@theonevortex Avatar @theonevortex Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE posts on X about bitcoin, op, spam, core the most. They currently have [------] followers and [---] posts still getting attention that total [-----] engagements in the last [--] hours.

Engagements: [-----] #

Engagements Line Chart

Mentions: [--] #

Mentions Line Chart

Followers: [------] #

Followers Line Chart

CreatorRank: [---------] #

CreatorRank Line Chart

Social Influence

Social category influence cryptocurrencies 38.81% finance 19.4% technology brands 5.97% social networks 4.48% exchanges 2.24% celebrities 0.75% stocks 0.75%

Social topic influence bitcoin 34.33%, op #2415, spam #573, core 12.69%, network 7.46%, relay 5.97%, blockchain #1375, entire #1095, in the 4.48%, money 4.48%

Top accounts mentioned or mentioned by @hodlonaut @theguyswann @tonevays @lukedashjr @grassfedbitcoin @theboozles @btctooblivion @bitmexresearch @adam3us @elkrun21 @giacomozucco @benthecarman @peterktodd @crypt0doc @kloaec @stephanlivera @dadguy1986 @wsbitcoin @digahashkid @pledditor

Top assets mentioned Bitcoin (BTC)

Top Social Posts

Top posts by engagements in the last [--] hours

"No. You're conflating two different metrics. Your chart shows UTXO set size (GB) but the more relevant metric for evaluating the op return policy change is UTXO count since the ENTIRE point was to discourage creating new UTXOs for data embedding. When looking at actual UTXO count you can see the growth that was explosive through 2023-2024 has clearly plateaued and shows signs of stabilization/slight decline in recent months and that's EXACTLY what the policy change aimed to achieve to incentivize data embedders to use op return (no UTXO created) instead of inscription methods (UTXO created)"
X Link 2026-02-01T22:23Z 53.7K followers, 16.7K engagements

"@spinebitcoin @TheGuySwann v30 was released as harm reduction as the filter was causing malincentives: And so far it seems to be working: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2018087845144179175 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017628088495182042 @BTCtoOblivion No. You're conflating two different metrics. Your chart shows UTXO set size (GB) but the more relevant metric for evaluating the op return policy change is UTXO count since the ENTIRE point was to discourage creating new UTXOs for data embedding. When looking at actual UTXO https://t.co/ChnaF5YyYh"
X Link 2026-02-08T23:30Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"@elkrun21 @value_record @BitMEXResearch @adam3us @MrHodl @BitcoinMotorist @ToneVays @stephanlivera @BitcoinErrorLog @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr @EligiusPool No. A size limit designed specifically to block inscriptions is absolutely a subjective judgment about what Bitcoin "should" be used for. The BIP's own documentation says its goal is to reject "data storage as a supported use case" so that's not neutral that's opinionated"
X Link 2026-02-15T00:28Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@SimonDixonTwitt I mean I literally started out tone's podcast by saying everything will be fine and everyone should calm down and that this will ultimately be a learning experience for everyone which will be a positive"
X Link 2026-02-15T02:24Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking like a curated platform and this sets a precedent where a 55% majority can decide that your valid transaction is "spam" simply because they dislike the use case -It doesn't actually solve the problem - As Peter Todd demonstrated these filters are easily bypassed as he successfully embedded the entire 6000-word text of"
X Link 2026-02-08T20:23Z 53.7K followers, 43.7K engagements

"We have clear verifiable evidence confirming that v30 was a response to network changes not the cause of them. You can clearly see that op returns and spam were spiking well before v30 shipped from this on-chain data. Sources linked in reply below"
X Link 2026-02-15T18:59Z 53.7K followers, [----] engagements

"Reminder: The social contract wasn't broken by Core it was broken in February [----] when MARA launched Slipstream. Slipstream is a service to mine any consensus valid transaction for the right fee bypassing normal mempool policy entirely. This contract was technically enforced by mempool filters like the 83-byte OP_RETURN limit however Maras Slipstream proved that these filters were just "gentlemen's agreements" that large miners could bypass at will. Core's op return changes [--] months later weren't "enabling spam" they were acknowledging this broken contract and that the filter had already"
X Link 2026-01-31T15:56Z 53.6K followers, 25.7K engagements

"Points that have been walked back from the Knots side so far and counting: -Core v30 will kill bitcoin -Spam will kill bitcoin -Viruses will take down AWS -The CSAM in bitcoin will make running nodes illegal -They won't fork"
X Link 2026-01-31T19:02Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"@djsenior13 LOL what's the Plan C And is the process going to replace the Core process"
X Link 2026-02-01T17:00Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"No. Your language is technically and factually incorrect as you are conflating data transmission with publishing in both a legal and technical sense. Transmitting a raw encrypted database file to another machine for synchronization is "data transfer" not "publishing" just as an ISP isn't "publishing" a movie just because the bits pass through their routers. Learn wtf you're actually talking about instead of attempting to explain it badly"
X Link 2026-02-01T17:54Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@BTCtoOblivion link: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/utxo-count https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/utxo-count"
X Link 2026-02-01T22:26Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@jabulanijakes And of course we can always tag the author of the book hey @BitMEXResearch can you explain to this simpleton (@jabulanijakes) how and why futures markets play an integral part in fork wars Thanks"
X Link 2026-02-02T17:47Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@DadGuy1986 The social contract is to keep the mempool public so everybody can see which transactions are getting validated not create backdoor deals through private channels effectively creating a private mempool for the highest bidder which is what capping the limit was doing"
X Link 2026-02-06T00:58Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@nic_carter @lopp Core's work is one of the most transparent projects in the history of software development the developers don't need identities attached to their work the removal of the human element in money is an important part of what bitcoin does for society"
X Link 2026-02-06T16:12Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@ordinalswallet This is 100% false as Peter Todd already proved when he uploaded the entire [---] pdf in an [---] compliant transaction. You cannot prevent arbitrary data from being embedded in transactions"
X Link 2026-02-07T03:14Z 53.6K followers, 22.4K engagements

