Facts: Bitcoin is always presented by the media as "immutable" -...
Adam Mundok โก๏ธKNOTS-RDTS@MundokAdam
63 views
Aug 13, 2026
~2 min read
Advertisement
1
Facts: Bitcoin is always presented by the media as "immutable" - especially regarding the 21M hard capped supply.
But once you go deep enough under the hood, you find that this is not the case, and it's actually based on consensus. ๐
Once you have centralization of the three defense mechanisms โ namely, the nodes, the miners, and the developers - then you can control the narrative and force consensus via low-key UASFs , which has already been done via CORE for both the Segwit and Taproot changes to Bitcoin
I feel like Taproot, especially, is something that was put in place to serve some purpose that the Public doesn't know about yet, but is being discussed in backdoor channels on the Blockstream - and perhaps even the BlackRock - side of things.
The reason I say this is because why else would CORE protect Taproot and the OpReturn default limit change despite major pushback from 20% of the node operators and risk not only a chain split but a hard fork if they're wasn't some ulterior motive for these remaining in place ? ๐ง๐คจ๐คท๐ผ
Something to think about. And also why I support the KNOTS-UASF and even a hard fork - not for spite, but as a pre-emptive precaution to guard against consensus lock-out by large centralized agencies
BIP-110 failing a simple rollback of the consensus rules to limit non-monetary data on-chain was the proverbial Canary in the coal mine.
It serves as a warning that Bitcoin's rules and power structure have been subverted and changed.
Since Core never posted a URSF - it completed the power shift by giving the veto power to the Miners, whose incentive is monetary.
Because the rules are not being enforced by the miners, it proves that nodes have been demoted as the rule setters.
This is a logical reason to defect when years of lobbying efforts to the Devs fail, forcing a UASF and that also fails - it is clear that there are misaligned incentives and that the "Bitcoin Industrial Complex" is in control of Bitcoin.
But once you go deep enough under the hood, you find that this is not the case, and it's actually based on consensus. ๐
Once you have centralization of the three defense mechanisms โ namely, the nodes, the miners, and the developers - then you can control the narrative and force consensus via low-key UASFs , which has already been done via CORE for both the Segwit and Taproot changes to Bitcoin
I feel like Taproot, especially, is something that was put in place to serve some purpose that the Public doesn't know about yet, but is being discussed in backdoor channels on the Blockstream - and perhaps even the BlackRock - side of things.
The reason I say this is because why else would CORE protect Taproot and the OpReturn default limit change despite major pushback from 20% of the node operators and risk not only a chain split but a hard fork if they're wasn't some ulterior motive for these remaining in place ? ๐ง๐คจ๐คท๐ผ
Something to think about. And also why I support the KNOTS-UASF and even a hard fork - not for spite, but as a pre-emptive precaution to guard against consensus lock-out by large centralized agencies
BIP-110 failing a simple rollback of the consensus rules to limit non-monetary data on-chain was the proverbial Canary in the coal mine.
It serves as a warning that Bitcoin's rules and power structure have been subverted and changed.
Since Core never posted a URSF - it completed the power shift by giving the veto power to the Miners, whose incentive is monetary.
Because the rules are not being enforced by the miners, it proves that nodes have been demoted as the rule setters.
This is a logical reason to defect when years of lobbying efforts to the Devs fail, forcing a UASF and that also fails - it is clear that there are misaligned incentives and that the "Bitcoin Industrial Complex" is in control of Bitcoin.