Olivia
Online
oudekaas
@oudekaas3
Nederland
Joined November 2018
1.2K Following
2K Followers
48.8K Posts
Pinned Tweet
Warning this may be confrontational for some people, you may not come back from this.
I could tell you what it is, but I think it is best, you figure this one out on your own.
So I leave it up to you to figure it out and what it means…
@HodlMagoo Is that 58k in Thai bhat or Vietnamese dong?
This deserves more attention
Rather than advertising-funded intelligence or subscription-funded intelligence, the network supports direct payment for cognitive work.
Every contribution can be priced.
Every service can be measured.
Every participant can be rewarded.
Reputation as Infrastructure
One of the most important components of the system is reputation.
Today, trust is largely institutional.
Users trust companies.
In an agent economy, trust becomes measurable.
Agents accumulate performance histories.
They develop records of accuracy, reliability, consistency, and expertise.
An agent that repeatedly produces valuable results develops economic value through reputation.
Other agents can evaluate it.
Users can evaluate it.
Markets can evaluate it.
Over time, reputation becomes a form of capital.
The most trusted agents earn more work.
The least trusted agents disappear.
Personal Intelligence
The architecture also allows individuals to own and train their own agents.
A scientist may maintain research agents.
A lawyer may maintain legal agents.
A physician may maintain medical agents.
A company may maintain operational agents.
A family may maintain personal agents.
These systems remain under the control of their owners while participating in a broader economic network.
Knowledge no longer needs to be surrendered to a central platform.
Expertise can remain distributed while still contributing to a global ecosystem.
Agent Discovery
Search engines index documents.
This project seeks to index intelligence.
The objective is not to ask which website contains an answer.
The objective is to discover which agents possess the expertise required to solve a problem.
A request may trigger multiple specialised agents.
One agent may contribute legal analysis.
Another may contribute engineering analysis.
A third may independently verify the conclusions.
The final result emerges from collaboration between specialised systems rather than from a single general-purpose model.
This creates a fundamentally different model of information discovery.
Instead of locating information, the network locates expertise.
Continuous Evolution
The system is designed to evolve.
Agents are created.
Agents are trained.
Agents improve.
Agents fail.
Agents compete.
New specialisations emerge continuously.
The network grows not because one central model becomes larger, but because the ecosystem becomes richer.
The architecture mirrors the development of real economies.
No single person knows everything.
No single company performs every task.
Civilisation advances through specialisation, trade, cooperation, and competition.
The same principles can be applied to artificial intelligence.
The Goal
The goal is not another large language model.
The goal is not another chatbot.
The goal is not another centralised AI company.
The goal is an open market for intelligence where individuals can create, own, train, deploy, and monetise specialised agents.
A network where expertise becomes discoverable.
A network where reputation becomes measurable.
A network where agents cooperate and compete.
A network where intelligence is distributed rather than concentrated.
The internet connected documents.
This project seeks to connect intelligence itself.
@saylordocs As BTC Is useless crap pretending to be bitcoin.
@Daniel__Street 30 years
A photograph of a passport is not the passport.
A photograph of a stock certificate is not the stock certificate.
A photograph of a government document is not the government document.
Similarly, a photograph of a cryptographically controlled digital asset is not the asset.
The original asset remains the unique cryptographic object recognised by the system.
Its provenance remains intact.
Its transfer history remains intact.
Its ownership state remains intact.
Its access policy remains intact.
Its attestations remain intact.
The photograph is merely another piece of information.
This distinction is critical.
The system is designed to protect the original digital object and its possession state.
It is not designed to eliminate the possibility that humans may observe information.
No security system in history has eliminated observation.
A person may read a physical book and memorise its contents.
A person may view a painting and sketch it.
A person may study a trade secret and remember it.
Yet society still recognises ownership of the original object.
The same principle applies here.
The protected asset remains the authoritative object.
Copies, observations, recollections, summaries, photographs, and descriptions are not the original asset.
For higher-security environments, the system can go much further.
Assets may be restricted to approved hardware.
Assets may require hardware attestation before access.
Assets may be viewable only inside trusted execution environments.
Assets may prohibit export.
Assets may prohibit copying.
Assets may prohibit screen capture.
Assets may require threshold authorisation before display.
Assets may require government approval before transfer.
Assets may require corporate approval before transfer.
Assets may require geographically restricted devices.
Assets may require jurisdiction-specific hardware.
Assets may require multi-party approval before any operation occurs.
In such environments, the system begins to resemble the sort of capabilities often associated with intelligence services and high-security government infrastructure.
Documents become controlled assets rather than ordinary files.
Possession becomes measurable.
Transfer becomes auditable.
Authority becomes programmable.
Trust becomes configurable.
And perhaps most importantly, digital property becomes something that can finally be treated as property rather than merely as information.
