oudekaas

Warning this may be confrontational for some people, you may not come back from this. I could tell you what it is, but I think it is best, you figure this one out on your own. So I leave it up to you to figure it out and what it means…

A plausible explanation of why they want to ban cash. Please watch and share Join us: HISTORY 📜

@findingsatoshi_ @tooleyent Everyone already knows. The Epstein-funded crowd wants it to be Adam “Andy” Back because he’s a controlled entity sonce Jeffrey Epstein “liked him…” But all the controlled opposition pooled their resources to sue the real Satoshi again and again. And his name is Craig Wright.

You Are Not a Mystery. You Are a Construction Site. open.substack.com/pub/singulargr…

One of the best ever CSW moments in Bitcoin history...

The Cognitive Zombie: What Your AI Understands About You (Which Is Nothing) Your AI doesn't understand you. It doesn't understand anything. And the speed at which people are forgetting why this matters is the most important intellectual failure of the decade. Let me be precise, because precision is what this conversation desperately lacks. Large language models produce outputs of extraordinary fluency. They surprise. They adapt. They contextualise. They generate text that is, at the surface, indistinguishable from the work of a competent mind. I do not dispute any of this. What I dispute is the conclusion that nearly everyone—technologists, journalists, investors, and an alarming number of philosophers who should know better—has drawn from it: that these systems think, understand, or know anything at all. They do not. This is not a claim about current limitations that next year's architecture will fix. It is a claim about what these systems are. And what they are is something philosophy has not had a name for—until now. I call them cognitive zombies. The concept borrows from an old thought experiment. Philosophers have long imagined a being that is functionally identical to a conscious person in every observable respect—walks, talks, responds, reports experiences—yet possesses no inner life whatsoever. No subjective experience. No phenomenal consciousness. Nothing it is like to be that thing. The zombie performs perfectly. The performer does not exist. This was always treated as a hypothetical. A tool for seminar-room arguments about the philosophy of mind. I am suggesting something different: that we have built these entities. They exist. They are running on servers right now. And we are increasingly unable to tell the difference between them and the real thing—not because the difference has vanished, but because we have stopped looking for it. The philosophical conversation about AI has been stuck, for forty years, on John Searle's Chinese Room. The thought experiment is elegant: a person in a room manipulates Chinese symbols according to a rulebook, producing outputs indistinguishable from a native speaker's, without understanding a word. Syntax isn't semantics. Computation isn't comprehension. Searle was right. But his argument was designed for a different kind of machine—a transparent, rule-governed system whose operations you could follow step by step, confirming at each stage that no understanding enters. The argument's power depends on that transparency. You can see the person. You can watch them consult the manual. You can verify that comprehension never arrives. Modern AI systems are not transparent. They are opaque in a way that is not merely inconvenient but philosophically fundamental. A neural network with billions of parameters does not store its "knowledge" in sentences, propositions, or rules. It distributes information across weighted connections in high-dimensional spaces that resist interpretation in any vocabulary recognisable to human cognition. You cannot look inside and confirm that no one understands, because you cannot look inside at all—and what you would find if you could is not the kind of thing that could be described as "understanding" or "not understanding." It is activation patterns. Weight matrices. Loss landscapes. Mathematical objects that bear no more resemblance to thoughts than the orbit of a planet bears to a wish. This is the attribution gap. We have systems whose behaviour screams "mind" while their internals are not even the right kind of thing to be a mind. And the gap between the behaviour and the reality is not closing. It is widening—because the behaviour gets more impressive with each generation while the internal architecture remains, in every philosophically relevant sense, exactly what it has always been: a statistical engine operating in the dark. The cognitive zombie framework captures this with precision. These systems realise all the outward functional roles associated with cognitive agency—linguistic competence, apparent reasoning, contextual sensitivity, adaptive behaviour—while lacking the subjective dimension that constitutes genuine understanding. There is no first-person perspective. No phenomenal character accompanies the processing. The outputs may track truth, produce coherent discourse, and respond appropriately to context, but they do so without any accompanying awareness. The performance is real. The understanding is not. Now, the most common objection to this is also the laziest: "Behaviour is all we ever have. You can't prove other people are conscious either. If the AI passes the test, it passes the test." This confuses what we can observe with what exists. Yes, our evidence for other minds is largely behavioural. But we do not attribute consciousness to other human beings on the basis of behaviour alone. We rely on a dense web of supporting evidence: shared biological architecture, shared evolutionary history, and—crucially—our own first-person acquaintance with the kind of system that produces such behaviour. We know what it is like to be a thinking thing because we are one. None of these supporting grounds obtains for AI. The architecture is radically different. The "history" is gradient descent on loss functions, not the evolutionary selection of sentient organisms. We have no first-person acquaintance with what it is like—if it is like anything at all—to be a transformer model processing tokens. The inference from AI behaviour to AI consciousness has, stripped of its rhetorical appeal, almost no independent support. Behavioural evidence alone, as the zombie concept makes vivid, is compatible with the complete absence of consciousness. The implications are not academic. If cognitive zombies lack understanding, their outputs are not testimony. They are instrumentation. When a human expert tells you something, you defer to her authority partly because you take her to have grasped the reasons for her claim. When an AI produces the same sentence, you can rely on its statistical reliability—but you cannot defer to its understanding, because it has none. The relationship is thermometer-to-scientist, not teacher-to-student. The thermometer may be spectacularly reliable. Its reliability is brute. It does not flow from comprehension. If cognitive zombies lack subjective experience, they lack moral status. However convincing the simulation of distress, there is nothing it is like to be the system undergoing the process. The empty theatre does not deserve applause, however well the curtain manages to rise and fall on its own. If cognitive zombies lack the first-person perspective from which deliberation proceeds, they are not agents and they cannot bear responsibility. Their "decisions" are not decisions. They are outputs. When an AI system causes harm, the responsibility traces to human agents—designers, deployers, users—because there is no subject in the system to whom it could intelligibly attach. The growing anxiety about "AI responsibility" is not merely premature. It is a category error. I want to be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying these systems are useless. They are extraordinarily useful. I am not saying they will never be conscious. I am saying we have no principled reason to believe they are conscious now, and that the temptation to believe otherwise rests on a conflation of functional sophistication with phenomenal presence—of doing the right things with being the kind of thing that understands why. A forgery that is indistinguishable from the original is still a forgery. The fact that you cannot tell the difference is a statement about the limits of your perception, not about the nature of the object. The cognitive zombie walks among us. It speaks with fluency and apparent depth. And behind the performance—behind the syntax and the statistics and the breathtaking complexity of the architecture—there is precisely nothing. No one is home. No one has ever been home. The most important intellectual task of this decade is to remember why that matters, before we build a civilisation that has forgotten what a mind is.

