rewards will get stuck forever in the BIP110 chain. Difficulty adjustment will not happen unless a miracle occurs. This hurts deep

1026

1027**ijhdsfkjdhfkjdhfkds** · 2026-08-09 10:57:34 UTC (5:57 AM CDT)

1028 > in reply to @Alvi: There is no good move but you can't just leave the people in the dust its irresponsible and disrespectful

1029 Maybe it's their way to signal it's over, it's better than trying to sell false hope and start

1030 another effort that will end badly. But I agree they should say something at least

1031

1032**ijhdsfkjdhfkjdhfkds** · 2026-08-09 10:57:34 UTC (5:57 AM CDT)

1033 > in reply to @Alvi: There is no good move but you can't just leave the people in the dust its irresponsible and disrespectful

1034 Maybe it's their way to signal it's over, it's better than trying to sell false hope and start another effort that will end badly. But I agree they should say something at least

1035

1036**ijhdsfkjdhfkjdhfkds** · 2026-08-09 10:58:38 UTC (5:58 AM CDT)

1037 > in reply to @Raf: In most likelihood your rewards will get stuck forever in the BIP110 chain. Difficulty adjustment will not happen unless a miracle occurs. This hurts deep

1038 And even if it somehow did, it's not BTC and will be sold for pennies

1039

1040**qew Nemo** · 2026-08-09 10:58:52 UTC (5:58 AM CDT)

1041 but it is BTC

1042

1043**ijhdsfkjdhfkjdhfkds** · 2026-08-09 10:59:06 UTC (5:59 AM CDT)

1044 > in reply to @qew Nemo: but it is BTC

1045 How come?

1046

1047**wek01** · 2026-08-09 10:59:29 UTC (5:59 AM CDT) · (edited)

1048 > in reply to @XCOM79: Should I turn off mining? I am leaving my node on forever.

1049 any work you done before mandatory signaling is tied to your keys on both chains. after split

1050 there is one stalled chain that you can run if you want. its individual decision. and there is

1051 other that is still runing.

1052

1053**Yorper** · 2026-08-09 11:00:14 UTC (6:00 AM CDT)

1054 > in reply to @Alvi: What is the next move for plebs? It feels like everyone went quiet and despite the sad times I think the plebs who sacrificed so much, ran their own node...

1055 No need to go back to core. If you really want to leave bip110 just go to the pre rdts version

1056 of knots. It’ll take a couple seconds to bring your blockchain in to sync

1057 reactions: 💯 1

1058

1059**Yorper** · 2026-08-09 11:00:14 UTC (6:00 AM CDT)

1060 > in reply to @Alvi: What is the next move for plebs? It feels like everyone went quiet and despite the sad times I think the plebs who sacrificed so much, ran their own nodes deserve guidance. Do we go back to core until a new bip is proposed? Are older non-rdts versions of knots safe? Why has everyone been left in the dark?

1061 No need to go back to core. If you really want to leave bip110 just go to the pre rdts version of knots. It’ll take a couple seconds to bring your blockchain in to sync

1062 reactions: 💯 1

1063

1064**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 11:00:55 UTC (6:00 AM CDT)

1065 There has been numerous patches to knots since bip110, im not sure how safe the pre rdts

1066 version is

1067

1068**Alvi** · 2026-08-09 11:00:55 UTC (6:00 AM CDT)

1069 There has been numerous patches to knots since bip110, im not sure how safe the pre rdts version is

1070

1071**wek01** · 2026-08-09 11:01:25 UTC (6:01 AM CDT) · (edited)

1072 > in reply to @XCOM79: Should I turn off mining? I am leaving my node on forever.

1073 any work you done before mandatory signaling is tied to your keys on both chains. after split there is one stalled chain that you can run if you want. its individual decision. and there is other that is still runing.

1074

1075**StackItDeep** · 2026-08-09 21:05:22 UTC (4:05 PM CDT)

1076 > in reply to @args.hpp: Re: selecting a pow algorithm, i know it says "details TBD" but are there any POSSIBLE outlines that you can share for the mechanism by which the new...

1077 ColdCard.

1078 reactions: 🤣 1

1079

1080**ProductGuy** · 2026-08-09 21:05:26 UTC (4:05 PM CDT)

1081 > in reply to Message could not be loaded

1082 My proposal on witness discount is keep it at 75% up to 90B for "legit" cryptographic

1083 witnesses, but roll it off linearly to 0 discount / full price/vB at 256B, basically the

1084 largest potential witness, and above that 99% likelihood of spam. Benefits: 1) preserves

1085 discount for truly 1-time witness stores/reads, 2) stops subsidizing spam hiding as a witness.

1086 Increase cost and friction of spam.

1087

1088**ProductGuy** · 2026-08-09 21:05:26 UTC (4:05 PM CDT)

1089 My proposal on witness discount is keep it at 75% up to 90B for "legit" cryptographic witnesses, but roll it off linearly to 0 discount / full price/vB at 256B, basically the largest potential witness, and above that 99% likelihood of spam.Benefits:

1090 1) preserves discount for truly 1-time witness stores/reads,

1091 2) stops subsidizing spam hiding as a witness. Increase cost and friction of spam.

1092

1093**coastard** · 2026-08-09 21:05:31 UTC (4:05 PM CDT)

1094 > in reply to Message could not be loaded

1095 trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on

1096 bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economic activity are pointed at the 110

1097 chain

1098 reactions: 🤡 3 👍🏻 1

1099

1100**coastard** · 2026-08-09 21:05:31 UTC (4:05 PM CDT)

1101 trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economic activity are pointed at the 110 chain

1102 reactions: 🤡 3 👍🏻 1

1103

1104**Zaelus** · 2026-08-09 21:06:13 UTC (4:06 PM CDT)

1105 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economi...

1106 If you don't have anything useful to contribute, why are you even in here?

1107 reactions: 💯 1

1108

1109**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:06:19 UTC (4:06 PM CDT) · (edited)

1110 > in reply to @args.hpp:

1111 Why isn't SM3 on that list? I think FPGA cryptographic accelerator availability needs to be

1112 considered, which will allow manufacturers to ramp up quicker and get "ASICs" into node

1113 runner's hands faster before they do ramp up.

1114

1115**PerpetualWar** · 2026-08-09 21:06:25 UTC (4:06 PM CDT)

1116 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economi...

1117 attack happened by antpool and foundry. WHat are you on about.

1118 reactions: 💯 3 👍 1

1119

1120**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:06:44 UTC (4:06 PM CDT)

1121 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economi...

1122 Running on Core version of a blockchain is attack on BIP-110 identity and attack on Roughnecks

1123 reward and recognition to heroes of the war.

1124 reactions: 💯 1

1125

1126**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:06:44 UTC (4:06 PM CDT)

1127 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economic activity are pointed at the 110 chain

1128 Running on Core version of a blockchain is attack on BIP-110 identity and attack on Roughnecks reward and recognition to heroes of the war.

1129 reactions: 💯 1

1130

1131**heythere** · 2026-08-09 21:06:58 UTC (4:06 PM CDT) · (edited)

1132 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economi...

1133 I think the longer chain (whichever that is at the time of fork! Anything could happen) is the

1134 right one. More people using forking chain = more people might use the fork

1135 reactions: 👆 1

1136

1137**args.hpp** · 2026-08-09 21:07:09 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1138 > in reply to @PerpetualWar: attack happened by antpool and foundry. WHat are you on about.

1139 (among others)

1140 reactions: 👍 1

1141

1142**MORRIZ** · 2026-08-09 21:07:09 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1143 Can someone please clarify - if we chose the BIP110 chain for the POW change, will it take 25

1144 years to reach the difficulty adjustment lol ?

1145

1146**MORRIZ** · 2026-08-09 21:07:09 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1147 Can someone please clarify - if we chose the BIP110 chain for the POW change, will it take 25 years to reach the difficulty adjustment lol ?

1148

1149**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:07:11 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1150 > in reply to @args.hpp: Re: selecting a pow algorithm, i know it says "details TBD" but are there any POSSIBLE outlines that you can share for the mechanism by which the new...

1151 My thought was I'll make a hex-character-to-algo mapping, hash the map table, publish that

1152 hash, and at some future block height determined in advance, I publish the map, and we use the

1153 last digit of the block hash

1154 reactions: 👍 1

1155

1156**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:07:11 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1157 > in reply to @args.hpp: Re: selecting a pow algorithm, i know it says "details TBD" but are there any POSSIBLE outlines that you can share for the mechanism by which the new algorithm will be chosen at random?

1158 My thought was I'll make a hex-character-to-algo mapping, hash the map table, publish that hash, and at some future block height determined in advance, I publish the map, and we use the last digit of the block hash

1159 reactions: 👍 1

1160

1161**heythere** · 2026-08-09 21:07:15 UTC (4:07 PM CDT) · (edited)

1162 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economic activity are pointed at the 110 chain

1163 I think the longer chain (whichever that is at the time of fork! Anything could happen) is the right one. More people using forking chain = more people might use the fork

1164 reactions: 👆 1

1165

1166**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 21:07:40 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1167 > in reply to @MORRIZ: Can someone please clarify - if we chose the BIP110 chain for the POW change, will it take 25 years to reach the difficulty adjustment lol ?

1168 If PoW changes, so does the difficulty necessarily

1169 reactions: 👍 2

1170

1171**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:07:49 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

1172 > in reply to @ProductGuy: My proposal on witness discount is keep it at 75% up to 90B for "legit" cryptographic witnesses, but roll it off linearly to 0 discount / full pric...

1173 I feel like this is too complicated for initially

1174 reactions: 👍🏽 1

1175

1176**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:08:13 UTC (4:08 PM CDT) · (edited)

1177 > in reply to @args.hpp: Current plan is to have a PoW algorithm chosen randomly from a set of curated candidates, so everyone finds out the new algo at the exact same time. Details TBD. A brief overview of potential algorithms are in the image.

1178 Why isn't SM3 on that list? I think FPGA cryptographic accelerator availability needs to be considered, which will allow manufacturers to ramp up quicker and get "ASICs" into node runner's hands faster before they do ramp up.

1179

1180**coastard** · 2026-08-09 21:08:22 UTC (4:08 PM CDT) · (edited)

1181 > in reply to @heythere: I think the longer chain (whichever that is at the time of fork! Anything could happen) is the right one. More people using forking chain = more peop...

1182 yeah this is what im trying to get at. are we trying to change bitcoin and bring the

1183 bitcoiners with us, or have we given up on a unified chain here? if bip110 and core chain are

1184 2 different things at the end of this, you have lost

1185

1186**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:08:23 UTC (4:08 PM CDT)

1187 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economi...

1188 if they wanted their blocks validated they should have mined valid blocks. not our problem.

1189

1190**Brandonloru** · 2026-08-09 21:08:25 UTC (4:08 PM CDT)

1191 New to this sub and also new to bitcoin in general, but appreciated the ethics of Knots,

1192 became a node runner to support the cause. Is this becoming a new coin? And how can a normal

1193 pleb with 5 kids afford an ASIC

1194 reactions: 👍 4 👎 1

1195

1196**Brandonloru** · 2026-08-09 21:08:25 UTC (4:08 PM CDT)

1197 New to this sub and also new to bitcoin in general, but appreciated the ethics of Knots, became a node runner to support the cause. Is this becoming a new coin? And how can a normal pleb with 5 kids afford an ASIC

1198 reactions: 👍 4 👎 1

1199

1200**coastard** · 2026-08-09 21:08:39 UTC (4:08 PM CDT) · (edited)

1201 > in reply to @heythere: I think the longer chain (whichever that is at the time of fork! Anything could happen) is the right one. More people using forking chain = more people might use the fork

1202 yeah this is what im trying to get at. are we trying to change bitcoin and bring the bitcoiners with us, or have we given up on a unified chain here? if bip110 and core chain are 2 different things at the end of this, you have lost

1203

1204**args.hpp** · 2026-08-09 21:08:46 UTC (4:08 PM CDT) · (edited)

1205 > in reply to @lukedashjr: My thought was I'll make a hex-character-to-algo mapping, hash the map table, publish that hash, and at some future block height determined in adva...

1206 the block hash at that height on the legacy chain ? that's the key part of what I was

1207 wondering about. Obviously using the legacy chain as a random oracle is very different than

1208 actually using/running/supporting it but are we willing to do that?

1209

1210**peaceful cow** · 2026-08-09 21:09:03 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1211 What's a realistic timeframe for this hardfork to happen?

1212

1213**JakeJoyride** · 2026-08-09 21:09:06 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1214 > in reply to @Brandonloru: New to this sub and also new to bitcoin in general, but appreciated the ethics of Knots, became a node runner to support the cause. Is this becomi...

1215 it cant

1216

1217**args.hpp** · 2026-08-09 21:09:13 UTC (4:09 PM CDT) · (edited)

1218 > in reply to @lukedashjr: My thought was I'll make a hex-character-to-algo mapping, hash the map table, publish that hash, and at some future block height determined in advance, I publish the map, and we use the last digit of the block hash

1219 the block hash at that height on the legacy chain? that's the key part of what I was wondering about. Obviously using the legacy chain as a random oracle is very different than actually using/running/supporting it but are we willing to do that?

