SoonTribune

[SoonTribune @SoonTribune]

The whole reason these charts (S2F, etc.) exist are to convince noobs to dump their money into a momentum trade and pump the bags of early adopters. If they already bought in, the message changes to "hodl", tricking them into believing that doing nothing is contributing or being virtuous. BTC dies if not enough fresh pleb funds keep it afloat? That's the scam I'm referring to, the whole thing.

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

Give it a read, check the notes!

And share with your friends!

https://t.co/uY0ok4MR0t

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

People keep claiming I must be using AI because I use metaphors, analogies, strange comparisons, and supposedly “too many” connections between fields.

Fine. Go back and watch my videos from 2016 and 2017.

Before ChatGPT.

Before the current AI panic.

Before every dullard on the internet decided that metaphor was suspicious.

You will find the same style there: economics explained through engineering, law through game theory, networks through biology, finance through history, and technical systems through whatever analogy actually makes the point.

That is not AI.

That is how I think. I have 30 post grad degrees in 15 fields.

The accusation is hilarious because it says more about the accuser than about me. They cannot naturally connect ideas across domains, so when someone else does it, they assume a machine must be involved.

No. Some people read. Some people remember. Some people build models in their head.

Others point at ordinary human thought and scream “AI” because metaphor looks like witchcraft to the terminally pedestrian.

So yes, go watch the old material.

Same metaphors.

Same analogies.

Same weird examples.

Same me.

The evidence predates the accusation.

So kindly fuck off.

[SoonTribune @SoonTribune]

@Trollsvszombies @CsTominaga @DividendRob Oh boy, you scammers really know no end. Moonboy charts for the win, right!?

[Dr. Ben Braddock @GraduatedBen]

President Trump condemns LED light bulbs, says “the light is no good”, praises incandescent light bulbs as superior choice.

[SoonTribune @SoonTribune]

The guy convincing noobs to sell their homes for BTC gets shut down.

[Joe Consorti @JoeConsorti]

This homeless guy is in my comments section using an LLM to try to debunk Bitcoin (the real one).

Has anyone heard of him before?

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

A distributed-agent system could outperform five central data centres if three conditions hold: verified identity/cost, reliable scoring of truth, and incentives for useful local knowledge.

The core point is Hayek’s: knowledge is dispersed. A central system can hold a vast archive, but it cannot directly possess the situated knowledge held by billions of people, devices, firms, specialists, instruments, and local contexts. Centralisation wins on uniform training, security, and compute density. Distribution wins on breadth, freshness, locality, and private data access.

In 10–20 years, with agents perhaps 10^3 to 10^6 orders of magnitude more capable, the comparison is not “one big model versus many small models.” It is:

Five central data-centre models

enormous shared compute;

global generalisation;

clean orchestration;

strong model consistency;

but bottlenecked by what data can be collected, licensed, scraped, or legally centralised.

Ten to one hundred billion distributed specialist agents

each trained or adapted on local/private/specialist data;

each observing a different slice of reality;

each able to test claims against its own domain;

each updating a network through reputation, Bayesian weighting, and economic incentives;

but vulnerable to noise, fraud, sybil attacks, adversarial data, and coordination costs.

The centralised model has more formal training mass. The distributed system has more total information about the world.

That distinction matters. An LLM trained on the public internet gets averaged public residue: repetition, propaganda, stale claims, marketing, fashion, and error. A distributed system can include information that never enters the public corpus: private logs, professional judgement, local conditions, commercial experience, sensor feeds, laboratory results, operational failures, medical observations, legal documents, engineering data, and personal context.

The scientific advantage comes from treating each agent as an uncertain evidence source. A Bayesian network does not need every node to be right. It needs each report to be weighted by prior reliability, domain competence, independence, costliness of deception, and predictive success. Bad nodes are discounted. Good nodes become more influential. Repeated accurate predictions become capital.

So the future contest is not merely compute. Compute scales models; distributed incentives scale knowledge.

