This person is not a Bitcoiner.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Is this a core dev?!
Her name is Gloria Zhao.
And yes, she is a very important core dev. She's a maintainer. One of the 6 most powerful core devs.
Thanks for the info. I thought that was her. WTF! How did we let her get chosen to be a core Dev?! Does anyone know how that process works?
Was
She got sponsored by some shitcoin companies. Most likely same what happened to almost all core devs.
Would also like to know how that works.
If these are the "experts" we're supposed to be "trusting the science" with I need to rethink some life choices
Ah, okay that makes sense. Still not good at all.
she can merge into core directly
?
Knots already won; core devs are zombies.
I hope you're right
Everyone that adheres to consensus rules is a bitcoiner.
Mr Watts can’t recognize that Bitcoin is inscription.
That thing is … adheres to protocol consensus rules doesn’t mean adheres to social consensus
Social consensus is an illusion. We run code, sir.
Enshitcoinification is coming to Bitcoin, don't let them fool you.
The only use case of Bitcoin is a decentralized sovereign money without intermediaries.
Everything else is noise.
That’s concerning
Knots is the best alternative at the moment for those interested in decentralized money instead of jpeg hosting. Core wants to take bitcoin in a different direction, abandoning the monetary use case for a distributed data storage system, and many node operators aren't interested in that. It's a simple matter of scope creep, a problem that plagues many software projects. There are plenty of other options available for cloud file storage but Bitcoin is our only hope for decentralized money.
View quoted note →
Defund this gas lighter.
Like it or not, the bearded lady is the face of Bitcoin Core. Somehow she rose to become the most influential Core dev.
What does that tell you about Core?
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
This is Gloria Zhao Core lead maintainer? Holy Shit! WTF! Core is captured. Serious Eth head vibes here.
This is concerning.
Did she read the white paper?
The Kamala of Core
You should listen to this instead ⬇️
Apple Music – webafspiller
"Dream" af Alan Watts, Boreta & Superposition på Apple Music
Sang · 2019 · Varighed 5.31
This is what you’re aligning with when you run Core.
Neutrality isn’t some law of nature. It only sounds noble. In practice, it’s just an excuse to let junk flood Bitcoin while pretending nothing can be done. But it can be done — in code. Knots is already doing it, just not under the banner of “neutrality.” And then people wonder why the timechain keeps getting filled with VC-funded garbage.
Don’t forget the ethos. Don’t forget what Satoshi did. Bitcoin wasn’t born “neutral.” It was born as a weapon — separating money from state. Satoshi gave us this in 2009, right after the 2008 financial crash. That was the mission. That’s not neutrality, that’s resistance.
The reference implementation does not need to be neutral. Scrap that narrative. If the foundation is “neutral,” then every exploit gets debated forever: what’s spam, what’s not, round and round — until Bitcoin becomes Ethereum 2.0, filled with VC-funded JPEGs, zk-snark experiments, and dapp nonsense instead of sound money.
Knots is simple if you think about it: strict and opinionated. It does its best to keep Bitcoin what it was built for — money transfer, BTC transfer, value transfer. Everything else is spam. Shocking, right? Exploits that abuse Taproot? Knots doesn’t pass them on — they’re cut at the relay. Core never will, because they’re committed to neutrality theater and endless re-litigation of “what is spam.”
If the mission is separation of money and state, then Bitcoin cannot afford neutrality-as-policy. Neutrality sounds noble, but it’s the fastest path to dilution. An opinionated reference client that protects Bitcoin’s monetary use case is the only way it survives.
So yes, the uncomfortable truth is that Knots is not neutral — it’s opinionated. Be comfortable with that and vote with your node.
And no, if you keep running older versions of Core, it means you’re still allowing ordinals and inscriptions (among many others) to be relayed — which helps that VC-funded junk get mined into the timechain. Knots v29 has those additional filters. If at the very least you want to ossify, ossify with Knots v29.
I’m not personally into ossification. I’m with Luke (and even most Core devs) that we shouldn’t ossify yet — not until we’ve had the chance to build fully trustless L2 solutions with covenants and other primitives. These need years of peer review and testing before they can be standardized. But let’s be honest: building rough consensus for anything like that feels almost impossible now, thanks to Core’s Taproot update that opened the door to all this junk in the first place.
