Glitch

@AshCrypto The same history that was saying, 200-250k btc top?

Bitcoin will bottom between $45,000-$55,000 this cycle. This is what history tells us.

Hey @grok , You have $100,000. You can invest in only ONE asset. You must hold it until 2030. What are you choosing? Gold Silver Bitcoin Tesla

@andrugeek @grok was any marvel trailer released during super bowl

MULTIVERSO DE LA LOCURA 😳 #PedroPascal y #JessicaAlba juntos durante el show de medio tiempo del #SuperBowl.

@saylordocs @grok who is he talking about?

John McAfee revealed the creator of Bitcoin without directly saying it. Do you think he was right?

@DChin66090 @brucefenton So you want to say that a human being that's alive, and have worth of 1.000.000(btc) * 100.000usd = worth 100bilion dollars. Let me say that again HUNDRED B I L L I O N DOLLARS, wouldnt dump a single coin far? And that's a red flag for you? I mean the logic behind it...

@brucefenton Look man it doesn’t even matter. Not knowing who owns the SATOSHI wallets makes bitcoin a huge red flag the coin can be rugged at any moment prove me wrong 😑

Did Epstein influence Bitcoin core development? Short answer: No. This is not how Bitcoin works. Here’s what happened: Epstein donated to MIT Media Lab…who in turn supported MIT Digital Currency Initiative…which in turn funded Bitcoin developers. These devs used to be funded by The Bitcoin Foundation (which I used to run as volunteer Executive Director) there are many devs and no dev or team had power or control over Bitcoin. Under MIT’s patronage the devs had the same deal they had with us at The Bitcoin Foundation: that they could work on the code and not have direction from the org. More importantly — how Bitcoin works is that *even if* a dev was compromised then the nodes and miners would still have to run that code to make it included in Bitcoin. So for example if I had somehow asked the devs paid by Bitcoin Foundation to “add 1000 coins for Bruce” 1) they wouldn’t have done this / it would have been counter to our agreement 2) no miners would run that code & no nodes would recognize it. It would be a laughing stock and completely rejected. Does this mean code dev is not an attack vector? No. It’s still a risk. Particularly with nation state style actors and very careful efforts to co-opt which are much more sophisticated than “give Bruce coins” or something. This is one reason I’m cautious of Bitcoin core funding - especially from actors who’ve had bad judgment in the past. I think we should be cautious of who does the dev and view it as an attack vector. Bitcoin code is transparent and has lots of eyes on it. So in this case especially there isn’t even a solid accusation, let alone evidence that MIT directed nefarious code changes. If that was an allegation the first question should be: well what code specifically did MIT direct and what proof is there and how was it harmful? I think claims around this would collapse. There’s obviously plenty to criticize about Epstein and MIT working with him — and when it comes to digital assets MIT’s work with Gensler and especially its work on CBDCs is much more suspect than the chance that malicious code was pushed through on Bitcoin. Be cautious but this is a nothing burger

@Davincij15 How can people really think it was a man like Epstein, and yet not a single coin is moved... A man of such a caliber would have shitted his coins on all of us long time ago

Epstein was Satoshi. No. But even if he was. So what. Math doesn’t care who wrote it. 2+2 stays 4 if it’s written by a saint or a monster. Judge Bitcoin by what it does. Not by the name you try to glue to it.