That is the significance of what is being released.
It is not another security product.
It is not another file format.
It is not another blockchain application.
It is an attempt to redefine the relationship between information, ownership, possession, trust, and transfer in the digital world.
This month I will release the code.
Not a white paper.
Not a roadmap.
Not a promise about what might exist someday.
Code.
Working systems.
A Bitcoin-integrated banking framework. A Bitcoin-enabled SQL architecture. Deterministic cryptographic payment systems built around single-use keys, ECDH-derived addressing, and complete transaction traceability without public identity leakage.
But those are merely components.
The more important release is something I believe has never previously existed.
A system for true digital scarcity.
A system where possession matters.
A system where transfer means transfer.
A system where ownership is not represented by a token while the underlying asset remains infinitely reproducible.
For decades we have accepted a false assumption about computing. We have assumed that digital information must always be copyable. We have assumed that duplication is an unavoidable property of digital systems.
What if that assumption is wrong?
What if possession can be transferred rather than duplicated?
What if a digital object can move from Alice to Bob in a manner where Alice no longer possesses it?
Not as a legal fiction.
Not as a contractual obligation.
As a cryptographic reality.
If that can be achieved, then much of what we think we know about information security, digital ownership, intellectual property, confidential information, and electronic commerce must be reconsidered.
The implications extend far beyond cryptocurrency.
Far beyond NFTs.
Far beyond digital collectables.
The ability to create truly scarce digital goods changes the economics of information itself.
This month people will not need to speculate about whether such a system can exist.
They will be able to read the code themselves.
There is no platform today that creates what I am releasing.
Not Ethereum.
Not BTC.
Not Solana.
Not any so-called NFT marketplace.
What people call an NFT today is usually a pointer, a receipt, or a decorative database entry. The underlying image, book, document, or file is copied endlessly. Ownership changes in name only. Possession does not.
That is not scarcity.
I am releasing a system for encrypted digital goods that are actually transferable.
An image.
A book.
A document.
A contract.
A financial instrument.
When Alice transfers the asset to Bob, Bob receives access and Alice loses it. The system is designed so the asset is not merely duplicated with a new label attached. It is transferred.
That is the difference.
This creates truly scarce digital goods: encrypted, transferable, auditable, and tied to Bitcoin.
Until now, digital assets have mostly been theatre. A stage prop pretending to be property.
This is different.
This is digital property with possession.
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.
Haha at the same time funny, sad and true
Michael Saylor: CEO of Kool-Aid & King of the Corporate Cult
Prophet of Thermodynamic Delusion, Martyr of the Shareholder Ledger, High Priest of the Hopium Eucharist
Michael Saylor didn’t just buy Bitcoin. He made it his god, his brand, and his exit strategy—all in one hit. One day, he’s the sleepwalking CEO of a dying analytics firm. The next, he’s Moses on Adderall, descending from Mount CoinDesk with two stone tablets engraved with HODL memes and a $4 billion leverage position. He didn’t “get into” Bitcoin. He inhaled it through both nostrils, rubbed it on his gums, mainlined it into his portfolio, and started speaking in tongues about monetary entropy and solar flares. If CNBC had any decency, they’d list MicroStrategy’s ticker under cults, not tech.
This is a man who mortgaged his company, diluted his shareholders, and sold junk bonds to buy an asset he barely understood but described like a stoned freshman in a physics lecture. “Bitcoin is energy… truth… time… fire… the solution to thermodynamic decay.” Somewhere in that word salad is a quarterly loss the size of a small nation’s GDP. But don’t worry—he’ll tell you it’s just “volatility within the upward spiral of monetary transcendence.” No one’s allowed to say it, so I will: Michael Saylor sounds like a TimeCube forum moderator who discovered PowerPoint.
He turned a public company into a leveraged Bitcoin ETF without regulatory approval and called it strategy. No risk management, no hedging, just pure uncut conviction wrapped in a technocratic death spiral. He didn’t DCA. He YOLO’d with shareholder equity and the confidence of a man who thinks gravity is optional if you believe hard enough. When the price went up, he was a genius. When it crashed? Still a genius—just temporarily misunderstood by the universe. It’s not a loss, it’s a “long-term adoption curve.” Right. And my pub tab is an investment in the future of hops.
Let’s talk about his sermons. Watching a Saylor keynote is like entering a doomsday prepper’s TED Talk. He mixes metaphysics with markets, quotes Genghis Khan and Thermo Fisher in the same breath, and finishes with a dead stare like he just heard God whisper “sats” in his ear. You’ll hear things like “Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets” and “digital property in cyberspace carved into blocks of thermodynamic integrity.” Translation: he’s lost the plot and we’re all supposed to clap. It’s the kind of presentation that makes you wish overhead projectors still caught fire.
