Tehol the Only

Decentralization, #Bitcoin - Die Gedanken sind frei

[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

[calle @callebtc]

you must be kidding me right @GooglePlay? do you have any actual rules for publishing apps? your communication with developers is beyond any professional standards.

after weeks of complying with their requests, now they've decided to remove "bitchat" for profanity! PROFANITY!

The bitchat @Google play store saga so far:
- first they publish an impersonator app which got over 100k downloads
- dozens of reports for impersonation didn't help, only after causing a shitstorm on X things actually started moving
- I tried to submit the real bitchat app 5 times, don't even get me started on "you need 12 testers for 2 weeks before you can publish anything"
- my app gets rejected for "copyright" – DUDE I'M THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
- nothing working, no reply on appeals for a week until I cause another shitstorm on X, finally things are moving again
- I resubmit the app, following their instructions *exactly*, thinking finally we've covered all their requirements
- now I get a rejection because of PROFANITY. seriously? what about the numerous impersonators and all the other "bitchat" knockoffs you publish on the store... to this date?

this is the worst experience I've ever had. without a sizable following on X, how would I ever had progressed at this at all? do you need friends at Google to publish an app?

[Tehol the Only @Tehol_the_Only]

@fountain_app @jack @simplybitcoin @PrestonPysh @jackmallersshow @citadeldispatch Might be nice to specify to search by show vs episode and please add sorting episode results by date 🙏 Use case would be “find recent episodes with guest x”. Also useful would be only search by title if too many results.

[calle @callebtc]

Can anyone help? Dear @GooglePlay you've suspended my bitchat android app submission 5 days ago for "copyright reasons" (I'm the copyright owner lol!) after taking down an impersonator app. I haven't heard back for 5 days despite opening multiple tickets, what is going on?

All the while new impersonator apps appear on the play store. Please help, people are being scammed with copycats while you're denying the official app submission and not responding to my appeals.

AppId is com .bitchat .droid

[Seth For Privacy @sethforprivacy]

There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about the tradeoffs and risks of running Knots instead of Bitcoin Core, so I'll try to dispel as much as I can.

If you want to make a well-informed decision before deciding to migrate to Knots, start here!

Don't run code blindly, even open-source code!

As Knots has not been widely used and has little to no developer base outside of Luke Dashjr, you should be very cautious when switching to it instead of Bitcoin Core. If you can't vet the code yourself, I'd recommend waiting for others to do so before making the jump.

Knots is still 99.999% Bitcoin Core code

Knots isn't an alternative client for Bitcoin (like btcd or libbitcoin) and is instead a minor code fork of Bitcoin Core. It relies almost exclusively on the upstream Bitcoin Core repository for bug fixes, vulnerability fixes, improvements, etc. Luke Dashjr applies his own preferred patches on top of that base, often of PRs that are yet to be merged (or won't be merged) into Core as he sees fit.

This means that you're reliant on Luke to keep up with Core to avoid your node being vulnerable to attacks. In a quick check of Bitcoin Core vs. Knots release timing, Knots usually lags anywhere from 1wk to 3mo behind Core.

Knots relies on a single maintainer

Luke Dashjr has complete control of the Knots repo on Github, and is the sole maintainer, meaning he merges whatever he sees fit into Knots without peer review. If you take a few minutes to look at the repo, you'll notice no pull request has ever been merged by an outside contributor, he has disabled any contributor tracking, and the vast majority of commits to the default branch are by Luke.

This places immense trust in Luke as an individual, as any mistake or malicious action on his part can happen without anyone else having any say or putting any eyes on the code. If you can't validate the code yourself, you're blindly trusting one individual with your view into the Bitcoin network.

Luke Dashjr has a terrible security track record

Along those same lines, Luke as the sole maintainer is terrifying to me. He has a poor track record of security practices, including leaking his GPG key (used to sign previous commits and releases) and leaving hundreds of Bitcoin on a hot wallet on a server instead of properly securing them offline.

Make of that what you will.

Knots still validates and stores all spam

If a transaction is valid under consensus rules and mined by any miner into a valid block, Knots will necessarily still validate all spam transactions and store them locally. By running Knots you are not rejecting any spam on-chain or on-disk, and are absolutely still storing Inscriptions, jpegs, OP_RETURNs, etc. on your hard drive forever.

