. retweetledi
透明性があって非常にいいですな😆
ETHチェーンのCAWをガチホ♪
約束の場所はETHチェーンのCAW🌹
約束の時間まで待ち続けます。
42069🌙
Kaziki@jump555jump
本物はこう言うことです😁
日本語
.
475 posts
. retweetledi
本物のCAWはETHチェーン上！
初めから言ってるとおり！😎
QL1でもなく、他チェーンでもない！
ETHチェーンだ🤠
もう一度言う！
ETHチェーンのCAWが本物だ💎✨
それ以外はニセモノだ
ギルガメッシュは改めて
本物のCAWが
イーサリアムチェーン上であることを
明らかにした🤭
Gilgamesh@caw_dev
The real $CAW has profiles on ETH, staking on ETH, and never requires gas on another chain. The real CAW lets you like/post/follow without signing your wallet constantly. The real CAW will win the world. Still building, everyday. Brick by brick we build an empire.
日本語
⚠️ CAW HOLDERS — verify before using Gilgamesh’s app.
Do not treat “decentralized” branding as proof.
Before connecting, posting, tipping, minting, or paying any keep-active fee, ask:
Who receives the fees?
Can fees be changed?
Are fee locks consumed?
Is ownership renounced or neutralized?
Can another node reconstruct the same unfiltered record without Gilgamesh’s app, API, DB, indexer, or frontend?
Our review flagged fee surfaces, client mutability, owner surfaces, LayerZero admin surfaces, and a burn-path divergence that needs public explanation.
That does not prove malicious intent.
But holders should not blindly feed any fee system until decentralization proof is public.
Protect your CAW.
Do not trust slogans.
Verify the machine before feeding it.
#CAW #DecentralizeNow
RΛZ13L 🌒@Xubu_Trad
Decentralization vs centralization continued... This post serves as an answer to the private Telegram noise with PROOFS. Not what i think. Not what I feel like. Not insults. Not “classic FUD.” Not “he wants attention.” Not “purity tester.” Not “you do not understand frontend moderation.” Facts. The CAW manifesto does not describe a centralized social app with decentralized branding. It does not describe one operator, one default frontend, one database, one hidden deployment map, one API, one private group, or one trusted builder becoming the new center. It describes a protocol. The manifesto standard is simple.. No single person, entity, or group should have ultimate control or benefit. The cawmmunity writes, reviews, and accepts the contracts. After deployment, the deployer renounces keys. No multisig. No upgradeable proxies. Username mint burn goes to 0x0. Protocol-level data remains permanent and usable even if individual frontends moderate. So i'll answer the claims from A.A (another alt) and kachoperro directly right here on X so all can see. Claim 1: “Frontends can moderate while the protocol remains permanent and uncensorable.” Correct in theory. A frontend can moderate. A frontend can hide spam. A frontend can hide illegal material. A frontend can choose what it displays. That is not the dispute. The dispute is whether the protocol underneath is actually decentralized. The dispute is whether users can reconstruct the unfiltered CAW record without trusting Gilgamesh’s database, API, indexer, frontend, deployment map, moderation state, or private config. Frontend moderation is allowed. Frontend moderation is not proof of protocol decentralization. Those are different claims. Claim 2: “If the main frontend is filled with illegal content, it will be taken down, so the frontend must be clean.” Fine. That is a hosting argument. That is not a decentralization argument. A legal default frontend can exist. A moderated default frontend can exist. But if the default frontend becomes the only practical way normal users see CAW, then whoever controls that frontend controls the default reality. That may be acceptable for a centralized app. It is not the same thing as a decentralized protocol. The manifesto did not say “build a website and trust the operator.” The manifesto points toward protocol-level permanence underneath frontend-level moderation. Claim 3: “Anyone can run their own node/frontend and see the unfiltered on-chain record.” Good. Then prove it. Post the repo commit. Post the config. Post the RPCs. Post the contract addresses. Post the deployed bytecode links. Post one on-chain action hash. Post the decoded calldata or event. Post the DB row. Post the visible post. Post the exact reconstruction path: on-chain action → calldata/event → indexer → database row → visible CAW record Then