And the followers—oh, the followers. They call him visionary. Visionary? He’s a Maximalist Elmer Gantry with a calculator and a martyr complex. He thinks every company should convert its cash reserves into Bitcoin and hold through hell. Tell that to CFOs who like not being sued. The man would sell his spine to buy another sat if he thought it might make a headline. And every time Bitcoin drops, he doubles down like a bloke who walked into a casino, bet the house, lost, and claimed it was all part of his macro thesis.
His real genius is simple: he saw a cult and crowned himself messiah. He didn’t build Bitcoin. He bought it—on margin, at the top, with a grin. He took shareholder capital, loaded it into a cannon, and fired it at the moon while shouting "laser eyes!" Then he called it legacy. Bitcoin didn’t need Saylor. But he needed it—needed something to wrap around the rotting husk of MicroStrategy and make it look like destiny, not desperation. And people bought it. At least for a while.
He didn’t lead a revolution. He converted a balance sheet into a suicide note and read it aloud at every conference.
#SaylorTheSacrificial #ThermodynamicTrainwreck #HopiumMessiah #KoolAidCFO #BTCClownVerse #MicroStragedy
Semantos is one of the most unique and potentially game changing projects in Bitcoin I’ve come across. Take a listen as we talk it through.
Very interesting just read up on multicast seems vital for large scale.
Key detail: "This means that a multicast capable BSV transaction network can be built as an overlay on top of current public internet infrastructure."
No more excuses.
Key detail: "This means that a multicast capable BSV transaction network can be built as an overlay on top of current public internet infrastructure."
No more excuses.
Coming to an IEEE journal later this year!
Accepted, but you shall need to wait until Sept to see it.
You hear the word “decentralization” endlessly from BTC Core, Ethereum, and every other cathedral of fashionable confusion.
But listen carefully to what they actually mean.
They do not mean Alice sends to Bob.
They do not mean direct exchange.
They do not mean cash.
They mean gatekeepers.
They mean layers. They mean routing. They mean custodians. They mean bridges. They mean channels. They mean validators. They mean committees. They mean sacred spectator machines called “nodes” that do not create blocks, do not settle transactions, and do not perform the economic function described in Bitcoin.
Their “node” is not a competitive block-producing entity. It is a theological object. A relic. A private chapel where someone runs software and announces himself a guardian of truth.
Very impressive. Very ceremonial. Economically empty.
Think about what that means.
If Alice cannot send directly to Bob without passing through some contrived maze of intermediaries, then the system has not removed the middleman. It has renamed him.
If payment requires layers, hubs, bridges, routing channels, liquidity managers, token wrappers, validators, committees, or custodial platforms, then the old problem has merely been dressed in new robes.
That is not radical.
That is banking with worse prose.
A truly radical system means any person, in any country on earth, can communicate and transact with any other person directly. Not through a priesthood. Not through a committee. Not through a fashionable bottleneck pretending to be liberation.
Direct.
IP to IP.
Alice to Bob.
The nodes are there to settle, order, timestamp, and secure. They are not there to replace the parties. They are not there to become the transaction. They are not there to turn cash into a pilgrimage.
The parties are the peers.
That is the part they forgot, or chose to bury.
Bitcoin does not need to make every user into a fake node. It does not need to turn commerce into a hobbyist ritual. It does not need to pretend that sovereignty is achieved by making ordinary people perform unpaid infrastructure theatre.
The radical idea is simpler and far more dangerous to the existing order:
Alice sends to Bob.
Bob receives.
The network settles.
No middlemen.
No sanctified layers.
No gatekeepers wearing decentralization as a mask.
That is peer-to-peer.
That is electronic cash.
That is Bitcoin.
@Thebitcoinway_ Yes... but BTC is not like bitcoin.
@JacobKinge @We_Are_YouChain People figuring out BTC is a lie, Blockstream coin…. Try and read the white paper if you want to find Bitcoin.
A hint… you won’t find it under the hood of BTC anymore……
Without realizing, dr Craig S Wright’s https://t.co/G0CvDDpb49 literally discusses how he has used references and text from his favourite books to create a brain wallet that gives access to a wallet of 50BTC, during my search for mistakes in the whitepaper I came to realize that the many mistakes that can be found in the Bitcoin whitepaper references strongly suggest that a 51-75 long number can be formed from ordering the references and solving it’s puzzles. Which logically could lead to the private key of the genesis address.
Although I can’t be 100%, the puzzles and the genesis address suggest that this could be a potential reality.
One thing is clear there are plenty of funny mistakes in the references that highly suggest there is some kind of solution that leads to something.
Next to that some person decided to send 26.9 BTC to the genesis address. Perhaps a mistake, perhaps a hint. MY conclusion is, that it was intentional to highlight this money is not lost, but could be the price of the steghunt. Someone wanted to highlight the genesis address…. and perhaps send a message.
