Tweet fixado
English
sCrypt Official | OP_CAT 🐱
6.4K posts
sCrypt Official | OP_CAT 🐱
@scryptplatform
OP_CAT 😺 enjoyer since 2018. Join fellow OP_CAT builders at https://t.co/wddaS9uYAi.
On Chain Entrou em Temmuz 2009
3.9K Seguindo10.4K Seguidores
@Davincij15 @op_catlayer does all of that and mainnet is already live
English
I'm looking for a Bitcoin second layer that gets it right.
Balances are easy to withdraw.
Self-custody is the default.
Reserves are visible to everyone.
Censorship is obvious when it happens.
Risk is capped.
Settlement to Bitcoin is always possible.
If it doesn't exist yet, I'll build it.
Who's working on this? 👇
English
@op_catlayer carries on the Bitcoin mission of global p2p electronic cash
DBCrypto@DBCrypt0
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” Mission failed
English
@tierotiero @op_catlayer uses bitcoin’s native tech, no EVM
Čeština
Most of the ecosystem (wallets, exchanges, apps) no longer uses Bitcoin technology.
The surrender wasn't supporting stablecoins; it was letting EVM own the infrastructure that moves them.
That created a disincentive to maintain and adopt future BTC tech.
Fernando Nikolić 🇦🇷 🟠@basedlayer
Jack Dorsey just admitted Block is "reluctantly" supporting stablecoins after years of insisting bitcoin should be the internet's native money this is a bitcoin purist surrendering to market reality in real time on the record and I respect the honesty because he's right that bitcoin should be the native money protocol and the market is right that stablecoins are what people actually use for payments right now but the stablecoins are the trojan horse every stablecoin wallet is a future bitcoin on-ramp every person who gets comfortable holding USDT is one step away from holding bitcoin the infrastructure that moves dollars moves bitcoin Dorsey is watching the adoption path take a detour through stablecoins before arriving at bitcoin anyway he'd rather be the wallet people use for BOTH than the wallet that only works for the final destination that nobody's ready for yet
English
What are the most interesting Bitcoin+AI companies?
English
sCrypt Official | OP_CAT 🐱 retweetou
Tools are to AI
what oracles are to crypto.
Both AI and blockchains are blind by design.
LLMs need tools to see the world.
Blockchains need oracles to see the world.
Tools = AI’s oracle.
Oracles = Blockchain’s tool.
Same architecture problem. Different stack.
English
Already built, and better @op_catlayer
VLAD HOSTS THE BEST PODCAST IN BITCOIN@Vladcostea
A version of Bitcoin with: – 300 kb blocks to relay transactions via radio signal – people with no internet access would be able to send transactions to the closest node, hundreds of miles away – sidechains for every use case (BIP300) – CTV, CAT, everything builders need – quantum resistance – atomic swaps between sidechains – a different kind of proof of work, that SHA256 miners cannot attack Who’s building this?
English
@op_catlayer can, due to its optimized UTXO model, enabling unbounded horizontal scalability. TPS: thousands -> millions-> billions
Vinny Lingham@VinnyLingham
Which blockchain handle this??
English
#OPCAT allows bridging to be trustless, not trust-minimized as in BitVm
Robin Linus@robin_linus
@boyacaxa @SuperTestnet @idealgroup @liameagen @therealyingtong BitVM isn’t the endgame. The endgame is improving Bitcoin’s scalability and privacy with Shielded CSV. If better opcodes can render BitVM unnecessary, I’m all for it--and we’re contributing to soft-fork proposals that move things that way. eprint.iacr.org/2025/068
English
Bitcoin can have all of these features, if not artificially capped @op_catlayer
VLAD HOSTS THE BEST PODCAST IN BITCOIN@Vladcostea
Zcash is private Bitcoin Litecoin is faster Bitcoin Kaspa is scalable Bitcoin Decred is governance Bitcoin Bitcoin Cash is big block Bitcoin Ethereum is smart contract Bitcoin Quantus is quantum resistant Bitcoin Monero is reactionary fungible Bitcoin “Bitcoin” is not just a ticker. “Bitcoin” is not just one network. Bitcoin is the name of a movement, the symbol of a revolution, and the ecash that actually changed the world.
English
Running your own node happens in AI b4 crypto
Alex Finn@AlexFinn
The Godfather of Vibe Coding just bought a Mac Mini and is playing with OpenClaw It's happening Personal AI assistants running on local devices is the future The people crying on the timeline saying this is a fad are passing on the most important tech advancement of our lives
English
#OPCAT is out of the bag & is live
GIF
OP_CAT Layer | Mainnet Live@op_catlayer
🚀 OP_CAT Layer MAINNET is finally live! The wait is over. OP_CAT is no longer a discussion — it’s running. This isn’t a concept. This isn’t a roadmap. This is mainnet. ⚡ What you can do now: • Connect your @catenawallet • Explore the network • Try @satswapapp & @CatGoApp • Experience OP_CAT in action The OP_CAT era starts now. Test it. Break it. Use it. Build on it. #OPCAT #OPCATLayer #Mainnet #Bitcoin #BTC #BuildOnBitcoin #Web3 #Crypto
English
sCrypt Official | OP_CAT 🐱 retweetou
#OPCAT based quantum resistance offers neutrality, same reason why Satoshi chose secp256k1, not NIST-designed curve secp256r1 (P-256) @opcatlabs/op-cat-and-bitcoins-path-to-quantum-resistance-d416da1a9870" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">medium.com/@opcatlabs/op-…
Shinobi@brian_trollz
To everyone going "NIST this!" or "NIST that!" in regards to quantum safe crypto, and "standardizing around NIST standards!" and "NIST has schemes, why don't we do them already?!": Satoshi SPECIFICALLY chose a curve NOT APPROVED by NIST. Ask yourself why.
English
@hbeckeri That’s what @satswapapp does for now
English
I’ll concede. But that serial construction off chain is quite the dev ux struggle
Imagine trying to build a hyperliquid style CLOB w/ cancel priority
Only way I think would be to have some central sequencer that would handle ordering and then design a contract that uses signatures against a message but not the utxo
English
Ethreum L1 cannot scale since it uses global state and is thus single-threaded. Bitcoin’s UTXO model remains the most horizontally scalable tech, as I explained years ago scryptplatform.medium.com/bitcoin-vs-eth…
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin
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.
English
@hbeckeri No, serially constructed off chain, but processed in parallel on chain.
English
@scryptplatform Long chains of spends need to be processed serially too though in the UTXO model, which is hard to avoid when making anything that requires stateful utxos
English
@hbeckeri That’s the huge bottleneck: “serially process the ones that read/write from same accounts”. In contrast to accounts, all UTXOs are disjoint, after double spent check
English
@scryptplatform Global state doesn't necessarily mean single threaded. For ex. solana can process disjoint txs in parallel, only needing to serially process the ones that read/write from same accounts. They are effectively the UTXO model + global state
English
UTXO also enables all of these. Satoshi’s design needs no tradeoffs. Just check out x.com/op_catlayer
xdiep4474.eth@Xdiep4474
@scryptplatform Not full picture Bro.. UTXO wins parallelism, but global state enables composability and UX, L2s bridge gaps. Tradeoffs, not a one sided race
English