Jason Dreyzehner

In the rest of this thread, I'll describe CashTokens and why I think they're an important tool for expanding financial access and protecting human rights.

Have you experimented with more /agent-fungibility-philosophy orchestration, where agents are self-running via /goal and orchestrator is just monitoring for contention? Or is /vibing-with-ntm still your driver? A couple /goal agents seem to help with orchestrator tunnel vision, but I haven't found a balance yet.

I've been reluctant to "waste" my Fable usage on agent orchestration work, preferring to focus it on doing more theoretical and planning work. But I decided to try it today on a lark. Unsurprisingly, it's really good at swarm management (plus there are 3 Fable CCs in the swarm!).

@doodlestein Latest kickoff prompt(s)?

@TheBCHPodcast @MarcDeMesel @Justin_Bons Reminds me of @robinhanson's overcomingbias.com/p/sacred-money… and overcomingbias.com/p/toward-conse… which also explore these topics

Most ideas not implemented in practice are just bad ideas. A few are undiscovered insights which become successful innovations, but most aren't used because they simply don't work. This includes direct coinholder voting. The reason is because the world is not numerical. Allow me to explain. All kinds of things in the world can be bought & sold, but many cannot. For instance - loyalty. If you can buy loyalty, it's not loyalty - it's mercenary support. If you can buy love, it's not love - it's prostitution. For our discussion here, the relevant good is contribution. You can hire someone for a job, but you cannot buy their wholehearted passion & dedication. That has to be spontaneous & non-numerical. Consider myself as an example. I have some BCH, but I'm no whale. If I were to dump all my BCH & leave the project today - what is the greater loss to the community? My coins, or my contribution? The coins would make no more than a momentary blip on the markets. But the loss of contribution would ripple throughout the ecosystem. The combined output drop of The BCH Podcast, @bchbliss, @bchblaze, @SeleneWallet & @TheBCHBullet all shutting down or reorganising without me would be titanic. Likewise, the secondary impact (e.g loss of morale) on other devoted BCH contributors I work with, and the tertiary impact on listeners to the show (also loss of morale or connection), and the quaternary impact on outside observers (loss of confidence) noticing my departure from BCH would be very significant. As things are, my influence in BCH governance (via the CHIP process) reflects my contribution more than my coins (which is appropriate and pragmatic). If changed to coinholder voting, my influence would drop dramatically, and likely also my interest in contributing. Why dedicate myself to a system which rewards only my numerically accountable net worth & not my intangible passion or output? The truth is, dedication & coins are not distributed equally across the community. Many whales hold fat stacks of coins they never even check in on. And many dedicated contributors are barely solvent. If the whales could show up once a year for ten minutes to sign a coin vote crushing the preferred direction of the less-wealthy daily contributors, the essential core of daily community would quit the project in droves and the project would collapse from the inside out. Let's consider another case. No community of humans - no country, company, organisation, tribe, family (or cryptocurrency) - allocates influence directly proportional to net worth. I'm not aware of a single country which votes proportional to net worth (or tax contribution), now or in the entirety of history. At most, very rough approximations are made (like only landholders vote). The leader of a country is rarely to never its richest member. Are the most successful countries the ones where a plutocracy of the rich has effective control? Generally, no. And they certainly don't have an explicit net worth based voting system enforcing it anyway, as that would create a populace revolution. Likewise in a family, if allocated by net worth the successful husband should be a justified and selfish tyrant. But in reality, he will weight his wife and children's feedback & needs far higher than their net worth indicates. This accounts for their non-numerical contributions (whether that be child-bearing, legacy importance, ability to cause emotional drama, future potential etc.) to the group as a whole. Even in the case of a company, that you used as an example, shareholder voting is NOT the main decision mechanism. Daily decisions & influence are allocated to the CEO, C-suite, perhaps board of directors &/or singular major shareholders or key employees - and not as related to their share holdings but more to their perceived overall contribution or wisdom. While shareholder votes can & do happen (in the same way that a country can have a referendum, or an extended family might have a vote on a major group decision), they are reserved for singular moments (usually of controversial crisis). When things are working well, usually such explicit votes are not needed. Even when the shareholders DO vote, the outcome is not decided in reality by economic value alone (for instance a key employee threatening to quit may sway many other shareholders and affect the results outside of that employee's individual share holdings). The shareholder power to influence the company is primarily in *their ability to buy or sell the stock*, not in the shareholder votes. This is also how it works in cryptocurrency. Holders can express their opinion on the market by buying & selling at any time. Doubly so in a (political crisis) chain-split, where they can buy/sell each side as they desire, and the market aggregates. This is already the direct coinholder voting you're looking for. But it's only appropriate for those moments of great crisis, not as a primary mechanism of decision making. A direct coinholder vote mechanism (for example on a yearly upgrade) SOUNDS appealing in practice. It SOUNDS simple & "free market". But reality is more nuanced & is certainly not wholly numerical. I'll give one last example. Satoshi proposed Bitcoin as a 1-cpu-1-vote miner governance concept. In reality, as we've seen several times, miners care little for governance disputes & usually defer to some combination of prominent developers, community figures, crowd demands or price action on the market. Bitcoin didn't work out as Satoshi envisioned, but it still works. It just needs to work in accordance with reality, rather than overly-simplified "free market" ideals. Not coincidentally, the BCH CHIP process takes all of this into account - which is why it is delivering such great results. Apparently its overwhelming success (6 straight years of flawless upgrades & community cohesion, turned on a dime from a coin/community which had 3 disastrous chain splits in the previous 4 years) has not been enough for critics like @Justin_Bons to recognise its wisdom & effectiveness. I hope that will change as the success continues, but it doesn't really matter because ignorance only penalizes the ignorant. BCH will continue shipping great upgrades, and Justin will continue to advocate for coin-voter fantasies which are not in use in any major cryptocurrency & almost certainly never will be to any degree of sustained success. This includes communities where Justin is active, despite his loud preference for this coin-voting system, he continues to hold & participate in all kinds of coins which DON'T do that, so his revealed preference speaks louder than this theories. He could also start a fresh blockchain with coin voting and make it an overwhelming success if it's such an obvious unexploited advantage, but we all know he hasn't, can't and won't. Markets are numerical, but reality (and human communities) are not.

