Cole 🇿🇦
@ColeTU
Followers
5K
Following
10K
Media
237
Statuses
954
I help people secure and understand bitcoin. ⚡ YouTube: https://t.co/N6w1yjxsdp
Joined April 2021
Struggling with the rising cost of living? Feel like the current financial system is working against you? Discover a powerful alternative. Join us to learn about Bitcoin—a financial system designed to help you prosper in challenging times and secure your financial future. Sign Up
2
17
31
3
8
37
Seed24 is here. A complete metal backup system designed for 24-word phrases, Shamir SLIP39 shares, and advanced MultiSig setups. Built on the original Capsule architecture, now upgraded with a stronger core, improved separators, and tamper-evident security seals. No tools. No
6
38
91
Switched from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots on my @start9labs server. Because, as @ColeTU put it, Bitcoin Core has made some "questionable decisions"... (BTW - Great video explaining how to switch! Thanks!) https://t.co/QXwW7m65tA If you don't know what the hell any of this
27
74
389
You can build one yourself: https://t.co/pUZ5kV8MF1 Or buy one from them: https://t.co/9XKl3NZm69 Code “SOUTH” gets you 5% off
docs.start9.com
Documentation for sovereign computing with startOS
0
4
17
Start9 is a great way to run a bitcoin node - this is how I run mine. They let you choose - do you want to run Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots? They make it super easy to connect to your wallet, and it easy to run your own Mempool instance. This is how you become a sovereign
Filters work in the same way a tall fence and guard dog works. They can't stop every possible attack, but they deter most and raise the cost of success. We should be adding filters, not removing them. And all filters should be configurable. Power to the nodes.
5
27
143
Run a full node. This keeps a complete copy of every block and transaction ever published, allowing you to audit any transaction in Bitcoin’s history.
Bitcoiners running nodes should not prune. Keeping the chain in tact from Genesis and helping other Bitcoiners sync is essential. We actually have Bitcoiners today saying "the size of the chain doesn't matter. Just run a pruned node." I reject this. If everyone runs a pruned
12
21
119
You can literally just download and run free software that maintains an open, global monetary network securing nearly $2T in wealth. Bitcoin is pretty cool, right?
15
32
230
Here are some great resources for installing and using Bitcoin Knots, instead of Bitcoin Core: https://t.co/DnxjD4voGJ
https://t.co/JzF8yJswy0
https://t.co/UraI5JZe8d
https://t.co/Bw0ngWfycD
https://t.co/MQfxgcNarT
24
131
477
I highly recommend reading the comments yourself: https://t.co/B12wSveiLF. And I will leave you with a question. Would you NACK or ACK this?
github.com
As per recent bitcoindev mailing list discussion. Also removes the code to enforce those limits, including the -datacarrier and -datacarriersize config options. These limits are easily bypassed by ...
21
6
66
For example, see Concept ACK comments from murchandamus and eragmus. They argue that arbitrary data use is inevitable, and OP_RETURN is the least harmful option. One highlights reduced node traffic and less miner centralization; the other sees it as a common-sense change to
6
5
42
🟢 ACK (For Removing Limits): Supporters believe that arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin is inevitable, and trying to suppress it only leads to more harmful workarounds - like securing data in other ways or doing private deals with miners. They argue that OP_RETURN is the least
2
7
53
For example, see Concept NACK comments from Seccour, chrisguida, and wizkid057. They argue that loosening limits caves to spammers and encourages abuse of Bitcoin as a data dump. All emphasize the need to fight spam, not accommodate it.
1
1
63
🔴 NACK (Against Removing Limits): This side argues that removing limits on OP_RETURN invites more spam and non-monetary data into Bitcoin blocks, which could crowd out legitimate financial transactions. They emphasize that Bitcoin's primary purpose is money, not a cheap
7
4
91
Here’s MY summary of each side. These are the most commonly repeated points I have seen, though there may be other arguments I’ve missed:
1
1
45
If you open the PR on GitHub, you’ll see a table showing which reviewers support or oppose the change. Clicking their names reveals their full comments. 🔴 Concept NACK = Disagrees with the overall idea or purpose of the change. 🟢 Concept ACK = Agrees with the general idea or
4
1
56
Context: This PR proposes changes to Bitcoin Core by removing default limits on OP_RETURN - a part of transactions used to store data. Currently, Core only allows a small OP_RETURN per transaction. The change would allow much larger OP_RETURNs, making Core more permissive in what
3
3
60
If you really want to understand the Bitcoin Core debate, I suggest you go and read the actual Pull Request on Github. That’s exactly what I’ve done - and this thread will break it down for you. 🧵
74
149
964