BitcoinFit

To get fit, we have to train together. To hold each other accountable. work as a team. Bitcoin is no different.

[BitcoinFit @BitcoinFit1]

Time for Nostr.

npub1y7j7ex9wvs8dp8gaky60qcpe3m6sfyrlekex64s4y8ykwsc9xe6s8a8lwf

[BTC Sessions 😎 @BTCsessions]

@Apple @AppleSupport you guys need to do better. You've repeatedly allowed scam spoofs of @SparrowWallet on the iOS app store and when the dev does the right thing in trying to warn users, you flag his account for removal? Unbelievable. It's a direct incentive for people to turn a blind eye from now on.

[Sparrow Wallet 🐦 @SparrowWallet]

Unless @Apple's decision to terminate @craigraw's Apple Developer account is reversed by June 30, all new installs of Sparrow will fail, and development on macOS will end. If you value Sparrow, a repost would help. @AppleSupport

[TFTC @TFTC21]

Apple is about to kill Sparrow Wallet on macOS. The deadline is June 30.

Since 2023, more than a dozen fake "Sparrow" apps have appeared on Apple's App Store. Users have lost their savings, in some cases their life savings, to these impersonators. Craig Raw, Sparrow's developer, holds the registered US trademarks for both the name and logo. He's been publicly warning Apple about the scam apps since early 2024. They keep showing up.

Craig created a placeholder app, never published, to warn users that Sparrow is desktop-only and the App Store copycats aren't real. Apple's response? They flagged his developer account for "dishonest activity" and scheduled it for termination.

The developer fighting scammers got flagged. The scammers who stole life savings kept operating on Apple's platform.

If Apple follows through, every new Sparrow install on macOS fails after June 30. macOS development ends entirely.

This matters because Sparrow is the best desktop Bitcoin wallet available, full stop. Multisig. Coin control. Hardware wallet integration. Tor support. UTXO management that most wallets don't even attempt. Free. Open source. Built by one developer who cares more about his users than his revenue.

And one automated decision by a trillion-dollar company could end it on an entire operating system.

This is why platform gatekeeping is a systemic risk for freedom tech. If your tools need a gatekeeper's blessing to exist, they aren't freedom tools. We have to build on open platforms.

Download Sparrow now from https://t.co/IXV1QMNKx6 before the deadline. And repost Craig's announcement to help get Apple's attention before it's too late.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

https://t.co/yeG4PgpjEq

[Guy Swann @TheGuySwann]

We’re gonna fix this without needing politics to get on board. The problem starts with the platforms…

We’re starting small, but headed for a solution to owning digital content again.

It’s starts with Peardrop, file sharing made simple.
https://t.co/j3RzM9ptio

[TFTC @TFTC21]

Martti Malmi, one of Bitcoin's earliest developers, just released a new version of Nostr VPN, an open-source mesh VPN that replaces the entire trust model of traditional VPN services.

Traditional VPNs route all your traffic through a central server operated by a company you have to trust. They see your data. They require your email. They can log your activity. They can be subpoenaed, hacked, or shut down. Even modern mesh VPNs like Tailscale, which improved on this by sending data peer-to-peer, still require you to authenticate through a centralized coordination server using third-party accounts like Google or Microsoft.

Nostr VPN eliminates the central server entirely. Your identity is a Nostr keypair, a self-generated cryptographic key pair with no registration, no email, no third-party account. The underlying transport layer is FIPS (Free Internetworking Peering System), a self-organizing encrypted mesh network where nodes authenticate each other, route traffic for each other, and establish connections without any central authority or global topology knowledge. Each node's Nostr public key (npub) serves as its network address.

The architecture uses two layers of encryption: hop-by-hop encryption between peers and independent end-to-end encryption between mesh endpoints with periodic rekeying for forward secrecy. When direct connections fail due to NAT issues, the system falls back to Nostr-based multihop routing through other FIPS nodes rather than relying on company-operated relay servers. Peer discovery and NAT traversal happen through public Nostr relays using encrypted gift-wrapped messages.