block Gilgamesh’s API, database, indexer, frontend, private config, and hidden deployment map. If the second node still reconstructs the same unfiltered CAW record from chain, that is evidence. If it cannot, then “anyone can run a node” is a slogan. Claim 4: “The second node / second frontend exists.” This is weaker evidence unless it is reproducible. A browser page is not enough. A second frontend is not enough. A database reading something is not enough. An independent node must be independently reproducible. If it depends on Gilgamesh’s hidden deployment map, backend, seed data, API, database, moderation state, or private config, then it is not proof of decentralization. The test is simple: Can the people rebuild the same unfiltered CAW record from chain? If yes, publish the proof. If not, stop using the word decentralized as a shield. Claim 5: “This is classic FUD.” No. FUD is fear without evidence. This is the opposite. This is line numbers. This is selectors. This is hashes. This is source audit output. This is live-probe output. This is comparing the code and deployment claims against the manifesto. Calling evidence “FUD” is not a rebuttal. The rebuttal is proof. Claim 6: “Xubu has an extreme standard of decentralization.” No. The standard is not mine. The manifesto set the standard. No single controller. No special deployer advantage. No multisig. No upgradeable proxy. Renounced keys. Cawmmunity-reviewed public contracts. Protocol-level freedom underneath frontend moderation. That is not extreme. That is CAW. Claim 7: “You did not see what happened in Shiba Inu in 2020.” Irrelevant. Whatever happened in another community does not prove this protocol is decentralized. It does not prove current deployed bytecode. It does not prove owner state. It does not prove LayerZero delegate authority is closed. It does not prove one-time setters are consumed. It does not prove client controls are locked. It does not prove the burn path matches the manifesto. It does not prove the unfiltered CAW record is reconstructable from chain. It does not prove CAW manifesto compliance. History is not a substitute for verification. Claim 8: “He wants attention / followers / professional complainer / purity tester.” Personal attacks are not technical rebuttals. If the build is decentralized, prove it. If the protocol record is recoverable from chain, demonstrate it. If ownership is renounced or mathematically neutralized, publish the evidence. If the LayerZero delegate surface is closed, show it. If the one-time setters are consumed, show it. If the burn path matches the manifesto, show the source and deployment. If the build diverges from the manifesto, explain why. Now the actual evidence. Gilgamesh has built real infrastructure. That is true. His repo includes Solidity contracts, backend services, frontend code, validators/action processing, event gathering, chain sync, API/database flow, and node-running claims. Credit where due. But infrastructure is not decentralization. A running website is not decentralization. A Telegram group is not decentralization. A default frontend is not decentralization. A database reading chain events is not decentralization. A second browser endpoint is not decentralization. Decentralization is the ability for independent people to verify and reconstruct protocol state without trusting a central operator. Our local source audit completed. Doctest passed. Mypy passed. 486 production-contract rows were loaded. 62 contract-level findings were generated. The strongest source-level mismatch remains: CawProfileMinter.sol BURN_TO_DEAD count: 3 severity: HIGH lines: 137, 210, 246 The source sends burn amounts to: 0xdEAD000000000000000042069420694206942069 The manifesto says username mint burn goes to: 0x0 Maybe there is an explanation. Maybe it is testnet-only. Maybe the code changed later. Then say that plainly. Do not blur a custom dead sink into the manifesto’s stated burn path. The source matrix also flagged decentralization-relevant surfaces: owner surfaces transferOwnership surfaces renounceOwnership surfaces LayerZero setPeer surfaces LayerZero setDelegate surfaces client fee mutability client ownership mutability client fee locks client