Light

This could be a very big deal. Thanks for all the hard work in making this happen, @deggen and @BSVAssociation!

@cryptorebel_SV I'm really glad you've been able to run with this project and keep it alive! Thank you!

Here is an example of what you can do with ElectrumSVP version 0.1.0 under the address batch option on #Bitcoin #BSV. This transaction splits up inputs into 1000 random UTXOS to enhance privacy. Not sure of any other wallet that allows stuff like this

The infrastructure is completely automated from bare metal OS provisioning all the way through cluster deployment, and application orchestration. It is quite a stack.

Here's an article on the most recent Teranode scaling infrastructure built on OVH. This was a fun project to put together from bare metal to fully working cluster. The performance and ease of deployment has surpassed my initial expectations. ovhcloud.com/en-gb/case-stu…

@hlopez_ And I'll take you for a troll. Mute.

@LightBSV lol I’ll take that as a no.

This. The true value proposition in Bitcoin is in building with the system, on top of the system, for the system. Make something greater than has come before.

@hlopez_ You obviously haven't built anything.

@LightBSV Has something that solved a paying customer problem been built yet?

@CsTominaga Time to invest in a telehandler.

I find myself confronted with a most undignified truth: I am becoming far too old to climb trees. It is a cruel irony. My wife, with impeccable and entirely inconvenient taste, delights in coconuts—adores them, in fact—while the trees, those tall and insolent aristocrats of the garden, insist on hoarding their bounty at heights clearly designed to mock the ageing human spine. There they stand, laden with fruit, like smug hosts at a banquet to which I have not been properly invited. And so I climb. Not as some lithe, sun-bronzed youth of twenty, bounding upward with reckless grace and no regard for consequence, but as a man who is increasingly aware that gravity is not merely a law—it is a threat. There is a certain vulgarity in the exertion now, a betrayal in each protesting muscle, a quiet but persistent suggestion from one’s bones that this arrangement is no longer entirely sensible. And yet—how intolerably magnificent—I can still do it. No ladder. No assistance. Just stubbornness dressed up as competence. I ascend, pluck the coconuts, and descend with what I insist on calling dignity, though I suspect the trees would disagree. There is, I admit, a perverse satisfaction in proving that time has not quite claimed its victory. But I am not deceived. One sees the horizon approaching. Not dramatically, not tragically, but with the calm certainty of an ending that has already been written. The day will come when I look up at those trees and decide—quite rationally, quite sensibly—that coconuts are a luxury I can no longer personally procure. And that, more than the climb itself, is the true indignity.

@BSVTeranode Very important. Don't forget shared storage! Currently NFS but Lustre was used in the past. The services use it to store subtrees, quorum information, large transactions that don't fit in Aerospike, and other bits and bobs.

Teranode's stack: • Go (language) • gRPC + Protobuf (comms) • Kafka (messaging) • Aerospike (UTXO storage) • PostgreSQL (chain state) • Docker + K8s (deployment) • Prometheus + Jaeger (monitoring) Enterprise-grade. #Teranode #BSV

@SmilaZParadis @CsTominaga Yes, the process must be reciprocal, always.

@LightBSV @CsTominaga Environment is highly relevant as well. Absolutely. Generally, feeling valued tends to fuel productivity and performance, confidence and motivation. But in some cases, it either doesn't fit or makes no difference.

Bryan, it’s very simple. People like Connor have had longer, deeper engagement than you—and somehow, remarkably, they’re not behaving like this. They’re not posturing. They’re not demanding recognition. They’re not acting as though time spent entitles them to reverence. They’re trying to achieve something. That is the difference. You seem to believe that being paid for four years to perform a function elevates you—that duration becomes merit, that proximity becomes authority, that participation becomes achievement. It doesn’t. You were paid to do a job. Others are focused on results. And when results don’t materialise, the rational outcome is not worship—it is termination. What follows from that is revealing. Those who understand the nature of work move on, refine, build, and improve. Those who don’t begin to resent—resent the system, resent others, resent the fact that effort without outcome is not rewarded indefinitely. So this performance—this indignation, this posture of being wronged—is not evidence of injustice. It is evidence of expectation unmet by reality. And reality, unlike sentiment, does not adjust itself to accommodate disappointment.

@CsTominaga @SmilaZParadis Bitcoin doesn't need inclusion for it's own sake. We don't need dead weight. Bitcoin needs killer productive teams with fanatical, winning and enduring work cultures in service of the ultimate inspiring mission: Bitcoin.

@CsTominaga @SmilaZParadis I guess I did not realize that was going on. Biting the hand that feeds is never a good idea. And toxicity in all forms has no business in the work place, from the top or the bottom.

