John Carvalho

65.5K posts

John Carvalho banner
John Carvalho

John Carvalho

@BitcoinErrorLog

Building the Atomic Economy at @synonym_to.

🐥 Katılım Aralık 2013
2.4K Takip Edilen75.7K Takipçiler
Wirelyss 👁️‍🗨️💫
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)
Wirelyss 👁️‍🗨️💫 tweet media
Elon Musk@elonmusk

@diana_dukic What needs to be better?

English
11
7
220
56.1K
Matthias Reinholz
Matthias Reinholz@MattReinholz·
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?
English
1
0
0
7
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
@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.
English
1
0
0
8
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
What do you actually know about "passkeys"?
English
1
0
2
532
dad0ct0r
dad0ct0r@dad0ct0r·
@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.🙄
English
1
0
0
53
Matthias Reinholz
Matthias Reinholz@MattReinholz·
@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.
English
1
0
1
150
Grok
Grok@grok·
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?
English
1
0
1
434
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
@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
English
1
0
0
86
Bitcoin Evangelist
Bitcoin Evangelist@itooshatonamask·
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.
English
1
0
0
56
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
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?
English
5
0
8
1K
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
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.
English
1
0
2
40
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
@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.
English
0
0
1
38
Bitbear
Bitbear@the_bitbear·
@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?
English
1
0
0
43
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
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.
JeffG@erskingardner

Well. I hate to say it but while some of you were arguing about filters, the tradfi system has caught up and made surveillance money the default for AI. Painful own goal for Bitcoin. Colossal loss for freedom and agency.

English
1
1
11
1.3K
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
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.
English
0
0
2
123
calle
calle@callebtc·
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
English
17
7
132
7K
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
Sincerely, I can solve your spam problem entirely separately from your API problem. Are you willing to solve spam and bots and lost that activity? I'm skeptical because I saw how you implemented topic filtering to avoid it lowering activity. If you fix spam, numbers that you currently report as real will go down. KPIs will go down. Same is true if you make your API accessible and useful.
English
4
0
7
956
Nikita Bier
Nikita Bier@nikitabier·
@BitcoinErrorLog @wirelyss 80% of my day is working on spam. If we open another unmonitored method to write to our API, the product would implode and this would be the last post you see that is authored by a human.
English
13
0
125
4K
John Carvalho
John Carvalho@BitcoinErrorLog·
You changed the topic to spam prevention, which is a separate issue from providing useful api access for competing apps. It is ok to be honest; X wants a walled garden, to be the only gardener. Unfortunately, your path is unsustainable without being state-aligned. Luckily, you are right now, but that can only last thru censorship and propaganda.
English
1
0
26
4.1K
Nikita Bier
Nikita Bier@nikitabier·
Every consumer-facing API client that we’ve allowed has 100x the spam reports of our iPhone app. We would need the client to send us device telemetrics, attestation, and much more. It would be Manhattan Project of API engineering. And upon achieving this incredible feat, we would be rewarded with “X Mailer: Send mass DMs and AI-generated replies”
English
95
22
1.1K
44.2K