If controls are weak, the distributed system becomes spam with mathematics. If controls are strong, it becomes a planetary inference engine: billions of specialised agents, each holding partial knowledge, each rewarded for accuracy, each punished for error, and each contributing to a constantly updated model of reality.

That could exceed the megacorp model because the megacorp model centralises yesterday’s accessible information. The distributed model can monetise today’s private, local, specialist, and verified information.

The superior architecture is therefore likely hybrid: central models for broad reasoning and compression; distributed agents for specialist knowledge, personal data, verification, and live world-updating.

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

My dear fellow,
I have no objection whatsoever to beginning with the question of what money is. Indeed, one must know what a thing is before one can sensibly discuss whether it succeeds or fails at being that thing.

The difficulty is that BTC is not the subject because it is money. BTC is the subject because it claims to be money.

Hayek spoke of competing monies, but competition requires that the competitors actually perform the function. Money is not merely an object people speculate upon. A racehorse and a statue may both have four legs, but only one belongs at the track.

The question was whether BTC fulfils the role of money. Does it serve as a widely accepted medium of exchange? Does it facilitate trade rather than impede it? Does it lower transaction costs rather than raise them? Does it function in commerce rather than merely in discussion forums and price charts?

If the answer is no, then appealing to definitions of money does not rescue BTC. It merely provides the standard against which BTC must be measured.

So I am perfectly content to discuss what money is. What I find curious is the assumption that once we define money, BTC automatically qualifies. That is rather like defining a bird and then insisting a brick can fly because it was present during the conversation.

The original point concerned the defects of BTC. Bringing in dollars, investments, savings vehicles, and other unrelated matters does not answer that point. It merely changes the scenery while leaving the argument exactly where it was.

[SoonTribune @SoonTribune]

@CsTominaga @EgyptianMaxi Perfect reply, here. The moonboy crew and their scammer leaders successfully convinced a million boys thay "hodl"-ing is virtuous and smart.

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

You bought BTC and thought you had bought Bitcoin. That is the funny part.

Nobody is laughing because someone bought a speculative asset. People speculate every day. Some even manage not to buy the whole way down while congratulating themselves for their financial genius.

The laughter is for the people who bought a ticker, inherited a slogan, and still cannot tell the difference between a price chart and a working monetary system.

Bitcoin was electronic cash. It was meant for transactions, settlement, commerce, micropayments, scale, and utility. BTC became a museum token with a fee market, a priesthood, and a crowd of bagholders calling inactivity “sound money.”

There is a simple rule here, though it seems to defeat many: price is not utility. Scarcity theatre is not commerce. Hoarding is not a payment system. A thing going up does not prove it works, and a thing falling while you buy more of it does not make you early; it may simply mean you are providing exit liquidity with religious enthusiasm.

So yes, congratulations. You bought something called BTC. You may even have made money, or perhaps you bought on the way down and called it conviction, as people often do when arithmetic has become emotionally inconvenient.

But you did not understand Bitcoin.

You bought the souvenir and mistook yourself for the architect.

[Truth_Machine @cryptorebel_SV]

Why has nobody asked BlockStream co-founder and CEO Adam Back what happened on Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile Island?

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

@saylordocs As BTC Is useless crap pretending to be bitcoin.

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

@Airbtconline BTC

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

For years, we have been invited to admire architectural drawings of palaces that were never built. We were shown sketches of splendid cities suspended in the air and assured that gravity was merely a temporary inconvenience.

Ethereum promised a world of applications that would transform commerce, identity, gaming, finance, ownership, and human cooperation itself. BTC promised a revolution in money that somehow required every useful feature to be removed in the name of progress. Both became masters of anticipation. The future was always arriving tomorrow, and tomorrow developed a remarkable talent for never becoming today.

My ambition is considerably less fashionable.

