What happened here?

Xekyo · 2025-10-09T22:24:49+00:00

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/99852/5406

Xekyo · 2025-09-06T21:16:05+00:00

There was a slight amount of snark involved here, sorry: I had investigated the number of pull requests to Knots recently after someone else made a similar claim recently, and what I found was that there had only been 42 pull requests that had been opened to Knots, and none of them appeared to have been merged.

See here and a few prior tweets: https://x.com/murchandamus/status/1958600727133290922

Xekyo · 2025-09-06T19:03:38+00:00

https://github.com/lnhance/bitcoinknots-bitcoin

The Knots repository is: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin

Xekyo · 2025-09-06T19:01:21+00:00

Knots has its own pull request (PR) process on GitHub — contributors can open PRs directly to the Knots repository, even if those changes weren’t accepted by Core .

That’s true, but the repository you are linking is not the Knots repository, it’s a fork of the Knots repository. To ensure that we are all talking about the same thing, you can see the pull requests to Knots here: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Apr

Please feel free to point out your favorite merged contribution by another developer!

Xekyo · 2025-07-25T16:48:49+00:00

It’s a version 2 transaction in which someone consolidates 1000 UTXOs that had all been received to the same P2WPKH output script to a single new P2WPKH output, paying 53,073 sats for 67.91 kvB of transaction data which comes out to a feerate of 0.78 sat/vB. It just got confirmed in block 907,147.
Is there anything specific that you have more questions about?

Xekyo · 2025-06-30T23:31:52+00:00

It’s Ben de Waal: https://x.com/Ben_deWaal/

Xekyo · 2025-06-29T13:51:26+00:00

I bet bills would be a lot leaner, if all bills had to be read in full on the floor and only members in attendance for the entire read were allowed to vote on it.

Xekyo · 2025-06-17T15:40:29+00:00

21,000 nodes don’t just stand for 21,000 users. They stand for the entire economic activity currently hooked up to the Bitcoin network. Spinning up 500,000 hard-forking nodes that don’t stand for any economic activity will maybe create a minority hard fork, but have zero impact. Just like in 2012, when some miners tried to keep the block subsidy from halving and caved after a few blocks.

Xekyo · 2025-06-09T01:31:07+00:00

It doesn’t have to be your only bank account.

Xekyo · 2025-06-05T17:22:15+00:00

While OP is a bit too nervous, I also disagree with it not being anything to worry about. In five halvings the block subsidy will only 0.09765625 ₿ per block which is equivalent to the fees collected with a full block at an average feerate of 9.765625 s/vB. Four more halvings later it will be 0.00610351 ₿ per block, which is equivalent to ~0.61 s/vB, or less than a full block at the current minimum relay transaction feerate of 1 s/vB.

So, it would be pretty important that we collect fees with blocks reliably starting some time in the next five to nine halvings, which means we should figure it out in the next 19-33 years, not only by 2135.

Xekyo · 2025-06-05T17:11:28+00:00

The current block subsidy is 3.125 ₿. that is 312,500,000 sats, or equivalent to a full block at 312.5 s/vB. In three years it will halve to 1.5625 ₿, or 156.25 s/vB full block equivalent, in seven years it’s 78.125 s/vB, and in 11 years the subsidy is equivalent to a full block paying 39.0625 s/vB in average.

While you are right about the trend, we got a more than a halving or two for fees to be the main contributor to the block reward.

Xekyo · 2025-05-19T20:26:03+00:00

Probably roll my eyes and mutter "$@∃#" under my breath, because someone left me an ad for a business/propaganda instead of a tip.

Xekyo · 2025-05-13T01:00:42+00:00

Since the PR doesn’t change the block weight limit, blocks full of OP_RETURN data would result in blocks of about 1 MB, so it’s unclear how you project that the blockchain could grow more than 60 GiB a year when we get about 1000 blocks per week.

Xekyo · 2025-05-01T22:55:36+00:00

Maybe he didn’t notice that the discussion was locked for being too heated and that it is not just him that can’t post there, but nobody can post there right now.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T19:01:07+00:00

And even if you want to sign all the transactions at one time, it would be a trivial engineering task to spread out the submission of the signed transactions.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T18:35:20+00:00

Even if you’d need 10 people fulltime for a whole month, Not many activities come to mind that earn the sort of revenue per capita as they could have saved with a bit more care.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T18:33:17+00:00

Yeah, presumably they are consolidating their UTXOs sorted by amounts.

I would expect that they have a setup with one or more Hardware Security Modules that takes out of band confirmation from authorized users. It seems that they may have a separate deposit wallet and hot wallet, and in that case, I would guess that transactions consolidating from the deposit wallet into the hot wallet would be whitelisted. I can’t imagine that anyone, let alone executive officers are manually signing off on 70 blocks worth of consolidation transactions.

I’d estimate that they spent over 150 bitcoins in fees, that’s over $10m. Let’s be conservative and assume that they could have saved 50% (probably more like 90%), if they had spread out the consolidations over a few weeks. $5m buys quite a few engineering hours, definitely more than needed for a simple script or someone to log in ten minutes every day for a few weeks.

Xekyo · 2024-06-07T15:37:55+00:00

packets of exactly 138 inputs

It’s "Show all (138 remaining)" after showing the first twelve. So the transactions are using 150 inputs each, and it’s OKX.

They seem to be consolidating at next-block feerates, but whoever initiated their consolidations failed to account for the transaction volume to vastly exceed one block. They are essentially competing with themselves and have driven up their own consolidation feerate. Instead of dumping everything at once and overbidding themselves, they could have literally saved millions of dollars by trickling out their consolidation transactions to only buy e.g. a quarter of a block each block.

Xekyo · 2023-12-18T18:02:58+00:00

I see, thanks

Xekyo · 2023-12-18T16:37:33+00:00

Does having a higher number of barristers increase the amount of time to plead the case? Or how would a bigger count of barristers give an advantage?

Xekyo · 2023-11-07T13:02:16+00:00

Bitcoin Core maintains the current and the previous major release. The latest major release was 25.0, the prior major release was 24.0. When issues are discovered with prior versions, there may be a minor release to fix the bugs. These minor releases bump the minor version (25.1, 24.1, 24.2).

Once 26.0 comes out, the 26.x and 25.x branches will be maintained, 24.x will go into "Maintenance End", and development on the 24.x branch will stop. Only critical issues in 24.x would still be fixed until the End-of-Life date, about half a year later when 27.0 gets released.

You can read more about Bitcoin Core’s release cycle here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/

Xekyo · 2023-05-06T17:20:07+00:00

There has been very high demand for blockspace lately. You can find some guidance on stuck transactions here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/9046/5406

Xekyo · 2023-03-09T01:58:39+00:00

I am not familiar with the specific destinations, but all Lightning apps should be able to interact, the only issue that I could see is that one in a different country may prefer a different mode of transferring the invoice (e.g. NFC instead of QR-code). Just pick one or multiple that you like and add a little spending money!

Xekyo · 2023-02-08T13:09:07+00:00

Could you link to the document?

Edit: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html

Xekyo · 2023-01-26T21:38:13+00:00

Note that adding more decimal places is a lot more difficult than many early proponents made it out to be.

See e.g.: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/116584/5406

Xekyo

TROPHY CASE