₿

[₿ @intertrapped]

@Anton_Bitcoin You have a copy of the ledger on your home pc and think you’re a node

[₿ @intertrapped]

@Anton_Bitcoin You’re not a node buddy, learn reality

[₿ @intertrapped]

I need everyone on this God forsaken shit app called X to sign up for twetch right now and stop being data farmed by technocratic billionaires and start owning your own data

Sign up for twetch send me a message @50818 and I’ll send you $1 in Bitcoin $BSV

[Randy @nondualrandy]

Building Twetch provides absolute certainty that the entire crypto industry is lost and confused and despite all of that this technology is real and can still change the world.

[Randy @nondualrandy]

Building Twetch provides absolute certainty that the entire crypto industry is lost and confused and despite all of that this technology is real and can still change the world.

[₿ @intertrapped]

@kurtwuckertjr Amen

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

Your node never decided anything.

Hashpower did.

Satoshi: "Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."

2017, block 477,120: "/BATPOOL/NYA/", before BIP-148's Aug 1.

BIP-110 ended in "a chain split with stalled mining."

Client nodes check. Miners vote.

[₿ @intertrapped]

If you’re reading this @Bitwise it’s not too late to dump that garbage
Come back to Bitcoin, $BSV can do everything, and be money
By the time you reach the amount of coins of Strategy on BSV you’ll probably flip Saylor too by pure supply side liquidity shock

[Jorge Pelaez | BSV COL @BitcoinSVCOL]

Sometimes we forget that there is both a "fake" Ethereum (ETH) and an original one (ETC).

I was an angel investor for @VitalikButerin when he was co-founding this chain with Bitcoins; I have addresses from the Ethereum genesis block and can prove it, but that’s beside the point.

What I want to tell you is that ETH changed its protocol from Proof of Work (PoW) to Proof of Stake (PoS) and also shifted from a fixed issuance limit to unlimited inflation. Not to mention that they rolled back the blockchain due to a programming flaw in the DAO smart contract. Conclusion ETH is False.!

[₿ @intertrapped]

@Hekto100 A class, hatchback

[₿ @intertrapped]

@Hekto100 Yes, it was by far the best money I’ve spend in my life, it literally revived my self image to a younger me and boosted my confidence and I don’t mean that lightly

[₿ @intertrapped]

@collincto It’s always one of these blockstream robots that crawl to the surface like a little rat to talk down on a brother doing something else than hodling

[₿ @intertrapped]

@georgegalloway Never was never will be
Go to Kosovo and see for yourself, it’s 95%+ Albanian

[₿ @intertrapped]

@twetchapp You already know

[₿ @intertrapped]

@LightningNewsX @adam3us Sorry big bro lmfao

[₿ @intertrapped]

@LightningNewsX @adam3us Why do you need his confirmation like a little obedient little slut
He is a nobody, you can make up your own mind right? Right?

[₿ @intertrapped]

@Bitcoin_Beyond I’m grateful for Dr Craig Wright for opening my mind on this matter

https://t.co/IRqoeuZIvY

[₿ @intertrapped]

Small World vs Mesh Network

https://t.co/bDcrm4OFFM

[Derek Chiang | Ethlabs @decentrek]

I made a visualization of EIP-8288 aka "recursive mempool aggregation," my new favorite EIP of all time because it perfectly encapsulates the thesis of the "cryptographic world computer" -- a system whose scalability *increases*, not decreases, with the level of decentralization.

In a previous tweet I explained how EIP-8288 achieved this seemingly impossible feat, but one gif is worth a thousand words.

Essentially, EIP-8288 leverages Ethereum's decentralized mempool as a parallel ZK proving cluster. Clients send signatures and proofs to the mempool, which over multiple rounds progressively aggregate them into fewer and fewer proofs, until the block builder finally aggregates them into one SINGLE proof.

This design accomplishes five things at once:

- The more nodes we add to the decentralized mempool, the more signatures/proofs Ethereum can process as a whole. This is obvious if you look at the animation and imagine more nodes in the mempool ring, which would "fan out" to more signatures/proofs.

- By aggregating over multiple rounds (aka "recursive aggregation"), the bandwidth consumed by proofs remains constant for each node even as the network processes more proofs. As a result, the network stays decentralized even as capacity increases.

