[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]

# ![@lukedewolf Avatar](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:26/cr:twitter::1511027474628501515.png) @lukedewolf Luke de Wolf

Luke de Wolf posts on X about bitcoin, hashrate, spam, money the most. They currently have XXXXX followers and XX posts still getting attention that total XXXXXX engagements in the last XX hours.

### Engagements: XXXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::1511027474628501515/interactions)
![Engagements Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::1511027474628501515/c:line/m:interactions.svg)

- X Week XXXXXX +64%
- X Month XXXXXXX -XX%
- X Months XXXXXXXXXX -XX%
- X Year XXXXXXXXXX +6,415%

### Mentions: XX [#](/creator/twitter::1511027474628501515/posts_active)
![Mentions Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::1511027474628501515/c:line/m:posts_active.svg)

- X Week XX -XXXX%
- X Month XXX +209%
- X Months XXX +4,964%
- X Year XXX +1,506%

### Followers: XXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::1511027474628501515/followers)
![Followers Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::1511027474628501515/c:line/m:followers.svg)

- X Week XXXXX +2.50%
- X Month XXXXX +10%
- X Months XXXXX +31%
- X Year XXXXX +40%

### CreatorRank: XXXXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::1511027474628501515/influencer_rank)
![CreatorRank Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::1511027474628501515/c:line/m:influencer_rank.svg)

### Social Influence

**Social category influence**
[cryptocurrencies](/list/cryptocurrencies)  #6219 [finance](/list/finance)  XXXXX%

**Social topic influence**
[bitcoin](/topic/bitcoin) #2074, [hashrate](/topic/hashrate) #102, [spam](/topic/spam) #117, [money](/topic/money) 6.02%, [sats](/topic/sats) #29, [exchanges](/topic/exchanges) #463, [utxo](/topic/utxo) #3, [matter](/topic/matter) 3.61%, [if you](/topic/if-you) 3.61%, [ordinals](/topic/ordinals) #60

**Top accounts mentioned or mentioned by**
[@murchandamus](/creator/undefined) [@adam3us](/creator/undefined) [@bitcoinbombadil](/creator/undefined) [@lukedashjr](/creator/undefined) [@dathon_ohm](/creator/undefined) [@stephanlivera](/creator/undefined) [@malachirevolts](/creator/undefined) [@dathonohm](/creator/undefined) [@elkrun21](/creator/undefined) [@catotheelder17](/creator/undefined) [@antonbtc](/creator/undefined) [@mglycinate](/creator/undefined) [@anton__btc](/creator/undefined) [@bitcoinscales](/creator/undefined) [@bitcoinmooky](/creator/undefined) [@letenken](/creator/undefined) [@roryhighside](/creator/undefined) [@loriss65](/creator/undefined) [@joakimbook](/creator/undefined) [@shinyazurill](/creator/undefined)

**Top assets mentioned**
[Bitcoin (BTC)](/topic/bitcoin)
### Top Social Posts
Top posts by engagements in the last XX hours

"Good points here. I maybe don't understand why consolidating to X UTXO would be better. Functionally it seems similar but breaks Bitcoin worse. As to your 4th point: are withdrawals from exchanges including dust as separate UTXOs I can't imagine this is the practice. The Cat wouldn't freeze anything that isn't explicitly part of the listed protocols and isn't below the dust limit"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997993091848888445)  2025-12-08T11:34Z 3319 followers, XXX engagements


"@dathon_ohm @LeTenken @Anton__BTC This isn't an answer. If the hash rate is below the XX% what happens That's the scenario people don't want to see. I don't want this to go through then fork off. That would be very bad for Bitcoin"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997680899241246864)  2025-12-07T14:53Z 3303 followers, XX engagements


"I understand this scenario. If it reaches XX% hash rate I'm fully convinced of the BIP's success. If it's lower much lower and still activates What then That's the scenario I want to explore. I would love to see the BIP get to 55%. But what if it doesn't None of this is counterintuitive to me. If the BIP will activate no matter how much hash rate it has what happens Another issue I don't hear being addressed anywhere is how to deal with fork-valid transactions that are mined in non-fork-compliant blocks. They wouldn't just get mined in the next fork block. They would be considered mined by"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997707884658909693)  2025-12-07T16:40Z 3303 followers, XXX engagements


"@Anton__BTC @dathon_ohm @LeTenken I'll wait for your explanation. But I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. There's a level of hash rate that is enough for this to succeed. I want to understand what that is"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997722324615975107)  2025-12-07T17:38Z 3303 followers, XXX engagements