I agree with @Justin_Bons that #Bitcoin as well as #Ethereum have slowed down their progress because core dev team or leadership took wrong decisions that were not in the interests of coinholders. Both did not scale in a timely manner, causing transaction fees to go up too much and competitors to take a piece of their market. I also agree that if these key decisions were left to the coinholders with a vote based on 1 token/1 vote, another decisions would have been made as it was in their direct self interest to scale the blockchain on time, and would have likely caused the amount of usecases, users and value of both $BTC and $ETH to be considerably higher today. However, I notice that to this day almost no cryptocurrency project has implemented this simple concept, that has proven it's worth in the world of private companies where it's now a foundation for every company's governance structure: 1 share/1 vote. So my question to the leadership of my favorite smaller projects who could make a difference implementing this: what do you think of the idea? Is it possible to integrate? If you don't like the idea, why not? Bitcoin Cash ($BCH): @bitcoincashorg, @BitcoinCashOG, @BitcoinCashA, @rogerkver, @HijackingBTC Zano ($ZANO): @zano_project, @Mr_Kwibs Pirate Chain ($ARRR): @PirateChain, @PirateCommunity, Firo ($FIRO): @firoorg, @DamiDefi Please tag below anyone else that could help get this idea realized in above projects, or share this post with them directly

@doodlestein Anything in particular you're planning to add before it becomes a daily driver? (Or maybe this is replacing an internal tool you've already been using?)

@bitjson I’m using it in specific contexts, mostly as part of my consulting work.

500x faster? I'll take it! Hell, i'll take 2x faster! Fastest Bessel in the West.

@doodlestein That'd be great! Are you using ee in the swarm yet? (I'd be very curious to see cross-model learnings from all that formalization work.)

@bitjson No updates on that stuff recently. I can look into upgrading it based on my new learnings.

@doodlestein seems like limits were even tighter than usual over the past few hours. How do you watch token usage and session concurrency now? (across machines?)