1220

1221**PerpetualWar** · 2026-08-09 21:09:16 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1222 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economi...

1223 I feel your pain, but you have to accept responsibility,,, you decided to continue transacting

1224 on spam chain, and if real bitcoin defends itself, nobody else is guilty about your decisions.

1225

1226**PerpetualWar** · 2026-08-09 21:09:16 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1227 > in reply to @coastard: trying to push a fork to invalidate 3 weeks worth of settled transactions is a attack on bitcoin. a minority of both normal bitcoin users and economic activity are pointed at the 110 chain

1228 I feel your pain, but you have to accept responsibility,,, you decided to continue transacting on spam chain, and if real bitcoin defends itself, nobody else is guilty about your decisions.

1229

1230**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:09:27 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1231 > in reply to @Brandonloru: New to this sub and also new to bitcoin in general, but appreciated the ethics of Knots, became a node runner to support the cause. Is this becomi...

1232 No, Bitcoin ex-miners just launched a new coin (I call Bpedo) and attacked the Bitcoin

1233 network; we're here to restore Bitcoin functionality

1234 reactions: 🫡 4 😎 1 💪 1 💯 1 👍 1

1235

1236**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:09:27 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1237 > in reply to @Brandonloru: New to this sub and also new to bitcoin in general, but appreciated the ethics of Knots, became a node runner to support the cause. Is this becoming a new coin? And how can a normal pleb with 5 kids afford an ASIC

1238 No, Bitcoin ex-miners just launched a new coin (I call Bpedo) and attacked the Bitcoin network; we're here to restore Bitcoin functionality

1239 reactions: 🫡 4 😎 1 💪 1 💯 1 👍 1

1240

1241**StackItDeep** · 2026-08-09 21:09:36 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1242 > in reply to @peaceful cow: What's a realistic timeframe for this hardfork to happen?

1243 Sep 1 target

1244 reactions: 👍 1

1245

1246**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:09:43 UTC (4:09 PM CDT) · (edited)

1247 > in reply to @args.hpp: the block hash at that height on the legacy chain ? that's the key part of what I was wondering about. Obviously using the legacy chain as a random o...

1248 No reason to do that

1249

1250**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:09:54 UTC (4:09 PM CDT)

1251 > in reply to @peaceful cow: What's a realistic timeframe for this hardfork to happen?

1252 Target is currently Sep 1 just like BIP110

1253 reactions: 👍 5

1254

1255**Adest** · 2026-08-09 21:10:40 UTC (4:10 PM CDT)

1256 How does hardfork work, is it the same as last night except if it doesn’t gain consensus from

1257 the current chain it splits into a new coin with new ticker?

1258

1259**Adest** · 2026-08-09 21:10:40 UTC (4:10 PM CDT)

1260 How does hardfork work, is it the same as last night except if it doesn’t gain consensus from the current chain it splits into a new coin with new ticker?

1261

1262**John** · 2026-08-09 21:10:42 UTC (4:10 PM CDT)

1263 Should we look at what Monero did during their hardfork days for inspiration?

1264

1265**coastard** · 2026-08-09 21:10:47 UTC (4:10 PM CDT)

1266 > in reply to @PerpetualWar: I feel your pain, but you have to accept responsibility,,, you decided to continue transacting on spam chain, and if real bitcoin defends itself,...

1267 ill be honest, i am not worried about any risk posed to me by transacting on the core chain

1268 right now. there is just no way you will get people to swap to this new software if it means

1269 invalidating 3 weeks of tx. i am hoping you make this decision for your own good, and for a

1270 small chance of success at this

1271

1272**coastard** · 2026-08-09 21:10:47 UTC (4:10 PM CDT)

1273 > in reply to @PerpetualWar: I feel your pain, but you have to accept responsibility,,, you decided to continue transacting on spam chain, and if real bitcoin defends itself, nobody else is guilty about your decisions.

1274 ill be honest, i am not worried about any risk posed to me by transacting on the core chain right now. there is just no way you will get people to swap to this new software if it means invalidating 3 weeks of tx. i am hoping you make this decision for your own good, and for a small chance of success at this

1275

1276**peaceful cow** · 2026-08-09 21:11:19 UTC (4:11 PM CDT)

1277 Is there any risk to transacting between now and Sep 1 on Bpedo?

1278 reactions: 👍 2

1279

1280**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:11:21 UTC (4:11 PM CDT) · (edited)

1281 > in reply to @mIdk: Why isn't SM3 on that list? I think FPGA cryptographic accelerator availability needs to be considered, which will allow manufacturers to ramp up quicker...

1282 [attachment] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1535801442928033935/1536119721039241346/Screenshot_20260809_171032.png

1283 reactions: 👍 4

1284

1285**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:11:21 UTC (4:11 PM CDT) · (edited)

1286 > in reply to @mIdk: Why isn't SM3 on that list? I think FPGA cryptographic accelerator availability needs to be considered, which will allow manufacturers to ramp up quicker and get "ASICs" into node runner's hands faster before they do ramp up.

1287

1288 reactions: 👍 4

1289

1290**Broda** · 2026-08-09 21:11:31 UTC (4:11 PM CDT)

1291 @Adest no

1292

1293**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:11:33 UTC (4:11 PM CDT) · (edited)

1294 > in reply to @Adest: How does hardfork work, is it the same as last night except if it doesn’t gain consensus from the current chain it splits into a new coin with new ticke...

1295 It has already splitted . We are like separate coin with some shared history.

1296 reactions: 👍 1

1297

1298**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 21:11:39 UTC (4:11 PM CDT)

1299 > in reply to @coastard: ill be honest, i am not worried about any risk posed to me by transacting on the core chain right now. there is just no way you will get people to sw...

1300 I'm not saying your concern is invalid, but the discussion might be better for ⁠ adoption or ⁠

1301 general

1302 reactions: 👆 1

1303

1304**SpectrGen** · 2026-08-09 21:11:39 UTC (4:11 PM CDT)

1305 > in reply to @coastard: ill be honest, i am not worried about any risk posed to me by transacting on the core chain right now. there is just no way you will get people to swap to this new software if it means invalidating 3 weeks of tx. i am hoping you make this decision for your own good, and for a small chance of success at this

1306 I'm not saying your concern is invalid, but the discussion might be better for ⁠adoption or ⁠general

1307 reactions: 👆 1

1308

1309**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:11:49 UTC (4:11 PM CDT) · (edited)

1310 > in reply to @Adest: How does hardfork work, is it the same as last night except if it doesn’t gain consensus from the current chain it splits into a new coin with new ticker?

1311 It has already splitted . We are like separate coin with some shared history.

1312 reactions: 👍 1

1313

1314**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:11:57 UTC (4:11 PM CDT)

1315 > in reply to @peaceful cow: Is there any risk to transacting between now and Sep 1 on Bpedo?

1316 Yes, Bpedo isn't Bitcoin, and its transactions will replay onto Bitcoin later if not

1317 double-spent

1318 reactions: 👍 10

1319

1320**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:11:57 UTC (4:11 PM CDT)

1321 > in reply to @peaceful cow: Is there any risk to transacting between now and Sep 1 on Bpedo?

1322 Yes, Bpedo isn't Bitcoin, and its transactions will replay onto Bitcoin later if not double-spent

1323 reactions: 👍 10

1324

1325**PerpetualWar** · 2026-08-09 21:12:30 UTC (4:12 PM CDT)

1326 > in reply to @coastard: ill be honest, i am not worried about any risk posed to me by transacting on the core chain right now. there is just no way you will get people to sw...

1327 Fair. From my perspective I also voted to continue on BIP110 chain, but I would not have

1328 anything against continuing on spam chain if that would provide better result. This is least

1329 important part of this hard fork for me personally. I can see that value in that.

1330

1331**PerpetualWar** · 2026-08-09 21:12:30 UTC (4:12 PM CDT)

1332 > in reply to @coastard: ill be honest, i am not worried about any risk posed to me by transacting on the core chain right now. there is just no way you will get people to swap to this new software if it means invalidating 3 weeks of tx. i am hoping you make this decision for your own good, and for a small chance of success at this

1333 Fair. From my perspective I also voted to continue on BIP110 chain, but I would not have anything against continuing on spam chain if that would provide better result. This is least important part of this hard fork for me personally. I can see that value in that.

1334

1335**Adest** · 2026-08-09 21:12:35 UTC (4:12 PM CDT) · (edited)

1336 > in reply to @zBTCowany🇵🇱: It has already splitted . We are like separate coin with some shared history.

1337 I saw the chain split, thanks

1338

1339**Satoshi N** · 2026-08-09 21:12:36 UTC (4:12 PM CDT)

1340 Shall i keep runing knots? Is not moving

1341 reactions: 👍 2

1342

1343**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:12:38 UTC (4:12 PM CDT)

1344 > in reply to @Adest: How does hardfork work, is it the same as last night except if it doesn’t gain consensus from the current chain it splits into a new coin with new ticke...

1345 bip110 is consensus, the rulechange required to mine valid blocks yesterday was to switch a 0

1346 to a 1. if they cannot do that, then they are unfit to produce hashrate, and we are changing

1347 pow, the legacy chain is defunct.

1348 reactions: 💯 2

1349

1350**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:12:38 UTC (4:12 PM CDT)

1351 > in reply to @Adest: How does hardfork work, is it the same as last night except if it doesn’t gain consensus from the current chain it splits into a new coin with new ticker?

1352 bip110 is consensus, the rulechange required to mine valid blocks yesterday was to switch a 0 to a 1. if they cannot do that, then they are unfit to produce hashrate, and we are changing pow, the legacy chain is defunct.

1353 reactions: 💯 2

1354

1355**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:13:19 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1356 > in reply to @Satoshi N: Shall i keep runing knots? Is not moving

1357 ⁠ support please; but yes, we're just under attack

1358 reactions: 👍 5

1359

1360**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:13:19 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1361 > in reply to @Satoshi N: Shall i keep runing knots? Is not moving

1362 ⁠support please; but yes, we're just under attack

1363 reactions: 👍 5

1364

1365**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:13:21 UTC (4:13 PM CDT) · (edited)

1366 > in reply to @lukedashjr: Click to see attachment

1367 Fair analysis. Has anyone done sourcing for the other suggested algos to verify actual ASIC

1368 availability?

1369

1370**Adest** · 2026-08-09 21:13:23 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1371 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: bip110 is consensus, the rulechange required to mine valid blocks yesterday was to switch a 0 to a 1. if they cannot do that, then they are unf...

1372 So do you mean we will have bitcoin legacy and bitcoin (knots). Like two seperate entities

1373 that you can own?

1374

1375**Adest** · 2026-08-09 21:13:23 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1376 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: bip110 is consensus, the rulechange required to mine valid blocks yesterday was to switch a 0 to a 1. if they cannot do that, then they are unfit to produce hashrate, and we are changing pow, the legacy chain is defunct.

1377 So do you mean we will have bitcoin legacy and bitcoin (knots). Like two seperate entities that you can own?

1378

1379**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:13:30 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1380 > in reply to @Adest: I saw the chain split, thanks

1381 Don’t worry, run current BIP-110 client, if all works out smoothly we start again at Sep1.

1382 Spread the news, hold tight. Keep in mind that now you have coins on Core side and BIP side.

1383 reactions: 👍 3

1384

1385**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:13:30 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1386 > in reply to @Adest: I saw the chain split, thanks

1387 Don’t worry, run current BIP-110 client, if all works out smoothly we start again at Sep1. Spread the news, hold tight. Keep in mind that now you have coins on Core side and BIP side.

1388 reactions: 👍 3

1389

1390**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:13:34 UTC (4:13 PM CDT) · (edited)

1391 > in reply to @mIdk: Fair analysis. Has anyone done sourcing for the other suggested algos to verify actual ASIC availability?

1392 Yes, it's a column on the table

1393 reactions: 👍 3

1394

1395**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:13:40 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1396 and to be clear, it's a LLM

1397 reactions: 👍 1

1398

1399**Maven** · 2026-08-09 21:13:45 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1400 > in reply to @lukedashjr: Target is currently Sep 1 just like BIP110

1401 Target should be 11 Aug so we just to reset the difficulty. Otherwise BIP110 would be

1402 completely dead.

1403 reactions: 👎 1

1404

1405**Maven** · 2026-08-09 21:13:45 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1406 > in reply to @lukedashjr: Target is currently Sep 1 just like BIP110

1407 Target should be 11 Aug so we just to reset the difficulty. Otherwise BIP110 would be completely dead.

1408 reactions: 👎 1

1409

1410**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:13:49 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1411 > in reply to @Adest: So do you mean we will have bitcoin legacy and bitcoin (knots). Like two seperate entities that you can own?

1412 this is strategic, go to ⁠ general to ask general questions. but yes.

1413 reactions: 👍 1

1414

1415**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:13:49 UTC (4:13 PM CDT)

1416 > in reply to @Adest: So do you mean we will have bitcoin legacy and bitcoin (knots). Like two seperate entities that you can own?

1417 this is strategic, go to ⁠general to ask general questions. but yes.