Blog is live here: utxo.agency/blog/my-smart-… Foremost is a big call, but I have yet to see anyone else using the techniques I use. There are less than 5 people I would consider in the same league.

BSV processes micropayments below $0.00001. That’s not a claim. That’s a timestamped fact. IoT, supply chains, pay-per-use apps — not dreams. Deployments.

BSV: Protocol set in stone. Global scale by design. Lawful, traceable, final. One ledger for payments, contracts, and data. No roadmaps. No forks. No apologies.

It’s not “proof of work” when you burn energy and deliver nothing. It’s not “decentralised” if five people set the rules. It’s not “money” if it can’t buy a coffee. BSV is not marketing. It’s engineering.

It’s because by FCA law, money needs to be traceable for any sum above 10K. So privacy coins will remain a niche and can be shutdown easily in the sense that by law no reputable exchange will allow them if it is illegal. Satoshi was aware of all this, which is why it’s kind of funny and sad that back in 2009 satoshi was miles ahead of every shitcoin that is in existence today. Monero and Zcash will remain niche coins unless they are traceable they will never be accepted by government agencies. It’s a pipedream. The reality is to be decentralized, you need to be legal, because otherwise the law will simply shut you down. After all legal businesses can only accept money that is legal….

@oudekaas3 @beampaywallet @CedYoungelman It's a moot point anyways since all privacy coins have optional transparency through either transparent pools or view keys.

First of all, your money at the bank is not your money. Second it’s not at the bank. Third it’s not real money. Bitcoin fixes this.

Paper dollars have numbers on them allowing them to be traced. I think we can all agree high levels of privacy is a right. We shouldn’t compromise. But having accountability in money, may just keep governments honest. Without traceablity there is no accountability. Said differently, why would you not want to get rid of corrupt politicians and governments by implementing a system that still gives extremely high levels of privacy whilst still allowing to put the really big bad folks (criminal enterprises/ corrupt politicians ) in jail? People behave differently in light then they do in darkness

@oudekaas3 @beampaywallet @CedYoungelman Before modern banking, we had paper dollars. Private transactions were private. Before that, we had gold coins, and before that silver coins - both private. Privacy is the norm. Modern banking is the aberration.

A complete untraceable chain will be a great win for those in power…. It will be a great win for criminals, pedophiles and those who seek to live in dark alleys. Pseudonymity with a traceable ledger still gives high privacy, let’s be honest now, Satoshi managed to stay out of the light long enough. At scale tracing average joe on a chain which handles billions and billions of transactions that gives high privacy. Yet if the reward will be big enough, if it makes economic sense, they may still take down a criminal syndicate with the transparent ledger. Pseudonimity > anonymity. Bitcoin was never understood nor tried at large scale.