"Not joking. Thanks for clarifying your position. I'll just point out that the proposal is not arbitrary. It is in fact very specific. Spam is also a problem. And The Cat assets that spam is not money and if Bitcoin is money spam is fair game. I'm just repeating the rationale. I understand that many Bitcoiners are against it. Many Bitcoiners are for it too though"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998658054355669147)  2025-12-10T07:36Z 3319 followers, XXX engagements


"I strongly hold that it's not censorship to remove graffiti as Giacomo puts it. The sats themselves are a different story. But the spammers could just move to new UTXOs if they care about the sats. That's if The Cat activates obviously"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998697280191303709)  2025-12-10T10:12Z 3319 followers, 1814 engagements


"@murchandamus @adam3us Got it. So an extra XX bytes. Totally in the realm of reasonable to me. Thanks for explaining"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998798399483592951)  2025-12-10T16:54Z 3319 followers, XX engagements


"@adam3us @murchandamus @felipecreate Well here you at least mention ecash. I disagree that the general concept of censorship resistance is the purpose of Bitcoin. If you (or Murch) say "censorship resistant money" then we don't really have a disagreement. Leaving "money" or "cash" out was really important to me"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1995598921335537736)  2025-12-01T21:00Z 3312 followers, 3121 engagements


"@giacomozucco @LukeDashjr @Arthur_van_Pelt @PeetXBT @CoinControversy @danny_stutzman @adam3us @BitMEXResearch @murchandamus @orionwl_ Isn't the activation threshold quite high Enough to ensure it's the longer chain"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997281938118459835)  2025-12-06T12:28Z 3316 followers, 1082 engagements


"The important clarification from Dathon is that it will go through either way. The only questions are how many nodes signal for it and how many miners will be mining fork-valid blocks. And if the soft-fork is the minority of hash rate and user adoption then we ARE in chain split territory. So it is in fact quite plausible to cause a chain split. I don't think that's FUD"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997631219761021274)  2025-12-07T11:36Z 3320 followers, XXX engagements


"@roryhighside @Anton__BTC I mean taking a flip side here: Mining soft-fork compliant blocks still means you're mining Bitcoin blocks that are valid no matter what. So from that perspective it's not actually risky for miners to run the soft fork"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997639116133957795)  2025-12-07T12:07Z 3312 followers, XX engagements


"I mean if the soft fork is REALLY low hash rate it could take 2x 3x 5x 10x time for the new epoch to hit. And then it's just a really long time before there's any chance of realistically catching up. I know that miners get an incentive to mine the chain with lower hash rate after the first difficulty adjustment. So I understand it's possible. But I don't think it's mathematically proven that the soft fork would win if it's being adversarial. URSF is also a risk"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997639844315496473)  2025-12-07T12:10Z 3310 followers, XX engagements


"@LukeDashjr @Anton__BTC Can you explain further If the hash rate is high enough seems like the invalid blocks can overwhelm the soft fork"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997649883650568495)  2025-12-07T12:50Z 3310 followers, XXX engagements


"@LukeDashjr @Anton__BTC At XX% sure. What if XXX only has XX% hash rate"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997650360547025063)  2025-12-07T12:52Z 3310 followers, XXX engagements


"@gm7t2 OK I'm out of my depth here. I didn't realize you can "consolidate" inscriptions like that. Still this seems like an extreme edge case. And a good reason for the cap in sats"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998088251983515974)  2025-12-08T17:52Z 3310 followers, XX engagements


"@BitcoinBombadil @eric_b_hodln @elkrun21 @LukeDashjr @Loriss65 I take this position basically. It's correcting a past mistake. Or series of mistakes"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998113040160485419)  2025-12-08T19:30Z 3316 followers, XXX engagements


"@Raychords_76 I want you scammers off Bitcoin"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998329247421641113)  2025-12-09T09:49Z 3309 followers, XXX engagements


"@PasiPaananen @ungovbitcoin Right. It has to be stored in RAM to do the IBD at a reasonable rate. And also to validate blocks in a timely manner"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998359473442967939)  2025-12-09T11:50Z 3317 followers, XX engagements


"@LukeDashjr I'm cautiously optimistic about both proposals"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998383889610379571)  2025-12-09T13:27Z 3318 followers, XXX engagements


"@joakimbook @LiliH65289916 "Freedom maximalism" doesn't mean you have a right to put literally anything on Bitcoin. Freedom is not decreased whatsoever by the protocol being slightly more strict"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998408986949730521)  2025-12-09T15:06Z 3312 followers, XX engagements


"@knutsvanholm @joakimbook @LiliH65289916 I wonder if this is a viewpoint that someone into Austrian economics might like 🤔"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998413031727047113)  2025-12-09T15:22Z 3312 followers, XX engagements