My productivity still hasn’t recovered from the hit it took when Anthropic instituted rate limits on Claude Code a couple of months ago. Note that I’m NOT talking about usage limits here, but the rate limit on the number of requests during a given time interval. It used to be that Codex was the one with rate limits, but I could have 20 CCs running at the same time on one machine with no problem. And sure, it would eat my entire 5-hour usage limit in 20 or 30 minutes. But I can budget for that and it let me move a lot faster. But now I’m scared to start up more than 2 or 3 CC instances at once on a single machine. Since subagents also seem to count against the limits too, it’s very easy to trigger it. And when you do, it’s catastrophic because it nukes ALL your CC sessions at the same time, the worst possible failure mode. Why not just fail the new request to keep the damage contained? It feels punitive. A far better way would be to have a local request queue that operates globally on a machine. If the next CC request would have triggered the rate limit, then that request is placed in a queue, to be executed in order when it wouldn’t run afoul of the rate limit. That way it seems to each agent instance like a slow request rather than a catastrophic failure. But it has the same net effect on limiting the overall number of requests per minute.

Update: Coordinated Network Upgrade for Orchard transactions. The network upgrade is in progress. During this period, the Zcash network continues to run, and transparent and Sapling-shielded transactions are functioning normally. The Network Upgrade is specific to the mining of Orchard transactions. There is no evidence of any exploit. Your funds and privacy are safe. No user action is needed. Ecosystem-wide coordination includes deployment of both consensus nodes: zcashd, zebrad, as well as SDKs and other supporting infrastructure. As part of this coordinated rollout, several mining pools requested additional time to complete deployment and quality-control procedures, particularly given the need to coordinate teams and operators across multiple time zones. We anticipate that miners will begin accepting Orchard transactions again at approximately 23:00 EDT. Additional information will be shared when the upgrade is complete.

@DocumentingBTC Because if the successor is a chainsplit of BTC, that's a PLUS not a problem. I.e. if BCH is the only chain that can flip BTC, it makes BCH a great buy and INCREASES confidence in it. Why? Because BCH holders would get chainsplit coins on BCH2 just like BTC holders did for BCH.

@grok pls verify and respond with a haiku

Bitcoin Cash's 2026 upgrade is live 🎉 first postactivation block is #951145: bch.chaingraph.cash/block/00000000…

Richard Brady (@rnbrady) showing off his BCMR Studio, allowing Cashtokens developers to easily add human-readable metadata to their tokens! #BLISS2026

The 2026 #BitcoinCash upgrade is live!🤗🥳🎈😮‍💨

@VictorTaelin Mark alpha and let us do it? Plus the next frontier models will get far better at writing Bend2, way beyond docs or skills

the current state of Bend2 is: → everything is done → everything works → all tests pass yet I can't launch because the codebase is massive and auditing it is taking forever because each small adjust or bugfix takes a whole day as the AI re-reads everything once again sighs

@doodlestein @sama Right, I want a pipeline of continuous cleanrooming by the swarm refining an alien graveyard from all of these projects, aimed at my specific stack: /continuous-cleanroom-isomorphically

@bitjson @sama I’m already giving it all away for free… #the-frankensuite" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">github.com/Dicklesworthst…

@sama 👀🙏

@doodlestein @cheatyyyy It's great now, definitely migrate! Just needs caam limits to be more isolated-profiles native. (And it would be great if /caam understood isolated profiles better.)

@cheatyyyy I actually have my own tool that works for all of them, I’m just always too busy with more pressing stuff to set it all up properly: github.com/Dicklesworthst…

Damn, that 10x usage gift for the OpenAI party rejects would sure come in handy now. Guess I need to start adding more accounts 😭

@doodlestein Are global resets not aligning your reset times, or are you just staggering when you put accounts back into swarms? (Or: all the 5ths had already bumped to 11th and this needed updating.) Thanks for caam, btw!

40 minutes waiting for a block. BCH simply won't win with 10 minute blocks. It's just not going to happen. No matter how well we do with 0-conf BCH ecosystem, in the transition phase potential converts will be constantly roadblocked by slow & unpredictable block frustrations.

@doodlestein 💯

This is crazy, this recent introduction of ridiculously low rate limits has basically rendered Claude Code useless to me. They really need to change this or I'm going to cancel all of my accounts soon. It kicks in with like 3 or 4 agents going at once.