hafpeezy “PzTominaga”

👀 Bitcoin is bsv

👀 People Are waking up Little at a time

EID MUBARAK

👀

The video that the financial industry markets and system don’t want the retail investors to see Testimony under oath revealing the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto bitcoin creator #Bitcoin #blockchain #BSVisBITCOIN

Anyone besides Craig wright aka Satoshi himself ?

Anyone got the answers ? Besides Craig wright ?

I’ll be on tomorrow at 2:00(ish) to discuss the risks of Bitcoin Treasury companies as a business model. You should join 🫡

Buy bsv now

Day 11 of getting the word out there. youtu.be/_W7PHOlqTjA?si…

@CsTominaga @jaimexbt Why not bsv ?

@jaimexbt I makde a submission: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Why $BTC is not a security if "they" changed and altered the Bitcoin protocol rules ? Regulators being lobbies ... @CsTominaga

U cant over throw your supressors ! The world is full of sheeple , like they say a sucker is born every second

😂 all roads lead to Dr. Craig wright

👀

Everyone’s watching documentaries trying to “find Satoshi.” Meanwhile, the real fight has been happening in court. This is the passing-off case filed by Craig Steven Wright ( @CsTominaga ) against BTC Core — arguing that BTC altered the original Bitcoin protocol (SegWit, Taproot, etc.) and then continued marketing itself as “Bitcoin.” Estimated damages claimed: £911 BILLION. Let that sink in. The entire point of this case is bigger than personalities. It’s about whether the system described by Satoshi Nakamoto can be altered and still be marketed to the world as the same thing. And here’s the part the documentaries always miss… If the creator of Bitcoin ever becomes undeniable — whether through law, evidence, or math — the passing-off question comes roaring back instantly. Because then the next question becomes unavoidable: Who has been selling something to the world as “Bitcoin” that isn’t? A lot of journalists, influencers, developers, and companies have spent the last decade mocking that possibility. History has a funny way of revisiting receipts. So while Hollywood tries to find Satoshi… Some of us are watching the legal chessboard. 🍿

👀

The peculiar tragedy of BTC is not that it failed to conquer the world, but that it abandoned the only weapon with which conquest is possible: utility. An asset that exists merely to be hoarded is not a revolution; it is a trinket. And trinkets, however feverishly admired in their season, are eventually relegated to drawers beside obsolete toys and forgotten enthusiasms. Speculation is not a foundation. It is a mood. Moods shift. Prices flutter. Crowds chant and disperse. What remains, when the applause fades, is the question no one in the frenzy wishes to ask: what is it for? If BTC is nothing more than an object of collective fixation—a digital heirloom to be admired and withheld—then it stands in the same category as every fashionable collectible that mistook temporary obsession for destiny. Markets can be entertained; they cannot be sustained on boredom. An instrument that does not do anything except appreciate in theory will, in practice, depreciate in interest. Human beings require purpose, not merely price. The irony is severe. The only durable justification for BTC is use at scale—broad, relentless, transactional relevance. A system that processes commerce, settles obligations, and embeds itself into the daily mechanics of trade possesses an argument. A system that limits itself into fragility possesses only a slogan. Narratives alone cannot compensate for contraction. One may proclaim digital gold, pristine collateral, immaculate scarcity—but scarcity without function is merely absence. To claim the future of finance, one must be capable of handling finance. To promise replacement, one must be structurally equipped for expansion. Grandeur of language cannot substitute for throughput. The great error was to sacrifice capacity for mythology and then expect mythology to behave like infrastructure. Infrastructure demands scale. Scale demands engineering choices that privilege growth over aesthetic restraint. When scale is deliberately constrained, the claim to inevitability becomes theatre. People do not remain enthralled by inert objects indefinitely. They require a story, yes—but a story anchored in observable power. They must see why it surpasses existing systems, how it renders them obsolete, and by what mechanism it absorbs their functions. Without that, the tale collapses into circular reasoning: it is valuable because it is valuable. A monetary system—if one dares to use the term—must earn its permanence through relentless utility. Without transactional dominance, without practical superiority, without the capacity to carry the weight of global commerce, it is not a challenger to finance. It is a collectible with aspirations. And collectibles, however fervently defended, eventually meet the indifference of time.

My short Economic paper that is the foundation for the following 15 is n ow published. #b8" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">sciencedirect.com/science/articl… And the preprint of the memoryless issue everyone overlooks is available for review while in peer review: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Let’s get it Kurt

#BSV is ticket of #Bitcoin @CsTominaga is #Satoshi