"Which of the things you mentioned are needed right now Or even at all. Nice to have sure. But is it necessary to do those things for Bitcoin to continue functioning I'm not trying to trivialize that there is a lot of good innovative development going on. But for example by including Segwit upgrade hooks that's a wide open arbitrary data vector. Just in case"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998417501965762769)  2025-12-09T15:40Z 3316 followers, XX engagements


"@kliberaali A lot of people definitely care about both things. If Bitcoin is money non-monetary UTXOs are an abuse of the protocol. Confiscation doesn't apply"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998430082340188226)  2025-12-09T16:30Z 3317 followers, XX engagements


"OK no offense intended. I meant that you are "apparently" technical but I don't know much about you beyond your public profile. Other technical people make the same argument and it's non-sensical to me. Sorry if the word was unappreciated. Regardless I push back that this isn't like SQL injection. It's the same type of thing. It's a non-designed use uses an escape and allows doing arbitrary things. It's the same pattern. It doesn't need to be a SQL library. Anyway have a good day yourself. I understand we have a difference of opinion here. Yours is a principled position I respect it. I will"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998461133183762627)  2025-12-09T18:33Z 3317 followers, XX engagements


"@BtcBlackthorne I'm thinking about it from a system defense perspective not simply in terms of patching. Whatever is monetary "right now" is a valid concern. Not putting jpegs and tokens on Bitcoin is a start though"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998475666594082877)  2025-12-09T19:31Z 3317 followers, XX engagements


"@BitcoinBombadil I'm not saying I agree with them"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998702219961512396)  2025-12-10T10:31Z 3316 followers, XX engagements


"@matteopelleg This isn't a hard fork though. Still soft fork"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997883072528674998)  2025-12-08T04:16Z 3320 followers, XXX engagements


"I think ossifying now is impossible and misguided. As we see in our current debates over BIP-110 and The Cat there are serious divisions as to what state Bitcoin should take in the near future. Even this proposal mentions putting in hooks for quantum resistance so it's not true ossification (and the overflow bug also needs to be fixed eventually). But more than that I don't think it's ever going to be possible for us to ossify completely. The world is a dynamic place with human beings who have their own motivations. There will always be something new to react to. I like the idea of"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998347443218354512)  2025-12-09T11:02Z 3320 followers, 1012 engagements


"The compensation argument is interesting. Realistically consolidating into their own new UTXOs is completely fine by me. Anyone holding just X or X of these will either move to a new 1000 sat UTXO to save their precious dickbutt or just not bother. So as I see it it's all on them"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998405097936617650)  2025-12-09T14:51Z 3319 followers, XX engagements


"Sounds very reasonable The dust limit is a bit strange in this context. It exists for good reason. The UTXO set would not support billions of tiny UTXOs. So it's necessary. And Core even agrees to that. But as the value of Bitcoin increases the dust limit becomes worth more and more. I wouldn't mind setting a dust limit by consensus. Simply set it at 1000 sats and be done. Long lead time lots of time to consolidate or move. Eventually that'll be worth a lot of money. But it doesn't work on chain for a lot of reasons. It's complicated"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998411525715874232)  2025-12-09T15:16Z 3320 followers, XX engagements


"@dathon_ohm What about OP_DROP the listed mechanism Ordinals would move to What about unencumbered Segwit outputs These have been discussed extensively over the last few weeks"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998453506278318305)  2025-12-09T18:03Z 3320 followers, XXX engagements


"@simogattok This has nothing to do with regulators nor gives them any power"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998618974029050198)  2025-12-10T05:01Z 3320 followers, XX engagements


"@sjen_anoubis No I prefer spam get off Bitcoin. Ordinals BRC-20s Stamps all of it. Bitcoin is money not storage for stupid garbage"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998705906431742132)  2025-12-10T10:46Z 3319 followers, XX engagements


"@Bitcoin_Scales I prioritize Bitcoin as money. Many others do also. My node doesn't relay or accept non-monetary transactions. I mine with OCEAN and my blocks do not include non-monetary transactions. I'm not alone"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1996239677209051386)  2025-12-03T15:26Z 3320 followers, XXX engagements


"If XX% of hash power is mining invalid blocks there's definitely a split. But theoretically with XX% of soft fork hash and blocks valid on both chains the soft fork chain should consume the other. The issue is if the hash rate is significantly lower. What if the soft fork has only XX% of hash for example Those blocks would be valid on both chains but have a significant hash disadvantage. Even after a difficulty adjustment it might never catch up. Do I have this right"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997646008407253058)  2025-12-07T12:34Z 3321 followers, XXX engagements


