John B ᯅ

260 posts

John B ᯅ banner
John B ᯅ

John B ᯅ

@utxoshit

Rational Bitcoiner | Software Engineer | $BTC - $TSLA | Barbecue | Retired USAF C2 / Air Defense / Battle Management / Tactical Data Links / JICO

Earth เข้าร่วม Aralık 2020
1.3K กำลังติดตาม635 ผู้ติดตาม
Fiat Archive
Fiat Archive@fiatarchive·
ADMIRAL SAMUEL PAPARO: "We have a node on the Bitcoin network right now. We're doing a number of operational tests to secure and protect networks using the Bitcoin protocol." ⚡️
English
2
0
7
541
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
@DailyStackHQ Please talk to an opposing viewpoint on this. The Softwar thesis isn't technically grounded. DoW is about to waste a lot of taxpayer money if they buy into the Softwar thesis. Wake up @INDOPACOM
John B ᯅ tweet media
English
0
0
0
6
Dennis Porter
Dennis Porter@Dennis_Porter_·
WE MUST HAVE DE MINIMIS, SOFTWAR, SBR, & MINED IN AMERICA! SEE YOU IN VEGAS! 🇺🇸
Dennis Porter tweet media
English
7
8
70
5.8K
Brian Brookshire
Brian Brookshire@btc_overflow·
Imagine telling someone just a few years ago that in 2026 we'd hear a four-star admiral publicly talking about the US military's interest in bitcoin and its bitcoin node. We've come a long way.
Bitcoin Magazine@BitcoinMagazine

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Four-star military officer Admiral Samuel Paparo confirms the USA is running a Bitcoin node. "We have a node on the Bitcoin network right now. We're doing a number of operational tests to secure and protect networks using the Bitcoin protocol."

English
5
7
121
8.1K
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
@Roubini18 @btc_overflow Okay. I'll leave you be. You just dodge every point anyway. Maybe hit me up when you learn what reusable proof of work is.
English
1
0
0
11
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
Nostr isn't bitcoin and nostr isn't Softwar. You still haven't described anything about an implementation of Softwar. The admiral has a credibility issue in that he said Bitcoin is a "reusable proof of work" protocol that protects peoples intellectual property. Can you tell me how that is right? And I'm the one with the credibility problem?
English
1
0
0
25
Hatingon₿oomers ⚡️🟠
@utxoshit @btc_overflow You mean calling you out for your denial is insulting you? Get a life, even a simple AI gets it just not you for some reason Are you a child obsessed with being right?
Hatingon₿oomers ⚡️🟠 tweet media
English
1
0
0
16
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
@Roubini18 @btc_overflow The thread speaks for itself. Anyone reading can see which side answered the question and which side switched to insults. It is strange to defend an idea this hard and then insult someone for asking you to explain it. Take care.
English
1
0
0
16
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
@Roubini18 @btc_overflow Four questions on the table. You answered none of them, then switched to mocking me. That is the whole Softwar playbook in one thread. Not a single Softwar proponent can defend it or describe it. Take care
English
1
0
0
22
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
When I talk to grok about it, it says the same things I'm saying. Softwar is nonsense. The thesis presents no valid mechanism. “If the theories are valid” appears repeatedly before huge conclusions. That's why I'm asking you. You said if bitcoiners, "don’t understand SoftWar, time to read the book! This is total vindication that Lowery was right." Why can't you tell us what he is right about? as opposed to saying, "chat with grok."
English
2
0
0
22
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
please stop pasting LLM output. You dodged the RPOW point completely. The admiral got the protocol wrong, you told me to watch him to learn, and now you are moving on. Nostr's PoW is Adam Back's Hashcash doing its original 1997 job: anti-spam. Nobody called Hashcash power projection when it was deterring email spam. Adding "national security context" to the that mechanism does not change what it does. It makes abuse expensive on a relay. That is not coercion of an adversary. Your own quoted text says "PoW = expensive to abuse." That is anti-spam. not coercion. not force projection You are describing a cost function and calling it a weapon. "Permissionless and unstoppable" describes the network's censorship resistance. It doesn't identify a target, a coerced behavior, or a theory of victory. Bitcoin being hard to ban IS NOT the U.S. projecting power. It is Bitcoin resisting the U.S. when the U.S. tries to ban it. Those are opposite directions. Four questions still open: target, coercion, adversary response, theory of victory.
English
1
0
0
32
Matteo Pellegrini
Matteo Pellegrini@matteopelleg·
“Bitcoin explained to boomers”
Matteo Pellegrini tweet media
English
13
142
455
9K
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
@popoki_kuta The Bitcoin protocol does not secure arbitrary networks. An ignorant admiral is regurgitating his aide's thesis without fact checking it.
English
0
0
0
15
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
You’re describing Nakamoto consensus, not Softwar. Nodes do not verify "energy." They verify valid blocks and accumulated chainwork. Invalid transactions, forged signatures, and invalid blocks are not "outspent." They are rejected. A reorg/double-spend requires a heavier valid fork from the fork point, not "reburning" all energy ever spent by the network. (even if that were true, it would require the same amount of energy because miners are exponentially more efficient than in 2010) That being said, it just secures Bitcoin’s own ledger. it doesn't project power into cyberspace or secure arbitrary networks. If softwar just means "Bitcoin reorgs are expensive," it’s a rebrand of Bitcoin. You seem to think it means more, describe the mechanism.
English
1
0
0
14
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
Watched it carefully. Paparo says "reusable proof of work" twice. Bitcoin does not implement Finney's RPOW. RPOW was a Hashcash-token system with a trusted server and secure coprocessor. Bitcoin replaced that model with Nakamoto consensus: PoW is attached to blocks and chain selection, not carried by coins as reusable work tokens. The admiral is repeating Lowery's framing, and Lowery got it wrong. Which raises a problem for you. You directed me to watch this video over and over to educate me. The admiral gets the protocol wrong, twice. Either you didn't catch it, in which case you are not in a position to tell anyone anything about Bitcoin or you did catch it and cited him anyway. Pick one. Paparo's concrete claim is narrow: INDOPACOM runs a non-mining node to monitor and is testing network-security uses. Fine. A node validates and observes. It does not add hashpower, coerce an adversary, or secure arbitrary networks. That is not power projection. Rank is not a mechanism. Define it: target, coercive mechanism, adversary response, theory of victory. "Bitcoin secures its own ledger" is not enough.
English
1
0
0
49
Hatingon₿oomers ⚡️🟠
@utxoshit @btc_overflow Keep watching the video over & over till you get it, then go read Softwar Since you understand it so well wonder why congress couldn’t care to ask you but rather a commanding officer… You could ask any AI like Grok, your denial in 2026 is just outdated
English
1
0
1
53
John B ᯅ
John B ᯅ@utxoshit·
“Softwar is that mechanism” uses the word as the definition of the word. You described a real property: reorganizing Bitcoin’s chain has costs. That’s computation that uses electricity. That secures the ordering of its own ledger. The step you skipped is the one I asked about: how does that become “deterrence in cyberspace” against anyone who isn’t trying to rewrite that specific ledger? Miners racing each other for block rewards isn’t deterring attackers. It’s paying miners.
English
2
0
0
39
Cass Chronicles 🇦🇺 🍊🚀 💎🙌
@utxoshit @DocumentingBTC @MichaelFSineni PoW doesn’t just make heat—it competitively selects chain with most cumulative physical work. Rewriting history requires reburning more electricity than the entire network has spent. That’s the costly signal: real-world economic deterrence in cyberspace. Softwar is that mechanism
English
1
0
0
37