ownership locks cross-chain routing surfaces Some of these may be normal setup surfaces. Fine. But setup is not decentralization. OnlyOnce is not decentralization. OnlyOnce is a guardrail. Renouncement or mathematical neutralization is finalization. A centralized operator with guardrails is still an operator. That is the technical point A.A / A.L and kachoperro keep avoiding. They are arguing that some centralization is practical. That may be true for a normal app. But CAW was not sold as a normal app. CAW was presented as a decentralized coup. CAW was presented as fortheppl, bytheppl. CAW was presented as a protocol where the people can verify. So if their (centralized propagandist) answers are now.. “Trust the default frontend.” “Trust the private group.” “Trust the builder.” “Trust the database.” “Trust the current operator.” “Trust that centralization is temporary.” Then that is not manifesto compliance. That is a different trust model. Now the latest scan update, treated separately. The corrected frontend/node evidence lane passed doctest. Mypy passed. The frontend-extracted-address probe scanned: CANDIDATE_ADDRESSES = 18 PROBE_ROWS = 72 LIVE_CODE_ROWS = 0 That does not prove Gilgamesh is decentralized. That does not prove Gilgamesh is centralized. It proves the current public/frontend-extracted path was insufficient for independent deployment verification. And that matters because the claim being made is “anyone can verify.” If anyone can verify, the deployment map should be public. If anyone can run a node, the reconstruction path should be public. If the protocol is decentralized, the people should not need a private Telegram insider to tell them what is true. The required proof is not emotional. It is technical. Show verified deployed bytecode. Show current contract addresses. Show owner/admin state. Show no upgradeable proxy control. Show no multisig. Show consumed one-time setters. Show closed LayerZero delegate authority. Show critical client controls locked. Show burn behavior matching the manifesto or explain the divergence. Show an independent node reconstructing the unfiltered CAW record from chain without Gilgamesh infrastructure. Until then.. Gilgamesh has progress. Gilgamesh has infrastructure. Gilgamesh may have a useful app. But none of that is proven decentralization. And the current code does not accurately depict the manifesto standard. The manifesto points to a protocol that removes the operator. The current evidence still shows a system that depends on an operator, setup surfaces, mutable control paths, off-chain infrastructure, and public verification gaps. Progress deserves credit. Centralized control still deserves scrutiny. Proof or it is not decentralization. #CAW
English
当然といえば
当然だが
その
当然を出来ない
クソクズ首長
ばかりなので
素晴らしい！ sankei.com/article/202512…
日本語
そのカスに負けるプロも沢山いるけどそいつらもカスって事でいい？？
てかリングやケージに入った事もない奴が戦ってる奴らをよくバカにできるね
ぬりぼうとケージで向い合ったらぬりぼうですらすげぇって感じると思いますよ
News Everyday@24newseveryday
ニューヨーク屋敷 井上尚弥vs中谷潤人 世紀の一戦に感嘆「ブレイキングダウンってカスなんじゃないかってちょっと思った」 newseveryday.jp/2026/05/06/%e3…
日本語
@ken90432 @jinkamiya 高市吉村街頭演説(秋葉原)に大量の左派妨害きたけど、支持者の数が多くて目立ってなかったし、総理となると警備が多すぎてすぐ排除されていましたw
日本語
呼びかけがあれば参政党はのります！
選挙の街頭演説を「大声」などで妨害、維新が法規制を議論へ…「表現の自由」との関係整理し検討(読売新聞オンライン)
#Yahooニュース
news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/36e8b…
日本語
これって国民のニーズではなく、
政府がやりたいだけでは？
皆さんの周りに家政婦やベビーシッターを求めてる方はたくさんいますか？
私の周りにはいません。
家事支援やベビーシッター利用で税制優遇、政府が調整…共働き世帯の負担軽減(読売新聞オンライン)
#Yahooニュース
news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/08bde…
日本語
これだけでも
高市は
クソだと
わかる
高市
絶対に
消費税減税も
出来ないと
断言するわ
news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/5b7ec…
日本語
国旗損壊罪は
オレも
反対！
日の丸を
貶める
クソクズな連中には
虫酸が走るが
クソクズにも
内心の自由と
表現の自由を
保障するのが
民主主義
Yahoo!ニュース@YahooNewsTopics
【国旗損壊罪 岩屋前外相は反対立場】 news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6577529
日本語
高市総理、亡くなられた自衛官３人の葬送式に出られなかったという事です。勿論、公務の優先順位はあります。全てに出る必要があると言う事ではありません。しかし特段の公務がないにも関わらず、自衛隊トップである総理大臣が出席しないのは、私には理解できません。
sankei.com/article/202604…
日本語
@SeydinaOfficial そもそもサインが欲しくてユニフォームを投げつけるとか、ピッチに乗り込むとか観客の礼儀がなってないだけの話しなのに、選手を巻き込むなよ。
サッカーの歴史から見ても2人とも神だ！！
日本語
とうとう出たね。。。
ビル・ゲイツ、ロシア人女性2人との関係を認める。
エプスタインとの関係について財団内部に謝罪。犯罪関与は否定するも、ファイル開示後の釈明との見方に疑念は晴れず。
“慈善家”のイメージに亀裂。
説明か火消しか――視線が集まる。
日本語
. retweetledi