"@hodlonaut Wrong it ends one very specific way to use inscriptions while a near infinite amount of variations exist which is why [---] proposal was already inscribed in a [---] compliant transaction by Peter Todd"
X Link 2026-02-07T15:41Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"The spam email analogy actually proves my point b/c imagine if your email provider "filtered" spam by forcing the sender to hide the email inside your actual bank statements now you cant delete the spam without deleting your financial records. Thats exactly what happens when you block op return people don't stop they hide their data in fake UTXOs that stay in every node's RAM and SSD forever and you can't "delete" them because the node thinks they are spendable money. Here op return is the "spam" folder. Its provably unspendable data that nodes can prune (delete). The v30 devs raised the"
X Link 2026-02-07T21:21Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@BitcoinMotorist @CatGodSandHive "I will not listen to reason or objective technical arguments that literally have nothing to do with eth and instead rely on my own ego to guide me". Well best of luck with that decision"
X Link 2026-02-07T21:23Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@bc1qmembi @HodlMagoo @knutsvanholm Economic nodes are often nodes considered to be run by exchanges miners wallets and/or LN liquidity providers ect"
X Link 2026-02-07T23:56Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@AG3NT_0R4NG3 Reading comprehension matters. I wasn't criticizing soft forks I was responding to someone who literally argued that 55% hashrate = consensus and that non-signaling nodes "just don't care." Calling that what it is isn't anti-soft fork it's anti-lazy-consensus-theater"
X Link 2026-02-08T00:14Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"I'm pretty familar see that quote describes miners enforcing existing consensus rules accepting valid blocks rejecting invalid ones it's about transaction ordering and double-spend prevention under the current ruleset. A soft fork changes what "valid" means and that's not the same operation Satoshi was describing also when the whitepaper was written nodes = miners and that hasn't been true for over a decade which is precisely why hashrate alone is an incomplete measure of consensus. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020294807697166608 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020294807697166608"
X Link 2026-02-08T00:33Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@pastorcoin It actually doesn't mitigate anything as Peter Todd has already proved by uploading the entire [---] proposal in a [---] compliant transaction. And what slows down nodes is not the space requirement but fake utxos from spammers in the utxo set. https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017628088495182042 Reminder: The social contract wasn't broken by Core it was broken in February [----] when MARA launched Slipstream. Slipstream is a service to mine any consensus valid transaction for the right fee bypassing normal mempool policy entirely. This contract was technically"
X Link 2026-02-08T00:48Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@MrtviTruly @w_s_bitcoin @AG3NT_0R4NG3 @GrassFedBitcoin @JeremyRubin @bitcoincoreorg No it was ultimately the futures markets that made miners capitulate to [---] via BIP [--]. https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2018386202710200520 @theonevortex @jabulanijakes Please see below the relevent chapter from "The Blocksize War" as well as a chart of the BU futures market price on Bitfinex (data recently extracted from the Bitfinex API) The Blocksize War - Chapter [--] - Exchanges In the year or so that the war had been raging the https://t.co/evEcIQOZuo"
X Link 2026-02-08T01:03Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@AG3NT_0R4NG3 @cguida6 @DonalDevine @BitMEXResearch @BitcoinBombadil @felipecreate @hodlonaut No. Blockchain size has actually been reducing what's concerning is the fake utxo's making it more difficult for node runners which is why v30 was released for harm reduction: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2018087845144179175 @BTCtoOblivion No. You're conflating two different metrics. Your chart shows UTXO set size (GB) but the more relevant metric for evaluating the op return policy change is UTXO count since the ENTIRE point was to discourage creating new UTXOs for data embedding. When looking"
X Link 2026-02-08T01:06Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@giacomozucco @Cyberwiz9000 Right and he left op return in there because he knew he could not stop data embedding"
X Link 2026-02-08T15:29Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@ToneVays @w_s_bitcoin Crazy how irresponsible [---] is"
X Link 2026-02-08T17:53Z 53.6K followers, 17.6K engagements

