This is confirmed, and may also affect mk2/mk4. I'm updating my advice: if you have coins living under a single key generated by a Coinkite (Coldcard, Q) device with no passphrase, no dice rolls that you bought during or after 2021, I would move funds immediately. Not a drill.

Name & Symbol: Quack AI ($Q)
Address: 0xc07e1300dc138601fa6b0b59f8d0fa477e690589

@AdamSimecka @stephanlivera > But you can't dismiss the consequences of what has happened with the release of v30. And you are free to fork off. > This was retailliatory. No one (except Citrea) asked for this. 100% false, Citrea literally never asked for anything: https://t.co/WBzWAjmxmp

Name & Symbol: Citrea ($CTR)
Address: 0x11030f79109269d796fd0fb956d6244e502757f7

Here's my second round of refutations for your ridulous claims: > BIP-110 is an anti Core v30 that forcibly restores the status quo that was broken in October 2025 when v30.0 was released. Combatting any particular kind of spam is not a goal of the fork, the text of the proposal is not ambiguous about this. No, nothing was broken with v30, it was released as harm reduction as I go more into here: https://t.co/oAbXnGfgSu and https://t.co/HRr1Iqpmok and bitmex goes into here: https://t.co/mTZGPX1z25 and here https://t.co/FJE9J8yFpB and that orangesurfbtc goes into here: https://t.co/lTxLO4EcWZ and merch goes into here: https://t.co/x7L7yvK0LN Try actually reading these links this time. And everybody knows the narrative for 3+ years was to stop spam, when you finally figured out you can't you switched narratives. 110 doesn't stop, thwart or even slow down spam. > I never did that, been consistent the whole time. Since 2023 I've argued that the tool for mitigating spam is mempool policies and I still maintain this. The entire 110 camp did, this is documented. > BTW, if you don't care about any of this but are worried about a chain split your best course of action is running a BIP-110 client and advocate for it. No not even close, since 110 will absolutely be the minority fork with less than 1% signaling currently the safest bet is to completely ignore it. > Not so with OP_RETURNs. Last year I did an extensive analysis that proves OP_RETURNs over 83 bytes were testimonial before Core v30.0. It was proven time and time again that raising the op return limit did not cause more op returns as was documented here: https://t.co/HypC6AgFym and here: https://t.co/l9X19YkoUo > They're [out of band transactions] really not. You just admitted the filter does nothing and Knots keeps those txs in a second pool because it knows they're getting mined anyway, out of band means the tx never hits p2p at all so no mempool of any size helps you, your node just validates blocks slower while big pools sell private access and small miners never see those fees. > Bare faced lie. Bitcoin script can lock UTXOs up to a certain blockheight, but there's absolutely no opcode that allows you to burn UTXOs if they aren't spent before a certain blockheight. Soft fork rules don't sunset, once BIP-110 activates its restrictions apply to every block forever so there is no "after the enforcement period" where your coins magically unlock, and freezing doesn't require a burn opcode it just requires making your only spending path invalid, so if your coins are behind a script using something 110 restricts, like the annex paths in BIP-446/448 or Tapscript patterns it breaks, those spends get rejected in perpetuity and that's a freeze in every way that matters to the person who can't move their money. Here's an example of transactions that would be frozen: https://t.co/4weAzbte4x > 110 is rolling back the contentious changes in Core v30 Once again the only thing that's contentious are consensus changes 110 is putting fourth, core's changes were just relay policy, again easily configurable by any node runner. > The burden of proof falls on you. Bitcoin doesn't care. I mean I thought you were paying attention but apparently not so allow me to enlighten you on some bitvm projects that make bitcoin a better money: -Alpen Labs (Strata), a Bitcoin ZK rollup focused on lending, stablecoins and privacy payments, with mainnet targeted for 2026 -Bitlayer (BitVM bridge plus DeFi) -BitVMX (general computation framework), BitcoinOS with their BitSNARK/Grail bridge -BOB (Build on Bitcoin) implemented BitVM3 and cut on-chain dispute costs by 87% down to about $11 per dispute using garbled circuits. Their bridge targets sub-hour peg-in/peg-out. See the killer app for BitVM is replacing custodial bridges because right now if you want BTC anywhere other than L1 or Lightning, you're trusting WBTC's custodian or a federation multisig, and bridge hacks have cost hundreds of millions, like LayerZero's $292M in 2026. BitVM flips the trust model: funds are safe as long as a single honest signer deleted their key at setup and a single honest challenger watches the chain, and you only need one operator acting rationally to withdraw your bitcoin. That means self-custodial exits from rollups that give you cheap transactions, lending and stablecoins without handing coins to a custodian. > You still don't understand that the point of mining is to confirm monetary txs moving sats around, not to make mining profitable. You still don't understand that if miners aren't profitable there will be no miners. > I was there too. SegWit activation was a complete clusterfuck, any other claim is historic revisionism. Segwit activated and was only a clusterfuck due to people wanting to change bitcoin's consensus rules, alot like 110. Historically though 110 is no where near even the "clusterfuck" that segwit was as you can see here in the attached image.

Name & Symbol: BitcoinOS ($BOS)
Address: 0xae1e85c3665b70b682defd778e3dafdf09ed3b0f

As always... great discussions here. @Strike with credit for Bitcoiners, that rewards proof of work over arbitrary credit scores. @rumblevideo a platform that allows you to own your content. 👇🔥 @jackmallers @chrispavlovski @stephanlivera @LuganoPlanB Study 📚 Bitcoin

Name & Symbol: StrikeBit AI ($STRIKE)
Address: 0x2aa89a0113bcbbcdc5812c6df794e2d9650fc1af

Great overview on Spark by @moneyball here - particularly useful to see comparison vs other Bitcoin L2s. Everything seems to connect through LN, but there will be other systems too - Ark, Fedimint, Cashu mints, Liquid, custodial etc.

Name & Symbol: Lnfi Network ($LN)
Address: 0x6d2ebdf6d551d8408e7d896e9a1ec6f84806e193

Warning: probability of this panel turning into a X feud = extremely high ⚡️ The WAGMI Stage won’t be boring as @lopp, @peterktodd, @LukeDashjr, and @GrassFedBitcoin face off with @stephanlivera moderating. We’ve all read their endless X threads. Now have them hash this one out IRL. Will they finally drop the drama? 📅 Oct 24–25 | Lugano

Name & Symbol: TaleX ($X)
Address: 0x0510101ec6c49d24ed911f0011e22a0d697ee776

1 year ago: LN 2.4% Now: LN 7.3% Lightning is growing massively. Pay attention.

Name & Symbol: Lnfi Network ($LN)
Address: 0x6d2ebdf6d551d8408e7d896e9a1ec6f84806e193