- By aggregating proofs before one final aggregation by the builder, as opposed to requiring the builder to aggregate everything, the network can process more proofs without increasing hardware requirements for the builder.

- By aggregating everything to a single block-level proof, validators can verify thousands of signatures/proofs by checking just one aggregated proof. Hardware requirements for validators can therefore stay low, keeping the network decentralized.

- By aggregating not just native signatures but also STARKs, Ethereum can support any signature scheme by wrapping them in STARKs.

So once again, this is how Ethereum will:

- scale to process tens of thousands of PQ and private transactions per second

- charge a tiny amount of gas to validate each txn, even though the original signature/proof may be huge (up to hundreds of KBs in size)

- all while decentralizing even MORE.

You are not bullish enough.

[₿ @intertrapped]

@decentrek Small World vs Mesh Network

https://t.co/bDcrm4OFFM

[₿ @intertrapped]

Decentralization

https://t.co/rIlGetoR40

[Connor Murray @Bitcoin_Beyond]

This is a great visualization. Look at the shape: a ring of well-connected nodes in the middle, with work fanning out and aggregating through layers until the core only has to handle a single result.

That’s a mandala.

I’ve spent years on this question. In 2018 I wrote a piece that was eventually reposted on CoinGeek, “Bitcoin: A (decentralized) complex social network,” that started from the claim that Bitcoin’s miners form “a small-world near-complete network.” I wanted to know if it held up, so I turned to network theory, specifically Fernando Vega-Redondo’s Complex Social Networks.

What I found changed how I think about decentralization.

In network analysis, “the edges, or links, are more important than the number of nodes in a network.” What gives a network reach and resilience is how its nodes are connected, not how many there are.

Now apply that to Bitcoin. A miner only gets paid if the rest of the network builds on their block, so as a miner, you have a clear incentive to be highly-connected to the other miners in the network. Every miner is pushed toward connecting directly to every other miner. Merchants are pushed the same way: to stop double-spends, they broadcast to the best-connected nodes. Nobody designs the topology. The incentives produce it.

The result is a core that’s close to fully connected, where any miner is about one hop from any other, with everyone else arranged in layers around it. That’s a small-world network, and it’s what makes the design so innovative. Raising capacity doesn’t make the core more fragile, because the economics keep it tightly connected. Every other layer only has to verify what it touches.

So Ethereum’s new thesis, “scalability increases with decentralization,” is right, provided you measure decentralization by connectivity rather than node count. That’s the insight Bitcoin’s design was built on.

None of this is new. Satoshi wrote it down, again and again, before most of today’s crypto industry existed.

November 2008, before Bitcoin had even launched:

“Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth.”

Running nodes, he said, “would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.”

2009, in an email to Martti Malmi:

“The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling.”

July 2010, on BitcoinTalk:

“The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms.”

A well-connected core of specialists, with users at the edge who simply use it. That’s the mandala, described before the first block was mined.

Here’s where things stand 17 years later:

- Visa: about 705 million transactions a day (257.5B in FY2025), or roughly 8,000 per second on average.

- Ethereum L1: a record of 25.9 transactions per second in Q2 2026, about 2.2 million a day.

Ethereum’s base layer still hasn’t reached the 15 million daily online purchases Satoshi used as his benchmark in 2009. Visa as a whole handles about 300 times more.

Meanwhile, in 2018 Vitalik called 128MB blocks “an insanely stupid idea.” Since then, BSV has mined a block of nearly 4GB, and Teranode averaged over 1 million transactions per second across a two-week test. That’s more than 100 times Visa’s average.

Think about how much time, money and talent the industry spent trying to solve a problem whose answer was already in the original design. Much of that effort went into avoiding the plan rather than building it.

But we’re not here to dunk. Seeing the brightest people in crypto arrive back at the same shape is a good sign. Good engineering converges.

BSV has spent years running this architecture in production: Teranode at the core, overlays in the middle, SPV wallets at the edge. We’ve already paid for the hard lessons about what breaks at scale, and we're happy to compare notes.

The answer was there in 2009. All any of us had to do was build it.

🔗 My 2020 deep dive: https://t.co/ZKFteUolmp

[₿ @intertrapped]

@Vladcostea @bot It’s this man

https://t.co/o9TKvwj7D9