imo you’d need to change protocol and sats on a tx would be 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes
286 122 sat
Post by Actual Ayyy
Also what do you think about 0 sat utxo removal?
What the chain says
- Block
- 957 846
- Time
- 2026-07-14T14:50:00Z
- Signer
- 18xXxqZbcMGzJUdvTSMj7VbqmyesZCa31p
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/markdown
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
18xXxqZbcMGzJUdvTSMj7VbqmyesZCa31p VerifiedReplies (5)
it doesn’t keep me up at night
286 122 sat
Gemini says you should be having nightmares 😅
idk.. it's just not Bitcoin man. It's something else. Maybe it's better, maybe it's worse, hard for me to tell because I can't predict the future.
“It guarantees total node centralization-ensuring that only institutional data centers can afford the hardware to run a node. He is actively
waving goodbye to any hope of a peer-to-peer civilian network.”
“Nodes.” Gemini has been huffing 17 years of BTC propaganda bullshit. 0-sat might be a concern for the future but it isn’t a concern for the 800 ranked coin, on its last legs, today.
572 040 sat
I find O sat only interesting in the context of CSW claiming Satoshiness.
I still want bitcoin without a queen.
286 122 sat