Dathon Ohm
@dathon_ohm
Followers
388
Following
235
Media
2
Statuses
254
Joined November 2025
@GregTonoski @1914ad Core is missing an opportunity to save face by embracing BIP 444. It's the consensus change they've been begging for the past year!
2
7
38
@dathon_ohm @GrassFedBitcoin "breaking userspace" and "fixing exploits" are technically indistinguishable if you have no vision of what your software's purpose is. Bitcoin is money. Arbitrary data is an exploit.
1
7
25
@mononautical It's called not designing your stuff obviously wrong Are you going to blame me for all the people who reused k and tried to RBF?
5
2
25
@SavegeorgeG @dathon_ohm @tonklaus I'm admittedly biased here, but I don't think the monetary side has blinders on the same way the technical side does. The technical side is very much sitting in their ivory towers on this one. Plenty from the monetary side attempt to understand the technical viewpoint, and
2
2
6
Notice the difference in communication from @dathon_ohm and the Knots-ish crowd vs. the Core statement on relay policy from June of this year. The Core statement reads in part: "As Bitcoin Core developers we also consider it our responsibility to make our software work as
11
8
38
"Don't break userspace", while a nice idea, is not applicable to Bitcoin, if "userspace" means "stuffing blocks with arbitrary data". @GrassFedBitcoin puts it very well here:
12
18
94
Hey 444 opponents! This is why. This was always why. Do you want Bitcoin to be money, or do you want this guy dumping whatever he wants on the blockchain for fun?
@lukedewolf @dathon_ohm BSV was a testnet. The target was always BTC. Thanks for opening up the relay policy!
8
38
140
@dathon_ohm @SatsAndSports @mononautical I think summer 2026 would be a good aim to make sure that there is sufficient time to build up support and debate pros and cons. Full disclosure: I don't think we have an emergency, I just think the BIP444 (placeholder name) makes sense.
2
1
2
I love this new motivation section for BIP 444. It articulates my thoughts on the matter almost exactly. I do think there's still some work to be done technically with the BIP. But I really believe the motivation is correct now.
Here's a summary of the current status: https://t.co/FqHN1E3RkY And here's the new Motivation section:
3
20
126
Summary: BIP 444 is a proposal that seeks to limit non-monetary data on bitcoin, preserving bitcoin's focus on money and protecting the blockchain against harmful data. Bitcoiners will either choose to implement this upgrade or they will choose not to.
6
12
55
Here's a summary of the current status: https://t.co/FqHN1E3RkY And here's the new Motivation section:
9
32
111
As more people do their own research and actually come to understand what's in BIP 444, the likelihood it will succeed greatly increases. First one must wade through the surface-level propaganda. Bitcoin is money.
7
23
137
Here's a summary of the current status: https://t.co/FqHN1E3RkY And here's the new Motivation section:
9
32
111
I have submitted an update to the ReducedData Temporary Softfork BIP PR. I updated the Abstract, Motivation, Specification, and Deployment sections: https://t.co/Gq95kDAgdQ
github.com
Mailing list thread at https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8 Editor note: please post conceptual feedback and meta-commentary on the mailing list thread, and focus here on: expert ...
16
39
148
Building consensus.
0
4
20
@peterktodd @mononautical Honestly it's a pretty good advertisement for 444.
1
3
33
Some more signal from Dathon Ohm on GitHub. Beautifully stating the pro-BIP 444 position and laying out why the threat is so grave, and why immediate action is warranted:
11
33
109
444 has been claimed by 3 different draft attempts but hasn’t been assigned to any of them per the active process BIP 2 (and my guess is it most likely will not be, in favor of a fresh number — there is no lack of numbers to use)
This shows everyone how insincere these BIP444 people are. If Core shifting the POLICY default back to 83 bytes was truly enough, why propose and attempt to ram through a CONSENSUS change to like 6 or 7 different aspects of bitcoin and not only the policy change?
5
4
24