1418 reactions: 👍 1

1419

1420**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:14:04 UTC (4:14 PM CDT) · (edited)

1421 > in reply to @lukedashjr:

1422 Fair analysis. Has anyone done sourcing for the other suggested algos to verify actual ASIC availability?

1423

1424**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:14:23 UTC (4:14 PM CDT)

1425 > in reply to @Maven: Target should be 11 Aug so we just to reset the difficulty. Otherwise BIP110 would be completely dead.

1426 That leaves us open to attack...?

1427 reactions: 👍 2

1428

1429**StackItDeep** · 2026-08-09 21:14:49 UTC (4:14 PM CDT)

1430 > in reply to @Maven: Target should be 11 Aug so we just to reset the difficulty. Otherwise BIP110 would be completely dead.

1431 These are your options. ⁠ strategic ⁠

1432

1433**StackItDeep** · 2026-08-09 21:14:49 UTC (4:14 PM CDT)

1434 > in reply to @Maven: Target should be 11 Aug so we just to reset the difficulty. Otherwise BIP110 would be completely dead.

1435 These are your options. ⁠strategic⁠

1436

1437**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:14:54 UTC (4:14 PM CDT)

1438 I'm not totally against sooner if we can pull it off. But we still need to finish the

1439 decisions, write the code, test the code, etc

1440 reactions: 👍 12

1441

1442**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:14:54 UTC (4:14 PM CDT)

1443 I'm not totally against sooner if we can pull it off. But we still need to finish the decisions, write the code, test the code, etc

1444 reactions: 👍 12

1445

1446**Franco Cappello** · 2026-08-09 21:14:55 UTC (4:14 PM CDT)

1447 Firing the miners is a must

1448

1449**Maveth** · 2026-08-09 21:15:07 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1450 > in reply to @PerpetualWar: Fair. From my perspective I also voted to continue on BIP110 chain, but I would not have anything against continuing on spam chain if that would...

1451 technically, all the tx on legacy are in the mempool on bip110, except new invalid coinbase

1452 blocks AND double spend, AND mixed with the invalid blocks. etc... they are NOT all thrown

1453 out.. they just in the mempool unconfirmed.

1454

1455**Maveth** · 2026-08-09 21:15:07 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1456 > in reply to @PerpetualWar: Fair. From my perspective I also voted to continue on BIP110 chain, but I would not have anything against continuing on spam chain if that would provide better result. This is least important part of this hard fork for me personally. I can see that value in that.

1457 technically, all the tx on legacy are in the mempool on bip110, except new invalid coinbase blocks AND double spend, AND mixed with the invalid blocks. etc... they are NOT all thrown out.. they just in the mempool unconfirmed.

1458

1459**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:15:20 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1460 @lukedashjr so Sep1 is the initial rollout date. I’m gona spread the news.

1461

1462**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:15:20 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1463 @lukedashjr so Sep1 is the initial rollout date. I’m gona spread the news.

1464

1465**Maven** · 2026-08-09 21:15:21 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1466 > in reply to @lukedashjr: That leaves us open to attack...?

1467 Welcome 51% attack, it could raise our hash rates.

1468

1469**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:15:40 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1470 the miners didnt even have to agree with anything we were doing to mine valid blocks

1471 yesterday, all they needed to do was prove that they knew how to change a 0 to a 1, thats it.

1472 They failed the test for consensus.

1473

1474**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-09 21:15:40 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1475 the miners didnt even have to agree with anything we were doing to mine valid blocks yesterday, all they needed to do was prove that they knew how to change a 0 to a 1, thats it. They failed the test for consensus.

1476

1477**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:15:41 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1478 > in reply to @zBTCowany🇵🇱: @lukedashjr so Sep1 is the initial rollout date. I’m gona spread the news.

1479 No, Sep 1 is target activation. Rollout needs to be before that. And if we can do it sooner,

1480 great

1481 reactions: 👍 5 🫡 1

1482

1483**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:15:41 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1484 > in reply to @zBTCowany: @lukedashjr so Sep1 is the initial rollout date. I’m gona spread the news.

1485 No, Sep 1 is target activation. Rollout needs to be before that. And if we can do it sooner, great

1486 reactions: 👍 5 🫡 1

1487

1488**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:15:54 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1489 > in reply to @lukedashjr: I'm not totally against sooner if we can pull it off. But we still need to finish the decisions, write the code, test the code, etc

1490 Sep1 is already very quick. We don’t need to rush it and make it faster.

1491 reactions: 👍 8

1492

1493**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:15:54 UTC (4:15 PM CDT)

1494 > in reply to @lukedashjr: I'm not totally against sooner if we can pull it off. But we still need to finish the decisions, write the code, test the code, etc

1495 Sep1 is already very quick. We don’t need to rush it and make it faster.

1496 reactions: 👍 8

1497

1498**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:16:25 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

1499 > in reply to @lukedashjr: and to be clear, it's a LLM

1500 Definitely need someone to contact manufacturers for a final set of possible algos and verify

1501 actual availability prior to deciding, but you may already understand that

1502 reactions: 👍 1

1503

1504**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:16:25 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

1505 > in reply to @lukedashjr: and to be clear, it's a LLM

1506 Definitely need someone to contact manufacturers for a final set of possible algos and verify actual availability prior to deciding, but you may already understand that

1507 reactions: 👍 1

1508

1509**peaceful cow** · 2026-08-09 21:16:39 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

1510 > in reply to @zBTCowany🇵🇱: Sep1 is already very quick. We don’t need to rush it and make it faster.

1511 No bugs is important, especially now

1512 reactions: 👍 3

1513

1514**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:16:53 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

1515 > in reply to @mIdk: Definitely need someone to contact manufacturers for a final set of possible algos and verify actual availability prior to deciding, but you may already...

1516 Feel free

1517 reactions: 👍 2

1518

1519**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:17:17 UTC (4:17 PM CDT)

1520 > in reply to @lukedashjr: Feel free

1521 I'll be watching

1522

1523**ioio** · 2026-08-09 21:18:00 UTC (4:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

1524 I’d like you to take a look at the following: RandomX, HashCore, both or something in between.

1525

1526**ioio** · 2026-08-09 21:18:06 UTC (4:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

1527 > in reply to ioio: I’d like you to take a look at the following: RandomX, HashCore, both or something in between.

1528 Thoughts?

1529

1530**ioio** · 2026-08-09 21:18:06 UTC (4:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

1531 > in reply to @ioio: I’d like you to take a look at the following: RandomX, HashCore, both or something in between.

1532 Thoughts?

1533

1534**ioio** · 2026-08-09 21:18:43 UTC (4:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

1535 I’d like you to take a look at the following: RandomX, HashCore, both or something in between.

1536

1537**phatsuit** · 2026-08-09 21:19:04 UTC (4:19 PM CDT)

1538 would you consider 5 different mining algos like Digibyte has ?

1539

1540**cguida** · 2026-08-09 21:19:26 UTC (4:19 PM CDT)

1541 > in reply to Message could not be loaded

1542 Wonder if we could use our own first valid block header as the random seed?

1543 reactions: ❓ 1

1544

1545**cguida** · 2026-08-09 21:19:26 UTC (4:19 PM CDT)

1546 Wonder if we could use our own first valid block header as the random seed?

1547 reactions: ❓ 1

1548

1549**Bitcoin Bombadil** · 2026-08-09 21:20:08 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1550 > in reply to @ProductGuy: My proposal on witness discount is keep it at 75% up to 90B for "legit" cryptographic witnesses, but roll it off linearly to 0 discount / full pric...

1551 I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the

1552 exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin (i assume they won't give us the Bitcoin

1553 name)... how do we know they won't try to sabotage us on that front? Do we care? I'm

1554 definitely not a Fiat price maxi, but at the same time trying to just be realistic and think

1555 through all angles

1556

1557**Bitcoin Bombadil** · 2026-08-09 21:20:08 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1558 > in reply to @ProductGuy: My proposal on witness discount is keep it at 75% up to 90B for "legit" cryptographic witnesses, but roll it off linearly to 0 discount / full price/vB at 256B, basically the largest potential witness, and above that 99% likelihood of spam. Benefits: 1) preserves discount for truly 1-time witness stores/reads, 2) stops subsidizing spam hiding as a witness. Increase cost and friction of spam.

1559 I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin (i assume they won't give us the Bitcoin name)... how do we know they won't try to sabotage us on that front? Do we care? I'm definitely not a Fiat price maxi, but at the same time trying to just be realistic and think through all angles

1560

1561**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 21:20:32 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1562 > in reply to @Bitcoin Bombadil: I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin...

1563 I personally don't care if it takes a dozen years for them to list it

1564 reactions: 💯 1 👍 2

1565

1566**Faraday’s Ghost** · 2026-08-09 21:20:33 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1567 (Braces) - The message I want to make is I think the best strategy right now is to build on

1568 the core -> knots switchover momentum - 2-20%. Re-align pre-rdts and win wider consensus

1569 before making the next move. Put that option to a vote - I suspect (but happy to be proved

1570 wrong) most of the knots node runners that have migrated since the core expose/V30 (2-20%) are

1571 in that camp rather than PoW nuke in the next month.

1572 reactions: 👍 2

1573

1574**Faraday’s Ghost** · 2026-08-09 21:20:33 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1575 (Braces) - The message I want to make is I think the best strategy right now is to build on the core -> knots switchover momentum - 2-20%. Re-align pre-rdts and win wider consensus before making the next move. Put that option to a vote - I suspect (but happy to be proved wrong) most of the knots node runners that have migrated since the core expose/V30 (2-20%) are in that camp rather than PoW nuke in the next month.

1576 reactions: 👍 2

1577

1578**Bitcoin Bombadil** · 2026-08-09 21:20:54 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1579 > in reply to Bitcoin Bombadil: I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin...

1580 sorry, didn't mean to reply to that comment above

1581

1582**Bitcoin Bombadil** · 2026-08-09 21:20:54 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1583 > in reply to @Bitcoin Bombadil: I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin (i assume they won't give us the Bitcoin name)... how do we know they won't try to sabotage us on that front? Do we care? I'm definitely not a Fiat price maxi, but at the same time trying to just be realistic and think through all angles

1584 sorry, didn't mean to reply to that comment above

1585

1586**Broda** · 2026-08-09 21:20:59 UTC (4:20 PM CDT)

1587 @mIdk not ideal for widespread adoption though

1588 reactions: 👍 1

1589

1590**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:21:02 UTC (4:21 PM CDT)

1591 > in reply to @Bitcoin Bombadil: I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin...

1592 Topic for ⁠ adoption

1593 reactions: 👍 1

1594

1595**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:21:02 UTC (4:21 PM CDT)

1596 > in reply to @Bitcoin Bombadil: I'm sure it's been discussed but what's the outlook on exchange visbility... will all the exchanges willingly list Bitcoin alongside SpamCoin (i assume they won't give us the Bitcoin name)... how do we know they won't try to sabotage us on that front? Do we care? I'm definitely not a Fiat price maxi, but at the same time trying to just be realistic and think through all angles

1597 Topic for ⁠adoption

1598 reactions: 👍 1

1599

1600**BC3Dev** · 2026-08-09 21:21:09 UTC (4:21 PM CDT)

1601 > in reply to Original message was deleted

1602 Time is of the essence.

1603

1604**BC3Dev** · 2026-08-09 21:21:09 UTC (4:21 PM CDT)

1605 Time is of the essence.

1606

1607**noah** · 2026-08-09 21:21:21 UTC (4:21 PM CDT) · (edited)

1608 > in reply to @scotthew: What about a hybrid of PoS and PoW .. the PoS is just simply you must run a node .. linking node running to energy using PoW?

1609 PoW is not linking a coin to energy, energy is slightly inflationary when inflation adjusted

1610 (improvements in production of energy). But basically flat in value.

1611

1612**noah** · 2026-08-09 21:22:12 UTC (4:22 PM CDT) · (edited)

1613 > in reply to @scotthew: What about a hybrid of PoS and PoW .. the PoS is just simply you must run a node .. linking node running to energy using PoW?

1614 PoW is not linking a coin to energy, energy is slightly inflationary when inflation adjusted (improvements in production of energy). But basically flat in value.

1615

1616**Vievie** · 2026-08-09 21:22:17 UTC (4:22 PM CDT)

1617 A hardfork would need miners, whats the plan for that?

1618

1619**BC3Dev** · 2026-08-09 21:22:43 UTC (4:22 PM CDT)

1620 > in reply to @Vievie: A hardfork would need miners, whats the plan for that?

1621 Everybody here will be mining, and many more I'm sure.

1622 reactions: 💯 3 👍 4 ❤️ 1

1623

1624**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:23:04 UTC (4:23 PM CDT)

1625 > in reply to @Vievie: A hardfork would need miners, whats the plan for that?

1626 Then keep spare cash for miners.

1627 reactions: 👆 2

1628

1629**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:23:04 UTC (4:23 PM CDT)

1630 > in reply to @Vievie: A hardfork would need miners, whats the plan for that?

1631 Then keep spare cash for miners.

1632 reactions: 👆 2

1633

1634**Vievie** · 2026-08-09 21:23:15 UTC (4:23 PM CDT) · (edited)

1635 > in reply to @BC3Dev: Everybody here will be mining, and many more I'm sure.