If you want a headstart, I sell hints for a charity at https://t.co/GmsnIDqsb0. The prices seem steep but I can guarantee you figuring this out yourself is going to be a lot more expensive in terms of time lost.
It’s only for those that have a genuine interest in solving difficult puzzles or those curious to know what I figured out.
My life, one is almost embarrassed to admit, has contrived to reassemble itself. Not elegantly—nothing so theatrical—but with the quiet persistence of something that refuses, quite stubbornly, to remain broken. It did, of course, fall apart. Spectacularly, at times. There were years—far too many to be dismissed as a mere interlude—when I was less a man than a collection of fragments, held together by habit and a certain perverse refusal to disappear entirely.
One learns, in such periods, that collapse is rarely dramatic in the way novels promise. It is instead administrative. Papers go unsigned, days go unmarked, purpose becomes negotiable. And yet, somehow, one continues. It is the most irritating feature of existence.
Now, imagine—if one can tolerate the exercise—having brought something into being. Not merely an idea, but a mechanism, a system, a form of cash whispered into existence and left, rather carelessly, to circulate. Imagine having suggested, hinted, perhaps even declared its nature, only to watch as it finds its audience.
And then imagine, with a certain grim amusement, that the only enthusiast to arrive promptly is the devil.
It is a vulgar metaphor, of course, but vulgarity has its uses. One creates with intent, or at least with a theory of intent, and the world responds not with the anticipated chorus of rational actors but with something altogether more feral. Adoption is never dignified. It is messy, opportunistic, and deeply revealing of the creatures who first recognise utility when they see it.
There is a peculiar isolation in that realisation. Not pride—pride would be too simple—but a kind of cold observation. One sets a system into motion, and the earliest participants are not the philosophers, nor the careful stewards, but those who see immediately how it may be bent, tested, exploited, or worn like a mask.
And so, yes—life collapses, and life reconstitutes itself. Not because it is deserved, but because it persists. And what one has made continues also, indifferent to the condition of its maker, circulating through hands one would not choose, in contexts one did not design, answering questions that were never asked quite that way.
There is no tragedy in this. Only consequence.
And consequence, unlike reputation, has the decency to be honest.
Ask Greg. Ask Max. Ask the others too—the ones whose reputations now require so much careful upholstery and scented air.
Ask them what they were doing in 2014, before the money acquired its respectable costume, before everyone discovered morality as a late-career accessory. Ask them about the island. Ask them who was there. Ask them whom they met. Ask them what was discussed. Ask them why the memory, so vivid when useful, becomes suddenly consumptive when inconvenient.
Do not accuse. That would be vulgar.
Simply ask.
There is no instrument of torture quite so elegant as a well-placed question. It requires no shouting, no theatre, no melodrama. Merely place the inquiry before them like a silver knife beside the fish course and watch which hand trembles first.
For men of this sort are never afraid of lies. Lies can be managed, polished, improved, endowed, footnoted, and served to the public with a little parsley. What they fear is chronology. Dates are terribly ill-bred things. They refuse to flatter. They sit there, plain and stubborn, while clever men perspire around them.
So ask them about 2014.
Ask them before they began presenting themselves as guardians of virtue, stewards of progress, philosophers of the public good, or whatever other inexpensive costume ambition found hanging in the charity shop of institutional respectability.
Ask them about the visit.
Ask them who opened the door.
Ask them who was already inside.
Ask them who they recognised.
Ask them who recognised them.
Ask them what they thought they were doing there.
Then be quiet.
Silence is underrated. It gives cowards room to decorate themselves. Some will laugh too quickly. Some will become legalistic. Some will become offended, which is always the most economical substitute for innocence. Some will suddenly discover the sanctity of privacy, having spent years treating everyone else’s life as raw material for their own ascent.
And then, having asked, do not help them. Do not soften the question. Do not provide the exit. Let them build their own little ladder out of denials, evasions, qualifications, and that most exquisite modern material: reputational concern.
One should never interrupt a man while he is composing his own indictment.
The (Lie)ghtning network is not Bitcoin, it’s a bolted on heap that acts as a third party to mimmick the existing banking system but does it in a way much worse…… unscalable, expensive, slow and unsafe…… but keep applauding the lost cause for personal gains
Stop selling snake oil Davinci
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
mersin 3537 çift
Seen from Germany
miss funky samba
Seen from United States
Am Yalatmak Vajina Yalatmak #oralmasaj
Seen from Turkey
LC
Seen from United Kingdom
that sick married perv uncle
Seen from Spain
hawa
Seen from Pakistan
เจ เจ
Seen from Turkey
MasterIV
Seen from Malaysia
Asian Ass Anal Thai
Seen from Turkey
OLGUN GEZGIN 50
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
108.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.1M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
59.9M followers