The new release adds native desktop apps for macOS, Linux, and Windows, an Android app, Nostr-based multihop routing for when NAT holepunching fails, and improved network management. It supports UDP, TCP, Ethernet, Tor, and Bluetooth transports simultaneously on a single mesh.

This is what happens when you apply Bitcoin's design philosophy, permissionless, self-sovereign, no trusted third parties, to networking infrastructure. Built by one of the people who helped Satoshi build Bitcoin in 2009.

[BitcoinFit @BitcoinFit1]

@TFTC21 Can @SOVsessions do a demo?

[BTC Sessions 😎 @BTCsessions]

One of the coolest things this year at @TheBitcoinConf was seeing the hunger people have for hands on education and personal responsibility.

Our team with @theBTCmentor was a little tucked away in the open source area, but people found us, flooded in, filled the seats, lined the walls, and sat on the floor. They learned cold storage, privacy, multisig, and so much more.

Remember, just because the suits and feds are here, doesn't mean the self sovereign bitcoiners have gone away. Looking forward to doing this again.

[MarylandHODL BIP-110 (aka The Transition) @MarylandHODL21]

Give Saylor Some Credit: The Next Evolution of the Bitcoin Treasury Strategy

It’s easy to dismiss @saylor’s “never sell” mantra as a trap. Critics argue he’s painted himself into a corner, dependent on a cycle of buying Bitcoin and issuing preferreds that eventually demands increasingly creative capital raises at the expense of equity holders. But that critique misses the bigger picture. Saylor isn’t stuck…he’s evolving the playbook.

The Current Flywheel and Its Limits

Strategy’s approach has worked like a monetary flywheel: buy Bitcoin through ATMs or preferred offerings, boost the Bitcoin per-share value of common stock, strengthen collateral coverage, and in turn reinforce Bitcoin’s price. It’s a powerful, self-reinforcing loop.

The problem is sustainability. Servicing preferreds eventually requires issuing more common equity - diluting shareholders and creating the optics of a Ponzi-like need for constant inflows. But here’s what critics overlook: Saylor has repeatedly shown a willingness to adapt. Each pivot (ATM issuance, bank debt, convertible bonds, and now preferreds) was not blind stubbornness but active refinement. He’s been innovative, responsive, and adaptive, each time solving the limits of the prior model while strengthening Strategy’s Bitcoin position.

The next logical step follows that same pattern: retire the ATM as the primary funding source for dividends and replace it with a professional trading desk designed to monetize highly appreciated Bitcoin.

The Necessary Pivot: A Ladder Approach

Think of it like climbing a ladder (with endless side rails and only 10 rungs): to keep rising, you eventually need to move a lower rung upward. For Strategy, that means selling a small, strategic portion of Bitcoin at the right times. It’s not abandoning “never sell” …..it’s maturing into a true institutional Bitcoin operation.

The model is straightforward: sell into strength, fund dividends, and leverage capital inflows to grow Strategy’s stack. Done right, it becomes an elegant arbitrage between Bitcoin’s long-term CAGR and his preferred/tradfi based yields.

A Lesson from the 1980s

This is where the Solomon Brothers parallel matters. In the 1980s, Solomon dominated the bond market by mastering liquidity. They didn’t just participate - they set the rules, forcing others to trade on their terms. By running the most sophisticated desk, they became the gravitational center of bonds.

That’s the opportunity here: Strategy could become the Solomon Brothers of Bitcoin. By professionalizing both sides of the trade, they wouldn’t just hold Bitcoin - they’d define the liquidity strategy everyone else follows.

Letting the Market Catch Up

Saylor knows timing is everything. Announcing a willingness to sell only works if the infrastructure is already in place - staffed with veteran traders using proven strategies will provide instant credibility. That’s what allows the market to see evolution, not retreat.