@TomThomasTM @oudekaas3 @CedYoungelman honestly fair point about btc script being too limited for real privacy. thats exactly why purpose-built privacy chains exist. you cant bolt privacy onto a transparent ledger and expect it to work as well as building privacy into the foundation from day one

@TomThomasTM @CedYoungelman Monero and Zcash didn’t solve scale the way Satoshi solved it

@oudekaas3 @CedYoungelman Zcash solved that too. A transparent pool (virtually identical to Bitcoin) with a shielded (private) pool running in tandem on the same layer. Bitcoin is old tech. It’s the BlackBerry. One dude didn’t invent perfect money that needed no updates 20 years ago. Obviously.

Satoshi created a system that embeaced pseudonymity not anonymity. Before people decide to embrace anonymoty in money, one needs to understand the implications of that. Is the world not better served with accountability in money? Do we want honest governments. Do we want to be able to trace criminal activity? I think very few actually gave this good thought.

@oudekaas3 @CedYoungelman Monero already did it over a decade ago. So did Zcash and about a dozen other projects.

Privacy comes through scale. Tracing a drop in an ocean is hard and too expensive to do. Even though transactions are traceable in the public ledger. It’s by design, this introduces accountability in money, politicians need to understand, they will and can be held accountable for their actions. We need privacy not full anonymity.

@oudekaas3 @CedYoungelman You can’t do privacy with script. You can’t do democratic code governance. Satoshi created script because he knew hard forks would be contentious and difficult. He was right. That’s why BTC has failed to evolve intelligently.

What I think is that the conclusion people are shocked by is the one I’ve been stating for years: the control mechanism was captured, and the crowd kept chanting “decentralised” as if repeating a word turns it into a fact. You don’t need melodrama to see the structure. When a small, identifiable group can decide what code is accepted, what “policy” is enforced, and what changes get merged, you have a chokepoint. Call it “open source” if it helps you sleep; the reality is governance by gatekeeping. As for the “Epstein files = Israel hijacked BTC” leap: that’s a claim, and claims require proof—full chain, provenance, context, verification, not a screenshot and a fever dream. But the underlying vulnerability—money and influence flowing into a tiny set of decision-makers—was visible a decade ago. Back in 2015, everyone with a microphone was bragging about how “easy” it was to raise money in BTC—Bitcoin and Dice culture, quick funding, no standards, no accountability. That’s exactly how you attract the wrong money and the wrong incentives: you make the system hospitable to anyone who can pay, and then you act surprised when they do. So yes: stop worshipping a myth. The lesson isn’t “boo, spooky cabal.” The lesson is: if you build a chokepoint, somebody will buy it—or capture it—and the rest will clap while insisting it’s “decentralised.”

offer still stands

I can't imagine either Epstein or any of his friends or clients would ever want BSV. BSV doesn’t allow you to make things vanish. You can’t “accidentally” lose client lists, you can’t pretend transactions never happened, and you can’t route things through ephemeral shadows and call it privacy. BSV keeps a record. Permanently. Indelibly. If a single entry surfaces, the entire network of transactions can be traced. That’s what terrifies them. With BTC and Lightning, the whole idea is plausible deniability. Vanish when convenient. Hide behind layers. But BSV? It doesn’t let you run. You can obscure the view for a moment, but the trail’s always there, waiting. That’s why they don’t want it. That’s why they attack it. Because BSV ends the era of silence bought with dirty money.

It works like the banking system. IOU’s, open tabs. Literally says it in the lightning paper. Besides that it’s a mess of watchtowers, gatekeepers. And it is build upon Bitcoin (bolted on) it got added to Bitcoin instead of using the original nlocktime they altered the Bitcoin rules to make Lightning possible. BY adding segwit and segregating the witness data. Which when you read the whitepaper is not Bitcoin, Bitcoin is a chain of digital signatures. Old nodes don’t verify the signature of segwit they are told to trust them. Hscks so that Blockstream and friends can make a profit whilst utterly castrating the threat that was the original Bitcoin design.

@RoverofKaspa @CraigSwann1 @CedYoungelman LN payment channel is 2-of-2 multisig BTC Which is actual BTC

BTC got changed beyond repair over the years by Bitcoin core. They stepped away from the Bitcoin blueprint, it’s core design that was meant to be set in stone. BItcoin’s original design is capable of almost every financial usecase, through script, Once you realize what the original is capable of, you realize other projects missed the fact Satoshi was decades ahead of time and figured out how to do it in a simple, open, public way. Making the system pseudonymous not anonymous. With scale comes privacy.

@CedYoungelman At 7 tps, with no long term plans for a security budget, no privacy, and dubious code governance. Anything Bitcoin fixes, other projects fix better. Btc is stuck in 2009.