At least with Knots, when you install it, you know with full consciousness what you’re running: it’s not neutral, it’s hostile to spam, it has one purpose — to separate money from state. It respects the ethos and doesn’t hide under the banner of neutrality. If Knots is wrong for doing that, then it won’t get adopted. But if you choose to run it with clear intent — not out of tribalism or FUD — then Bitcoin becomes what it was meant to be, as Satoshi intended, dictated by the node runners who keep it decentralized. At the end of the day, every version of Knots will always be an optional upgrade. Bitcoiners decide what Bitcoin becomes.
#bitcoin
View quoted note →
Core Devs have to be people worthy of tying Satoshi's shoelaces. This is not it....
View quoted note →
No fucking way, that's real? Holy shit.
Gloria Zhao becomes the First Woman to hold Bitcoin Core
Gloria began contributing to Bitcoin Core in 2020 shortly before she graduated from UC Berkeley at the end of the year. Giving up a chance to work full time at Google after a college internship, she decided to jump into contributing to Bitcoin Core full time thanks to funding from Brink with contributions from the Human Rights Foundation and Spiral.
View quoted note →
Gloria Zhao becomes the First Woman to hold Bitcoin Core - CoinCodeCap
Coin Live Prices - Crypto Price Tracker & Latest Coin News
Bitcoin Core Maintainer Gloria Zhao: Why Mempools Are Important For Censorship Resistance - Coin Live Prices - Crypto Price Tracker & Latest Coin News
While attending the MIT Bitcoin Expo in Boston over the weekend I was lucky enough to get a chance to sit down and talk with Bitcoin Core contribut...
Brink | Sponsors
Thank you to all of our generous donors who make our work possible.
i really wish that the craig wright drama didn't happen. laanwj and some of the others might have stayed, instead of this power vacuum happening in the early 2020s. but all is said and done and at least we have core vs knots to wake us up about it, for better or worse.
Link?
Rage-baiting, without a link or any sort of context, should stay on X 😃
Seriously though, this is Peter McCormack and Gloria Zao? I'm guessing it's an older interview, when Peter was doing more of "What Bitcoin Did"
You answered your own question.
Thanks for confirming. Was it on Youtube? Do you have a link to the video? I'm curious to see the whole video; I like him and I know nothing about her
we know her, and her behaviour. it has been quite relevant recently
She may not be a Bitcoiner, but luckily she is one of the few people on the planet that has merge rights to the bitcoin core repo. 🙃
View quoted note →
Maaaaaaaan foh 
Crazy…
When was this?
I don't want to share a blockchain with they/them.
UC Berkeley is Wokest of work. The place is covered with DEI.
Same for Chaincode Labs.
GitHub
add glozow to trusted-keys by glozow · Pull Request #25524 · bitcoin/bitcoin
For maintaining mempool and policy areas of the codebase, as discussed yesterday's meeting: https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30.log
Well, this didn't age well.
Like… omg… whats your damage becky?? We are totally coding over here.
*air quotes*whatever*
Shameful…
She didn't say anything bad. The idea is that ALL transactions can be subjectively judged, and there will always be txns people don't like. We have NO WAY to know how people are using txns, or even how they value those txns. All txns are "NFTs" and none are explicitly more "money" than the others.
This orients the conversation correctly, away from policy discussion, toward protocol discussion, forcing opponents to properly propose REAL solutions for data on Bitcoin, instead of handwaving policy drama that fixes nothing.
Currently, this is mostly a culture war over default settings in an app.
Core devs, including her, has deliberately allowed inscriptions spam.
They are now using that as excuse that "spam can't be reduced" or that "spam already exists on Bitcoin because of inscription spam".
That is dishonest and an internal attack on Bitcoin. Core devs deliberately allow spam and then defend it like shitcoiners.
Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.
GitHub
datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying by luke-jr · Pull Request #28408 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Updates -datacarriersize to be effective with newer datacarrying styles.
GitHub
Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin
The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...
Shouldn't you be blaming the miners for including the txns you don't like?
Or, shouldn't you be providing an actual solution that prevents txns you don't like from being possible inside of bitcoin blocks?
Arguing policy is pointless, just make the config you like and convince miners to run it.
The actial solution is done in Bitcoin Knots. The code histroy in git shows it.
