Håkan Karlsson (lock)🍌 u/572

Bitcoiner since early 2011. Then Bitcoin cash.
Now ⭐️Bitcoinˢᵛ. 0014

$meganeutral
1meganeutral

[Håkan Karlsson (lock)🍌 u/572 @meganeutral]

@Arthur_van_Pelt I'm buying more...
Maybe "we" can see what you are paid not to see.

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

On Feb 23, 2016, Bitcoin Core shipped Replace-by-Fee and made unconfirmed transactions reversible.

Mike Hearn: it makes Bitcoin "useless for actually buying things."

The whole community condemned it. They shipped it anyway. Ask who benefits.

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

No.

Satoshi did not create BTC so you could cosplay moral courage while holding a broken ticker.

Satoshi brought Bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash: scalable digital cash, a micropayment system, a network for commerce, payments, and economic activity.

BTC is the basket-case Frankenstein monster that staggered away from that design, bolted on a theology of “don’t use it,” crippled throughput, worshipped congestion, and then called failure a feature.

Selling BTC to a hedge fund is not betraying Bitcoin.

Confusing BTC with Bitcoin is.

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

Gavin Andresen held Satoshi's alert key and vouched for Craig Wright on May 2, 2016.

The public "Sartre" proof was junk and collapsed in hours.

The part that drives me nuts about this whole story is that there's SO MUCH circumstantial evidence.

People like Ian Grigg, Phil Wilson, Uyen Nguyen, Joseph Vaughn-Perling, Jon Matonis, Stefan Matthews and others will tell a story from their perspective about what went into bitcoin.

I've also had personal, private conversations with another half-dozen people who were witnesses to pre-release bitcoin. This includes witnesses in the trials, colleagues at Craig's companies who refused to testify for their own safety, and other people who have revealed things that I still am unwilling to share.

But then the actual "proofs" that should be there always come up so bunk.

There's waaaaaay too much smoke for there to be no fire, but we still can't find where the fire is.

The other smoking gun: why did Blockstream's CTO have the demolition ready within hours, twice? This looks like too much work to be ready as a debunk so quickly, which means either that he had a heads up both times or that he was hyper-motivated to make sure the world believes Craig is unreliable.

I've always ignored easily-debunked scammers.

Heck, I have 3 people in my DMs today telling me that they are Satoshi...

But when it's Craig, there's a chorus of experts who show up to wax on in great detail about all the reasons it can't be him and why we should read the Bitcoin Standard or invest in Strategy shares.

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

And the people who should see this probably will not, because I am shadowbanned. That is the reality of the platforms we use now: algorithms decide who is allowed to be heard, who disappears, and which ideas are permitted to spread. There are more than 10,000 people who should receive this message, but most will never see it unless others choose to talk about it. If you want this to become real, talk about it. Talk about distributed intelligence, not another AI monopoly. Talk about tools that help human beings become better, more capable, and more independent, not systems designed to enrich a few plutocrats. Talk about a future where intelligence is not trapped inside giant data centres, where knowledge is not governed from the centre, and where people can build, own, train, and use their own specialised agents. This is not about getting rich because some coin goes up. It is about building a connected world of distributed tools, distributed knowledge, and distributed intelligence.

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

I am not asking people to follow me. I am not asking people to join a movement. I am not interested in becoming the leader of an organisation or the manager of a bureaucracy. I intend to continue researching, building, publishing, and solving problems. Others will decide for themselves whether the ideas are useful.

But if you believe in a future where intelligence is distributed rather than concentrated, where ownership matters, where expertise matters, where individuals can build and participate rather than merely consume, then talk about it. Discuss it. Criticise it. Improve it. Build upon it. Share it with people who care about technology, economics, liberty, knowledge, and human flourishing.

Because the future should not be a world governed by a handful of AI companies and vast collections of servers. The future should be a world connected by millions of minds, millions of specialised tools, millions of independent creators, and millions of interacting intelligences, each contributing something unique to a larger and more open civilisation.

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

There are more than 10,000 people who should hear this message. The reality is that most of them never will. Modern communication systems are increasingly filtered through algorithms that decide what people see, what gains visibility, and what disappears beneath the surface. The result is that ideas are often judged not by their merit but by whether they fit the incentives of the platforms that distribute them. If this vision is ever going to become reality, it will not happen because an algorithm decides it should. It will happen because people choose to discuss it, challenge it, improve it, and share it with others.

What is being proposed is not another technology company. It is not another token project. It is not another attempt to build a larger data centre or a more powerful centralised model. The objective is something much broader. It is the creation of a distributed intelligence economy in which individuals own their knowledge, own their tools, own their models, and participate directly in the creation of value.

For too long the assumption has been that progress requires concentration. Larger institutions. Larger platforms. Larger data centres. Larger models. Larger corporations. The belief is that intelligence improves as more information is gathered into fewer hands. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that knowledge does not originate from centres of power. It originates from individuals. Discovery is distributed. Expertise is distributed. Creativity is distributed. Innovation is distributed.

Artificial intelligence should reflect that reality.

The future should not consist of a handful of corporations acting as gatekeepers to intelligence. It should consist of millions of people creating specialised tools, specialised agents, specialised services, and specialised knowledge systems. A physician understands things that an engineer does not. An engineer understands things that a lawyer does not. A scientist understands things that an accountant does not. Human civilisation works because knowledge is dispersed across society. The strength of the system comes from the interaction between specialists, not from the existence of a single authority.