No—stop sanitising what actually happened. He didn’t “simply file an HR complaint.” He made it a campaign. A sustained pattern of complaining about Calvin, about the funding, about how the money was being used—as though there were some invisible queue of superior backers waiting to replace it. There isn’t. That’s the reality you keep avoiding. He didn’t bring in external capital. He didn’t expand the funding base. He didn’t strengthen the position of the organisation. He sat there criticising the very source of the money that allowed the entire operation to exist. And then you act surprised at the outcome. The people making decisions are not abstract moral referees. They are running an organisation that depends on capital. The funders themselves didn’t need to act. The people relying on that funding—the ones actually responsible for keeping things alive—have no interest in tolerating someone who undermines the hand that feeds them. Not out of sentiment. Out of survival. No one is going to keep around someone who contributes no new capital, adds no measurable upside, and instead spends his time attacking the primary source of funding. That isn’t principle. That’s self-sabotage. And dressing it up as “process” or “rights” doesn’t change what it is. If you attack the foundation of the system you’re in—without replacing it—you don’t get to pretend the consequences are unjust. You made yourself a liability. And organisations remove liabilities.

@CsTominaga @SmilaZParadis Oh, I agree that if the ideas are detrimental to the long term success of the project, the mandates of the directors, the vision of the founder, then sure. Simply quash it with direct, blunt feedback. Make sure there is no issue. Simply filing an HR complaint should be allowed.

Yes—people want to be valued members of a team. That is obvious. What you are doing is quietly redefining what that means. Being “valued” does not mean having your suggestions adopted. It does not mean your view prevails. It does not mean the organisation bends to accommodate your preferences. In any functioning team, most suggestions are rejected. That is not dysfunction. That is selection. Being heard is not the same as being obeyed. And this is where the distortion begins. You take the ordinary reality—that individuals contribute ideas, some accepted, most not—and you twist it into an entitlement: that if one’s view is not taken, then something must be wrong with the environment, the leadership, or the structure itself. No. What follows from that mindset is precisely the behaviour that corrodes organisations. The constant undermining. The side-channel complaints. The attempts to escalate disagreement into grievance when a decision does not go your way. The fixation on individuals—particularly the primary funder—because he will not deviate from a fixed direction. That is not “seeking to add value.” That is agitation. And it is toxic. If the primary source of capital is clear—if the direction is explicit, particularly around something as fundamental as not changing the protocol—then the choice is simple. You align. Or you leave. What you do not do is remain inside and attempt to subvert that direction through indirect pressure, external complaints, or persistent attacks on the very structure enabling the work to exist. I am not part of the BSVA. The view here is limited. But even from that distance, the pattern is visible: when someone does not get their way, the language shifts from contribution to accusation. That is the point at which a participant ceases to be constructive. If the environment is truly unacceptable, the rational response is not escalation. It is exit. Anything else is not principled disagreement. It is corrosive persistence in a position one no longer accepts.

@CsTominaga @SmilaZParadis People want to be valued members of teams. They want to deliver value in what they do, in service of a mission. I believe it's in most people's nature to do so. The environment is everything. It has to be reciprocal. If it works, then people can be productive. If it doesn't...

@CsTominaga Just to be clear, I was talking about people organizations and not protocols. I agree that the system does not change.

It is a fixed protocol. That is not incidental—it is the condition of your participation. You do not join such a system in order to reshape it to your preferences. You accept its rules, or you leave. There is no middle ground in which reality bends to grievance. If your aim is to alter the protocol itself, then you have no place there. Not philosophically, not practically, and certainly not economically. The demand to both belong and redesign is a contradiction—and one resolved only by those who build something else, not by those who complain about what already exists.

🎯 Sad. Destructive. Predictable.

@webbedtoed @CsTominaga They are the best words I can come up with to describe the situation, and it's only apparent to me after multiple decades of seeing what works and what doesn't work in organizations. I could be off the mark, but I don't think I am. 🤷

@LightBSV @CsTominaga Perhaps the word "toxic" can be interchangeable with the word "abandonment" or "betrayal". These are heavily loaded words and anyone who's spent time with the sensations+ behaviors can see the inner workings /what "isn't WORKING". In the same sense I'm blocked by Brian 🤷🏻‍♂️😆🤹🏻‍♂️

They currently send all subtrees to all other nodes. In the future, this can be a mechanism for node specialization. Nodes that are selective about what transactions they want to process.

@BSVTeranode Subtree transmissions take up a percentage of inter-node communication, and while they are linked to transactions, they are only used by nodes. All nodes send and receive all subtree data to/from other nodes.

Why can't other chains match this? Many networks burn capacity on inter-node chatter. ~50% of Solana tx are node communication. Teranode nodes operate independently. All capacity goes to actual user transactions. #Teranode #BSV