
$100K Bitcoin: Is the Cycle Breaking? W/ Checkmate
By Danny Knowles
Aired May 12, 2025 · 1h 16m · Last boosted May 17, 2025
Chapters
Show Notes
Checkmate is an on-chain analyst and founder of Checkonchain. In this episode, we get into Bitcoin’s breakout back above $100k and what on-chain data reveals about who’s buying, who’s selling, and whether retail is finally showing up. We also discuss whether the Bitcoin cycles are over, how the global macro shift is influencing hard asset flows, and why gold might be the early signal for a longer Bitcoin run. Finally, we get into the OP_RETURN war. Follow: Danny Knowles: https://x.com/_DannyKnowles or https://primal.net/danny Checkmate: https://x.com/_C...
Nostr Boost Stats
- sats
- 6.4k
- boosts
- 6
- boosters
- 6
- sats
- 0
- boosts
- 0
- boosters
- 0
- sats
- 0
- boosts
- 0
- boosters
- 0
- sats
- 0
- boosts
- 0
- boosters
- 0
Nostr Community
Everyone who has boosted $100K Bitcoin: Is the Cycle Breaking? W/ Checkmate on Nostr, ranked by sats sent, all time.
-
Clarkian
5k sats
-
B
400 sats
- npub1m0gm4…7lad 350 sats
-
Wartime 333 sats
-
AlienHODL
210 sats
-
High Heel King
100 sats
Episode Boosts
Every boost sent to this episode, as published to Nostr, newest first.
-
-
-
Appreciated Checkmate's take on the OP_Return stuff
-
Knots is not maintained by "just one guy". This is a misunderstanding. Please have Bitcoin Mechanic/Grassfed Bitcoin on to get the other side on this. The real issue is mining pool centralization, which is what Stratum v2 was trying to solve, but now Datun has basically solved, and you run that along with Knots. Fix the mining pool issue and you the "spammers will be incentiized to go directly to miners" argument becomes moot.
-
There is zero risk of running a different implementation of a node. Your keys certainly should never be on your own node. So, there is zero risk. Filter the spam ya cucks
-
This OP_RETURN stuff has really split a lot of bitcoiners I wouldn’t have expected to see on different sides. My 2 sats: if it’s paying a high enough fee to be mined it is not spam, end of story. Trying to argue what is and isn’t a worthy transaction is a dark road to try and go down. Check’s inscription of his dead dog on the blockchain (which he will have paid for) is just as valid as my random test transactions I’ve made when setting up a wallet. Before you know it they’ll say a ‘monetary use’ has to be above a certain value or something. Spam is data being relayed that isn’t able to be mined. Stop trying to argue the morality of other peoples transactions.