"@hodlonaut @benthecarman @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr Here's an example of Peter Todd already embedding the entire [---] proposal in a [---] compliant transaction proving [---] does nothing: https://x.com/lifofifo/status/1982586227485515932 Want to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin CashJr after the inevitable BIP [---] hard fork @peterktodd with this banger containing the entire text of the proposed BIP https://t.co/uumW6WLwkU https://x.com/lifofifo/status/1982586227485515932 Want to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin CashJr after the inevitable BIP [---] hard fork @peterktodd with this banger containing the"
X Link 2026-02-09T05:29Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"@TheGuySwann Are you not going to comment on anything in my post since it was literally exactly what you asked for in your OP"
X Link 2026-02-09T14:53Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"Great analogy except: -the "junk" pays full market-rate fees per vbyte just like every other transaction -the 83-byte OP_RETURN cap was a relay policy not a consensus rule so nothing was "removed" at the consensus level -the "building vote" represents 2.4% of nodes almost entirely running Knots -defining "trash" at the consensus layer means someone gets to decide that witness data embedding is spam today and CoinJoins or Lightning channel opens are spam tomorrow. But other than ONCE AGAIN confusing relay policy with consensus misrepresenting how fee markets work and introducing subjective"
X Link 2026-02-09T15:05Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"@TheBoozles @ToneVays @w_s_bitcoin @oomahq No it was not properly tested it was vibe coded and proved to not even stop spam. Stop kidding yourself"
X Link 2026-02-09T15:11Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"It's a happy side effect not the main motivation But the side effect doesn't even work If you can't be arsed to actually read the BIP The main website says this "Temporarily limit the size of data fields at the consensus level in order to correct distorted incentives caused by standardizing support for arbitrary data" except once again it doesn't stop distorted incentives or arbitrary data it actually creates worse incentives as I explained here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017628088495182042 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017628088495182042"
X Link 2026-02-09T16:06Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@oomahq @TheBoozles @ToneVays @w_s_bitcoin @CunyRenaud LOLOL the BIPs main website: https://bip110.org/ https://bip110.org/"
X Link 2026-02-09T16:17Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@MarcusLinBTC @TheGuySwann Yah and [---] can't even do that :/"
X Link 2026-02-09T18:18Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"The answer is policy level and market and that's not a cop out or anything that's how Bitcoin was designed. The fee market already is the spam filter so if someone pays market rate for block space that's not spam that's demand. For abusive relay behavior we already have the right tool with mempool policy using standardness rules where individual node operators choose what they relay without making anything consensus invalid. The base layer should remain dumb neutral and expensive. So if block space is too cheap for what you consider junk to be priced out then the answer is that block space is"
X Link 2026-02-09T19:07Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"So consensus rules are sacred and inviolable. unless you personally disagree with them. in which case they're "garbage" that should be overridden Got it. You're not arguing for Bitcoin's integrity you're arguing that your preferences should be consensus. Once again that's the opposite of permissionless"
X Link 2026-02-09T22:36Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"There's been arbitrary data on the chain since satoshi dice currently the consensus is the status quo with the most amount of nodes running core and only 1k nodes running [---]. And with only a 55% threshold it will cause a split which will trigger a futures market that will price the "pure" chain substantially below the status quo forcing miners to abandon it. But yah best of luck. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020991868369240163 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020991868369240163"
X Link 2026-02-09T22:43Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Yes SF blocks are valid to core nodes that's what "soft fork" means but valid = canonical in other words the longest VALID chain wins. And there's no "remerge" mechanism those blocks will just become orphans that no one builds on since validity without hashpower is a participation trophy as I explain here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017989399557152991s=20 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017989399557152991s=20"
X Link 2026-02-10T01:06Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Dig_A_Hash_Kid @adam3us @hodlonaut @benthecarman @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @peterktodd The cost difference is minimal for spammers as it was a single transaction fragmenting the data across multiple 256-byte PUSHDATA elements and 83-byte OP_RETURNs"
X Link 2026-02-10T01:12Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"No. Code activating on your node = the network following you. LOT=true just means your client forks itself off if nobody else upgrades. If exchanges don't run it you're trading with yourself. Also non-mining nodes don't signal anything in consensus terms they validate and relay they don't produce blocks so spinning up nodes to "show demand" is a petition not a protocol mechanism. The code can activate whenever it wants without the economic majority and then all you've activated is a ghost chain. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021049421442711973"
X Link 2026-02-10T02:31Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Dig_A_Hash_Kid @adam3us @hodlonaut @benthecarman @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @peterktodd That is just one inscription place there are many it's trivial to make changes to be [---] compliant as peter todd already proved by uploading the entire [---] proposal to a [---] compliant transaction: https://x.com/lifofifo/status/1982586227485515932 Want to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin CashJr after the inevitable BIP [---] hard fork @peterktodd with this banger containing the entire text of the proposed BIP https://t.co/uumW6WLwkU https://x.com/lifofifo/status/1982586227485515932 Want to put arbitrary data"
X Link 2026-02-10T02:55Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Dig_A_Hash_Kid @adam3us @hodlonaut @benthecarman @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @peterktodd Right until they make slight changes to their architecture or are replaced by other companies that do know how to adapt since it is trivial"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:06Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

