Nostreon is in
open beta
— you may hit rough edges.
Report a bug
Nostreon
Home
Explore
Subs
Profile
Aaron van Wirdum — Nostreon
Aaron van Wirdum
Journalism
Follow
npub1art...hpm0w5
www.thegenesisbook.com
Author of The Genesis Book. Former Editor-in-Chief at Bitcoin Magazine.
All
Notes
52
Reply
Jul 5
Replying to
a note
Nostr doesn't boost controversy and/or Nostr users aren't as addicted to engagement?
Note
Jun 25
DMND, the Stratum V2 mining pool, just mined its first block.
Note
Jun 24
The failure of BIP110 will reveal that social media drama is just noise and I think that's wonderful.
Reply
Jun 22
Replying to
a note
In his mind (and his cultish followers) the BIP110 rules will be the new Bitcoin protocol. If ~no blocks are mined on this fork chain, he's saying users (him and his followers) should change the POW algorithm to something else, which presumably means people can mine with GPUs again on this chain, at least initially. It would really just create a forkcoin, not unlike Bitcoin Cash, but like many Bitcoin Cash supporters they'll claim it's "the real Bitcoin". I'm not sure that answers your questio...
Show more
Reply
Jun 3
Replying to
a note
The X algorithm optimizes for outrage.
Reply
May 28
Replying to
a note
Not gonna sit through more Kratter plebslob but assuming this is about Mechanic's game theory I'll leave this here.
Note
May 28
In a new episode of What Bitcoin Did with
@nprofile...q2rk
,
@nprofile...566r
talks about the game theory behind BIP110, which he believes makes it virtually guaranteed to succeed. There was a lot of discussion about these dynamics in anticipat...
Show more
Note
May 28
In a new episode of What Bitcoin Did with
@npub16le...ffxj
,
@npub1wnl...n3wr
talks about the game theory behind BIP110, which he believes makes it virtually guaranteed to succeed. There was a lot of discussion about these dynamics in anticipation of the Segwit UASF (BIP148) in 2017; I for example wrote this article about it at the time:
bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/op-ed-h...
Show more
Note
May 28
The German translation of The Genesis Book is now available for preorder! Ganz toll.
Reply
May 14
Replying to
a note
sgtm
Note
May 12
In August 2017, users proved that miners can’t block a valuable upgrade. In August 2026, miners will prove that users can’t push through a harmful upgrade.
Note
May 6
What's the Plan For a Post-Quantum Soft-Fork: Bitcoin 2026 panel featuring Jonathan Bier, Mike Casey, Christian Papathanasiou and Ian Smith, and moderated by myself.
Note
May 5
Preserving the Historical Record of Bitcoin Knowledge: Bitcoin 2026 panel featuring Jonathan Bier, Michael Goldstein and myself, and moderated by Paul Rosenberg.
Reply
Apr 26
Replying to
a note
IIUC this post will be shown on the Open Source stage at Bitcoin 2026 so people can zap me during our panel.
Note
Apr 26
Reply
Apr 14
Replying to
a note
If your answer is an address index that also seems a bit underwhelming; BTCDrak already released such a Bitcoin Core fork over a decade ago but I guess no one really cared:
bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin...
Reply
Apr 14
Replying to
a note
Do you have an answer to this question?
Reply
Apr 4
Replying to
a note
Reply
Apr 2
Replying to
a note
I couldn’t find much on these Bitcoin Maps websites. Only place I’ve paid with bitcoin so far is the Bitcoin house itself. But maybe a local knows more than I do.
Note
Apr 1
Bitcoin House Bali
Reply
Apr 1
Replying to
a note
Roy
Reply
Mar 25
Replying to
a note
It'll only serve as a check on the direction of development if people use it. So my question is, what exactly will be the product differentiation that will get people to use it? If the answer is different policy defaults that seems a bit underwhelming since, well, they're defaults and can already be changed...
Reply
Mar 21
Replying to
a note
The general idea of adjusting difficulty predates Bitcoin, but (AFAIK) Bitcoin was the first with a difficulty adjustment *algorithm* :)
Reply
Mar 12
Replying to
a note
No offense taken, I think this is exactly right. And both the Iranian and the UAE governments probably know this as well. To be fair, I have seen some “we’re not fucking leaving” sentiment among expats. But as mentioned daily life is also still pretty normal; I doubt it will persist for very long if things keep getting tougher from here.
Reply
Mar 12
Replying to
a note
It’s a jihadist regime that killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of its own citizens earlier this year.
Reply
Mar 12
Replying to
a note
There is a US airbase in Abu Dhabi, but the UAE government is explicitly not letting the Americans use it to attack Iran. Nevertheless this is the excuse the IRGC is giving: they say they’re “just” attacking US bases and assets. (If true they would appear to have very bad aim.) It seems more like the Jihadist regime is basically taking the entire region hostage to gain leverage in this war.