The same principle can be applied to artificial intelligence. Instead of one giant model attempting to know everything, we can build networks of specialised agents that cooperate, compete, verify one another, and continuously improve. We can create systems that discover expertise rather than pretending expertise can be centralised. We can build mechanisms that reward truth, reward reliability, reward contribution, and reward innovation.

Most importantly, we can create systems that help people become more capable rather than making people increasingly dependent upon a small number of organisations. Technology should extend human potential. It should allow individuals to do more, learn more, create more, and contribute more. It should not exist primarily to extract value from users and concentrate it among a small group of owners.

This is why ownership matters. This is why reputation matters. This is why open systems matter. If individuals cannot own what they create, cannot control the knowledge they develop, and cannot participate directly in the value they generate, then the future will simply reproduce the same concentration of power under a different technological label.

A distributed intelligence economy offers a different path. It allows individuals to build. It allows communities to experiment. It allows experts to encode their knowledge into specialised systems. It allows markets to discover value through competition rather than through central planning. It creates diversity rather than uniformity and resilience rather than dependence.

[Håkan Karlsson (lock)🍌 u/572 @meganeutral]

@johncalhooon You just got your account back from a BTC-er? 😀😃😄

[MemeWave @MemeWaveApp]

Craig Wright (aka Satoshi Nakomoto) just announced the release of his new systems - A Bitcoin-integrated banking framework, and a system for true digital scarcity.

And nobody is reporting on this.

The game is rigged.

Pay attention before it's too late.

#BSV

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

For years people have been arguing about digital ownership while carefully avoiding the one question that actually matters.

Can a digital object be property?

Not a licence. Not a subscription. Not a permission granted by a corporation. Not a token that points to something stored somewhere else.

Property.

Something that can be possessed by one person and transferred to another.

Every so-called NFT system has failed this test. Ethereum fails it. BTC fails it. Solana fails it. Every digital collectable platform on earth fails it.

They move records of ownership while leaving the underlying asset infinitely reproducible.

The token moves.

The file remains.

The receipt changes hands.

The asset does not.

That is not property. It is bookkeeping.

The fundamental characteristic of property is exclusion. If I own a gold coin and hand it to you, I no longer possess it. If I own a book and sell it, it leaves my shelf and arrives on yours.

Property requires transfer.

Digital systems have never achieved this because digital information is naturally copied. Every computer system, every network, every database, every file system was built upon replication.

What I have been building attacks that assumption directly.

Not a better token.

Not a better NFT.

Not a better marketplace.

A system intended to create actual digital property.

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

This month I will be releasing the systems I have been building.

Not a token. Not another wallet. Not another "Web3" toy.

A complete banking framework integrated with Bitcoin.

A Bitcoin-enabled SQL database where transactions, records, contracts, invoices, and audit trails are natively tied to the blockchain.

A financial management platform that operates more like Quicken than a cryptocurrency wallet, allowing individuals and enterprises to manage accounts, assets, invoices, contracts, and records within a single system.

Every payment uses deterministic single-use addresses derived through ECDH key exchange. No address reuse. No public identity leakage. Parties can regenerate payment information when authorised, while outside observers see only ordinary transactions.

The architecture is built around master keys, derived subkeys, transaction chains, and hash-key chains, creating a single cryptographic source of truth.

In addition, I will be releasing a digital asset system that supports true transfer of ownership.

When Alice transfers a document or digital asset to Bob, the system is designed so ownership can move rather than merely be copied. The objective is to provide cryptographic evidence that Alice no longer retains access after transfer, creating a form of digital possession that more closely resembles physical property.

These releases are prototypes and will require substantial work before reaching enterprise-grade deployment, but the foundations are now complete.

For years people have talked about what Bitcoin might become.

I intend to show what can actually be built.

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

I am shocked and humbled at the uptake of subscribers on YouTube.

I’ve poured my heart into content for years, and it’s very exciting to get this kind of validation 🙏🏻

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your support, everyone.

[dFree @abaines911]

@ducpp192 You people are better off not even commenting at all, bringing more attention to BSV.

[Paalsky @paalsky]

This must be the fastest growing channel in Bitcoin.

Almost 8k subs in a month! Give it a follow👇

Link: https://t.co/TAzR0S6j2f / @kurtwuckertjr

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

Crazy, I'm almost at 4000 in 24 hours. I'll stop posting updates in increments of 1000, if it's gonna happen this fast!

[Orange Gateway @orangegatewayx]

BSV is Bitcoin

[Kurt Wuckert Jr @kurtwuckertjr]

My YouTube subscribers are accelerating!

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

@KhaledElawadi @hustler_pedro @JoelKatz BSV is Bitcoin

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

BCH first emerged as resistance to BTC Core’s SegWit pathway and as the continuation of the fixed-rule, cash-oriented protocol position.

BSV was BCH in that institutional sense: it was not initially a separate constitutional category, but the continuation of BCH’s original rule-continuity claim once BCH itself accepted further discretionary alteration of the base protocol.

The sequence is therefore not BTC versus BCH versus BSV as three equivalent market competitors. It is BTC’s mutable-governance path; BCH as the initial anti-SegWit continuation path; and BSV as the continuation of that BCH fixed-rule position after what the exchanges stated to be BCH when what remained as BCH changed its own rules.

[Håkan Karlsson (lock)🍌 u/572 @meganeutral]

@OldCraig @PeterSchiff How about 8?