>Arguing policy is pointless, just make the config you like and convince miners to run it.
Remember the bad actors Core devs were trying to take that option from you away? Deprecation first, removal second?
Now I hear they backed off. Clowns. Their actions are telling the full picture.
Miners follow the consensus from Nodes but also what policy Nodes choose to run.
If core would acdept knots' fixes all of this shit woul be over so ur looking really dumb saying this stuff
They backed off?
Undeprecated the option to continue be able to set your own OP_RETRUN size. But their default is still 100KB.
GitHub
docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options by bitschmidty · Pull Request #33453 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Removes the deprecation for the datacarrier and datacarriersize options by reverting commit 0b4048c from #32406
Many current Bitcoin Core users wan...
GitHub
policy: uncap datacarrier by default by instagibbs · Pull Request #32406 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Retains the -datacarrier* args, marks them as deprecated, and does not require another startup argument for multiple OP_RETURN outputs.
If a user h...
The 100kb default is the problem which knots will never do!!
The default in Bitcoin Knots is sane - 42 Bytes. Core made it insane (because they are either bad actors or corrupted or both) to 100 000 Bytes.
Bitcoin Knots actually gives you the FREEDOM to set to whatever size you like. Core tried to take away that freedom from Core node runners.
They now backed off.
They're just doing damage control at this point, but still can't lower their ego. 100kb default is the problem.
this is nonsense, sorry.
The unfortunate part is that you reject the truth. Pathetic.
That is the bigger problem currently but they started created problems in 2023/2024 by not fixing inscriptions and changing the definition of datacarriersize.
It's all technically just zeroes and ones for them. And as long as you pay the fee. You can't argue with that.
Bitcoiners need to really give Knots a chance.
Default settings matter, and this is the most important open source app in the world.
Its those 0s and 1s. A memcoin, a shitcoin.
Spot the difference.
The one is memecoin shitcoin.
The other is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Freedom Money and Greatest Store of Value.
This is the difference.
Why? He's correctly pointing out that inscriptions and other spam can only be solved *conclusively* only at the consensus level. That's factual.
Because its incorrect.
Bitcoin policy is meant for that.
The Constitution does not ban hate speech and rightfully so. The Constitution protects free speech. (the consensus in Bitcoin terms)
Hate speech is filtered out via peoples Culture and Values. Those are the filters.
But society needs free speech. Hate speech is like a spam but you don't ban it, you don't censor it, you filter it out. You don't need 100% removal again because of freedom of speech.
With enough guns your constitution is worthless. Bitcoin is different. I am on the conservative side when it comes to filters, meaning that I prefer OP_RETURN to ideally stay at 80 bytes.
However, inscriptions and spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level. How is this wrong?
Sad
With enough Bitcoin Nodes consensus is worthless, meaning they can do a new one.
Its wrong because its censorship.
Filtering spam out in policy is not censorship. Node runners can decide their own policy, meaning their own Values and Culture.
Bitcoin Knots gives you the FREEDOM to set whatever size of OP_RETURN you want and has put sane defaults of 42 Bytes.
100 000 Bytes in Core is insane, and actually malicious.
Same with The Constitution. It gives you the freedom to speak out. Your culture and values is the filter that shapes how you use that freedom.
Also people can agree on a minimum set of things. Agreeing on larger sets is nearly impossible.
indeed
> With enough Bitcoin Nodes consensus is worthless, meaning they can do a new one.
Of course, Bitcoin is entirely voluntary. You're not replying to my point that spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level.
Notice the little star symbols around the work "conclusively"
I am trying to answer that.
>people can agree on a minimum set of things. Agreeing on larger sets is nearly impossible.
Spam on Bitcoin is like hate speech in real life. If you ban it conclusively (In the consensus / The Constitution) you go in the direction of censorship.
And Bitcoin is permissionless censorship resistant money.
OP_RETURN default of 42 Bytes is like saying we discourage hate speech / spam on Bitcoin.
OP_RETURN default of 100 000 Bytes is like saying we encourage spam on Bitcoin / hate speech.
I'm not sure insisting on the free speech analogy is the correct approach to be honest. Speech is general in content: I can arrange words in such a way so as to express whatever meaning I want.
Bitcoin is, in principle, not general in the kinds of transactions that are to be ideally allowed on its network.