Game theory suggests he’ll move only when the market itself feels the strain: slowing mNAV, ATM limits, and lackluster price action. At that moment, the pivot won’t be seen as a crack in the strategy - it will be welcomed as the solution.

More importantly, this shift removes the Ponzi-like optics that critics seize on. Instead of relying on constant ATM issuance, capital begins flowing naturally into both the preferreds and the common. The flywheel regains traction, market confidence strengthens, and mNAV expands in a way that feels sustainable rather than forced.

Conclusion: He’s Not Out of Moves

Saylor deserves credit for creating the board everyone else is now playing on. If history is any guide, he isn’t boxed in -he’s preparing the next move. And it may be the most powerful yet: turning Strategy from the first corporate Bitcoin treasury into the Solomon Brothers of Bitcoin, the institution that controls the liquidity game.

@darkside2030 @JoshMandell6 @Puncher522

[BitcoinFit @BitcoinFit1]

@blackwidowbtc Keep up the good work. I am learning a ton. I especially love it when you post your receipts. Most don’t do that. But it is really important for building trust. Thank you for everything!!

[Gatlin Didier @gatlin_didier]

When a tornado hits in 2027…👀

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

A simple message to the silly socialists.

You’re upset by businesses telling you that they will fail with the minimum wage increase. You’re telling business owners silly things like if you can’t pay the minimum wage then you don’t have a viable business.

I want to make this easier to understand, because if you mean what you say, you want people to have jobs and earn a liveable wage.

So listen, businesses fail for all kinds of reasons, mainly because they are unprofitable. We are seeing a wave of business closures at the moment because of the compounding costs from the state against a cost of living crisis.

To make a cup of coffee profitable it has to eat a lot costs:
- 20% VAT (the inputs can’t be claimed back)
- Business rates (a tax before you earn)
- Rising NI costs
- Employment rights load
- Rising energy costs
- Inflation

All these are imposed by the state.

There is also a time tax with all the accounting, HR and regularity requirements which impose cost of consultants and time costs to ensure compliance, distracting owners from operating their businesses.

Then there are the other normal costs. A business owner needs to make a profit else the business fails. If the business fails there are less jobs and lower tax receipts.

If there are less jobs then public services crumble and welfare requirements increase. This is a compounding problem and what leads to the downward spiral of a country.

So… where does the money come from if there are less jobs. The government borrows it, that increase in the money supply drives more inflation, making life more expensive for the people you want to help. Some who now don’t have the job they once had.

So what now? What is your plan? I get it, you don’t really have one, this is what has happened to every socialist state, this is how a country goes from rich to poor. We have no divine right to be a wealthy nation and can certainly lose that status.

So this is your challenge, can you accept society has a distribution of wealth which means there are rich and poor or would you rather everyone was poorer as long as there are no rich. That’s what socialists tend to want, though I have a secret for you, you can’t get rid of people being rich.

I know you think profit is ugly, but the profit motive is what creates business and jobs.

So anyway. I’m going to keep promoting proper economics because that’s how a nation becomes prosperous and prosperity leads to a net better outcome for all. This does mean I am going to have to make fun of your stupid socialist ideas.

Good luck, read a book and stop being a dumb dumb.

[Giovanni's BTC_POWER_LAW @Giovann35084111]

https://t.co/EUc3OgKu72

[BitcoinFit @BitcoinFit1]

@LynAldenContact @ianbremmer Hey Lyn, what do you think about a @jimcramer rule where congress has to post trades 72 hours before execution? Let the little guy front run.

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

A minimum wage of £15 would end my coffee shop, it would have to close, as would many other businesses.

I’ll explain for the economically illiterate.

Staff costs are currently half our costs, a £15 minimum wage is actually more than £15 an hour for the company, because you have to add:
- 12.07% holiday
- Sick pay
- Maternity pay if and when required
- National insurance
- Pension contributions

These costs would mean the shop loses money because remember, energy costs are up, rates are up, regulations are up.