1636 yep, but we are few and our hash will not be enormous

1637

1638**Expjumper** · 2026-08-09 21:23:17 UTC (4:23 PM CDT)

1639 I will mine. I assuming it will likely be easy to mine at the start anyways? Or maybe I'm

1640 wrong there

1641

1642**Expjumper** · 2026-08-09 21:23:17 UTC (4:23 PM CDT)

1643 I will mine. I assuming it will likely be easy to mine at the start anyways? Or maybe I'm wrong there

1644

1645**Vievie** · 2026-08-09 21:23:27 UTC (4:23 PM CDT) · (edited)

1646 > in reply to @BC3Dev: Everybody here will be mining, and many more I'm sure.

1647 yep, but we are few and our hash will not be enormous

1648

1649**optlink** · 2026-08-09 21:23:32 UTC (4:23 PM CDT)

1650 > in reply to @Faraday’s Ghost: (Braces) - The message I want to make is I think the best strategy right now is to build on the core -> knots switchover momentum - 2-20%. Re-...

1651 How do you win wider consensus on minimal change proposal? There’s nothing to take away

1652

1653**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:23:39 UTC (4:23 PM CDT) · (edited)

1654 > in reply to @Vievie: yep, but we are few and our hash will not be enormous

1655 Difficulty adjusts

1656 reactions: 👍 6

1657

1658**zBTCowany🇵🇱** · 2026-08-09 21:23:45 UTC (4:23 PM CDT) · (edited)

1659 > in reply to @Vievie: yep, but we are few and our hash will not be enormous

1660 We can give up and let ourselves be strangled by Pedos. Pick your side.

1661 reactions: ☝️ 5

1662

1663**zBTCowany** · 2026-08-09 21:23:45 UTC (4:23 PM CDT) · (edited)

1664 > in reply to @Vievie: yep, but we are few and our hash will not be enormous

1665 We can give up and let ourselves be strangled by Pedos. Pick your side.

1666 reactions: ☝️ 5

1667

1668**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:26:10 UTC (9:26 PM CDT) · (edited)

1669 Yep these 2 are important (outlined in red) otherwise you'll be directing hash to the wrong chain. 🫡

1670

1671**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 02:28:04 UTC (9:28 PM CDT) · (edited)

1672 > in reply to @Demonsbane: Yep these 2 are important (outlined in red) otherwise you'll be directing hash to the wrong chain. 🫡

1673 FYI I had selected that. After payout it switched back so watch yourselves! ~~Don't know if it was intentional or not!~~

1674

1675 Purple at payment, green after completion.

1676

1677**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:28:22 UTC (9:28 PM CDT)

1678 <@508633354468327454> ⤴️

1679

1680**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:29:10 UTC (9:29 PM CDT)

1681 Was likely unintentional, curly did whip that up rather quickly probably a bug.

1682 reactions: 👍 1

1683

1684**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 02:29:40 UTC (9:29 PM CDT)

1685 > in reply to @Demonsbane: Was likely unintentional, curly did whip that up rather quickly probably a bug.

1686 Need a bug fix then **@_0**

1687

1688**ioio** · 2026-08-12 02:30:13 UTC (9:30 PM CDT) · (edited)

1689 > in reply to @lukedashjr: ?

1690 What do you think about limiting the block size at 1MB

1691

1692**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:30:18 UTC (9:30 PM CDT)

1693 Yup, curly appreciates feedback 🫡 drop into their telegram for faster support. Not sure how often curly checks discord

1694 reactions: 👍 1

1695

1696**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 02:31:10 UTC (9:31 PM CDT)

1697 I turned off my bitaxe I don’t think it can do the blake2b thing

1698

1699**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:31:24 UTC (9:31 PM CDT)

1700 > in reply to @ciphernom: I turned off my bitaxe I don’t think it can do the blake2b thing

1701 It can't, entirely different algo

1702 reactions: 👍 1

1703

1704**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:31:45 UTC (9:31 PM CDT)

1705 Algo stays SHA256 until September 1st

1706

1707**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 02:32:00 UTC (9:32 PM CDT)

1708 > in reply to @ciphernom: I turned off my bitaxe I don’t think it can do the blake2b thing

1709 bitaxe SHA256 new protocol is Blake2b

1710

1711**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:32:02 UTC (9:32 PM CDT)

1712 On/After September 1st it'll be Blake2b

1713

1714**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 02:32:15 UTC (9:32 PM CDT)

1715 Oh ok

1716

1717**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 02:32:45 UTC (9:32 PM CDT)

1718 > in reply to @ciphernom: I turned off my bitaxe I don’t think it can do the blake2b thing

1719 https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1536792953815572630 for info

1720

1721**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:33:25 UTC (9:33 PM CDT) · (edited)

1722 Only way for a bitaxe to hash the new algo is if someone developes support for it + Blake2b Asic chips

1723 reactions: 👍 2

1724

1725**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:33:43 UTC (9:33 PM CDT)

1726 Good thing it's open source 😉

1727

1728**ioio** · 2026-08-12 02:34:15 UTC (9:34 PM CDT)

1729 > in reply to @Demonsbane: Good thing it's open source 😉

1730 Do it.

1731

1732**Demonsbane** · 2026-08-12 02:34:45 UTC (9:34 PM CDT) · (edited)

1733 That's beyond my knowledge. 💀

1734

1735 I wish man I do. Anyways should probably swap this over to <#1376602547418300549> or <#1536792759170498633> before we all get sniped for idle chatter.

1736

1737**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 02:48:29 UTC (9:48 PM CDT)

1738 > in reply to @ProductGuy: I highly request that we configure auto-payouts under TIDES to be directly in native Bitcoin-Blake2d, not Lightning with Bolt12 like Ocean. Simple is...

1739 Small UTXOs make high fees

1740

1741**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 02:48:50 UTC (9:48 PM CDT)

1742 > in reply to @ioio: What do you think about limiting the block size at 1MB

1743 I'd rather target 300k, but idk

1744 reactions: 👍 7

1745

1746**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 02:49:08 UTC (9:49 PM CDT)

1747 > in reply to @ciphernom: I turned off my bitaxe I don’t think it can do the blake2b thing

1748 But it can mine SHA2 until then

1749 reactions: 👍 6

1750

1751**loading** · 2026-08-12 02:51:17 UTC (9:51 PM CDT)

1752 Has anything been said about how the difficulty adjustment is being addressed ? Are we getting the difficulty adjustment of the current network ?

1753

1754**PprTwls** · 2026-08-12 02:56:57 UTC (9:56 PM CDT)

1755 > in reply to @loading: Has anything been said about how the difficulty adjustment is being addressed ? Are we getting the difficulty adjustment of the current network ?

1756 Probably figure it after the code is written and rough hashrate estimated

1757 reactions: 💯 1

1758

1759**ioio** · 2026-08-12 03:00:48 UTC (10:00 PM CDT)

1760 > in reply to @lukedashjr: I'd rather target 300k, but idk

1761 Why not?

1762

1763**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 03:11:24 UTC (10:11 PM CDT)

1764 it's impractical to adjust the segwit discount properly for it

1765

1766**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 03:11:31 UTC (10:11 PM CDT)

1767 at this time

1768

1769**SkyHawk** · 2026-08-12 03:23:00 UTC (10:23 PM CDT)

1770 > in reply to @lukedashjr: I'd rather target 300k, but idk

1771 This blocksize reduction is part of RDTS, right? We go back to 1MB when RDTS expires?

1772

1773**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 03:25:48 UTC (10:25 PM CDT)

1774 we're currently at 2-4 MB

1775

1776**SkyHawk** · 2026-08-12 03:29:22 UTC (10:29 PM CDT)

1777 I thought 1MB nominal, between 1-4MB with Segwit discount (And inscriptions hack cheating the shit in under segwit, so constant near-4MB blocks)

1778

1779**DrStarHeartsong** · 2026-08-12 03:30:48 UTC (10:30 PM CDT) · (edited)

1780 🥱 just waking up and trying to catch up. what's been decided? Blake2b on SIAcoin asics? no Lane 2 Cuckatoo for home miners right? Will there be a separate decentralized Prover Nodes layer to incentivize pleb nodes?

1781

1782**cguida** · 2026-08-12 03:37:21 UTC (10:37 PM CDT)

1783 > in reply to @DrStarHeartsong: 🥱 just waking up and trying to catch up. what's been decided? Blake2b on SIAcoin asics? no Lane 2 Cuckatoo for home miners right? Will there be a s...

1784 we already have lightning, should be easy enough to incentivize running pleb nodes if we target pleb merchants

1785

1786**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 03:38:02 UTC (10:38 PM CDT)

1787 nothing fundamental is changing...

1788 reactions: 💯 2 👍 4

1789

1790**DrStarHeartsong** · 2026-08-12 03:38:11 UTC (10:38 PM CDT) · (edited)

1791 > in reply to @cguida: we already have lightning, should be easy enough to incentivize running pleb nodes if we target pleb merchants

1792 ah ok, thanks. so, pleb incentive stays on L2 Lightning, got it. so main PoW change is brick the Skynet ASICs

1793

1794**cguida** · 2026-08-12 03:39:29 UTC (10:39 PM CDT)

1795 i mean letting plebs earn and spend self-custody, self-verified bitcoin directly at their shops seems like a good way to incentivize noderunning to me, there might be other ways but that seems like the obvious one to work on first

1796 reactions: 👍 4

1797

1798**DrStarHeartsong** · 2026-08-12 03:46:01 UTC (10:46 PM CDT)

1799 > in reply to @cguida: i mean letting plebs earn and spend self-custody, self-verified bitcoin directly at their shops seems like a good way to incentivize noderunning to me...

1800 so i ran a vlarge socioeconomic agent simulation on different PoW configs before i crashed out yesterday. I was hoping there would be an obvious winner to share, but alas, every path led to a paradox

1801 reactions: 🫠 1

1802

1803**satoshi** · 2026-08-12 03:58:33 UTC (10:58 PM CDT)

1804 verify coins you receive are real. is really the best incentive to run a node

1805

1806**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:05:37 UTC (11:05 PM CDT)

1807 This is a thought that kindof came out of <#1376605647822655550>. Hear me out before blasting.

1808 If tradfi and corecoin try to destroy us by dumping the fork on us. Would it be smart to buy up a pool and designate it for development? I can't see them not.

1809 Setup a multisig wallet dumped coins can be sent to to help the network fund itself. Public ledger keeps people honest.

1810 Big money capture really did core in.

1811 Obviously we would have to do the buying and donate. Likely pennies on the dollar as far as value goes over time.

1812 Don't touch it till value increases.

1813 Could also donate early mined results as there will be a limited number of starting miners.

1814

1815**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:06:58 UTC (11:06 PM CDT)

1816 Main point is the multisig wallet and verifiable usage for development.

1817

1818**JTown** · 2026-08-12 04:08:32 UTC (11:08 PM CDT)

1819 Id mine on a pool that donates a % to knots development. That way it's optional for us plebs.

1820

1821**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:08:49 UTC (11:08 PM CDT)

1822 > in reply to @JTown: Id mine on a pool that donates a % to knots development. That way it's optional for us plebs.

1823 Also a great idea!

1824 reactions: 💯 1

1825

1826**SkyHawk** · 2026-08-12 04:11:14 UTC (11:11 PM CDT)

1827 So long as that's an entirely voluntary thing I have no objections.

1828 reactions: 💯 1

1829

1830**JTown** · 2026-08-12 04:14:25 UTC (11:14 PM CDT)

1831 Random strategic ideas since we are hardforking.

1832

1833 Is there any way we can cap how large any single pool can get? 5 or 10% of blocks in a given adjustment period.

1834

1835 Is it a smart idea to consider getting rid of witness discount?

1836

1837 Just ideas, could be bad ones.

1838

1839**SkyHawk** · 2026-08-12 04:14:49 UTC (11:14 PM CDT) · (edited)

1840 Need to find a way to credibly manage that fund though - if it just gets robbed people are goin to be **pissed**.

1841 reactions: right 1

1842

1843**Red Panda** · 2026-08-12 04:15:24 UTC (11:15 PM CDT)

1844 > in reply to @cguida: i mean letting plebs earn and spend self-custody, self-verified bitcoin directly at their shops seems like a good way to incentivize noderunning to me...

1845 One thing I noticed in the past is how many gimmicks people try to come up with to create incentives to run a node to gimmicks to increase adoption. Really kind of misses the point of just earning and spending from self custody. People tried to make it too complex. Also, yall can buy my gold in exchange for bitcoin in runescape. Selling dragon med helm 10btc after Sept 1

1846 reactions: 🤣 1

1847

1848**Taki** · 2026-08-12 04:17:50 UTC (11:17 PM CDT)

1849 > in reply to @JTown: Random strategic ideas since we are hardforking.

1850 Well the way mining works is they just broadcast valid blocks...

1851

1852**Taki** · 2026-08-12 04:18:08 UTC (11:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

1853 The only way you can tell who mined it is if they tell you in the block data (there's a field for it iirc)

1854

1855**Taki** · 2026-08-12 04:18:13 UTC (11:18 PM CDT)

1856 But they could also just... not tell you

1857

1858**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:18:20 UTC (11:18 PM CDT) · (edited)

1859 > in reply to @JTown: Random strategic ideas since we are hardforking.