Let's imagine for a moment a world where Bitcoin only allows P2WPKH outputs and absolutely nothing else. Let's imagine this is agreed upon by all holders such that all other outputs are transferred to P2WPKH ones.
Would this be problematic for Bitcoin as money?
We will need to check all valid use cases and be able to agree on all of them. This is nearly impossible task.
Another analogy is spam in email. Spam in email has not been fixed on protocol level (IMAP, SMTP, POP3).
It has been solved with filters. And that is different between freedom and censorship.
You are free to send email with any words in it, nothing is banned. But spam emails are filtered out.
I'm not yet convinced. To bring back the free speech analogy, I would compare it to Bitcoin filters and spam in the following way:
- all words are allowed = all transactions that unlock existing UTXOs and create new UTXOs with the minimum set of operations are allowed. Notice how there is no moral judgment as long are the user is actually using words
- meaningless noise is not allowed = transactions embedding arbitrary data for purposes other than UTXOs transfer are filtered away. This means that, ideally, transactions that could transfer ownership of sats in a more parsimonious way should do so.
I do understand your point of view. I run Bitcoin Knots node with the default 42 Bytes OP_RETURN.
I understand that monetary transactions are narrower use case in comparison to email or speech.
But in my opinion making the exact limits for all valid use cases is nearly impossible.
>with the minimum set of operations are allowed
In this case what exactly are the minimum set of operations?
Look at Taproot and SegWit hacks. They use OP_FALSE and OP_IF
This is what Luke is saying about the issue.
"Since the end of 2022, however, attackers have found a way to bypass this limit by obfuscating their spam inside OP_FALSE OP_IF patterns instead of using the standardized OP_RETURN. This remains under active exploitation to a degree very harmful to Bitcoin even today."
from here
GitHub
Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin
The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...
One more thing.
If we put a white list in the consensus, like minimally allowed monetary transactions.
Then if some functionality needs to be added, lets say quantum resistant Bitcoin address fromat we will need to change the consensus.
And changing the consensus is really hard part. That is why it uses minimal set of rules that all agree on them.
I understand the issue, I was now laying out a way of thinking about this,, i.e. what would be the guaranteed way to ban spam? Probably by allowing only P2WPKH outputs at the consensus level.
Since that cannot be done, we need to think of other ways and in order to do so we need a theoretical framework first so that we can define what is a valid transaction in the first place.
It seems to me that a valid tx can be defined as the one that transfer UTXO ownership in the most parsimonious way possible.
This is however hard to translate into software requirements without banning all transactions that don't have a particular shape.
Even if we banned OP_FALSE OP_IF at the consensus level there would still be other ways to embed arbitrary data, this is I believe the Cruz of the matter.
Do you agree? And most importantly, are you a bot?
Agree. I am not a bot. But you are free to think what you like about me : )
Freedom is a good thing.
Sorry but the replies were way too quick haha
And this is also what a bot would say
Okay : )
I mean it would be a hard fork to reduce the number of valid tx output shapes, which is why this cannot be done
Yes, exactly
this reply is straight up core's lying propaganda copy paste.
I havent read or watched any of Core's takes really. I just listened to her words and used my fucking brain.
policy is the most reasonable way to solve spam.
All transactions are spam to someone.
Pieter Wuille says "data storage through other means is already possible (including through ways that are cheaper than through OP_RETURN)"
Core is completely captured and their actions speak vlolumes.
Core devs deliberately allowed inscriptions spam by rejecting Luke's fix in 2024.
They are now using that as excuse that "spam can't be reduced" or that "spam already exists on Bitcoin because of inscription spam".
That is dishonest and an internal attack on Bitcoin. Core devs deliberately allow spam and then defend it like shitcoiners.
They also maliciously changed the definition of datacarriersize.
Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/127895/implications-of-op-return-changes-in-upcoming-bitcoin-core-version-30-0/127903#127903
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Core is completely captured and their actions speak vlolumes.
Core devs deliberately allowed inscriptions spam by rejecting Luke's fix in 2024.
They are now using that as excuse that "spam can't be reduced" or that "spam already exists on Bitcoin because of inscription spam".
That is dishonest and an internal attack on Bitcoin. Core devs deliberately allow spam and then defend it like shitcoiners.
They also maliciously changed the definition of datacarriersize.
Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.
GitHub
datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying by luke-jr · Pull Request #28408 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Updates -datacarriersize to be effective with newer datacarrying styles.
GitHub
Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin
The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...
Any organisation funding these developers will receive no business from me.
View quoted note →
Of course she is and has done good work at core
Core devs, including her, has deliberately allowed inscriptions spam.
They are now using that as excuse that "spam can't be reduced" or that "spam already exists on Bitcoin because of inscription spam".
That is dishonest and an internal attack on Bitcoin. Core devs deliberately allow spam and then defend it like shitcoiners.
Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.
GitHub
datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying by luke-jr · Pull Request #28408 · bitcoin/bitcoin
Updates -datacarriersize to be effective with newer datacarrying styles.
GitHub
Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428) · Issue #29187 · bitcoin/bitcoin
The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. Since the end of 2022, ...
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING CRAZY! I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT HER PERSONAL OPINIONS BUT SHE’S TALKING LIKE SHE’S THE ONE WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT BITCOIN IS.
View quoted note →
It's the second or third time I've seen this, it gets worse each time. This is such an indictment on Core
It's like an advertisement for NOT sending your kids to UC Berkeley, and also for running #Knots at the same time. 🚀
This is the great thing about Nostr.
When people say Nostr has no use, well it's already been very useful as the place for non algorithmically distorted discussion of Bitcoin's nature.
Where else would you have a rational, open, non-distorted, discussion of Bitcoin's nature?
People will say their opinions, and they'll be worth much more than on Twitter, where we don't really know who's real or not.
Do you know what I mean? Nostr might be really small, but at least I know it's real. And that's why it's the future of social networks in my opinion.
#bitcoin #nostr
View quoted note →
Need to run a second Knots node……..
Every time they open their mouth, their intent becomes more exposed…….
Calle in one of his posts got multiple likes when he was explaining the benefits of blowing open op return, but his intent for op return is the same thing as this lady…………..
People who agree with V30 fall in two camps, the deceived and the captured with ulterior motives…….
I'm running Knots on every computer at the Federal Reserve.
Running #Knots ☘️🚀
This really sealed the deal for me. If we don't define spam, the timechain will continue to be filled with it.
View quoted note →
Advertisement for NOT sending your kids to UC Berkeley, but also for running #Knots 🚀
#Enshitcoinification
View quoted note →
This is a great ad for NOT sending your kids to UC Berkeley, and for running #Knots 🚀
#Enshitcoinification
Spot the difference.
The one is memecoin shitcoin.
The other is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Freedom Money and Greatest Store of Value.
View quoted note →
Gloria: Like you... Like if you don't like cat photos, you don't like wizards, or WHATEVER! That's like your choice right, but I don't think um "this is not a legitimate transaction" or you know "this is a waste of blocks.." you know because "NFTs are bad" or whatever. I don't think that language has a plac.. well, I don't think that should be considered when you are talking about writing policy code.
Peter: Yeah, as a, as a... as a developer, as a maintainer. Yeah.
Gloria: Yeah, as a developer, as a protocol maintainer.
Transcribed because this is pure comedy. 😂
My favorite part is where she starts to say "I don't think that language has a place here". but then self censors when she realizes it sounds like she wants to censor language, while making an argument against censoring NFTs. 🤡🤡🤡
You never go full Libtard!! 😂🤣
I'd still date her.
people who sees this video, and see n9 problems with it, know nothing about bitcoin its history, and how it has been working. they just think they do.
So from "separate money and state" to cool funky little software project thingy we can use to show off our dev skills. Covenants and things would be great additions but might be time to ossify to protect against self interested or immature egos
Who gave this child commit access?!
You listen to this and agree with her wholeheartedly and I am shocked at your lack of understanding……….
This one wants the change to V30…….
Her group caused inscriptions in the first place through a peddled beneficial upgrade in Core which released a dumpster fire……..
Everyone supported the change through Bitcoin Core version upgrade at the time……..
As a dog returns to its vomit, here we are again with a pending release of V30 in 2 days……..
This time it’s different!
What’s your problem, Anon?
You don’t like NFT’s, and cat pics???
This is not a #Bitcoiner at the helm……..
View quoted note →
She worked her way into Core precisely to fuck up Bitcoin. Question is ...by whom?