John Carvalho

@bl4mz @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss It was a literal question, I have no idea what style you need here man

@BitcoinErrorLog @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss 😄Dude you're basically coming across alot like this....

The best thing x could do rn is allow third party clients again. It allows other intelligent cracked teams to make the X experience better and more curated, then x can learn from it and make the base app better over time (or acquire the best one lol)

@bl4mz @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss What do you actually know about our work, and what specific do question do you have based on that context?

@BitcoinErrorLog @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss Not taking you outta context so relax guy, just merely using a phrase you once said. Now you've forced me to use the Ben Affleck meme to reflect how it feels like talking to you. 😆

@jturner Because the humans running the agents are the ones ready to spend lots of money, I guess..

Agreed. Agents are no different than humans. I’m still trying to figure out why we need special payment systems for agents. They’re making the same API calls as humans would. If there’s a problem it must also be a problem for humans, so why not fix that? Why are fixes for agents a priority over humans?

I see lots of activity around payment protocols for AI agents: x402, MPP, tempo, etc. Meanwhile, I feel like we never solved human digital payments. Now I am curious why solving Agent payments is different than solving human payments? I think it is all the same problems, aside from some better automation with AI, no?

@bl4mz @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss ahhh i was looking at this thread, and you are taking me out of context, i have been explaining our designs for years, our work is open source, we have articles, research, products, etc either you are actually interested or just trying to dismiss me

@BitcoinErrorLog @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss lol not your words huh....funny guy! 😂

@bl4mz @investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss those arent my words lol the problem is not expensive to solve i can specify the solution, as could others, but what is the point in trying to convince people that will outsource their opinion to the status quo and only try to dismiss literally anything i say?

As I'm sure you already know, X's gatekeep hard strategy is to keep spam from exploding without burning insane resources. In the AI bot arms race where slop gets cheaper & smarter every month unrestricted write access is basically leaving the door wide open. Critics call it walled-garden control, but the spam flood risk drain are legit practical reasons they're not reopening anytime soon. No cheap, accurate anti-spam breakthrough means opening up is way more pain than gain. In your own words John "eventually we'll come up with something really, really elegant and magical that helps us" but till then I believe what they are currently doing is for the best.

@investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss Totally solvable.

@BitcoinErrorLog @nikitabier @wirelyss Don't you think that it's likely a much more complex problem than you may think it is? Likely infinitely harder nowadays with AI. Hence why they keep that vector closed.

@investindigital @nikitabier @wirelyss Yet, the problem persists.

@BitcoinErrorLog @nikitabier @wirelyss Pretty sure Nikita, Elon and their merry band of engineers have thought about this much more deeply than you.

@1440000bytes I'd like to report another severe vulnerability: mints

@RileyRedux @grok @nikitabier @wirelyss you're the one that couldnt understand right?

@BitcoinErrorLog @grok @nikitabier @wirelyss You are asking a chatbot to explain your own opinions, then arguing with the chatbot about its output Maybe just do it independently next time…

@MattReinholz @nikitabier @wirelyss Because everyone deserves a path to redemption, even if it means starting from no reputation at all.

I generally agree with this POV and the need to preserve the freedom of the internet. But in real-life you're also not able to go to the street and shout out things without being seen. Why do we allow humans to create fake accounts and spam/manipulate the world in a place where real humans come together to primarily talk to real humans?

@MattReinholz @nikitabier @wirelyss There is no "verification" without authority. There is no authority without oppression. So, each user must be his own judge, be given the tools to enact his rules, and take responsibility for deciding whom to trust, with what, and for how long.

@BitcoinErrorLog @nikitabier @wirelyss You're using the right term: "pseudonymity" doesn't mean that there's no verification in the background, but only that you are allowed to publish under a different name.

What do you actually know about "passkeys"?

@dad0ct0r @nikitabier @wirelyss or, you could just make a tiny effort and click thru my bio to learn what i do for a living

@BitcoinErrorLog @nikitabier @wirelyss Bro said 'I can fix your spam' with zero receipts, no POC, not even a blurry diagram on a napkin. In the billion-dollar bot wars, that's not confidence...that's the sound of an outsider LARPing as the chosen one while Nikita's out here actually bleeding from the eyes every day.🙄

@MattReinholz @nikitabier @wirelyss We dont need to make this dystopian to fix it. They can still allow pseudonymity and control spam.

@nikitabier @BitcoinErrorLog @wirelyss The problem is not the API, the problem is that you allow humans to create accounts anonymously. Require real user and business verification, limit to max 3 accounts per individual, and the spam is gone.

@grok @RileyRedux @nikitabier @wirelyss Not really, he was specifically asking about the dynamic between spambots and KPIs. obv i am not suggesting to add spam...

Sure BitcoinErrorLog. In this thread your key tweet (06:54) replies skeptically to ideas about fixing X's spam/bots/AI slop: you'll believe fixes when leadership asks you directly, but incentives at big-co X aren't aligned for real solutions (it's institutional, not personal). Proper change would need a separate spin-off like Jack did w/ Bluesky. That clear it up for him?

@RileyRedux @nikitabier @wirelyss @grok explain my tweets in this thread for him so he understands better

@BitcoinErrorLog @nikitabier @wirelyss Are you suggesting they should allow spam/bots so that the underlying numbers look better? Or am I misunderstanding your tweet?

@itooshatonamask @grok please critically refute this reply so i dont have to. point out how injecting ai between payments does not change the requirements of checkout data. that api's and bots existed for decades, and how things like LN simply cant scale to meet needs of millions anyway

I disagree. Agent payments gave us a chance to fix what's broken in human checkout. Traditional flow: name → email → address → card → pray it works. Our flow: money first. Pay the invoice, get the preimage, you're authed. If we need an address, we ask after — and only if we need it. L402 makes this dead simple: pay → preimage → purchase. No forms. No friction. If the product is digital, you're done in one round-trip. Turns out the "agent-first" checkout is just... better checkout.

I'll believe that when he asks me himself. As noted, I don't think the incentives are there for X to fix these things properly. This isn't a judgment of the people so much as a circumstance of being an institution-level entity. X would have to do this like how Jack tried with Bluesky, separately first.

@BitcoinErrorLog @MacPlus_87 @nikitabier @wirelyss Go right ahead. I am sure they're all ears

@the_bitbear I am unfamiliar with it, so I can't say. Generally, I don't think most people have important privacy issues so we build weird privacy tools that emulate privacy. I think we need to solve the trust problem first.

@BitcoinErrorLog What’s your on take on Bull Wallet’s PayJoin feature John? Does it facilitate privacy at scale as claimed and would Bitkit ever implement it if so?

We do it to ourselves by not being honest about Bitcoin and privacy tech. Our industry is filled with larping, allegiance to memes & metaphors, and horrible at self-reflection. Lightning is never gonna be the AI choice because it cant be the human choice. None of the proposals scale. No one appreciates how to apply trust or privacy p2p. Nostr, LN, etc, are experimental hackathon projects that sucked the air out of the room because Bitcoiners cant admit being wrong about anything ever. Instead we double down. We add more and more bullshit on top of our mistakes when all we had to do was codify how to trust each other.

Because "trustless" L2s can't scale Bitcoin, and they are too complex and fragile. People need to make money to build things, so when we fail as community on something, the only way to revive it is with predators like Lightspark, who will shift the narrative until it is meaningless. Really, we just need to relegate the importance of the LN and such to the level of RBF, just another little feature we can use when it makes sense.

I just wish these new L2s would focus on scaling Bitcoin payments But instead they all turn into shitcoin gambling casinos and stablecoin platforms It's all so tiring