Now you can pass these costs onto the consumer - that would mean charging a lot more for coffee, people won’t pay it. The likes of Starbucks and Costa can, because they have economies of scale. The independent doesn’t.

Now the little socialist will say well this is your fault, if you can’t run a business that can afford to pay its staff properly, but the little socialist has never run a business and does not understand the dynamics.

Now I could pay some staff off and fill those hours myself or reduce us to one staff member during certain periods - but this proves the point that a minimum wage costs jobs.

There was a time when these jobs were done by kids, perhaps on the weekend, paid a lower wage, no holiday and no silly employment rights. Perhaps they were even paid cash. The dynamic worked and small businesses like this could operate. It was also a great first job. Sadly now it isn’t worth employing entitlement youngsters at this level of pay.

So alas, I don’t need the stress, the business would close, a number of jobs would be lost.

Economics is about understanding these dynamics, no vibes.

The cost of living is not solved through passing on inflation to the business, it is solved by ending high inflation and creating prosperity. This is what socialists don’t understand, they can’t create prosperity, they can only destroy it.

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

I am going to have to explain this to you again aren't I @carla_denyer.

Okay, here goes...renters rights do the opposite of what you want because they change the incentives for landlords. You're worried about the cost of living and rising rents - you fix this by fixing inflation and creating a growing and prosperous economy, not punishing business.

Why?

Landlords provide a service, properties for those who want to rent or can't buy. This is a genuine demand in the market. For this, they take on risk, allowing a person to occupy their property.

Renters rights are an infringement on property rights, disincentivising landlords. In the short-term this might fix prices to an extent, but some landlords will choose to no longer provide this service as the incentives are broken and other new landlords will not enter the market.

So what then happens:
- Supply drops while demand stays the same, or even increases...
- Therefore rental prices end up rising...
- And quality also drops as there is less competition

So what you have done is made the market worse for renters. If you don't believe me, Google is your friend, there is endless research on this.

What you need to do is create a growing economy with low inflation, then rather than everything getting more expensive, things get more affordable. But to do this, again needs an understanding of economics...
- No more government money printing
- Drastic cut in regulations
- Lower inflation and lower interest rates
- Massive tax cuts

These are all basics. I mean I know you won't do it because you want socialism. You would rather have people surviving and dependent than prosperous and free.

[BitcoinFit @BitcoinFit1]

@BTCsessions Yes!!! This is awesome! Timely too. Thank you!

[Guy Swann @TheGuySwann]

Both were legends but neither had anything to do with Satoshi. Anyone who thinks that isn’t putting this in context. I think everyone who is certain Satoshi was multiple people is missing how unimportant bitcoin was during the first year.

There is no grand conspiracy. There is no secret team planning to save the world. There is absolutely no evidence that there were multiple people. It’s a convenient construction used to explain the fact that they cant find one person to fit the profile.

But everything from every line ever written by Satoshi suggests it was a single person, on a single schedule, with a single writing style, who was aware of all the architectural and coding decisions of Bitcoin, and that they weren’t sure if it would work, but thought they may have figured it out.

We far too often project its perceived importance *today* onto its past. But that makes no sense.

Hal and Len were legends, but every bit of legitimate evidence we have suggests Satoshi was one guy and we don’t know who he was.

[Guy Swann @TheGuySwann]

Deflation isn't the economic monster they want us to fear. And falling prices are just the honest proof that real innovation happened. Yet, we let central authorities print endless money to stop it.

In Part 2 of Allen Farrington and Sacha Meyers' latest essay, we look at why falling prices may be the most honest measure of innovation, and expose the myth of fiat economics.

[BitcoinFit @BitcoinFit1]

@PrestonPysh Thank you for all your tutelage! You’ll be greatly missed.