I intend to take every significant idea that was promised and not delivered, every application declared inevitable but somehow perpetually unavailable, every system that remained trapped inside a white paper, conference presentation, roadmap, or venture capital pitch deck, and turn it into something that actually exists.

Not theories. Not aspirations. Not demonstrations designed for applause.

Code.

Working examples.

Documentation.

Libraries.

Systems that developers can examine, test, extend, improve, and build upon.

The modern age suffers from an excess of visionaries and a shortage of builders. It has produced countless prophets of the future who appear strangely allergic to construction. We have become accustomed to celebrating intentions while quietly excusing results.

I prefer a different standard.

If an idea is worthwhile, it should be implemented. If it can be implemented, it should be documented. If it is documented, it should be placed in the hands of those capable of creating something greater.

The highest compliment one can pay an invention is not admiration. It is use.

My objective is therefore simple: to place into your hands the tools that others promised, so that you may go out and build the future they merely described.

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

@HankHenry266250 Btc isn’t bitcoin

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

For those who do not yet understand what I am releasing, that is entirely expected.

Most people will initially see banking software.

Others will see encrypted files.

Others will see wallets, databases, digital assets, threshold cryptography, or Bitcoin integration.

Some will see NFTs and immediately misunderstand everything.

The real significance lies elsewhere.

For the first time, digital property can potentially become property in the same sense that physical objects are property.

Possession can become distinct from copying.

Transfer can become distinct from replication.

Ownership can become something more than a database entry or a legal assertion.

The implications extend into finance, law, publishing, government, defence, science, engineering, intellectual property, information security, and every field where information possesses value.

Most people will not understand this immediately because every digital system they have ever used was built upon the assumption that information is copied.

This is built upon the assumption that possession can be transferred.

That distinction sounds small.

It is not.

It changes the economics of information itself.

If successful, I believe this will ultimately prove to be one of the most important developments in computing outside of artificial intelligence.

Not because it creates another product.

Not because it creates another market.

But because it creates an entirely new category of property.

It will take years for people to understand the implications.

Probably a decade.

Many will dismiss it.

Many will misunderstand it.

Many will attempt to explain it using old models and old assumptions.

That is normal.

Truly new ideas are always interpreted through the lens of what already exists.

The final irony is that the part many people will find hardest to understand is not the cryptography, the threshold systems, the possession model, or the architecture.

It is that after spending years building it, I am giving it away.

The code will be public.

The architecture will be public.

The ideas will be public.

Anyone will be able to study them.

Anyone will be able to build upon them.

Anyone will be able to improve them.

The value was never in hiding the idea.

The value is in what the world does with it once the idea exists.

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

By forking PostgreSQL and embedding triple-entry accounting + BSV tokenisation directly into the database engine, the system can:

Ingest real invoices and shipping documents automatically
Record them as cryptographically verifiable triple-entry entries
Tokenise them on BSV
Provide proofs that everything balances and is auditable
Integrate with the rest of the ecosystem (payments, access control, NFTs)

https://t.co/CKELOR6Yju

[SoonTribune @SoonTribune]

@semperviridis01 @annakhachiyan You just did the thing the tweet said.

[S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) @CsTominaga]

“I’m entitled to that.”

No, you are not.

Respect is earned. Apologies are not tribute paid to wounded vanity. If you cannot figure something out, that is your problem, not a defect in the system.

And if your answer to every limit is, “We need to change the fucking system,” then yes, I will mock you.

Bitcoin does not change. That is rather the point.

So if you come along declaring, “This is a problem, we need to fix it,” when the actual problem is your inability to think within fixed rules, then fuck off with the theatre.

Engineering works around constraints.

Children demand the furniture of reality be rearranged because they stubbed their toe.

[SoonTribune @SoonTribune]

@adamcarolla

The moment Elisha Krauss comes on to do the news is when every show dies. She kills momentum, steps on jokes, never adds anything insightful (just basic neocon stuff), and more or less just says dumb shit.

It's really bad, Ace