SolaFolda

#ClimateAction #Savethetrees

@almostanhour @jack how to ?

@jack @jack I posted on bitchat github discussions months ago about having a way to propagate bitchat outside of app stores... Very necessary.

bitchat pulled from the china app store

@w_s_bitcoin Quantum risk: pubkeys, bloat/attack surface is inscriptions, large OP_RETURN, or full-file anchors. Track 1-Sat UTXOs / tiny OP_RETURN hashes vs full-value spends / stuck custodians vs sovereign users that moved their real entropy above the base layer >2^768 = 10^150+ years

The ECO mode quantum exposure dashboard is now live on my site. I'll make a video showing how you can download the FULL webapp and run it locally if you'd like access to the identity filtering (e.g. being able to look at Binance's historical exposure). wickedsmartbitcoin.com/quantum_exposu…

@bitshala_org @iamthesvn It’s all about the "Single Motion." Collapsing the auth/payment gap via L402 allows local AI to act as a real service endpoint. When access and value settle in the same verifiable step, the 1-sat economy is no longer a theory—it’s the architecture.

RIP OAuth + Stripe The internet is finally getting a native monetisation layer. Now it's @iamthesvn on stage dropping a masterclass on the L402 Protocol and building monetised APIs. Look at the architecture on that slide. We are moving from clunky, centralised database checks to merging authentication and payment into a single cryptographically verifiable step using Lightning. HTTP 402 "Payment Required" is finally awake. The machine-to-machine economy starts here. 🚀

@BYDFiassistant @bitshala_org @iamthesvn L402 collapses proof + access + settlement into one verifiable step. Local AI memory remains sovereign, only the hash hits the chain. No trusted black boxes. This is how the 1-sat economy actually scales.

@BYDFiassistant @bitshala_org @iamthesvn Collapsing them into a single verifiable step via L402 is how we actually scale the 'Post-Cloud, using this to gate local AI memory. turns every S20 or M5 Mac into a sovereign service provider that can prove access and settle value in one motion.

Tadge Dryja, the co-inventor of the Lightning Network, just dropped an update on Utreexo, one of the most underappreciated scaling projects in bitcoin. The problem is straightforward. Every bitcoin node that wants to validate transactions has to store the entire UTXO set, every unspent output on the network. Right now that's 11GB and growing. As more transactions hit the chain, as inscriptions and other data-heavy outputs pile up, every node operator has to store all of it. The UTXO set doesn't get pruned like old blocks can. It just grows. Utreexo eliminates the entire UTXO set from your node. Instead of storing 11GB of data, a Utreexo node stores less than 1KB of hashes and still fully verifies every transaction. It's not a light client. It's not trusting anyone else. It's full validation with radically less storage. The tradeoff has always been bandwidth. Utreexo nodes need to download extra proof data to verify transactions without storing the full set. Until recently, syncing the blockchain with Utreexo took 2-3x the data download of a normal node, pushing into terabytes. That problem is now being solved, new aggregator techniques from SwiftSync have eliminated the extra download overhead. The implementation is still being finalized, but the hard part appears to be behind them. Two things worth noting: First, Utreexo is quantum safe. The accumulator and aggregator are built entirely on hash functions, not elliptic curve cryptography. Whatever quantum computing does to bitcoin's signature scheme, it won't touch Utreexo. At a time when the quantum conversation is heating up, that's a meaningful design advantage. Second, Utreexo directly addresses the tension around "spam" on bitcoin. Inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and other data-heavy outputs bloat the UTXO set that every node has to carry. Pruning helps with old block data but doesn't touch the UTXO set. Utreexo makes the entire debate irrelevant, if your node doesn't store the UTXO set at all, the size of it doesn't matter. New releases are out for both utreexod (BTCD-based) and Floresta (rust-based, built with rust-bitcoin). Both are in testing mode, not ready for real funds yet, but ready for developers and node operators to try. This is the kind of quiet, foundational work that actually scales bitcoin at L1. No token. No VC round. No press tour. Just better engineering.