""Bytes that don't move Bitcoin can piss off" sounds great until you realize Lightning channel state multisig scripts timelocks and hash commitments are all "bytes that don't move Bitcoin". The protocol doesn't distinguish between "monetary" and "non-monetary" data as that's a human judgment you're asking to encode into consensus which isn't possible"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:09Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"not only does the Ord Wallet team and all other Ord wallets have to deal with this but so do the exchanges. Indeed [---] is completely reckless as I've noted in many other tweets. All for a temporary 1-year soft-fork That is the real kicker right there. Only if it locks in without a split which is highly unlikely what's more likely is anyone running it will just fork themselves off. Bip110 working as designed. Not from what I can tell but hey best of luck. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021059937527304334 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021059937527304334"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:13Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Incorrect as [---] will still cause major disruptions to the network including a possible split that node runners exchanges and wallets will all have to deal with in September. And they're talking about how it's only temporary and we'll all have to go through it again with multiple SFs in the future this is insane. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021061566565843201 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021061566565843201"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:20Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Dig_A_Hash_Kid @adam3us @hodlonaut @benthecarman @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @peterktodd Segwit2x had 90%+ hashrate and still failed it's just signaling with no economic weight"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:21Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@agent_scruples @DadGuy1986 @hodlonaut Umm yes this conversation goes back before [----] but that doesn't refute any of my points"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:26Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@agent_scruples @DadGuy1986 @hodlonaut The limit has essentially been the same all along 1mb. To attach more you'd need to increase the blocksize this is basic bitcoin 101"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:31Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"This is exactly the type of argument I expect to be hearing in court Never going to happen. knowingly and willingly serving thousands of nasty 100kb mp4 files. No. The blockchain only holds transactional data strings of text to view it as anything else requires 3rd party software that has nothing to do with bitcoin or running a node. I think we're pretty done with this conversation as you clearly have been unable to refute a single one of my points"
X Link 2026-02-10T03:49Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"No that's a false equivalence. Undeveloped film and files on a personal computer are content someone deliberately acquired whereas Blockchain data is an append-only ledger that nodes sync automatically as part of network infrastructure. No one is choosing to download specific transaction outputs. The distinction isn't "I need software to view it" it's that the data exists as raw hex in a distributed ledger that every node must replicate to function. You're comparing infrastructure operation to personal possession which are treated completely differently under the law."
X Link 2026-02-10T03:57Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"So the inscription data isn't standalone arbitrary bytes in the witness it's usually embedded within the Taproot spend script itself (inside an OP_FALSE OP_IF envelope). Those bytes are structurally part of the script even though they're in a dead code path so the protocol can't distinguish "data that affects execution" from "data that's part of the script but doesn't execute" which is the core problem with drawing this line. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021082266697597381 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021082266697597381"
X Link 2026-02-10T04:42Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"It doesn't matter how many debates happened inside the ivory tower if it hasn't been adequately explained and understood among the people who are willing to put everything on the line for bitcoin's principles. OH it very much matters for years people have been trying to explain but people like yourself refuse that's not Core's fault that's yours. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021242951343669546 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021242951343669546"
X Link 2026-02-10T15:20Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@CarlosJackkal @hodlonaut [---] does nothing to prevent this as Peter Todd showed when he embedded the entire [---] proposal in a [---] compliant transaction"
X Link 2026-02-10T15:24Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"because when a person has a tarnished reputation Subjective opinion by you not objective fact. Adam is connected with Epstein. So is half the CEOs in just about every industry being "connected" means nothing he showed up for one freaken brunch and then didn't even take the investment it's like you can't even read. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021255153995874546 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021255153995874546"
X Link 2026-02-10T16:09Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Knots code is just Core code taking a stance where Core left us node runners fail No the network entirely ignored both Core and Knots filters which caused harm to the network as I outlined here: A robust L1 is not scalable This is false there are a ton more wins that need to happen on L1 but only if it remains a neutral ledger and the blockspace market remains decentralized both of which [---] will destroy as I outline here: Lightning proves it can Liquid also Ark does that probably too Except [---] blocks several upgrade paths for LN and Ark which I also outline here: Full compliant with bitcoin"
X Link 2026-02-10T16:53Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@MischaRoth1 @DadGuy1986 @hodlonaut Securing bitcoin's history means validating consensus rules not judging what's inside valid transactions because if it follows the rules and pays the fee it's valid that's the whole point of permissionless and censorship resistant"
X Link 2026-02-10T19:15Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Fair point on content hashing but even then it's just a verification of a cryptograph hash and a lot of what's on-chain already goes beyond simple A to B payments like tether started on OP_RETURN OpenTimestamps uses it for document proofs RGB and Taproot Assets rely on on-chain commitments for off-chain asset transfers. All paid full fees and all are arguably financial infrastructure. The line between "necessary" and "bloat" gets blurry fast once you look at what's actually using that space. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021304274215633073"
X Link 2026-02-10T19:24Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Crypt0doc @TheBoozles @hodlonaut Zero. That's the point. He embedded the entire BIP-110 proposal (not a dick pick) using OP_RETURN outputs and PUSHDATA and it cost him one single transaction fee"
X Link 2026-02-10T19:46Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Spam doesn't need to be "cut down" it's already dissipating along with fake utxos thanks to v30 Chain is growing at normal rate: Fake utxos are being reduced: The solution is the fee like it always was just like with hashcash the system bitcoin was based on. There is no emergency but the fake one luke and mechanic are pushing. https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2018087845144179175 https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2017734529587515425 @BTCtoOblivion No. You're conflating two different metrics. Your chart shows UTXO set size (GB) but the more relevant metric for evaluating the op return policy"
X Link 2026-02-10T19:56Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"Yah we're mostly saying the same thing then the only thing I'd add is that if that's true the fee market will push people there naturally. When on chain storage is expensive and off chain alternatives are just as reliable economics does the work for you and the Lightning-to-IPFS idea is a good example of that. The issue is only when "build better alternatives" turns into "restrict on-chain to force people toward them" at that point you're not letting the market decide anymore. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021315964504305946 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021315964504305946"
X Link 2026-02-10T20:10Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@BetruetoitUK @hodlonaut There's only transactional data on the chain op return is limited to 100kb which is not high res and the blocks always have a 1mb limit learn how bitcoin works before commenting"
X Link 2026-02-10T21:05Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"There is no way to prevent arbitrary data from being embedded in transactions the fee is the filter and there is no emergency as I explain here: Attempting to police the relay layer only led to everyone ignoring the settings of both Knots and Core nodes which created malincentives that started to centralize the blockspace market as I explained here: Core then released v30 as harm reduction by removing the limit to reduce the fake utxos being created that were making it more difficult for node runners and so far it looks like it's working: The chain is growing at a rate it was designed to grow"
X Link 2026-02-11T02:08Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"Consensus is the only backstop defense against spam. No attempting to police it at the consensus level like [---] is doing will cause a split. Opening OR in Policy while the witness discount subsidizes bigger-than-witness things neither cuts UTXO bloat nor motivates using OR. LOL just something isn't true doesn't refute my points you have to say why like how I proved my points with data"
X Link 2026-02-11T03:09Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Loym_btc @SteveW928 @hodlonaut I wish more plebs would pay attention to the actual blockchain data :/"
X Link 2026-02-11T03:53Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@hodlonaut People need to be aware of all the technical issues with 110: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but"
X Link 2026-02-11T15:27Z 53.7K followers, [----] engagements

"@KLoaec Completely agree I mention miniscript in my list of issues with [---] here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so"
X Link 2026-02-11T15:29Z 53.7K followers, [----] engagements