The only place Knots may differ from Core is in the mempool, something that merely harms your fee estimation as you won't see transactions that may actually make it into blocks until they're mined.

Still want to run it? More power to you.

While I absolutely would not recommend running Knots, if you read and understand the above points and still choose to run Knots, more power to you. One of the beautiful things about a permissionless network like Bitcoin is no one can stop you from running whatever client you want, as long as it abides by consensus rules.

The only positive I see in growing Knots adoption would be if more devs and security researchers take the time to look through the diff between Core and Knots and find bugs and vulnerabilities that apply to both (and then responsible disclose them). That could be beneficial to the entire ecosystem, so I'm curious to see if that unfolds.

If I've missed anything or you have any addition questions, please don't hesitate to chime in!

[Lyn Alden @LynAldenContact]

Here's a thread about social media decentralization.

A couple years ago, I tried to "like" one of Doomberg's posts about a platform, and I literally saw the heart fill up, and then drain out of it like blood. I'd never seen that before.

Twitter said me liking that was disabled:

[Free_Ross @Free_Ross]

Ross was just granted a FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON by @realDonaldTrump. Words cannot express how grateful we are.

President Trump is a man of his word and he just saved Ross's life. ROSS IS A FREE MAN!!!!!

[John Carvalho @BitcoinErrorLog]

Make Bitcoin Tax-Free

[calle @callebtc]

HOLY SHIT, IT'S WORKING!

Paid a single 1500 sat invoice from two Cashu mints with a balance of 1000 sat each using an atomic multinut payment.

[Angelica 🌐⚛️🇹🇼🇨🇳🇺🇸 @AngelicaOung]

Seriously. If we just whomped down on building boring reactors everywhere we won’t need much of anything else. Some batteries for grid balancing. Grid can be minimalist. Less transformers and wires. No real need for DER, smart meters. Energy traders can be fired. Build it once and you’re done for a century.

Is there a cheaper and faster solution? Maybe. But this is technology we mastered in the 70s/80s and it’s hilarious to me that ppl think it’ll be cheaper and easier to use a basket of intermittent technologies to do it all. Is it possible? Maybe. But the case is frankly unproven. But if we commit to a fleet build I think the case for getting costs down to what it was in the 70s is pretty good.

If we just spam large reactors even advanced nuclear (which I personally love) becomes less interesting. Quantity has a quality all its own. With cheap power in bulk lets generate synthfuels to take care of hard-to-abates.

Are we going to do this? Almost certainly not but that’s a political will, coordinating and regulatory problem. So we try this and that and hope for breakthroughs.

[calle @callebtc]

We need more Cashu mints run by businesses and other organizations.

[Danny Knowles @_DannyKnowles]

💥@matthew_pines is back!

We talk Strategic Bitcoin Reserves, the Global Economic Reordering, and of course UAPs 👽.

Check it out here... https://t.co/C9EOzkyP9M

[John Carvalho @BitcoinErrorLog]

Today, I submitted a new BIP proposal for public review:

Redefinition of the Bitcoin Unit to the Base Denomination

Abstract
This BIP proposes redefining the commonly recognized "bitcoin" unit so that what was previously known as the smallest indivisible unit becomes the primary reference unit. Under this proposal, one bitcoin is defined as that smallest unit, eliminating the need for decimal places. By making the integral unit the standard measure, this BIP aims to simplify user comprehension, reduce confusion, and align on-chain values directly with their displayed representation.

Motivation
The current convention defines one BTC as 100,000,000 of the smallest indivisible units. This representation requires dealing with eight decimal places, which can be confusing and foster the misconception that bitcoin is inherently decimal-based. In reality, Bitcoin’s ledger represents values as integers of a smallest unit, and the decimal point is merely a human-imposed abstraction.

By redefining the smallest unit as "one bitcoin," this BIP aligns user perception with the protocol’s true nature. It reduces cognitive overhead, ensures users understand Bitcoin as counting discrete units, and ultimately improves educational clarity and user experience.

Specification

Redefinition of the Unit:
Internally, the smallest indivisible unit remains unchanged.

Historically, 1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units. Under this proposal, "1 bitcoin" equals that smallest unit.

What was previously referred to as "1 BTC" now corresponds to 100 million bitcoins under the new definition.