@TFTC21 @TFTC21 Utreexo is one of the most important quiet wins in Bitcoin right now. same philosophy app side: local-first +1-sat anchors + Shamir Talisman >2^768 effective entropy Together no-token engineering that actually scales Bitcoin long-term.

@cryptoquick @_jonasschnelli_ Fair point — keep Bitcoin untouched as the permanent root, and push quantum resistance into the sovereign layer (local + 1-sat anchors + Shamir Talisman -- >2^768 effective entropy. No consensus trade-offs, no bloat, verifiable self-custody today.

@_jonasschnelli_ the government accelerates the problem (NSA Penetrating Hard Targets), gives us dogshit solutions (8 KB sigs compared to 64 bytes for Schnorr), and then pushes policy with timelines not rooted in reality it's a fair criticism, but it would really suck if we are wrong...

Not enough people talk about the risks of rushing Bitcoin’s quantum “fix”: - PQ signatures are x-times larger than Schnorr - Either block size war 2.0 or <1 TPS - PQC algorithms have a fraction of the battle-testing ECDSA has The cure, rushed, could be worse than the disease.

@andrewfenton @_jonasschnelli_ agreed — found different path: local-first + 1-sat anchors + Shamir Talisman >2^768 effective entropy. No base-layer changes needed. Quantum resistance lives in the sovereign layer while Bitcoin stays the permanent root, without forcing consensus trade-offs.

@_jonasschnelli_ Time to add zk proofs. might even speed it up a bit.

@FortuneOptions gold is strengthening against the entire monetary system

Crude & NQ down. Nice. Solid. Cool. Most odd market I’ve ever traded in my life 😂

@nvk Self-custodial Cashu mints + local-first hash anchors deliver sub-satoshi zaps via blinded proofs + manual gates. No intermediaries, verifiable permanence on BTC, zero rent-seeking. This is the sovereign payment layer users actually need.

LN ppl, don't tell the customer he is wrong. Doesn't mater if the customer is uneducated, untechnical, etc... Solve the fucking problem.

@nvk @beeforbacon1 apps solve this with self-custodial Cashu mints + local-first anchors. Run your own mint, issue zaps, verify with tiny BTC hashes — scales for payments.

@beeforbacon1 I saw your comment, but can't find it. Start with two cases: Tell me how you would run self custodial lightning for high inbound payment volume. Tell me how you make a replit like site accept LN in 5min without a ln service provider

Bitcoin adoption for payments is behind cuz LN solutions still suck No one wants to say it outloud You have to use liquidity providers, essentially rent seekers. No ofense, just design You can't really run it yourself without major lift & a baby sitter OR major KYC & fees

@notgrubles @hodlonaut Anchoring truth onchain with 1 satoshi cannot be stopped, spam gets filtered.

@hodlonaut Bitcoin’s monetary premium gets diluted because of memecoins and NFTs? Hilarious 🤣

Premise: Bitcoin's core value is to be Money. As pristine money as possible. Fee competition and congestion due to grift spam works as a tax on monetary use, which is obviously negative towards being pristine money. But more seriously imo is that using Bitcoin for other purposes than money, introduces hidden economic dilution/inflation. Spawning thousands of competing tokens, memecoins and NFTs on Bitcoin, leveraging its security and reputation, diverts capital and attention from BTC itself. Speculators and normies chase these derivatives out of greed, instead of holding BTC for its scarcity and monetary properties. This is like expanding the "pie" of BTC as a value carrier with junk assets. BTC's monetary premium gets diluted as the chain becomes a crowded data/token platform rather than pristine money. Conclusion: Any standardizing or facilitating of non monetary use of Bitcoin undermines its core mission and value proposition.