1860 Not sure that would be worth the effort long term. A large pool could make 10 sub pools. Also would obfuscate the size a pool actually is, make it harder to see a threat coming.

1861 We already know if they can be lazy and just have one pool they will.

1862 reactions: 👍 1

1863

1864**cguida** · 2026-08-12 04:20:07 UTC (11:20 PM CDT)

1865 > in reply to @Red Panda: One thing I noticed in the past is how many gimmicks people try to come up with to create incentives to run a node to gimmicks to increase adoption. ...

1866 seems like you're overcharging, but good luck

1867 reactions: 😂 1

1868

1869**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:20:39 UTC (11:20 PM CDT)

1870 > in reply to @SkyHawk: So long as that's an entirely voluntary thing I have no objections.

1871 I'm just thinking of the short term opportunity to create a fund when it goes live.

1872 Better to be ready with a plan that can be used.

1873

1874**JTown** · 2026-08-12 04:21:15 UTC (11:21 PM CDT)

1875 > in reply to @Taki: The only way you can tell who mined it is if they tell you in the block data (there's a field for it iirc)

1876 Great point

1877

1878**Flaming** · 2026-08-12 04:29:28 UTC (11:29 PM CDT)

1879 I think it would be ideal to not change anything but pow. It gives more credibility at launch. Any desirable changes can be introduced with the BIP process.

1880

1881**PprTwls** · 2026-08-12 04:36:32 UTC (11:36 PM CDT)

1882 > in reply to @Red Panda: One thing I noticed in the past is how many gimmicks people try to come up with to create incentives to run a node to gimmicks to increase adoption. ...

1883 Real Bitcoiners only play Vscape

1884 reactions: 💯 1

1885

1886**satoshi** · 2026-08-12 04:37:59 UTC (11:37 PM CDT)

1887 > in reply to @DarkRealms: This is a thought that kindof came out of <#1376605647822655550>. Hear me out before blasting.

1888 if they dump knots bitcoin coins, then cheaper coins for those that want them. so its a win win

1889 reactions: truth 1

1890

1891**oskar** · 2026-08-12 04:38:46 UTC (11:38 PM CDT)

1892 We had a vote and decided to continue on BIP110 chain. Starting from 0 was not an option and I dont think its a good option.

1893

1894**Red Panda** · 2026-08-12 04:41:34 UTC (11:41 PM CDT)

1895 > in reply to @satoshi: if they dump knots bitcoin coins, then cheaper coins for those that want them. so its a win win

1896 AI says both fidelity and blackrock's policy is to make the coins on the fork they decide is not bitcoin Irrevocable. Not sure if they'd actually follow their own policies

1897

1898**satoshi** · 2026-08-12 04:44:16 UTC (11:44 PM CDT)

1899 > in reply to @Red Panda: AI says both fidelity and blackrock's policy is to make the coins on the fork they decide is not bitcoin Irrevocable. Not sure if they'd actually fol...

1900 i think we shouldnt care too much about fidelity and blackrock. right now most important is to get blocks coming in. the market will sort itself out, bitcoin is money afterall. let the market decide

1901 reactions: 👍 2

1902

1903**Red Panda** · 2026-08-12 04:45:00 UTC (11:45 PM CDT)

1904 > in reply to @satoshi: i think we shouldnt care too much about fidelity and blackrock. right now most important is to get blocks coming in. the market will sort itself out, ...

1905 I was just mentioning it because you said they would dump our chain. According to their policies they wouldnt

1906

1907**Red Panda** · 2026-08-12 04:46:10 UTC (11:46 PM CDT)

1908 So there could be around maybe 3-5m bitcoin lost forever to the etf, fidelity, coinbase, etc.

1909

1910**JTown** · 2026-08-12 04:49:20 UTC (11:49 PM CDT)

1911 > in reply to @Red Panda: AI says both fidelity and blackrock's policy is to make the coins on the fork they decide is not bitcoin Irrevocable. Not sure if they'd actually fol...

1912 What do you mean by irrevocable?

1913

1914**Red Panda** · 2026-08-12 04:50:54 UTC (11:50 PM CDT)

1915 They will not allow them to be spent. They probably would intend to send them to a throwaway address. Not sure if they'd actually follow through with that or not

1916

1917**Blunderbus88** · 2026-08-12 04:51:46 UTC (11:51 PM CDT)

1918 hello all - I remain concerned that without a shared foundation, we'll eventually fracture again. I think we need something deeper than agreement about the hf — a unifying mission statement that can guide us through disagreements, even years from now.

1919 I have a few ideas, but I don't want this to be my statement. I'd like it to reflect the people who are actually choosing to build, run, mine, and preserve this network....If you have a few minutes, please take a look at my GitHub page and leave your edits, comments, or your story about why you're here and why you believe Bitcoin is worth preserving.

1920

1921 Once I have feedback I can spin up a website if thats helpful, just need the content to accurately and concisely reflect community sentiment...

1922

1923 https://github.com/blunderbus88/Bitcoin/blob/main/principles.md

1924

1925**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:55:13 UTC (11:55 PM CDT)

1926 > in reply to @Blunderbus88: hello all - I remain concerned that without a shared foundation, we'll eventually fracture again. I think we need something deeper than agreement ab...

1927 <#1377432400002551908> is supposed to be for coming up with ideas. I don't know if that is what you are looking for. I put the template of my points in there if that helps.

1928 reactions: 💯 2

1929

1930**Blunderbus88** · 2026-08-12 04:59:42 UTC (11:59 PM CDT)

1931 haha thank you

1932

1933**Blunderbus88** · 2026-08-12 04:59:58 UTC (11:59 PM CDT)

1934 I'm not intending to spam the channels

1935

1936**DarkRealms** · 2026-08-12 04:59:59 UTC (11:59 PM CDT)

1937 I deleted it, I see you posted 👍

1938

1939**Blunderbus88** · 2026-08-12 05:00:07 UTC (12:00 AM CDT)

1940 perfect, many thanks!

1941

1942**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-12 05:26:51 UTC (12:26 AM CDT)

1943 HF reduced data rules will be permanent right?

1944 reactions: 👍 1

1945

1946**AlexBtcRo** · 2026-08-12 05:35:07 UTC (12:35 AM CDT)

1947 Probably

1948 reactions: 💯 2

1949

1950**AlexBtcRo** · 2026-08-12 05:35:24 UTC (12:35 AM CDT)

1951 I don't see any reason we'd keep it temporary now that we're splitting

1952 reactions: 👍 1

1953

1954**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-12 05:38:25 UTC (12:38 AM CDT)

1955 **Mining problem:** one problem I can imagine at the beginning when launching the chain is that not many miners will be available/interested to mine, because the monetary incentive may not be there. It might be a good idea to have a hybrid that starts with CPU mining and phases away to GPU mining. For example, we have both RandomX and Blake2b, and each have their own difficulty. Each have a baseline for mining a block. The more Blake2b blocks are mined, the less RandomX blocks are accepted until they're phased out completely.

1956

1957 I know this might sound complicated and I know we don't have much time if we're planning to launch soon. But keep in mind that it's much worse if we don't have interested miners or have very low mining power that we end up with some 51% attack.

1958

1959 Just a wild idea to think about.

1960

1961**Flaming** · 2026-08-12 05:57:18 UTC (12:57 AM CDT)

1962 > in reply to @AlexBtcRo: I don't see any reason we'd keep it temporary now that we're splitting

1963 I think it's important for the same reason it was important before. It provides an opportunity to optimize for things that might not have known. It should be easier to get the next soft fork approved anyway

1964

1965**AlexBtcRo** · 2026-08-12 05:58:22 UTC (12:58 AM CDT)

1966 > in reply to @Flaming: I think it's important for the same reason it was important before. It provides an opportunity to optimize for things that might not have known. It sh...

1967 ah ok, so you're saying it will still be a temporary change?

1968

1969**AlexBtcRo** · 2026-08-12 05:59:03 UTC (12:59 AM CDT)

1970 Well, let's see the client that comes out for the hard fork

1971

1972**AlexBtcRo** · 2026-08-12 05:59:11 UTC (12:59 AM CDT)

1973 its code will tell us

1974

1975**Flaming** · 2026-08-12 05:59:16 UTC (12:59 AM CDT)

1976 Yes it's already activated so wouldn't want to make it permanent until the year is up. Then it can be tuned

1977

1978**AlexBtcRo** · 2026-08-12 05:59:18 UTC (12:59 AM CDT)

1979 Right now the RDTS nodes are temporary.

1980

1981**Flaming** · 2026-08-12 06:00:31 UTC (1:00 AM CDT)

1982 Yes I think it makes sense to have something permanent shortly after it expires

1983

1984**0300dbdd1b** · 2026-08-12 07:29:10 UTC (2:29 AM CDT)

1985 > in reply to @0300dbdd1b: > Everyone was watching Blockchain.

1986

1987

1988**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 07:39:10 UTC (2:39 AM CDT)

1989 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: **Mining problem:** one problem I can imagine at the beginning when launching the chain is that not many miners will be available/interested to mine, ...

1990 Miners will come no problem

1991

1992 Just need to be strict with checkpoints to prevent deep reorg etc

1993 reactions: 💯 1

1994

1995**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-12 07:40:14 UTC (2:40 AM CDT)

1996 > in reply to @ciphernom: Miners will come no problem

1997 What's our checkpoints plan?

1998

1999**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 07:40:39 UTC (2:40 AM CDT)

2000 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: What's our checkpoints plan?

2001 No idea I just joined

2002

2003**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-12 07:41:19 UTC (2:41 AM CDT)

2004 From a principle point of view, I know many maxis hate the idea of checkpoints because it kinda goes against some purity principles. But who knows what Luke is thinking there.

2005 reactions: ✅ 1

2006

2007**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 07:41:30 UTC (2:41 AM CDT)

2008 > in reply to @Shrumseal🍄: HF reduced data rules will be permanent right?

2009 We probably set it for 2 years or a year. It will stay temporary.

2010 reactions: ✅ 1

2011

2012**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 07:41:42 UTC (2:41 AM CDT)

2013 I think if u don’t do it u get cooked

2014

2015**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-12 07:41:53 UTC (2:41 AM CDT)

2016 > in reply to @zBTCowany 🇵🇱: We probably set it for 2 years or a year. It will stay temporary.

2017 A year doesn't solve 51% attack problems.

2018 reactions: ❓ 2

2019

2020**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 07:42:22 UTC (2:42 AM CDT)

2021 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: A year doesn't solve 51% attack problems.

2022 I’m talking about RDTS.

2023

2024**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-12 07:42:36 UTC (2:42 AM CDT)

2025 > in reply to @zBTCowany 🇵🇱: We probably set it for 2 years or a year. It will stay temporary.

2026

2027 reactions: 🤣 1

2028

2029**TheQuantumPhysicist** · 2026-08-12 07:42:41 UTC (2:42 AM CDT)

2030 > in reply to @zBTCowany 🇵🇱: I’m talking about RDTS.

2031 Doesn't matter what blockchain. Attackers can reorg the chain to scam exchanges.

2032

2033**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 07:42:46 UTC (2:42 AM CDT)

2034 Deep (legal) reorgs are a bigger problem than double spend attempts tbh

2035 reactions: 💯 1

2036

2037**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 07:43:21 UTC (2:43 AM CDT)

2038 > in reply to @TheQuantumPhysicist: Doesn't matter what blockchain. Attackers can reorg the chain to scam exchanges.

2039 It’s a separate topic. Whatever.

2040

2041**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 07:44:22 UTC (2:44 AM CDT)

2042 > in reply to @Shrumseal🍄:

2043 It’s not because we don’t want it. It is as I understood potentially blocking development of other features but that is less important.

2044 Changes to Bitcoin even when they are small can be unpredictable in co sequences. If we pull it off and then want to change - we would have to do a Hardfork.

2045

2046**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-12 07:44:48 UTC (2:44 AM CDT)

2047 > in reply to @zBTCowany 🇵🇱: It’s not because we don’t want it. It is as I understood potentially blocking development of other features but that is less important.

2048 But we would have to fork again to make them permanent

2049

2050**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 07:45:26 UTC (2:45 AM CDT)

2051 > in reply to @Shrumseal🍄: But we would have to fork again to make them permanent

2052 Not a big problem. Softforks are not that disruptive. Well unless miners are co-opted 😉

2053 reactions: 👍 3

2054

2055**Shrumseal🍄** · 2026-08-12 07:45:33 UTC (2:45 AM CDT)

2056 83 byte op return at consensus for example. Will that be permanent?

2057

2058**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 07:46:25 UTC (2:46 AM CDT)

2059 > in reply to @Shrumseal🍄: 83 byte op return at consensus for example. Will that be permanent?

2060 I don’t think this is a decision we should take now. First we have to evaluate impact of such change.

2061 reactions: 👍 2

2062

2063**ciphernom** · 2026-08-12 08:01:06 UTC (3:01 AM CDT) · (edited)

2064 so I've been thinking about node runner cost, and specifically the part that never goes away

2065

2066 every node stores every unspent output so it can check your coin exists when you spend it. and the entries that never leave that set are the ones nobody will ever spend — that's exactly why they're still there. fake-key outputs, dust, abandoned junk. permanent, on every disk.