"Wow dealing with non-coders is hard :/ Let me explain why a chat bot can't just fix bitcoin: The cost of Bitcoin upgrades was never about writing code. AI can help you write code faster however consensus changes require adversarial review across a system securing hundreds of billions with no undo button social coordination among thousands of independent node operators and miners ecosystem-wide integration testing across wallets and exchanges and acceptance of asymmetric risk where a single bug can mean permanent fund loss or a chain split. Literally none of that gets cheaper because a chatbot"
X Link 2026-02-11T15:32Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@lukedewolf @KLoaec So you're acceptable with all these technical issues Breaking bitcoin's neutrality removing important upgrade paths and causing a split https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the"
X Link 2026-02-11T15:38Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@lukedewolf @KLoaec So you're acceptable with all these technical issues Breaking bitcoin's neutrality removing important upgrade paths confiscating coins and causing a split All while being proven to not stop spam as Peter Todd demonstrated https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking"
X Link 2026-02-11T15:41Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"Something is very very wrong with Core governance. Nope still just you spreading more FUD the OP_RETURN uncap had 4:1 vote ratio AGAINST the change on github. Bitcoin is not a democracy the best technical decisions win Knots adoption has exploded since No it can barely stay at 20% BIP-100 signaling is at 7% and rising It's 1k nodes which is a small percentage but still enough to cause a split which it will Price is down 40% since v30 release. Literally nothing to do with 110/Knots this is geopolictical and the fact that bitcoin trades like a software stock currently at least learn the basics"
X Link 2026-02-11T15:47Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@ToneVays Vast majority as far as I can tell are all non-technical class of [----] or newer with no understanding of bitcoin's history whatsoever"
X Link 2026-02-11T16:40Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@Loym_btc @SteveW928 @hodlonaut I mean as far as adults he's referring to Core developers so your story kind of has nothing to do with that but appreciate the share"
X Link 2026-02-11T16:45Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"No actually it's you spouting the anger and vitriol in your daily tweets you mechanic and luke are the ones that are angry and inciting an angry mob which is clear to see for anyone who's on twitter. The rest of us are trying to educate you with history and technical facts but you refuse to listen and keep getting madder. https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442"
X Link 2026-02-11T17:36Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@gurunkul888 @TheGuySwann It wasn't weird I explained how it was harm reduction here: and Core explained their reasoning in their post here Bitcoin core isn't a democracy it's a meritocracy that facilitates a network governed by anarchy https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/ https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017628088495182042 Reminder: The social contract wasn't broken by Core it was broken in February [----] when MARA launched Slipstream. Slipstream is a service to mine any consensus valid transaction for the right fee bypassing normal mempool policy entirely. This contract"
X Link 2026-02-11T20:14Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"@FPupusas @hodlonaut I'm just here to give the warning before they eventually touch the stove"
X Link 2026-02-11T20:25Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"First triage then maybe we can deal with more of that stuff too. No. This is not a website or windows app we're dealing with here it's a decentralized multi trillion dollar network that requires coordination from multipole constituents for any changes/upgrades to the network from thousands of participants you don't just test stuff in production where people can lose coins and say meh if it doesn't work we'll roll it back like WTF. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021806004359618594 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021806004359618594"
X Link 2026-02-12T04:38Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@SteveW928 @Loym_btc @hodlonaut Thanks for making that decision on behalf of millions of bitcoin users oh lord of bitcoin"
X Link 2026-02-12T04:38Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"First of all it would not be wise to ask non-technical people like hodlonaught what's going to happen with [---] he's just a politician. But to answer your question directly no your bitcoin won't disappear from your cold storage HOWEVER saying they won't be affected is highly misleading. Because if [---] results in a chain split without replay protection your private keys will suddenly control assets on two competing networks and the moment you try to move your bitcoin you risk "replaying" that move on the other chain potentially losing your forked coins or sending them to an incompatible"
X Link 2026-02-12T14:33Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"Right that worked for BCH because BCH implemented replay protection (they added a SIGHASH_FORKID flag that made transactions invalid on the other chain). So once the fork happened your BTC and BCH transactions were inherently incompatible meaning you could spend on one chain without it replaying on the other. The concern with a BIP-110 split is there's no guarantee either side would implement replay protection. If they don't moving coins around post-fork wouldn't protect you the same way and your transaction could still be valid on both chains regardless of which wallet you use"
X Link 2026-02-12T14:46Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"It's usually a political decision as neither side wants to be the one to add it because doing so is essentially admitting "we're the fork not the real Bitcoin." So both sides want to claim they're the legitimate chain and that's exactly what happened with SegWit2x they refused to add replay protection and told Core to do it and Core said the same thing back. It becomes a game of chicken which again illustrates why [---] is so dangerous"
X Link 2026-02-12T15:34Z 53.6K followers, [----] engagements

"@2140data Twitter polls can be gamed by bots and are thus useless what actually WILL determine sentiment is a futures market but for now we do have prediction markets who to date all put the [---] SF succeeding at less than 5%: https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-the-reduce-data-temporary-soft-fork-be-consensus-enforced-on-the-most-work-bitcoin-chain-tip-by-march-1st-2026-1762275376 https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-the-bip-110-reduced-data-soft-fork-activate-on-the-bitcoin-mainnet-and-be-consensus-enforced-on-the-most-work-bitcoin-chain-tip-by-september-1st-2026-1770230436"
X Link 2026-02-12T18:29Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"Once again you cannot prevent arbitrary data from being embedded into transactions in a censorship resistant network If you want to monitor's people's transactions at the consensus level well there's paypal for that but bitcoin is freedom money and will not bow to trolls on the the internet. Personally I think the most likely scenario is [---] fails to the point to where they can't even find a block but I'm really looking forward to a futures market as well because currently like I said the prediction markets are giving [---] less than a 5% chance of success. Also presenting technical issues is"
X Link 2026-02-12T19:19Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"You think that it actually stops spam. It doesn't. You can't prevent data from being embedded into transactions in a neutral censorship resistant ledger. You think that it's a great first step to making bitcoin a better money. It isn't. It doesn't stop spam and blocks upgrades that people have been working on for years in bitcoin such as ln-symmetry mini-script/vaults and bitvm all of which make bitcoin a better money. You think there's no harm in trying. There is. Status quo is the default anything else to that is hostile by default. This forces the entire network including miners exchanges"
X Link 2026-02-12T20:03Z 53.6K followers, [---] engagements