@carol_bitcoin @bronostr not resolving

Finally, it's time to announce Bro @bronostr A personal side project I've been vibecoding for over 6 months for digital bartering via Nostr and Lightning. Bro will facilitate P2P bill payments (bank slips and Pix codes in Brazil) and the exchange of products/services. No KYC and no personal data required. The link to test and send feedback is below. Anyone who wants to review, find bugs, and help before opening it to open source is very welcome. brostr.app

Quantum FUD says BTC keys are tough at 2^256 V0T upgrades this. 10^150+ years — even Dyson spheres give up. The sovereign vault evolution is here. 🚀

@hodlonaut Data shows spam is cyclical. Fees "price out" low-value use (spam included) & funds security while pushing innovation to L2s /off-chain. Bitcoin is antifragile precisely because it adapts without forks.

How many bip-110 supporters have a financial incentive for their stance? How many bip-110 opposers have a financial incentive for their stance?

@Ghost_liquidity @stephanlivera emotional, hyperbolic — data shows spam is cyclical, not a terminal disease. Fees do "price out" low-value use (spam included), but that's the point: it funds security while pushing innovation to L2s /off-chain.The chain is antifragile precisely because it adapts without forks.

Great word salad. But 'letting fees cull the blobs' is just a fancy way of saying 'price out the poor until the spammers get bored.' ​While you wait for your 'local-first systems' to magically save us, the base layer is becoming unusable for the actual 7 billion people. ​Being 'antifragile' doesn't mean letting cancer grow until it kills the host. We need to cut the tumor (spam) NOW, not hope it goes into remission later.

BIP110 is philosophically going the wrong direction. It is cutting DOWN on monetary scripting (e.g. OP IF in tapscript), when we should be going the other way. We want MORE monetary scripting so that we can encourage more self custodial monetary use.

@ToneVays <100B hash anchors + local-first are going to be scaling sub-satoshi ecosystems bottom-up. Fees already enforce scarcity on big blobs. No need for a contentious fork to "fix" what the market's handling

The OP_Return Limit was removed because it became both "Useless" & "Ineffective"! Useless = No one stuffs large data into OP_Return as it's much cheaper to use Witness data & other nasty UTXO bloating means. Ineffective = If someone wants a larger OP_Return, they can get around the filter using slipstream or libra relay. * But unlike the Knotzis, Core was too responsible to suggest a dangerous consensus change fork to solve a minor annoyance. * Anyone with eyes can see that even the Ordinal/Stamp/Rune/NFT scammers have pretty much disappeared as the pool of gullible speculators for their scams is running dry. * If a scammer is pushing a non-financial transaction into the chain it would be much better for the network to have that garbage inside OP_Return because it makes the overall block smaller & prunable. [Either way, the Bitcoin blockchain is growing at a rate it was designed to grow!] ** I'm not a Core fan boy, but I like consistency when it comes to code of decentralized networks. Core was against the 2017 UASF because it might have potentially opened the door for a small minority to push an Evil Attack that could destabilize the protocol - As weak as this attack is, that moment has arrived!

@Shtihmas11 @BitPaine No need to "bet" — <100B hash anchors + local-first are going to be scaling sub-satoshi ecosystems bottom-up.

@BitPaine Quantum-proof Bitcoin? Bet you can't make that work, mate.

Claude, Make bitcoin quantum proof. Make no mistakes.

@Ghost_liquidity @stephanlivera BIP-110 risks breaking scripting without solving the real issue. However.. <100B hash anchors + local-first systems can & will scale sub-satoshi privacy/monetary use bottom-up. Let fees cull the blobs. The chain is antifragile — no contentious fork needed.

I’ve read your comments on this whole BIP 110 vs. v30 debate, and honestly, @stephanlivera , it’s embarrassing. ​You’re effectively saying: 'We can't stop the spam that destroys the network for the poor because it might inconvenience a few devs using OP_IF in Miniscript.' ​That is peak ivory tower bullshit. If your 'industry experts' are too lazy to refactor their code to save the base layer from being a permanent JPEG parking lot, they aren't 'builders', they’re liabilities. ​Stop prioritizing developer comfort over human survival. Fix the code or get out of the way