2067

2068 since we're changing consensus anyway: what if nodes kept one hash committing to the whole set, and the spender brought a proof their coin is in it?

2069

2070 then junk nobody spends costs everyone nothing, because nobody's carrying a proof for it. real coins get spent, so their owners carry the weight. nothing leaves history, validation from genesis is unchanged.

2071

2072 tradeoff is real — wallets have to keep their proofs current, and seed-only recovery needs an archival node to rescan.

2073

2074**oskar** · 2026-08-12 08:08:19 UTC (3:08 AM CDT)

2075 I think first dev gets the chain moving, then we can do cleanups and improvements

2076 reactions: 💯 1

2077

2078**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 08:12:20 UTC (3:12 AM CDT)

2079 > in reply to @Shrumseal🍄: HF reduced data rules will be permanent right?

2080 temp last i heard. they were talking about making it 2 years tho. permanent rdts is actually not a good idea.

2081

2082**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 11:25:33 UTC (6:25 AM CDT)

2083 > in reply to @SSL: I think node is doing heavy io disk and not cpu intensive

2084 Its adviced against in general, but if you know better and you know what you are doing - go for it.

2085 reactions: 👍 2

2086

2087**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 11:26:46 UTC (6:26 AM CDT)

2088 You need 2TB, I’ve never run pruned node but I believe it limits your capability to explore blockchain and perform transactions. So be careful.

2089

2090**Straunge** · 2026-08-12 11:28:39 UTC (6:28 AM CDT)

2091 Yeah SSD prices are killing me right now

2092

2093**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 11:29:03 UTC (6:29 AM CDT)

2094 all of this is kindof a conversation for <#1376602547418300549> channel

2095 reactions: 👍 5

2096

2097**Veganic 🌱** · 2026-08-12 11:47:48 UTC (6:47 AM CDT)

2098 https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1537060749917167696 I was advised to post this here. What's the general feeling about this?

2099 reactions: 🤦 1

2100

2101**Veganic 🌱** · 2026-08-12 12:34:36 UTC (7:34 AM CDT)

2102 <@241696301048266753> what's wrong?

2103

2104**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:44:32 UTC (7:44 AM CDT)

2105 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1537060749917167696 I was advised to post this here. What's the general feeling a...

2106 > I'm skeptical that Datum alone will prevent miner centralization, unless it's mandatory. Do we know if this is the case?

2107 I don't think using Datum will be mandatory, I haven't heard that proposed anywhere, it's just a general best practice being advised going forward. Miners can join centralized pools if they want, but since they are starting from scratch (buying new Blake2b miners) it's likely they'd join a decentralized pools from the beginning.

2108

2109 I foresee this counter-argument, so I will respond to it ahead of time:

2110

2111 "So what prevents miner centralization again?"

2112 In theory, it's possible, but we have now established we will hard fork if they weaponize their power against the interests of the community. If we hard fork their ASICs once again will become worthless, thus even if it becomes centralized (which is unlikely) we always loom this terrifying threat over them that their ASIC investments will go to zero. Thus, they will comply going forward. And, we have proven that we AREN'T bluffing, so they will take those threats serious going forward.

2113 reactions: 👍 4

2114

2115**samuellbronko** · 2026-08-12 12:48:00 UTC (7:48 AM CDT)

2116 > in reply to @krptck: > I'm skeptical that Datum alone will prevent miner centralization, unless it's mandatory. Do we know if this is the case?

2117I don't think using Datum ...

2118 Once all their ASICs become obsolete, they will come after the hard fork. They will be angry and vengeful, we are dealing with the mining big 5 who have invested a lot...

2119

2120**John** · 2026-08-12 12:48:19 UTC (7:48 AM CDT)

2121 Literally already went through this but they want to keep pushing https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1537042765001531442

2122

2123**samuellbronko** · 2026-08-12 12:49:34 UTC (7:49 AM CDT)

2124 or they ignore like they did with BIP 110 activation and pretend it doesnt exist, keep mining on old chain

2125 reactions: 💯 1

2126

2127**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:49:47 UTC (7:49 AM CDT)

2128 > in reply to @samuellbronko: or they ignore like they did with BIP 110 activation and pretend it doesnt exist, keep mining on old chain

2129 And remind me what we will do if they do that again?

2130 reactions: 👍 1

2131

2132**Zigi** · 2026-08-12 12:49:56 UTC (7:49 AM CDT)

2133 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1537060749917167696 I was advised to post this here. What's the general feeling a...

2134 Changing the hash doesn’t prevent centralization. As long as mining is profitable, there will be economic pressure toward concentration, especially when scale lowers costs. No algorithm can prevent that.

2135

2136 That being said, you can encourage decentralization and implement rules where concentrated mining power has less control.

2137 reactions: 👍 1

2138

2139**samuellbronko** · 2026-08-12 12:50:13 UTC (7:50 AM CDT)

2140 > in reply to @krptck: And remind me what we will do if they do that again?

2141 reject their blocks?

2142

2143**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:50:26 UTC (7:50 AM CDT)

2144 > in reply to @samuellbronko: reject their blocks?

2145 We'd obviously hard fork them just like we're doing that right now.

2146 reactions: 👍 2

2147

2148**samuellbronko** · 2026-08-12 12:50:45 UTC (7:50 AM CDT)

2149 fa sure. that seems inevitable at this point

2150

2151**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:50:46 UTC (7:50 AM CDT)

2152 The formula is simple: hostile miner = hard fork.

2153

2154**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:51:31 UTC (7:51 AM CDT)

2155 Miners only don't comply if they think we're bluffing / won't be a dominant fork (like bcash) - but if those premises are false; we are serious, and we pose a legit threat to the main chain, they are forced to take our threat seriously.

2156

2157**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 12:52:33 UTC (7:52 AM CDT)

2158 > in reply to @krptck: We'd obviously hard fork them just like we're doing that right now.

2159 We can do it over and over and over again.

2160

2161**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:52:55 UTC (7:52 AM CDT)

2162 > in reply to @zBTCowany 🇵🇱: We can do it over and over and over again.

2163 Exactly, that's why I don't understand how people keep saying 'BUT what if miners do it again?"

2164 reactions: 👍 2

2165

2166**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 12:53:43 UTC (7:53 AM CDT) · (edited)

2167 > in reply to @krptck: Exactly, that's why I don't understand how people keep saying 'BUT what if miners do it again?"

2168 Of course it would be better to do something else, but we don’t have any solution now.

2169

2170**Veganic 🌱** · 2026-08-12 12:54:02 UTC (7:54 AM CDT)

2171 Hard forking as a strategy to deter mining centralization is incredibly disruptive and not something the general public will understand or stand behind. That's why I think this conversation is important because we shouldn't just see it from the engineering point of view, but the public's use case as well. Monero for example changed to RandomX to force CPU mining. I know this is not perfect as it's open to cloud mining attacks. But we must be thinking along these lines if we want Bitcoin to survive long term and not hard fork every 10 years. Remember each hard fork splits the community. It's like undoing years of progress. That's not stable enough for a long term investment.

2172

2173**John** · 2026-08-12 12:54:17 UTC (7:54 AM CDT)

2174 General public doesn't mine

2175 reactions: 👍 1

2176

2177**zBTCowany 🇵🇱** · 2026-08-12 12:54:36 UTC (7:54 AM CDT) · (edited)

2178 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: Hard forking as a strategy to deter mining centralization is incredibly disruptive and not something the general public will understand or stand behin...

2179 General public doesn’t have to know, they are not mining anyways.

2180 reactions: 👍 1

2181

2182**Veganic 🌱** · 2026-08-12 12:55:11 UTC (7:55 AM CDT)

2183 > in reply to @zBTCowany 🇵🇱: General public doesn’t have to know, they are not mining anyways.

2184 They will know when they're told there are now two coins to choose from and they don't understand why or which to choose.

2185

2186**John** · 2026-08-12 12:55:45 UTC (7:55 AM CDT)

2187 I don't hear anyone asking Bcashers to come back, not sure why splitting away from bad actors is a bad thing

2188 reactions: 💯 1

2189

2190**Zigi** · 2026-08-12 12:56:40 UTC (7:56 AM CDT)

2191 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: Hard forking as a strategy to deter mining centralization is incredibly disruptive and not something the general public will understand or stand behin...

2192 Monero also has concentration issues.

2193 reactions: 💯 1 👀 1

2194

2195**John** · 2026-08-12 12:57:26 UTC (7:57 AM CDT)

2196 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: They will know when they're told there are now two coins to choose from and they don't understand why or which to choose.

2197 They might get burnt buying whatever their exchange supports. But exchanges should learn from this as well.

2198

2199**krptck** · 2026-08-12 12:57:26 UTC (7:57 AM CDT)

2200 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: Hard forking as a strategy to deter mining centralization is incredibly disruptive and not something the general public will understand or stand behin...

2201 You make the subtle implication we hard fork frequently, which we don't.

2202

2203 It's a threat we loom over if they go against us. It is used sparingly when network threatening stakes are at play. You make it sound like miners would oppose every BIP going forward they know we will hard fork them, that's not how this works. First of all, they don't want their ASICs to be worthless, and second we don't hard fork over menial matters. But if a critical issue comes up, and they refuse it, then they comply or get bricked.

2204 reactions: 👍 1

2205

2206**Veganic 🌱** · 2026-08-12 12:57:39 UTC (7:57 AM CDT)

2207 > in reply to @Zigi: Monero also has concentration issues.

2208 100% I'm not advocating that we follow Monero's example, just that we think long and hard about a strategy to stop long term mining centralization.

2209

2210**John** · 2026-08-12 12:58:31 UTC (7:58 AM CDT)

2211 For you to keep repeating this does not count as thinking long and hard

2212 reactions: 💯 1

2213

2214**Zaelus** · 2026-08-12 12:59:07 UTC (7:59 AM CDT)

2215 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: 100% I'm not advocating that we follow Monero's example, just that we think long and hard about a strategy to stop long term mining centralization.

2216 Any proposals you've come up with?

2217

2218**Zaelus** · 2026-08-12 12:59:42 UTC (7:59 AM CDT)

2219 Because there's been dozens and dozens of people coming in here over the last 4 days saying "hard forking is dangerous this is too fast we need to think about this" while also not proposing a single solution of their own.

2220

2221**John** · 2026-08-12 12:59:44 UTC (7:59 AM CDT)

2222 First thing is first, as already said https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1537043055054684180

2223

2224**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:00:09 UTC (8:00 AM CDT) · (edited)

2225 > in reply to @Veganic 🌱: 100% I'm not advocating that we follow Monero's example, just that we think long and hard about a strategy to stop long term mining centralization.

2226 We have already solved it. Miners will likely be using Datum via Ocean going forward. So the pools no longer vote on behalf of all miners, but instead miners represent themselves.

2227

2228 And I already explained if mining centralizes again and what will happen if they weaponize it against us. We're going in circles.

2229 reactions: ☝️ 1

2230

2231**John** · 2026-08-12 13:00:45 UTC (8:00 AM CDT)

2232 And repeating it over and over should put you in time out. Your point was already made. https://discord.com/channels/1376602546545754244/1536792759170498633/1537060936639324301

2233

2234**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:01:20 UTC (8:01 AM CDT)

2235 Also I expect more servers besides Ocean that use the Datum protcol to spring up as our chain becomes recognized, to even further decentralize it

2236

2237**Veganic 🌱** · 2026-08-12 13:04:42 UTC (8:04 AM CDT)

2238 Way to encourage discussion guys. I'm done here.

2239 reactions: 🥺 1

2240

2241**John** · 2026-08-12 13:09:48 UTC (8:09 AM CDT)

2242 I thought we don't like spam?

2243

2244**John** · 2026-08-12 13:10:21 UTC (8:10 AM CDT)

2245 Be done. You made your point.

2246

2247**thomasdias** · 2026-08-12 13:16:14 UTC (8:16 AM CDT)

2248 Do we fix mining centralisation yes or no or complicated ?

2249

2250**BLDR** · 2026-08-12 13:17:12 UTC (8:17 AM CDT)

2251 if the miners can exercise a modicum of rationality, they would use DATUM. thats all we can rely on to prevent another hardfork.

2252

2253**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:18:05 UTC (8:18 AM CDT)

2254 roughnecks is now in perfect position for 51% attack no?

2255

2256**Bubble** · 2026-08-12 13:18:28 UTC (8:18 AM CDT) · (edited)

2257 The precedent of a successful pow hard fork should be a sufficient deterrent for a while

2258 reactions: 💯 2

2259

2260**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:25:18 UTC (8:25 AM CDT)

2261 > in reply to @dingdong: roughnecks is now in perfect position for 51% attack no?

2262 Even if that were true, a 51% attack still requires the miner to broadcast valid blocks that adhere to consesus rules.

2263

2264 Thus, he'd only be able to:

2265 1. submit empty blocks

2266 2. censor transactions of people he doesn't like.

2267

2268 If he had either of those goals he could... just not mine to begin with.

2269 Which makes the motivation behind performing a 51% attack pointless.

2270

2271 And post blake2b transition he will have to rebuild his mining fleet like the rest of the miners, so nobody has a massive lead in terms of network hashrate.

