node

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-07-18

Final complete day: 2026-07-18. Attention was 0.3% — this entity appeared in 17 of 6,464 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (29 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-07-18 19:21 UTCComment

   110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think this essay casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

2. 2026-07-18 16:51 UTCComment

   110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think this essay casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

3. 2026-07-17 12:38 UTCComment

   First of all, thank you for the good answer. >Knots decided to run a UASF to signal that Bitcoin is money and the nodes who run this implementation will reject blocks mined with cats and monkeys jpegs. This is a risk for miners because if a considerable portion of the network runs this version and if a miner find a block with cats and monkeys jpegs, it will be rejected. I think that's the right opinion. The person I learned about the problem from, and whom I listened to speaking on the subject, explained that Bitcoin functions as money and doesn't need to have other features. Otherwise, the ledger expands too much and pointlessly, making it increasingly difficult for a regular user to run and synchronize node, which could more easily lead to Bitcoin becoming too centralized by large companies in the future.

4. 2026-07-17 11:02 UTCComment

   >And then there are those of us who think spam and bloat don't belong on the network and that protection of decentralization is paramount. I think the same way. But what I've gathered so far is that about 75% of the nodes support a version that allows spam and bloat. And if I'm understanding this correctly, Bitcoin is heading in the wrong direction.

5. 2026-07-17 10:41 UTCComment

   Your node will stall in around 22 days at block 961,632 as it starts rejecting blocks that don't signal for BIP-110 (which, at least so far, almost no blocks do). At the same time, other nodes will receive new blocks that they will mine on top of, while you throw your money away mining on top of an old block. To resolve the situation you will need to modify your node one way or another. Perhaps it's possible to disable BIP-110 enforcement? If not, look for an emergency release of Knots, or just switch to Core.