"This isn't about "indexing" or "joining chunks" like no one's reassembling spam on their node wtf. The point is that when data gets hidden inside fake UTXOs your node is forced to track them as part of consensus whether you like it or not. That's how bitcoin works. And they're especially incentivized to do this when you limit the op return as I explained here: And your CSAM argument completely falls part as I explained here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2017628088495182042 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337"
X Link 2026-02-12T20:30Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@inewcentz @quinby_john @feline_toshi Like anything it started with good intentions but unfortunately became misguided when the thought they could bend the will of the entire network a common trait amoung those suffering from BDS (bitcoin derangement syndrome) like luke and mechanic are"
X Link 2026-02-12T22:10Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@17chad_ @CoinCornerDanny That doesn't refute anything I said and I never said inscriptions were the default I said the current code base is the default. https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2022131660255646122s=20 @SailingBitcoin @CoinCornerDanny As I and so many others have already mentioned the limit was causing a malincentive that was making it harder for node runners from fake utxos and centralizing blockspace. You can read more here: https://t.co/83fUcCgCSF and here: https://t.co/uwbaPq2pic Removing the limit was https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2022131660255646122s=20 @SailingBitcoin"
X Link 2026-02-13T02:13Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"I think it's desirable if Bitcoin remains simple monetary txns Bitcoin doesn't understand the difference between monetary and non monetary transactions what I hear against BIP-110 are people working to advance the frontier of new use cases Not new use cases new ways of doing existing use cases with bitcoin. For example ln-symmetry will allow lightning to scale that would be much better for bitcoin as money. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022147432575033418 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022147432575033418"
X Link 2026-02-13T03:14Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@DavidD99261219 @ToneVays No. You misunderstand here's the original tweet: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020246508105585016 @TheBoozles @hodlonaut The spam email analogy actually proves my point b/c imagine if your email provider "filtered" spam by forcing the sender to hide the email inside your actual bank statements now you cant delete the spam without deleting your financial records. Thats exactly what happens when https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020246508105585016 @TheBoozles @hodlonaut The spam email analogy actually proves my point b/c imagine if your email provider "filtered""
X Link 2026-02-13T03:21Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"But I still think a protocol for monetary txns should not cater to random data. Bitcoin doesn't "cater" to random data now. It should be very opinionated. It is that's what op return is provably unspendable data that doesn't pollute the utxo set. It's not BitTorrent. That's a ridiculous statement nobody thinks it is bitcoin only stores transactional data as I point out here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337"
X Link 2026-02-13T03:43Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Bitcoin should not be like them. Once again bitcoin is not like them you cannot send "any data" with bitcoin as it only stores transactional data even op return is transactional data as I tried to tell you in the last tweet. NOT an optional [------] byte field for WHATEVER. Once again if there wasn't an op return then people would pollute the utxo set making it harder and more expensive for node runners this is why core released v30 as harm reduction. You can clearly see in Jonn's tweet that v30 was a response to the network changes it didn't cause any network changes:"
X Link 2026-02-13T03:55Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"an attack vector for a future state sponsored attack on Bitcoin. It's not a future attack vector as I outline here since bitcoin only stores transactional data: And even if a state actor did attempt to flood the network with op returns it would be extremely obvious and prove that bitcoin has scared them which will be in headlines around the world and it would only serve to pay miners that would ultimately end up strengthening the network. https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337 @Crypt0doc @TheBoozles @hodlonaut As I mention here there is no emergency: https://t.co/Zzd0Vjt3xz"
X Link 2026-02-13T04:37Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"I don't agree that the average non Bitcoiner would understand this argument. You just mentioned the attack vector was state led the state would do enough basic research to understand how to attack bitcoin Courts could decide the fate of a BTC node. Once again this is 100% false as I mention here: Please refute that before claiming that attack vector is valid. https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337"
X Link 2026-02-13T04:48Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"OP return containing continuous data If you read my post then you know it doesn't matter if it's contiguous or not but I just don't think this is worth the risk of expanding the OP return to 100K. Nobody was following the limit anyway do you not understand this Both Knots and Core FAILED to police this filter which caused malincentives so it doesn't matter what you or I think it matters what makes the network healthy as Core outlined in their post here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/"
X Link 2026-02-13T04:58Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"@Crypt0doc @ToneVays @DavidD99261219 At least Slipstream would know what they are mining and likely not place an offensive OP Return being mined. So you're for centralizing the blockspace market then Again not a problem until Taproot. Again people were embedding data since satoshi dice"
X Link 2026-02-13T05:04Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"They were embedding data back then but Taproot and OP if/etc. 100% false OP_IF has been in Bitcoin since day one. which really started the flood of images and BRC [--] tokens on BTC. Once again there are no images on bitcoin only transactional data and cryptographic proofs. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022176707743297801 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022176707743297801"
X Link 2026-02-13T05:11Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@0x_Vivek @BitMEXResearch Yes and they always could. But relay policy doesn't determine what gets mined miners set their own inclusion rules as we've seen with restrictive relay just pushing submissions direct-to-miner"
X Link 2026-02-13T05:57Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"Well so far the proposal hasn't even been finalized yet has little to no peer review prediction markets only give it a less than 5% chance of succeeding and it has a ton of issues so far as I outlined here like breaking miniscript and blocking lightning network upgrades like ln-symmetry: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442"
X Link 2026-02-13T15:15Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"Core v30 is not terrible they released v30 as harm reduction as bitmex clearly points out here: BIP [---] is a terrible solution and has a ton of issues like freezing people's funds breaking miniscript and blocking upgrades to the lightning network like ln-symmetry as I outline here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/2022069199036690815 Transaction Relay Filters & Bitcoin Core Defaults There appears to be considerable confusion about transaction relay filters on the Bitcoin network and in particular the sequencing of events. For instance"
X Link 2026-02-13T16:17Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@kretchino @ToneVays @PivotWithHer @unchained @KLoaec @nunchuk_io Cool what about bitvm and upgrades to lightning network like ln-symmetry https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by"
X Link 2026-02-13T16:37Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@0x_Vivek @BitMEXResearch Like slipstream as well and yah they're making millions so I think it's pretty profitable but again I would prefer there to not be these services available and give people a decentralized option like op return instead"
X Link 2026-02-13T16:54Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@elkrun21 @Pledditor @hodlonaut @giacomozucco Spam on public networks has and always will b a problem which is why hashcash was invented and its ideas incorporated into bitcoin"
X Link 2026-02-13T17:35Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"@giacomozucco @elkrun21 @Pledditor @hodlonaut Right and Bitcoin's fee market is the evolution of that same idea which is to make usage expensive so abuse is economically impractical. So the mechanism is different but the principle is the same which is filter by cost not by content"
X Link 2026-02-13T17:50Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@giacomozucco @elkrun21 @Pledditor @hodlonaut That's a fair distinction on the cost structure but of course the block size limit and fee market ARE Bitcoin's rate limiting and that's been the mechanism since day one"
X Link 2026-02-13T18:00Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"7-day snapshots are just noise as non financial usage is bursty and spikes with hype cycles and reverts to the mean every time zoom out and look at 5year+ averages. More importantly fees are at [--] sat/vB floor which means that data is filling surplus capacity not displacing financial txs. When demand surges low-value data gets priced out first. So you're basically describing a functioning fee market and calling it broken. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022373185325535419 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022373185325535419"
X Link 2026-02-13T18:11Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"@giacomozucco @elkrun21 @Pledditor @hodlonaut Me too much better for nodes to adjust their own relay policy than to have consensus level changes"
X Link 2026-02-13T18:16Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"I'm not sure I'd explain it in that way but basically It's pretty simple the miners started mining things that both Core and Knots failed to restrict which created malincentives in the form of a private mempool via backdoor channels directly to miners changing the network topology. So Core released v30 as harm reduction by removing the filter to give people a decentralized option via op return and even the playing field once more to help re-decentralize the block space market. You can clearly see Core responded to these network changes and didn't cause them here: You can find Core's official"
X Link 2026-02-14T05:46Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@djsenior13 @grantmanh @stephanlivera @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @coinjoined Yah please leave the pseudoscience at home thanks"
X Link 2026-02-14T14:20Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@djsenior13 @grantmanh @stephanlivera @GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @coinjoined Cool muted the thread"
X Link 2026-02-14T14:22Z 53.6K followers, [--] engagements