Terminology:
The informal terms "satoshi" or "sat" are deprecated.
All references, interfaces, and documentation SHOULD refer to the base integer unit simply as "bitcoin."

Display and Formatting:
Applications SHOULD present values as whole integers without decimals.

Example:
Old display: 0.00010000 BTC
New display: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000)

Conversion:
Ledger and consensus rules remain unchanged.
Implementations adopting this standard MUST multiply previously displayed BTC amounts by 100,000,000 to determine the new integer representation.

Rationale
Usability:
Integer-only displays simplify mental arithmetic and reduce potential confusion or user error.

Protocol Alignment:
The Bitcoin protocol inherently counts discrete units. Removing the artificial decimal format aligns user perception with Bitcoin’s actual integral design.

Educational Clarity:
Presenting integers ensures newcomers do not mistakenly assume that Bitcoin’s nature is decimal-based. It conveys Bitcoin’s true design from the start.

Future-Proofing:
Adopting the smallest unit as the primary measure ensures a consistent standard that can scale smoothly as Bitcoin adoption grows.

Addressing Alternative Approaches
Refuting the "Bits" Proposal (BIP 176)

An alternative suggestion (BIP 176) proposes using "bits" to represent one-millionth of a bitcoin (100 satoshis). While this reduces the number of decimal places in certain contexts, it fails to fully address the core issues our BIP aims to solve:

Persistent Decimal Mindset:
Using "bits" still retains a layered decimal approach, requiring users to think in terms of multiple denominations (BTC and bits). This shifts complexity rather than eliminating it.

Inconsistent User Experience:
Users must learn to toggle between BTC for large amounts and bits for small amounts. Instead of providing a unified view of value, it fragments the user experience.

Incomplete Alignment with the Protocol’s Nature:
The "bits" proposal does not realign the displayed value with the integral nature of Bitcoin’s ledger. It continues to rely on fractional units, masking the fundamental integer-based accounting that Bitcoin employs.

Not Permanently Future-Proof:
Though "bits" may simplify certain price ranges, future circumstances could demand additional denominations or scaling adjustments. Our integral approach resolves this problem entirely by making the smallest unit the standard measure, avoiding future fragmentation.

In essence, while BIP 176 attempts to simplify small amount representations, it only replaces one decimal representation with another. By redefining "bitcoin" as the smallest indivisible unit, this BIP eliminates reliance on decimal fractions and separate denominations entirely, offering a clearer, more intuitive, and ultimately more durable solution.

Backward Compatibility
No consensus rules are altered, and on-chain data remains unchanged. Differences arise solely in display formats:

For Developers:
Update GUIs, APIs, and documentation to present values as integers. Remove references to fractional BTC.

For Users:
The actual value of holdings does not change. Transitional measures, such as dual displays or explanatory tooltips, can ease the adjustment period.
Security Considerations

A short-term risk of confusion exists as users adapt to the new representation. Users accustomed to decimals may misinterpret initial displays. To mitigate this:
Offer dual displays and tooltips during the transition.

Provide clear educational materials and coordinated messaging.

Use alerts or confirmations in applications if input values appear unexpectedly large or small.

Over time, confusion will subside, leaving a simpler, more intuitive understanding of Bitcoin’s integral values.

Reference Implementation
Some wallets, such as Bitkit, have successfully adopted integer-only displays, demonstrating the feasibility of this approach. Transitional features—like showing both old and new formats side-by-side—can help smooth the transition.

Test Vectors
Old: 1.00000000 BTC → New: 100000000 BTC (or ₿100000000)
Old: 0.00010000 BTC → New: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000)
Old: 0.00500000 BTC → New: 500000 BTC (or ���500000)

All formerly fractional representations now directly correspond to whole-number multiples of the smallest unit.

Implementation Timeline
Phase 1 (3-6 months): Introduce the concept, provide dual displays and educational materials.

Phase 2 (6-12 months): Prominent services adopt integer-only displays by default.

Phase 3 (12+ months): Integer representation becomes standard. Documentation and user guides no longer reference decimal-based formats.
Conclusion

Redefining the "bitcoin" unit as the smallest indivisible unit and removing decimal-based representations simplifies comprehension and aligns displayed values with the protocol’s integral accounting. While a transition period may be necessary, the long-term benefits include clearer communication, reduced confusion, and a more accurate understanding of Bitcoin’s fundamental design.