2272 reactions: 👍 2

2273

2274**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:26:58 UTC (8:26 AM CDT)

2275 > If he had either of those goals he could... just not mine to begin with.

2276 To clarify: i say this because, if the chain is stalled and he's the only one pushing it forward, then by not mining it would remain stalled.

2277 So if he wanted to stall it via 51% attacking it just don't mine anything.

2278

2279**ProductGuy** · 2026-08-12 13:26:59 UTC (8:26 AM CDT)

2280 > in reply to @Straunge: Yeah SSD prices are killing me right now

2281 <@619231623178878996> <@329650392591761408> budget combo: old 2+ core laptop or other with 8GB RAM, 128-512 TB SSD, and a $150 2TB HDD (external over USB3.x or USBC is fine). The only thing than needs to be fast is the UTXO set stored in "Chainstate" directory, which is only 12GB can be left on the internal SSD. Move Blocksdir in bitcoin.conf to your external HDD name, currently ~800GB for me on Win11. I've been running Knots successfully that way for several months. And you can copy the blocksdir to a new 2TB drive, and not have to do IBD. Chainstate can load from it and be indexed.

2282 reactions: 👍 1 ☝️ 1

2283

2284**John** · 2026-08-12 13:27:19 UTC (8:27 AM CDT)

2285 Does the current difficulty prevent roughnecks ability to 51% attack at this current moment in time?

2286

2287**samuellbronko** · 2026-08-12 13:28:26 UTC (8:28 AM CDT)

2288 > in reply to @John: Does the current difficulty prevent roughnecks ability to 51% attack at this current moment in time?

2289 question just asked

2290

2291**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:29:15 UTC (8:29 AM CDT)

2292 > in reply to @John: Does the current difficulty prevent roughnecks ability to 51% attack at this current moment in time?

2293 no. but they wont.

2294 reactions: 🙏 1

2295

2296**ProductGuy** · 2026-08-12 13:29:15 UTC (8:29 AM CDT)

2297 I'd look at Roughnecks as an ally on 110, not as someone trying to run off with the chain for bad purposes. THey are doing everyone a service who wants to submit 110-compliant transactions.

2298 reactions: 💯 2

2299

2300**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:29:45 UTC (8:29 AM CDT)

2301 > in reply to @John: Does the current difficulty prevent roughnecks ability to 51% attack at this current moment in time?

2302 At bip110 hashrate peak it was ~37EH/s. When everyone gave up, including Roughnecks he stopped mining it went down to 1EH/s and he started mining again it's at like 7EH/s, so my guess is probably yes. Just because that's the case doesn't necessarily mean he's attacking it tho.

2303 reactions: 👍🏻 1

2304

2305**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:29:48 UTC (8:29 AM CDT)

2306 and if they did we are already hardforking so we would just roll it back to the block before they attacked.

2307

2308**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:30:05 UTC (8:30 AM CDT)

2309 > in reply to @krptck: At bip110 hashrate peak it was ~37EH/s. When everyone gave up, including Roughnecks he stopped mining it went down to 1EH/s and he started mining aga...

2310 Hashrate source is based on this site tracking bip110 hashrate

2311 https://bip110.ocean.xyz/dashboard

2312

2313**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:30:30 UTC (8:30 AM CDT)

2314 there is less risk of roughnecks 51% attacking or doublespending than there is for the pools in bitcoinsha to do that right now.

2315 reactions: 👍🏻 1

2316

2317**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:30:47 UTC (8:30 AM CDT)

2318 because their capacity to get away with it is completely nonexistant.

2319

2320**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:31:09 UTC (8:31 AM CDT)

2321 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: there is less risk of roughnecks 51% attacking or doublespending than there is for the pools in bitcoinsha to do that right now.

2322 Well if he doublespent nodes would reject it, unless your saying it'd be a reorg attack

2323

2324**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:31:29 UTC (8:31 AM CDT)

2325 > in reply to @krptck: Well if he doublespent nodes would reject it, unless your saying it'd be a reorg attack

2326 no it would be nothing because we are about to pick which block to start the hardfork from.

2327

2328**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:31:41 UTC (8:31 AM CDT)

2329 they literally cant even think about doing it.

2330

2331**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:31:46 UTC (8:31 AM CDT)

2332 I'm talking on a purely consensus level, yes we can hardfork and do anything we want

2333

2334**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:32:05 UTC (8:32 AM CDT)

2335 purely consensus they can do whatever they want right now unless a bigger miner comes in and stops them.

2336

2337**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:32:15 UTC (8:32 AM CDT)

2338 but effectively they can only do things within the rules.

2339

2340**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:32:37 UTC (8:32 AM CDT)

2341 they still can only do things our nodes determine to be valid tho.

2342

2343**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:33:06 UTC (8:33 AM CDT)

2344 Yeah that's why I'm saying for him to doublespend he has to perform the attack as a reorg attack, he can't just blindly broadcast 2 conflicting spend transactions and expect nodes to accept it. He would have to spend it, restart mining from a pervious point get that chain longer ot invalidate his spend.

2345 reactions: 💡 1

2346

2347**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:33:13 UTC (8:33 AM CDT)

2348 we are in a unique situation where the possibility of attacking us is actually 0.

2349

2350**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:34:25 UTC (8:34 AM CDT)

2351 I agree, but I think the intent of his question was asking more about the theoretical possibility we all know we can undo any attack since we're hard forking anyways

2352 reactions: 👍 1

2353

2354**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:34:53 UTC (8:34 AM CDT)

2355 any attack they would do would realistically require more regular blocks and custodians on the network.

2356

2357**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:35:18 UTC (8:35 AM CDT)

2358 since we have neither, the type of attack you do with a 51% doesnt do anything at the moment.

2359

2360**krptck** · 2026-08-12 13:35:26 UTC (8:35 AM CDT)

2361 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: any attack they would do would realistically require more regular blocks and custodians on the network.

2362 Yeah which is an even further reason to eliminate motivation too, he couldn't cash out any of his double spent coins

2363

2364**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:35:44 UTC (8:35 AM CDT)

2365 yea.

2366

2367**John** · 2026-08-12 13:36:03 UTC (8:36 AM CDT)

2368 Interesting. Thanks for discussion.

2369 reactions: 👍 1

2370

2371**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:36:35 UTC (8:36 AM CDT)

2372 the way that kind of attack would happen is they would reorg their own block to reverse a transaction that they already liquidated at a custodian.

2373 reactions: 💯 1

2374

2375**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:37:11 UTC (8:37 AM CDT)

2376 they cant really perform any invalid transactions because our nodes would say block is junk.

2377

2378**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:41:07 UTC (8:41 AM CDT)

2379 > in reply to @krptck: Even if that were true, a 51% attack still requires the miner to broadcast valid blocks that adhere to consesus rules.

2380

2381Thus, he'd only be able to:

23821....

2383 Ty for that explanation

2384 reactions: 🧡 1

2385

2386**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:41:10 UTC (8:41 AM CDT)

2387 if you wanted to know what it looks like when we get 51% attacked the easier way would be to look at the 51% attack that is currently happening right now with all of the invalid blocks. they could do all the doublespending they want in those blocks then move the hash over to bip110 chain and pass up the leading block.

2388

2389**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:41:31 UTC (8:41 AM CDT)

2390 they have hundreds of doublespend capable blocks built right now.

2391

2392**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:41:53 UTC (8:41 AM CDT)

2393 > in reply to @ProductGuy: I'd look at Roughnecks as an ally on 110, not as someone trying to run off with the chain for bad purposes. THey are doing everyone a service who wan...

2394 Yeah ofc but theres always the chance man

2395

2396**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:42:01 UTC (8:42 AM CDT)

2397 since they did not ursf they can switch at any time and reverse all the transactions made since the bip rule activated.

2398

2399**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:42:38 UTC (8:42 AM CDT)

2400 right now the only significant miner not actively engaging in a 51% attack is roughnecks.

2401

2402**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:44:03 UTC (8:44 AM CDT)

2403 we have a longstanding hardfork on the network without reorg protection which is pretty much the definition of the creation of a 51% attack.

2404

2405**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:45:08 UTC (8:45 AM CDT)

2406 > in reply to @FlyTheElephant: the way that kind of attack would happen is they would reorg their own block to reverse a transaction that they already liquidated at a custodian.

2407 Ohhhhh yeah ofc, makes sense I was trying to look into how you would exactly pull it of

2408

2409**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:45:20 UTC (8:45 AM CDT)

2410 they doing it right now.

2411

2412**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:46:10 UTC (8:46 AM CDT)

2413 if there was a signifcant presence of ursf nodes, then that other chain could be considered valid on that subset of nodes which would be redundant enough to carry that version of history forwards.

2414

2415**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:46:53 UTC (8:46 AM CDT) · (edited)

2416 since no significant presence, it is very hard to call that chaintip valid in any since as they can easily reorg it if they decide to.

2417

2418**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:47:13 UTC (8:47 AM CDT)

2419 Haha imagine that happened

2420

2421**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:47:25 UTC (8:47 AM CDT)

2422 Would be crazy

2423

2424**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:47:29 UTC (8:47 AM CDT)

2425 it almost happened we were one block away.

2426

2427**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:47:30 UTC (8:47 AM CDT)

2428 Good im shorting

2429

2430**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:48:41 UTC (8:48 AM CDT)

2431 the whole idea of mining on an active hardfork without reorg protection is the most absurd and dangerous thing that has ever happened. the fact that they all act like this is normal is pretty wild to me.

2432

2433**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:49:39 UTC (8:49 AM CDT)

2434 even wilder is that the exchanges have not halted withdrawals.

2435

2436**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:49:59 UTC (8:49 AM CDT)

2437 Yeah I dont understand either

2438

2439**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:50:10 UTC (8:50 AM CDT)

2440 But ig they are probably colluding too

2441

2442**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:50:31 UTC (8:50 AM CDT)

2443 yea have to be or they would absolutely not be willing to leave the doors open.

2444

2445**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:51:01 UTC (8:51 AM CDT)

2446 schroedinger's bitcoin is currently happening. it exists unless they change their mind.

2447

2448**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:51:20 UTC (8:51 AM CDT) · (edited)

2449 if they decide they no longer hate bip110 they wipe out all of those transactions.

2450

2451**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:52:08 UTC (8:52 AM CDT)

2452 how would a ursf prevent this tho thats another thing I don't get

2453

2454**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:52:22 UTC (8:52 AM CDT)

2455 > in reply to @dingdong: how would a ursf prevent this tho thats another thing I don't get

2456 it would create a node network that has reorg protection.

2457

2458**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:52:40 UTC (8:52 AM CDT)

2459 which could continue accepting blocks that are currently invalid and would prevent accepting the blocks we have as valid.

2460

2461**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:54:47 UTC (8:54 AM CDT)

2462 I see

2463

2464**FlyTheElephant** · 2026-08-12 13:56:00 UTC (8:56 AM CDT)

2465 network in its current state if miners decide to mine our chaintip past the other chaintip, will unwind all transactions that their chain made after the UASF on the whole network.

2466

2467**dingdong** · 2026-08-12 13:56:02 UTC (8:56 AM CDT)

2468 but the miners could still just switch to uasf chain right?

2469

2470---

2471

2472## Channel: #upcoming-hardfork

2473*48 messages · 2026-08-09 20:21:31 UTC -> 2026-08-12 11:15:30 UTC · guild: Bitcoin Knots*

2474

2475**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:21:31 UTC (3:21 PM CDT)

2476 CPU/GPU would be dominated by botnets and cloud attackers. ASIC-only is probably the only sane

2477 route.

2478

2479**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:21:31 UTC (3:21 PM CDT)

2480 CPU/GPU would be dominated by botnets and cloud attackers. ASIC-only is probably the only sane route.

2481 reactions: 👍 30 💯 4

2482

2483**heythere** · 2026-08-09 20:22:17 UTC (3:22 PM CDT)

2484 Devil's advocate: letting everyone know the early days of mining your own coins is a great

2485 incentive

2486

2487**heythere** · 2026-08-09 20:22:17 UTC (3:22 PM CDT)

2488 Devil's advocate: letting everyone know the early days of mining your own coins is a great incentive

2489 reactions: 👍 2

2490

2491**krptck** · 2026-08-09 20:22:49 UTC (3:22 PM CDT)

2492 > in reply to @heythere: Devil's advocate: letting everyone know the early days of mining your own coins is a great incentive

2493 Even with an asic friendly algo early days is minable by laymen until ASICs get online

2494 reactions: 👍 3

2495

2496**helloo** · 2026-08-09 20:23:09 UTC (3:23 PM CDT)

2497 Sure, the existing miners can join in as well

2498 reactions: 💯 1

2499

2500**krptck** · 2026-08-09 20:23:18 UTC (3:23 PM CDT)

2501 > in reply to krptck: Even with an asic friendly algo early days is minable by laymen until ASICs get online

2502 Albeit, it's a small window but it still is there

2503

2504**krptck** · 2026-08-09 20:23:18 UTC (3:23 PM CDT)

2505 > in reply to @krptck: Even with an asic friendly algo early days is minable by laymen until ASICs get online

2506 Albeit, it's a small window but it still is there

2507

2508**helloo** · 2026-08-09 20:25:41 UTC (3:25 PM CDT)

2509 Some of these things just have to play out in real life, not just in theory. If really bad

2510 data gets into the blocks, Knots users have to be ready for a real chain split excluding

2511 poisoned blocks. This has to be planned in advance including difficulty adjustment or pow

2512 change.

