Mischa

Bitcoin becomes what its users use it for. The direction of Bitcoin is ultimately shaped by the collective agreement of users, and the rules can change if that agreement changes. If more activity moves toward NFTs, smart contracts, or DeFi, the incentives around Bitcoin will also shift in that direction. Because Bitcoin is built on trade-offs between decentralization and scaling, pushing it toward other applications risks weakening its role as decentralized money and a store of value. 📝 b76af070…

Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were introduced with Taproot, with the promise that they would improve Bitcoin as a payment network. For a long time the argument was that these use cases simply needed time to develop. Now more than four years have passed and Taproot is still barely used for payments. It had enough time to prove its value. What we see instead is that a significant portion of blockspace is used for things that have little to do with Bitcoin as money, or a payment network. The issue is that Bitcoin evolves through consensus. Bitcoin ultimately becomes what its users use it for. If more activity revolves around NFTs, smart contracts, DeFi, or similar applications, the incentives around Bitcoin will inevitably shift in that direction. Bitcoin is built on trade-offs. Decentralization and scaling cannot both be maximized. Other applications have very different trade-offs than Bitcoin as decentralized money and a store of value. Once those use cases become large within the network, they also gain influence over its future direction. At that point it becomes much harder to steer Bitcoin back toward its role as money. If a large share of blockspace is already used for other purposes, that shift has already begun. That is the risk I see, and why I support moving Bitcoin back toward being primarily a store of value and payment network.

I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose. The concern is understandable: if users can bypass node relay rules by sending large OP_RETURN transactions directly to miners, that creates centralization pressure. Miners could start offering private submission channels for large data transactions. Over time, that weakens the public mempool and gives mining pools more gatekeeping power. After recognizing this issue, Core likely looked at different ways to handle it. In the end, they decided to align relay policy with consensus and completely remove the OP_RETURN size limit at the policy level. The idea was straightforward: if the standard relay path allows what consensus already allows, there is no incentive to route transactions around the network. Up to that point, I can follow the reasoning. But that is not the only possible solution. Why not go in the opposite direction? Instead of loosening relay rules, why not tighten consensus to 80 bytes? That would have: • Closed the bypass vector completely • Removed the incentive for direct miner submission • Kept the attack surface smaller • Avoided normalizing larger data embedding • Reduced legal and reputational risks • Made large-scale spam more expensive, since it would need to be split into multiple transactions In short, instead of expanding what is permitted at the policy layer, consensus could have been made stricter. So the real question is: Why was this option not seriously debated? Were there strong technical reasons against it, or was it simply not the direction they wanted to take?

Most nodes oppose the change in v30. Most nodes also oppose the change proposed in BIP110. So why not roll back both and slow down? Take the time to develop serious solutions. Let different teams propose different approaches. Evaluate them openly. Test them thoroughly. Compare the trade-offs honestly. Then, in one or two years, decide which path truly makes sense for Bitcoin. As long as Core refuses to reverse its change, I feel pushed toward supporting the fork. We clearly have a spam problem and spam harms Bitcoin in multiple ways. Ignoring it is not a strategy. Pretending it has no meaningful impact is the wrong approach. If the change were rolled back, I would be willing to give the process more time. I do not see this as an immediate emergency. But failing to address the issue and signaling that spam will simply be tolerated will only accelerate the problem. That is not a direction Bitcoin should move toward.

History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses. Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low. This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction. One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable. These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest. This post is inspired by the newest video from @Bitcoin Mechanic Best regards, I appreciate your content.

As mining competition intensifies, efficiency increasingly depends on access to cheap capital rather than technology. In a world of centralized finance, this pushes miners toward centralized funding sources that come with conditions and influence. The result is a mining sector far more centralized than many are willing to admit. 📝 192f9d1c…

As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit.

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability. The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future. https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4 📝 7b6fe543…