Note
Mar 12
So I’ve been living in Dubai since last summer. Not because I like the city — I don't — but because my girlfriend lived there when we met and she wasn't quite ready to leave yet. Admittedly the tax benefit is nice too. Earlier this week we decided to get out however, at least for a couple of weeks, to see how the situation develops without being in the middle of it. The uncertainty of it all and potential for escalation is just not a comfortable situation to be in. With that said, daily life i...
Show more
Reply
Mar 5
Replying to
a note
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Reply
Mar 5
Replying to
a note
- No, it’s self-evident (all else equal) - Libre Relay is not private and that’s the point - Your hamburger analogy makes no sense whatsoever in this context
Note
Mar 4
Dear
@npub1lh2...a9nk
@npub1lh2...a9nk
, would you please be so kind as to define by what process network consent should be formally obtained?
...
Show more
Note
Feb 27
Reply
Feb 27
Replying to
a note
URSF stands for User Rejected Soft Fork. If miners were to activate BIP110, URSF nodes would reject this so the chain splits between BIP110 nodes that enforce the new soft fork rules and URSF nodes that don't. It's a way for users and miners to say: we're not going along with your soft fork, and we'll keep using the Bitcoin protocol as it was.
Note
Feb 27
For anyone interested, there’s now a Telegram channel to discuss BIP110 URSF specifics:
t.me/+svDDMRJtO8UzMzNk
(Alternatively there is also still the #
#ursf
channel on Libera.Chat IRC.)
Reply
Feb 25
Replying to
a note
Bitcoin Core developers have explicitly said users are free to run different software:
bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-s...
What people like myself are sick of are the lies and deceptive rhetoric around all of this, and the toxic environment it creates.
Reply
Feb 24
Replying to
a note
You didn't address 's point-- instead you just got triggered by the word "censoring".
Reply
Feb 24
Replying to
a note
Keep digging that hole buddy you're doing great.
Reply
Feb 21
Replying to
a note
Judging by all this recent drama — which they indeed rightfully ignored in favour of sound technical engineering -- it would probably be many of the current Core devs.
Reply
Feb 21
Replying to
a note
The day Bitcoin Core developers bend to the pressure of a misguided Twitter mob riled up by populist social media influencers, instead of merging code based on their best technical judgement, is the day the codebase should be forked to re-establish sound engineering practices.
Reply
Feb 20
Replying to
a note
Liar.
Reply
Feb 20
Replying to
a note
>I don't know of a good way to estimate that. Fork futures.
Reply
Feb 20
Replying to
a note
What if I think the default is the best option?
Reply
Feb 20
Replying to
a note
Core 30
Reply
Feb 20
Replying to
a note
If 90% of the network runs on defaults that is because 90% of users voluntarily decide to do that.
Note
Feb 19
Luke-jr moving through the Bitcoin space.
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
Yes I agree with your premise. I would also encourage the development of a URSF for that reason, if you (or anyone else) don't consider it a waste of your time and effort.
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
I doubt it would represent a significant loss, and in fact I suspect that adopting BIP110 would harm the value of bitcoin more than losing these people would. But without fork futures markets --which I'm very much in favour of!-- it's anyone's guess unless and until there actually is a split. (That's another argument for a URSF btw, it would enable a very well defined fork futures market.)
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
(To be precise I think the 1109th signaling block within a difficulty window should be rejected, as that would bring it over the 55%-threshold, and makes for a relatively clean split between the BIP110 chain and the original chain.)
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
Last I checked BIP110 will have a mandatory signaling window in August, so if miners don’t signal, BIP110 nodes will in fact fork themselves off the network. Your scenario could still happen if miners do signal (which non-BIP110 won’t care about one way or the other). That’s why IMO it’s still good to pay attention to signaling, and if there is any it’s probably time to start considering a URSF. The worst case scenario is if miners don’t signal until very shortly before the mandatory signaling...
Show more
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
No miners are currently signaling support for BIP110, so investing time and effort in developing a URSF client seems like a waste of time and effort at this time (to me, anyways). Much easier to just use the rejectblock command post-fork if a BIP110 block that forks the chain is ever mined.
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
Devs can't do that. They can only release free and open source software that users can then voluntarily decide to run-- or not.
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
Yes most OG Bitcoiners are against arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin. That’s why we fought to keep blocks small. F(r)ee market economics should do the rest in an open, permissionless and censorship resistant system.
Reply
Feb 17
Replying to
a note
Name one prominent small blocker from the block size war era besides Luke who's now in favour of BIP110?
Nostreon