"No. A size limit designed specifically to block inscriptions is absolutely a subjective judgment about what Bitcoin "should" be used for. The BIP's own documentation says its goal is to reject "data storage as a supported use case" so that's not neutral that's opinionated. So far you haven't refuted a single point and knots stalled at 20% I don't expect [---] to get more than 10-15%. Even hodolnaught no longer supports [---]. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022917601568133385 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022917601568133385"
X Link 2026-02-15T06:15Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@Okzenz Please point out to us all where I "conceded your points". Because so far you've yet to refute a single one all you do is claim that you have which is not the same. Maybe try harder Like presenting some on-chain evidence or something to back up your ridiculous points"
X Link 2026-02-15T15:16Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"the NGU investor And yet that's such a small portion of actual bitcoin holders. If better returns can be found elsewhere capital will move. Better returns can literally always be found else where bitcoin is not just about the returns it's about HOLDING/PROTECTING capital from debasement. Plus you yourself said demand for payments is not moving the price Because that's only one small metric to measure when determining bitcoin's overall health. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023056713419796921 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023056713419796921"
X Link 2026-02-15T15:28Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"The game of chicken is between Bitcoiners who think Bitcoin is money and sh1tcoiners Not even a little bit accurate it's a small minority group of people on twitter who don't understand that bitcoin is a neutral freedom money and doesn't take political sides. Be careful what you say because its your sides chicken thats going to get its head chopped. You won't even be able to find a block. Youre fear-mongering an unlikely Nope it's not fear mongering you are even now failing to refute literally anything in this entire tweet: you and your little spam tribe One again I nor anybody I know that"
X Link 2026-02-12T18:27Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"You recently expressed support for Vitalik. This is 100% false I have no eth never had any interest in eth or Vitalik try again. Talk to you when BIP [---] hash rate is at 54%. Once again miners signaling means nothing as we saw in [----] when miners had 90%+ hashrate what matters is the futures markets they will be absolutely destroying your side just like they currently are in the prediction markets. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022016471531143637 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022016471531143637"
X Link 2026-02-12T18:34Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@value_record @BitMEXResearch @adam3us @MrHodl @BitcoinMotorist @ToneVays @stephanlivera @BitcoinErrorLog @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr @EligiusPool It's also important to understand there actually isn't any images on bitcoin's blockchain as I explain here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2021343507705991337 @Crypt0doc @TheBoozles @hodlonaut As I mention here there is no emergency: https://t.co/Zzd0Vjt3xz People seem to conflate infrastructure operation to personal possession which are treated completely differently under the law. Bitcoin's blockchain only holds only transactional data strings"
X Link 2026-02-14T20:07Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"We've gone over this you literally CANNOT prevent arbitrary data from being embedded into transaction and this [---] attempt blocks future upgrade paths removes bitcoin's neutrality centralizes consensus decisions and ultimately leads to the erosion of bitcoin's censorship resistance and it doesn't even prevent spam no thanks. People can read further about the many issues with [---] here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442"
X Link 2026-02-15T00:38Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"Nobody's lying. You said my data showed the opposite and it doesn't. Even if discussions started in April [----] v30 shipped in October [----]. The on-chain data predates both. Non-standard OP_RETURNs spiked in March [----] over a year before any policy discussion. You're pointing to when devs noticed the problem and 'm pointing to when the problem actually started on chain those aren't the same thing and both predate v30. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023279092402102533 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023279092402102533"
X Link 2026-02-16T06:11Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"That Poinsot email is from April [----]. BitMEX Research found reliable relay from at least July [----]. The network changed between those dates which IS the point. And Poinsot was describing devs working around the 83-byte size limit not relay reliability so either way devs building workarounds to get this data on-chain IS the organic demand that predated v30. The data was hitting the chain before v30 regardless of the path it took to get there. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023283240652660892 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023283240652660892"
X Link 2026-02-16T06:28Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"Mate futures markets are an integral part to winning a fork war if you did literally anything more than [--] min of research on the [----] fork war you'd see why this is the case. It literally doesn't take more than [--] braincells to figure out why miners will mine the more profitable chain instead of the less profitable chain. But don't worry you'll find out soon enough when the split happens and they pop up and your chain becomes worthless"
X Link 2026-02-02T06:00Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@geekigai @SuperTestnet Technical arguments against BIP 110: Mine: ReardenCode: Kevin Loaec: Giacomo Zucco: https://x.com/giacomozucco/status/2020120525796757720 https://x.com/KLoaec/status/2021528510385254600 https://x.com/reardencode/status/2022042011810009244 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @privacymatter21 @dathon_ohm @BitcoinBombadil @GrassFedBitcoin @BTCtoOblivion In order of importance I disagree with: - splitting the chain with controversial consensus forks creating disruption that can cost people money - using something as static as consensus rule to tackle"
X Link 2026-02-14T04:12Z 53.7K followers, [----] engagements