2513

2514**helloo** · 2026-08-09 20:25:41 UTC (3:25 PM CDT)

2515 Some of these things just have to play out in real life, not just in theory. If really bad data gets into the blocks, Knots users have to be ready for a real chain split excluding poisoned blocks. This has to be planned in advance including difficulty adjustment or pow change.

2516

2517**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 20:26:39 UTC (3:26 PM CDT)

2518 Picking an algo that already has an ASIC I presume then, good we can skip the FPGA prototyping

2519 reactions: 💯 1

2520

2521**helloo** · 2026-08-09 20:35:05 UTC (3:35 PM CDT)

2522 Quick difficulty adjustment after a chain split is important, like an adjustment after 3

2523 blocks, then again after 10, 20, 50 all the way to 2016. We got stuck here because there was

2524 no quick adjustment. We may have to guess the new difficulty for the first period, better a

2525 bit lower so that new blocks come in faster.

2526 reactions: ⬆️ 3 👍 1

2527

2528**helloo** · 2026-08-09 20:35:05 UTC (3:35 PM CDT)

2529 Quick difficulty adjustment after a chain split is important, like an adjustment after 3 blocks, then again after 10, 20, 50 all the way to 2016. We got stuck here because there was no quick adjustment. We may have to guess the new difficulty for the first period, better a bit lower so that new blocks come in faster.

2530 reactions: ⬆️ 3 👍 2

2531

2532**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:45:37 UTC (3:45 PM CDT)

2533 "Our goal is not ASIC resistance or keeping CPUs/GPUs competitive. It is a PoW that: Is secure

2534 on day one, with enough usable and independently controlled hashpower to avoid an easy 51%

2535 attack. , Does not let the first new ASIC manufacturer dominate merely by arriving first. ,

2536 Produces a mature ASIC market where new independent manufacturers can still compete after

2537 years of optimization—without secret ASICBoost-like tricks, entrenched architecture knowledge,

2538 proprietary interfaces, or exclusive access to exotic manufacturing. , Uses a conservative,

2539 well-understood cryptographic construction with low risk of either functional breaks or hidden

2540 efficiency shortcuts. , Allows invalid blocks to be rejected quickly and with tightly bounded

2541 CPU and memory cost. , Uses existing ASIC fleets where useful, but does not choose an

2542 algorithm merely because it has the largest fleet. , Keeps consensus clean, with legacy miner

2543 and Stratum compatibility handled through adapters rather than contaminating the semantic

2544 block design." ,

2545 reactions: 👍🏽 12 👍 1 👍 7 💯 3 ☝️ 1 🔥 2

2546

2547**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:45:37 UTC (3:45 PM CDT)

2548 "Our goal is not ASIC resistance or keeping CPUs/GPUs competitive. It is a PoW that:

2549 Is secure on day one, with enough usable and independently controlled hashpower to avoid an easy 51% attack.Does not let the first new ASIC manufacturer dominate merely by arriving first.Produces a mature ASIC market where new independent manufacturers can still compete after years of optimization—without secret ASICBoost-like tricks, entrenched architecture knowledge, proprietary interfaces, or exclusive access to exotic manufacturing.Uses a conservative, well-understood cryptographic construction with low risk of either functional breaks or hidden efficiency shortcuts.Allows invalid blocks to be rejected quickly and with tightly bounded CPU and memory cost.Uses existing ASIC fleets where useful, but does not choose an algorithm merely because it has the largest fleet.Keeps consensus clean, with legacy miner and Stratum compatibility handled through adapters rather than contaminating the semantic block design."

2550 reactions: 👍🏽 12 👍 1 👍 7 💯 3 ☝️ 1 🔥 2

2551

2552**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:45:37 UTC (3:45 PM CDT)

2553 "Our goal is not ASIC resistance or keeping CPUs/GPUs competitive. It is a PoW that:

2554 * Is secure on day one, with enough usable and independently controlled hashpower to avoid an easy 51% attack.

2555 * Does not let the first new ASIC manufacturer dominate merely by arriving first.

2556 * Produces a mature ASIC market where new independent manufacturers can still compete after years of optimization—without secret ASICBoost-like tricks, entrenched architecture knowledge, proprietary interfaces, or exclusive access to exotic manufacturing.

2557 * Uses a conservative, well-understood cryptographic construction with low risk of either functional breaks or hidden efficiency shortcuts.

2558 * Allows invalid blocks to be rejected quickly and with tightly bounded CPU and memory cost.

2559 * Uses existing ASIC fleets where useful, but does not choose an algorithm merely because it has the largest fleet.

2560 * Keeps consensus clean, with legacy miner and Stratum compatibility handled through adapters rather than contaminating the semantic block design."

2561 reactions: 👍🏽 16 👍 11 💯 5 ☝️ 1 🔥 3

2562

2563**Armeanio** · 2026-08-09 20:50:14 UTC (3:50 PM CDT)

2564 > in reply to @lukedashjr: "Our goal is not ASIC resistance or keeping CPUs/GPUs competitive. It is a PoW that: Is secure on day one, with enough usable and independently con...

2565 Prefer fixed-round hash algorithms if CPU/GPU-oriented options are not optimal here. Possible

2566 to add that as a section to the existing data sheet? Probably should post that here as well.

2567

2568**Armeanio** · 2026-08-09 20:50:14 UTC (3:50 PM CDT)

2569 > in reply to @lukedashjr: "Our goal is not ASIC resistance or keeping CPUs/GPUs competitive. It is a PoW that: Is secure on day one, with enough usable and independently controlled hashpower to avoid an easy 51% attack.Does not let the first new ASIC manufacturer dominate merely by arriving first.Produces a mature ASIC market where new independent manufacturers can still compete after years of optimization—without secret ASICBoost-like tricks, entrenched architecture knowledge, proprietary interfaces, or exclusive access to exotic manufacturing.Uses a conservative, well-understood cryptographic construction with low risk of either functional breaks or hidden efficiency shortcuts.Allows invalid blocks to be rejected quickly and with tightly bounded CPU and memory cost.Uses existing ASIC fleets where useful, but does not choose an algorithm merely because it has the largest fleet.Keeps consensus clean, with legacy miner and Stratum compatibility handled through adapters rather than contaminating the semantic block design."

2570 Prefer fixed-round hash algorithms if CPU/GPU-oriented options are not optimal here.

2571 Possible to add that as a section to the existing data sheet?

2572 Probably should post that here as well.

2573

2574**Armeanio** · 2026-08-09 20:50:14 UTC (3:50 PM CDT)

2575 > in reply to @lukedashjr: "Our goal is not ASIC resistance or keeping CPUs/GPUs competitive. It is a PoW that:

2576 Prefer fixed-round hash algorithms if CPU/GPU-oriented options are not optimal here.

2577

2578 Possible to add that as a section to the existing data sheet?

2579

2580 Probably should post that here as well.

2581

2582**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 20:57:09 UTC (3:57 PM CDT)

2583 SM3 looks promising, has extensive FPGA cryptographic accelerator support, which could be

2584 rapidly accelerate the bootstrapping of manufacturer production capability

2585

2586**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 20:57:09 UTC (3:57 PM CDT)

2587 SM3 looks promising, has extensive FPGA cryptographic accelerator support, which could be rapidly accelerate the bootstrapping of manufacturer production capability

2588

2589**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:57:41 UTC (3:57 PM CDT)

2590 Please keep conversation to ⁠ strategic

2591 reactions: 👍 1

2592

2593**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:57:41 UTC (3:57 PM CDT)

2594 Please keep conversation to ⁠strategic

2595 reactions: 👍 1

2596

2597**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 20:57:41 UTC (3:57 PM CDT)

2598 Please keep conversation to <#1535801442928033935>

2599 reactions: 👍 1

2600

2601**mIdk** · 2026-08-09 20:58:01 UTC (3:58 PM CDT)

2602 > in reply to @lukedashjr: Please keep conversation to ⁠ strategic

2603 misunderstood this channel I suppose

2604

2605**noah** · 2026-08-09 21:05:09 UTC (4:05 PM CDT) · (edited)

2606 @lukedashjr all you have to do is merge mine btc with fake btc (legacy) (non-bip110), enforce

2607 AuxPoW template or no reward, mine to covenant, and use atomic swaps to sell the fake btc,

2608 using the revenue to buyback real btc. You can do this with scrypt coins (if you choose

2609 scrypt) or whatever you want lol

2610

2611**noah** · 2026-08-09 21:05:09 UTC (4:05 PM CDT) · (edited)

2612 <@344949650597478401> all you have to do is merge mine btc with fake btc (legacy) (non-bip110), enforce AuxPoW template or no reward, mine to covenant, and use atomic swaps to sell the fake btc, using the revenue to buyback real btc. You can do this with scrypt coins (if you choose scrypt) or whatever you want lol

2613

2614**noah** · 2026-08-09 21:05:29 UTC (4:05 PM CDT) · (edited)

2615 @lukedashjr all you have to do is merge mine btc with fake btc (legacy) (non-bip110), enforce AuxPoW template or no reward, mine to covenant, and use atomic swaps to sell the fake btc, using the revenue to buyback real btc. You can do this with scrypt coins (if you choose scrypt) or whatever you want lol

2616

2617**Frumentarius Maximus** · 2026-08-09 21:07:36 UTC (4:07 PM CDT)

2618 I would love to be able mine with my bitaxe and nerdqaxe. I don't have more to add. Thanks

2619 reactions: ❤️ 4

2620

2621**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:16:29 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

2622 Please keep conversation to ⁠strategic

2623

2624**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-09 21:16:29 UTC (4:16 PM CDT)

2625

2626

2627**notcbspears** · 2026-08-10 01:13:15 UTC (8:13 PM CDT)

2628 Equihash, merge mine with zcash

2629 reactions: 🤣 1

2630

2631**cbspears** · 2026-08-10 01:13:15 UTC (8:13 PM CDT)

2632 Equihash, merge mine with zcash

2633 reactions: 🤣 1

2634

2635**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:27:27 UTC (11:27 PM CDT)

2636 As far as asic floating around here is what I know I can get my hands on Any flavor of old

2637 monero fork ETC dag stuff There are some kaspa chips and a kaspa RTL that wasn't taped out

2638 Aleo RTL I have implemented on stratix 10

2639 reactions: 🔥 1

2640

2641**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:27:27 UTC (11:27 PM CDT)

2642 As far as asic floating around here is what I know I can get my hands on

2643 Any flavor of old monero fork

2644 ETC dag stuff

2645 There are some kaspa chips and a kaspa RTL that wasn't taped out

2646 Aleo RTL I have implemented on stratix 10

2647 reactions: 🔥 1

2648

2649**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:27:27 UTC (11:27 PM CDT)

2650 As far as asic floating around here is what I know I can get my hands on

2651

2652 Any flavor of old monero fork

2653 ETC dag stuff

2654 There are some kaspa chips and a kaspa RTL that wasn't taped out

2655 Aleo RTL I have implemented on stratix 10

2656 reactions: 🔥 1

2657

2658**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:28:11 UTC (11:28 PM CDT)

2659 @lukedashjr a zkp fork could be compelling

2660

2661**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:28:11 UTC (11:28 PM CDT)

2662 <@344949650597478401> a zkp fork could be compelling

2663

2664**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:29:11 UTC (11:29 PM CDT)

2665 If you stick close to the aleo implementation, I have an RTL I can send Also I think ice River

2666 boys did a tapeout

2667

2668**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:29:11 UTC (11:29 PM CDT)

2669 If you stick close to the aleo implementation, I have an RTL I can send

2670 Also I think ice River boys did a tapeout

2671

2672**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:29:11 UTC (11:29 PM CDT)

2673 If you stick close to the aleo implementation, I have an RTL I can send

2674

2675 Also I think ice River boys did a tapeout

2676

2677**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:29:24 UTC (11:29 PM CDT)

2678 Tons of chips waiting. For cheap I'm sure

2679

2680**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:31:13 UTC (11:31 PM CDT)

2681 Another approach would be to retrofit existing machines with a pre or post processing of some

2682 kind.

2683

2684**Luckey** · 2026-08-10 04:31:13 UTC (11:31 PM CDT)

2685 Another approach would be to retrofit existing machines with a pre or post processing of some kind.

2686

2687**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-10 04:31:55 UTC (11:31 PM CDT)

2688 Discussion is in ⁠ strategic

2689 reactions: 💯 2

2690

2691**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-10 04:31:55 UTC (11:31 PM CDT)

2692 Discussion is in ⁠strategic

2693 reactions: 💯 2

2694

2695**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-10 04:31:55 UTC (11:31 PM CDT)

2696 Discussion is in <#1535801442928033935>

2697 reactions: 💯 2

2698

2699**lukedashjr** · 2026-08-12 11:15:30 UTC (6:15 AM CDT)

2700 Let's keep the focus on CPU/GPU node-runner decentralization. Rented SHA-256 ASIC pools won't save us. #aggie-hardfork