Logos

[0xsd @_0xsd_]

https://t.co/UVRtj0bboA

[Erik Voorhees @ErikVoorhees]

Tyranny is always welcomed on behalf of child safety

How could you be against child safety?

[Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca]

So it turns out @rivatez was right all along.

[Matt Huang @matthuang]

I am liking @VitalikButerin’s cypherpunk warrior arc, and I think it is very good for the world.

[Meltem Demirors @Melt_Dem]

we are going to mine Bitcoin in space

hell yes brother

[Logos @0xlogos]

he's not going to be able to

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

HODL

[Logos @0xlogos]

@TraderNoah lol. anybody that has seen the returns or positions of his fund should be laughing (or somehow bullish eth)

[Logos @0xlogos]

@GwartyGwart she’s long ethbtc

[Logos @0xlogos]

yeah, last lifeline

[Mippo 🟪 @MikeIppolito_]

Banks lobbying to prevent stablecoins passing back yield is the most blatant, shameful example of regulation protecting the incumbents I've ever seen

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

Welcome to 2026! Milady is back.

Ethereum did a lot in 2025: gas limits increased, blob count increased, node software quality improved, zkEVMs blasted through their performance milestones, and with zkEVMs and PeerDAS ethereum made its largest step toward being a fundamentally new and more powerful kind of blockchain (more on this later)

But we have a challenge: Ethereum needs to do more to meet its own stated goals. Not the quest of "winning the next meta" regardless of whether it's tokenized dollars or political memecoins, not arbitrarily convincing people to help us fill up blockspace to make ETH ultrasound again, but the mission:

To build the world computer that serves as a central infrastructure piece of a more free and open internet.

We're building decentralized applications. Applications that run without fraud, censorship or third-party interference. Applications that pass the walkaway test: they keep running even if the original developers disappear. Applications where if you're a user, you don't even notice if Cloudflare goes down - or even if all of Cloudflare gets hacked by North Korea. Applications whose stability transcends the rise and fall of companies, ideologies and political parties. And applications that protect your privacy. All this - for finance, and also for identity, governance and whatever other civilizational infrastructure people want to build.

These properties sound radical, but we must remember that a generation ago any wallet, kitchen appliance, book or car would fulfill every single one of them. Today, all of the above are by default becoming subscription services, consigning you to permanent dependence on some centralized overlord.

Ethereum is the rebellion against this.

To achieve this, it needs to be (i) usable, and usable at scale, and (ii) actually decentralized. This needs to happen at both (a) the blockchain layer, including the software we use to run and talk to the blockchain, and (b) the application layer. All of these pieces must be improved - they are already being improved, but they must be improved more.

Fortunately, we have powerful tools on our side - but we need to apply them, and we will.

Wishing everyone an exciting 2026.

Milady.

[Logos @0xlogos]

opt-in is the key. let ideas compete

[Peter H. Diamandis, MD @PeterDiamandis]

Bitcoin is a peaceful, opt-in monetary revolution. That’s exactly why some find it so dangerous.

[Peter H. Diamandis, MD @PeterDiamandis]

Bitcoin is a peaceful, opt-in monetary revolution. That’s exactly why some find it so dangerous.

[Logos @0xlogos]

open source everything

[Peter McCormack 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧🇮🇪 @PeterMcCormack]

MAGA is only a blueprint for winning consensus (elections). It is not the blueprint for building a strong nation.

The federalists and anti-federalists would be equally horrified by MAGA.

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

This is what I worry Europe will get negatively polarized into: an ideology taking pride in a neat, sanitized online environment free of evil corporate and fascist pathogens.

I hope European govs do not go this way, and instead take a Pirate Party approach of user empowerment.

First, what's wrong with the tweet I'm quoting:

The idea that there should be "no space" for something you dislike is fundamentally a totalitarian and anti-pluralistic impulse. It's incompatible with being in an environment that you do not fully control.

This is especially true for categories that are subjective and controversial, because you end up trying to fully remove things you think are pathogens, when other people have good faith disagreements, and because you give yourself the maximalist goal of not even giving them breathing room, you create conflict and end up building the machinery of technocratic authoritarianism to impose your victory in the conflict.

So sorry, if you want to be a free society, you have to bite the bullet that some people, somewhere, will be selling things that you consider dangerous and saying things you consider disinformation and vicious lies.

What is the goal to shoot for?

You want to create an environment where those things don't dominate. This is the problem with twitter today: not that it's a safe space where 1000 people talk to each other in a corner about how heritage americans are the master race and putin is good or whatever, but that that crap gets shoved in our face on a mass scale, and the algorithms actively favor it.

The right metaphor is not castles and walls, but biological - think, why European forests don't have tropical lizards.

Having incentives for social media platforms to have less of those things instead of more is fundamentally reasonable, @audreyt has talked about how Taiwan has done something similar.

You also want to do this in a way where it's clear what the underlying principle is, so it's not a vehicle for imposing arbitrary and frequently changing expert-consensus agendas.

You also want to empower users, rather than working against them. People want to see and buy good things instead of bad things. Often the problem is that competition is too difficult in the current market. I actually supported the USB-C standardization mandate; it created more interoperability and thus improved competition and convenience. I would support incentivizing social platforms to be more open, and to be more transparent (eg. my proposal to require algorithms to be continuously published with a 1-2 year delay, with zk-proofs to ensure that the algorithm being used in real time exactly equals the one that gets published later)

Being able to better identify what messages are coming from what communities is also good, though I don't support the direction of banning anonymity of individual posters, rather I would want to see more macro-scale analytics, eg. seeing what communities are most strongly saying and amplifying content that semantically matches a particular idea; this can be done in privacy-preserving ways.

There is a real opportunity to reaffirm freedom of speech in a unique and different way, that emphasizes pluralism and pushes against unbalanced attempts to manipulate the discourse by individual powerful actors. We want to do this, not go down the dark path of having something that claims to support fundamental rights but actually is not trusted by anyone to be anything other than the fundamental right to follow the footsteps of a few technocratic experts.

[Logos @0xlogos]

@dcfgod best bitcoin is wbtc

[Logos @0xlogos]

@jvb_xyz @PostTenebras2 it’s sarcasm :)

can you see how you could make the same arguments for both? you can also like both, luckily we don’t have to choose

[Logos @0xlogos]

@jvb_xyz @PostTenebras2 You’re suggesting that BTC is a commodity.

Transaction fees is the only use case for BTC that resembles a commodity. On that basis, BTC is practically worthless.

Thus, you should either pivot and argue that BTC is something else or admit defeat.

[Logos @0xlogos]

make crypto cypherpunk again

[Logos @0xlogos]

@jvb_xyz lol ok, today we learned that you think eth (and probably every other "cryptocurrency" outside of btc) is not a cryptocurrency