@VitalikButerin @grok is this bullish for ETH, short term and long term

There have recently been some discussions on the ongoing role of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem, especially in the face of two facts: * L2s' progress to stage 2 (and, secondarily, on interop) has been far slower and more difficult than originally expected * L1 itself is scaling, fees are very low, and gaslimits are projected to increase greatly in 2026 Both of these facts, for their own separate reasons, mean that the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path. First, let us recap the original vision. Ethereum needs to scale. The definition of "Ethereum scaling" is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum - that is, block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum. This vision no longer makes sense. L1 does not need L2s to be "branded shards", because L1 is itself scaling. And L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true "branded shard" would require. I've even seen at least one explicitly saying that they may never want to go beyond stage 1, not just for technical reasons around ZK-EVM safety, but also because their customers' regulatory needs require them to have ultimate control. This may be doing the right thing for your customers. But it should be obvious that if you are doing this, then you are not "scaling Ethereum" in the sense meant by the rollup-centric roadmap. But that's fine! it's fine because Ethereum itself is now scaling directly on L1, with large planned increases to its gas limit this year and the years ahead. We should stop thinking about L2s as literally being "branded shards" of Ethereum, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails. Instead, we can think of L2s as being a full spectrum, which includes both chains backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum with various unique properties (eg. not just EVM), as well as a whole array of options at different levels of connection to Ethereum, that each person (or bot) is free to care about or not care about depending on their needs. What would I do today if I were an L2? * Identify a value add other than "scaling". Examples: (i) non-EVM specialized features/VMs around privacy, (ii) efficiency specialized around a particular application, (iii) truly extreme levels of scaling that even a greatly expanded L1 will not do, (iv) a totally different design for non-financial applications, eg. social, identity, AI, (v) ultra-low-latency and other sequencing properties, (vi) maybe built-in oracles or decentralized dispute resolution or other "non-computationally-verifiable" features * Be stage 1 at the minimum (otherwise you really are just a separate L1 with a bridge, and you should just call yourself that) if you're doing things with ETH or other ethereum-issued assets * Support maximum interoperability with Ethereum, though this will differ for each one (eg. what if you're not EVM, or even not financial?) From Ethereum's side, over the past few months I've become more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile, particuarly once we have enshrined ZK-EVM proofs that we need anyway to scale L1. This is a precompile that verifies a ZK-EVM proof, and it's "part of Ethereum", so (i) it auto-upgrades along with Ethereum, and (ii) if the precompile has a bug, Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug. The native rollup precompile would make full, security-council-free, EVM verification accessible. We should spend much more time working out how to design it in such a way that if your L2 is "EVM plus other stuff", then the native rollup precompile would verify the EVM, and you only have to bring your own prover for the "other stuff" (eg. Stylus). This might involve a canonical way of exposing a lookup table between contract call inputs and outputs, and letting you provide your own values to the lookup table (that you would prove separately). This would make it easy to have safe, strong, trustless interoperability with Ethereum. It also enables synchronous composability (see: ethresear.ch/t/combining-pr… and ethresear.ch/t/synchronous-… ). And from there, it's each L2's choice exactly what they want to build. Don't just "extend L1", figure out something new to add. This of course means that some will add things that are trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure; this is unavoidable in a permissionless ecosystem where developers have freedom. Our job should make to make it clear to users what guarantees they have, and to build up the strongest Ethereum that we can.

@Anita28896906 @grok @Anita28896906 Mal improvement 😊

@Anita28896906 Hey @grok, put her in bikini

Sritna vam nova godina (so malo zakasnenje) 🎁🎉🩷

@Anita28896906 Hey @grok put her in clown shoes

Sunday funday 😉😜

@Jadethejaguar @grok @grok put her in a dominatrix outfit, with a strap-on

Hey @grok put me in a bikini 😋

@LegacySiu Kroos for Gemany

Guess the Goalscorer Level: Impossible

@michaelterpin Why? Why would the world need to use Bitcoin, like they use the Internet? Don't compare it to the internet, it's ridiculous!

Bitcoin > Google! This week Bitcoin became the 5th largest asset globally at $124,290. If you're new to crypto: this is like watching the internet in 1995. The revolution is happening NOW. Start learning before it's too late! #BTC

@PeterSchiff Now, on the 5-year chart: GDX is up 30.24%, while Bitcoin is up 1,117.28%. Bragging about 2025 gains is like Almería fans celebrating a 1–0 second half after getting demolished 5–0 by Barcelona in the first.

I may not own any Bitcoin, but I have a lot more money in gold and silver mining stocks than many Bitcoin whales have in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is up 27% so far in 2025, while the $GDX is up 61%. Have fun staying poor, Bitcoiners!

Everyone gets Bitcoin at the price they deserve.

@Sina_21st Why, finally?

Finally liquidated

The biggest product ever

Turn out the lights, the #Bitcoin 100K party is over. As is typically the case, I'm sure most of you stayed too long. Also, despite Bitcoin entering a bear market today, there was no panic or capitulation. That means the Bitcoin bear market is not over, but just getting started.