Andy Rowe

@penguin57240419 We shall see. Your criticism doesn't appear to be based on an understanding of bitcoin.

@andyrowe I think he knows too. He’s hunting for rebounds

Can Kelly Oubre get three more rebounds?

As a former BCHer and 0-day BSVer, I've seen lots of Kurt's videos. This one may be the best ever for the great explanation of the hijacking of Bitcoin and what BSV is. youtube.com/watch?v=_W7PHO…

The reboot of twonks is almost ready

Oh. I chucked in a design to make a card that does ASIC based transaction processing. Verilog tests and all.

If you want to be a BSV developer, you should start at bOpen.ai, download the skills, deploy the agents, and use the tools. They’re free, and they were built by the best devs in the space.

Linear Scaling, Not Ritual: What Teranode Actually Changes open.substack.com/pub/singulargr…

It’s almost as if constraining blockchain throughput was a BAD idea. Who knew?

@8L1NDS33R No. BTC forked

-- Why SegWit is Stupid -- SegWit activated with Core v0.13.1 way back in ~2017 if I recall correctly. The reason why it is stupid is that it just makes transactions and blocks unnecessarily complex, and the only reason it exists is because Bitcoin Core needed to do 2 simultaneously contradictory things. They needed a way to detach signatures from the transaction, for technical reasons at the time, while also needing a way to create a "religion" around the axiom "NO HARD FORKS!" (that is, no direct upgrades.. only indirect). The reason why it needed this axiom -- "NO HARD FORKS!!" is because the sabotage/capture/intentional neutering of Bitcoin depends on this axiom holding always in perpetuity for all time. So, rather like a College Frat humiliation ritual -- the loyalty test -- the key blue pill all BTC people had to swallow was SegWit. It was an elaborate technically ugly and humiliating "upgrade" that managed to happen using a "soft fork" (which is a way to do upgrades in a hidden fashion that makes them complex and also limiting/limited). "Hard Forks" are a way to do upgrades in a more visible and direct fashion and it means old nodes that don't understand the upgrade rules stop working. Hard Forks also have no limit to what they can change. Soft forks have limits, in practice. With soft forks you do the upgrade in a hidden fashion and "trick" old nodes into continuing to follow the chain, even if they are oblivious to the new upgrade and its new ruleset. This means that some upgrades just are not feasible with Soft Forks. Upgrades like scaling the chain to handle wold-wide p2p txn demand, for instance. Anyway -- back to SegWit: SegWit was done in such a fashion, and it is hideously complex -- requiring "SegWit Extension Blocks" and other insanity to even operate correctly. The more direct approach would have been to include the detached signatures in the transactions themselves -- and that would be elegant and clean but would mean old nodes would stop working. It would mean a hard forking upgrade. This is bad for them because if you allow hard forks for segwit you can allow hard forks to scale the network. Bad bad bad (for them) because it means BTC might threaten fiat currency. Can't have that. Remember: BTC was already captured by this point by bankers who financed the devs directly and indirectly. So.. The axiom "NO HARD FORKS" really needed to be upheld so.. SegWit invented these extension blocks that old nodes don't see but new nodes see and that's where the detached signatures actually live. Without going into too much detail -- it's just hideously complex for a simple change. The whole thing with SegWit was not the thing itself -- but the humiliation ritual involved and the precedent it created. It was a proof of concept of a new "religious rule" regarding BTC -- that all upgrades needed to be done in this complex and cryptic way. They ALL must be soft forks. "NO HARD FORKS" now won the day and is the new religious axiom BTC follows. The reason this religious rule needed to exist is that in order for BTC to be captured and never actually threaten fiat currency, it needs to never scale to be able to handle fiat-transaction-levels of volume. It cannot be allowed to scale to VISA levels of tx volume or even close to it. So -- in order to prevent it ever from scaling you need to develop a "religious conviction" around the fact that no hard fork upgrades are allowed and all upgrades must be done in this cryptic hidden way. If you can maintain this fake quasi-religious viewpoint about BTC -- then it makes it very difficult if not impossible for anybody to meaningfully scale Bitcoin BTC. Thus the bankers' control over the world via the fiat currency scam can be upheld (for now). So.. SegWit is part of the sabotage, basically. It's part of putting the gum in the works, as it were. SegWit and the axiom of "NO HARD FORKS!!" is the sand in the engine. That's my take on it and why it's bad. Oh and also -- did I mention? SegWit is ugly and huge technical debt surrounds it. It's just really nasty engineering.

Wallet v4.5.6 just submitted to Chrome - fixed feerate, 100 sats/kb / 100kb cap (thx @johncalhooon) - Upgraded broadcasting via our new Arcade service (Arc API compatible) plugged into Teranode. Legacy SV-node infra wasn’t cutting it. (gg @shruggr)

I'll be surprised if BTC doesn't retest $60,000 by the end of the month, especially with what's coming out. Could be the mardi gras beers talking though…

Day 11. of saying Craig Wright is Satoshi.

Mardi Gras mode loading...

Hey @elonmusk, @nikitabier, @XEng, did you know the only reason @bitcoinsv exists is because a group of us resisted the hijacking of bitcoin by a bunch of people funded by Jeffrey Epstein? The DOJ files prove it, and we would like to stop being suppressed. Thank you.

@PraveenX007 @ElonMuskAOC

Thinking about opening up an online store for selling my vintage and modern comic books. Digging into woocommerce info and more specifically @WooBSV for accepting BSV payments.

Something big is cooking 🦞

@FinanceFreeman BSV solved this with SCALE. CAUSE ACTUAL BITCOIN NEVER HITS A SCALE CEILING. Fuck these people are dumb as fuck.

The “digital gold” narrative destroyed Bitcoin. Now it’s just boomers who didn’t buy real gold.