"There are more variables here. If 110-compliant miners are XX% of the hash rate then it would theoretically take XX weeks for a difficulty adjustment. Then XX weeks for the one after that. It's a long time to make it back to a XX minute block interval. And the other issue is that regular transactions that make it into a non-compliant block wouldn't be mined again on a compliant block. So the compliant chain would lose legitimate transactions and all their descendants. It's not cut and dried"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997649245902442665)  2025-12-07T12:47Z 3322 followers, XXX engagements


"I like The Cat. If you don't know what I'm talking about details are here: I've given it a day to digest read the proposal and read some of the associated commentary here on X. I really like it. One idea it puts forward is "Non-Monetary UTXOs." This is a brilliant framing that I've been trying to articulate since this whole spam mess began. Spam is not the same thing as monetary transactions. They are not moving satoshis in order to send or store value. They are moving satoshis in order to hold something external which instead holds and transfers their perceived value. They are using Bitcoin"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997909365211189628)  2025-12-08T06:01Z 3319 followers, 44.9K engagements


"@sjen_anoubis As I understand if these things are sent to exchanges they break. Or the user still has full control over them and they can move them as usual. FAFO applies"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997931788895760878)  2025-12-08T07:30Z 3319 followers, XXX engagements


"@PeetXBT X. XXX% agree that it's "censorship". I assert that it's deserved. The network can defend itself against attacks. X. Doesn't matter this is specifically targeted. X. That's a monetary transaction"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997939599898021963)  2025-12-08T08:01Z 3321 followers, XXX engagements


"@simogattok @LukeDashjr @vforvilela @Anton__BTC Not how soft forks work. Blocks on the soft fork are valid on both chains"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1997994143683875154)  2025-12-08T11:38Z 3319 followers, XX engagements


"Exchanges are extremely rarely holding the exact deposited UTXOs for a single user. They're mingled and consolidated. It would have to be some kind of Ordinals specific wallet which I know there are some. Regardless the action of moving UTXOs without the ordinals encoding removes the ability to link to the inscription. That would happen at latest the withdrawal"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998082038121803939)  2025-12-08T17:27Z 3322 followers, XX engagements


"This is the best chart related to The Cat. So many UTXOs at exactly XXX bytes. This isn't economic activity. This is using Bitcoin for non-monetary purposes. Charts like this make it clear as day to see what's going on. Now the only question is: will anything be done"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998268880322433270)  2025-12-09T05:50Z 3321 followers, 3741 engagements


"@giacomozucco This whole OP_RETURN 444/110 Cat situation has shown that the entire Core apparatus is extremely centralized. It's the biggest risk to Bitcoin as I see it"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998269186196582860)  2025-12-09T05:51Z 3319 followers, 4245 engagements


"I like The Cat. I was careful about that choice of words. I'm not convinced it's exactly the right thing to do. Obviously it's been immediately divisive. Now I'm going to piss everyone off There are 4ish camps here. X. Cat/BIP-110 supporters - monetary maximalists who want spam off Bitcoin by whatever means possible. X. Monetary maximalists who don't necessarily strongly support either proposal. I'm in that camp and I'll explain why. X. Bitcoiners who are more concerned about censorship resistance and who are therefore against The Cat (for sure) and BIP-110 (probably). I'm sympathetic to this"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998345423711306153)  2025-12-09T10:54Z 3319 followers, 8160 engagements


"@Pledditor The spammers weren't respecting the property rights of all Bitcoiners. And at least with The Cat they have a way out. I like the idea of rugging the spammers. But obviously this has been extremely divisive"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998656513036952056)  2025-12-10T07:30Z 3319 followers, XXX engagements


"@murchandamus @adam3us So the only reasonable way to get something longer in this context mined would be librerelay or straight to miner"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998796940021215246)  2025-12-10T16:48Z 3319 followers, XXX engagements


"@Mappingqualia If they either value their sats or their spam they have the option to spend more sats to keep them safe. Or consolidate"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998822282987467256)  2025-12-10T18:29Z 3320 followers, X engagements


"@elkrun21 @MajorianBTC They shouldn't have been consensus valid in the first place and are clearly abuse of the network. This is why using their own tools for the indexing is important. They self-identified"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1998824585014243621)  2025-12-10T18:38Z 3320 followers, XXX engagements


"@Loriss65 @Sebante_123 @knutsvanholm It's not forward looking so I don't think it's useful for lawfare. It also doesn't remove anything from the blockchain so it's not like we could use it to scrub CSAM if that ever happened"  
[X Link](https://x.com/lukedewolf/status/1999008891451977938)  2025-12-11T06:50Z 3319 followers, XX engagements