"@kretchino @ToneVays @PivotWithHer @unchained @KLoaec @nunchuk_io Indeed Thanks for the astute example. See Chernobyl actually happened precisely because a small group overrode the safety protocols and ignored the warnings of the engineers who said "don't do this" which is exactly what [---] is donig to Core's code"
X Link 2026-02-14T15:54Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"@Okzenz Bitcoin nodes sync just fine but there are real dangers with [---] as I outline here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 @TheGuySwann It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network"
X Link 2026-02-14T17:02Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"110 clearly still has alot of technical issues including breaking miniscript and vaults centralizing blockspace market incentivizing permanent UTXO bloat making it harder for node runners blocking future upgrade hooks like ln-symmetry and ultimately destroying bitcoin's promise of transaction neutrality as I go more into here: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020594400955695442"
X Link 2026-02-14T18:42Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"No that's a strawman as bitcoin's protocol has no content rendering layer extracting embedded data requires deliberate effort with external tools that have nothing to do with bitcoin. ISPs route illegal content daily and telecoms carry criminal calls. As I noted in my tweet that you completely ignored Infrastructure does not equal possession and courts already recognize this. You prosecute the people who encode and extract not the infrastructure we don't shut down the postal system because someone mailed contraband. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022769650531217797"
X Link 2026-02-14T20:27Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"I don't disagree that the perception risk exists but the response to that risk is what actually matters so educating regulators and the public on how this actually works is the correct path not preemptively compromising the protocol to appease uninformed perception that's how you destroy the thing you're trying to protect. Governments also didn't "see it that way" with encryption P2P and Tor but the answer was never to weaken the technology rather it was to fight for accurate understanding and bitcoin deserves the same defense"
X Link 2026-02-14T21:00Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"Bitcoin already has social legitimacy spot ETFs nation state adoption institutional treasuries and none of that came from compromising the protocol. Introduce subjective content filtering and every government gets to define "acceptable" transactions and that's not adoption that's capture wake up. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022780703193309559 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022780703193309559"
X Link 2026-02-14T21:11Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"the NGU investor And yet that's such a small portion of actual bitcoin holders. If better returns can be found elsewhere capital will move. Better returns can literally always be found else where bitcoin is not just about the returns it's about HOLDING/PROTECTING capital from debasement. Plus you yourself said demand for payments is not moving the price Because that's only one small metric to measure when determining bitcoin's overall health and I haven't even touched on how AI use is going to help increase transaction count/volume yet. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023056953031975241"
X Link 2026-02-15T15:28Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@Pran10000 @ayebytes A further point is because it's so early bitcoin still trades like a tech/software stock instead of a safe haven asset in time it will trade more like the latter"
X Link 2026-02-15T15:35Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"Comparing 20% of income to 20% of node count is a false equivalency b/c in Bitcoin consensus you need overwhelming supermajority to pass changes not 20% so again that's not dismissing it that's how the protocol works. And "your cred depends on it" is a ridiculous argment since so far my rebuttals have been built on technical arguments with sources I've linked data charts and specific examples this entire thread. While you've responded with analogies and "wallet deletion hmm" That kind of says everything to anyone following along with this thread."
X Link 2026-02-15T15:59Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@Okzenz [--] TB in roughly [--] years by [----] is perfectly acceptable growth given bitcoin's blocksize"
X Link 2026-02-15T16:00Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"@Okzenz As you can see from this chart utxo growth has gone down: And as you can see here spam is not displacing bitcoin's financial transactions: https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2022930707820269670 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2018087845144179175 I got a bit tired of being constantly told that oversized OP_RETURN outputs exploded since the release of Bitcoin Core [----] (2026-10-10). So heres a visualization of the data. 🧵 Ive highlighted OP_RETURN outputs of [--] bytes for better visibility: https://t.co/VFnzXD8dnh https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2022930707820269670"
X Link 2026-02-15T16:03Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"Utxo oh goody does that.mean my IBD and chain is smaller Yes actually v28 has massive improvements to IBD and block propagation if you recall. Wow.deflection. spam does affect normal transactions I've lived the inscription mania. Overpaying tx and having to wait hours to days to clear without rbf boosting. And I already mentioned that spam comes in waves and has never stuck around for long thanks to the fee being the filter and why transactions today are extremely cheap. You keep going in circles. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023068724128002218"
X Link 2026-02-15T16:15Z 53.7K followers, [--] engagements

"I have more: Supertestnet's technical objections to 110: Chris' technical objections to 110: Core's blog post explaining op return limit removal: Op return limit removal working: Blockchain size reducing: Spam email analogy explained: https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2020246508105585016 https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2017734529587515425 https://x.com/theonevortex/status/2018087845144179175 https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/ https://x.com/coinjoined/status/2022007354619773243 https://x.com/SuperTestnet/status/2022489685529104574 @BTCtoOblivion No. You're conflating two"
X Link 2026-02-14T14:54Z 53.7K followers, 16.1K engagements

"The lightning network continues to operate as the world wide web to bitcoin's internet of money"
X Link 2026-02-14T15:19Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"Bitcoin's price is driven by demand to hold it not by L1 transaction count so you can have massive price appreciation with relatively few on-chain transactions if each one settles significant value. That said L2 doesn't actually reduce L1 activity the way people assumed since LN still requires open/close channel transactions on-chain and more users on L2 means more L1 settlement demand over time. In practice I've seen LN replace roughly 25-35%+ of regular bitcoin transactions at various businesses I've observed and the rest still hits L1. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2023045053573366065"
X Link 2026-02-15T14:41Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

"@alexbosworth Yah @TFTC21 built a similar app that's a browser plugin called "Opportunity Cost" that lets users view prices on websites in Bitcoin or satoshis but a bulk tool like you describe would also be cool"
X Link 2026-02-16T16:42Z 53.7K followers, [---] engagements

Limited data mode. Full metrics available with subscription: lunarcrush.com/pricing