Copyright
This BIP is licensed under CC0-1.0.

https://t.co/EOESxFmkFa

[WikiLeaks @wikileaks]

Have US tech leaders “dangerously lost the plot”?

Arnaud Bertrand on Palantir CEO Alex Karp, whose video was recently reposted by @elonmusk. Palantir is an intelligence contractor controlled by Peter Thiel, Karp and Stephen Cohen, founded with CIA seed capital:

"Perfect illustration that U.S. tech leaders have dangerously lost the plot. Not only does Karp not seem to understand the first thing about geopolitics, he doesn't even understand what made the U.S. successful.

He claims that:
- The only way for the U.S. to be safe is for their adversaries to "wake up scared and go to bed scared"
- The U.S. should do collective punishment, threatening not just adversaries but their "friends, cousins, mistresses, and whoever was involved."
- The U.S. "cannot have parity" with adversaries because "our adversaries do not have our moral compunction. If it's even, they will take advantage of our niceness, kindness."
- International institutions such as the UN are "discriminatory against anything good"

In short, this is imperial hubris at its most deluded and hypocritical. Karp simultaneously claims American moral superiority while advocating deeply immoral tactics like collective punishment, making everyone else live in fear and rejecting any checks on its power. It's a worldview that mistakes bullying for leadership and domination for security. And which, by the way, betrays America's own historical lessons as a former British colony...

And, most importantly: it's dead wrong - the world absolutely doesn't work this way. Rule by fear has a long and very well documented history of failure. Empires that rely on fear and domination always sow the seeds of their own demise because fear always generates resistance and resentment.

This is by the way exactly what's happening now, as explained by none other than Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "The Grand Chessboard", in which he wrote that the most dangerous scenario for the U.S. would be an "alliance of the aggrieved": "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an 'antihegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances."

That's what rule through fear and intimidation gets you: it unlocks the "most dangerous scenario" for the U.S. because, guess what, turns out people don't particularly enjoy being bullied and threatened... They tend to band together against the bully, regardless of their differences.

What made America truly successful wasn't its ability to frighten others - it was its ability (largely lost today) to build. The Marshall Plan, international institutions, cultural exchange, industrial might, technological innovation - these were the real sources of American power.

How did the U.S. "win" the cold war? Let's turn to another actually smart American statesman, George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. Key to his strategy was, in his words, proving that the U.S. was "coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a world power".

This meant creating a society and an international order that inspired admiration rather than fear, one that nations would be inspired by rather than be coerced into. This is precisely why Gorbachev, for better or worse, ultimately pushed for reform - he recognized the clear success of the American economic and technological model compared to Soviet stagnation. He was convinced by U.S. achievements, not intimidated by threats.

Most tellingly, this tech CEO seems completely disconnected from today's tech reality. His claim that the U.S. is "the only one with a real tech scene" is peak delusion - China has now overtaken the U.S. in innovation and scientific discoveries according to almost all credible rankings.

All in all Karp's "make them afraid" rhetoric reveals a profound insecurity - a tacit admission that America can no longer compete on the basis of positive achievements. When he dismisses international institutions and advocates for rule by fear, he's essentially admitting that America can no longer lead by example or build constructive alternatives. All that's left is the threat of force.

It also reveals something about the current state of American tech leadership. When tech CEOs start sounding like Cold War hawks, advocating for global domination through fear rather than innovation through building, it suggests they've run out of ideas. They're no longer confident in their ability to compete on the merit of their products and solutions.

To conclude, Karp's worldview isn't just dead wrong - it represents everything that's gone awry with American leadership: the abandonment of building for bullying, of influence for intimidation, of power for control, the triumph of worst instincts over thoughtful judgment.

When America elevates leaders like Karp who preach fear over building, we're not witnessing the restoration of American greatness as many of the comments below claim - we're watching its erosion in real time. A nation that can only threaten rather than inspire has already lost its claim to leadership."

[Daniel Batten @DSBatten]

Last week I had a long and inspiring conversation with @MayaPar25. If you think you know Maya, you don't know Maya! Because Maya is closer than anyone in the world to pulling off something that many of us have dreamed about: A nation running fully on the Bitcoin standard with full separation of money and state

She actually has a decent chance of pulling this off, particularly if we all get behind her. We've seen in the recent US elections that supporting and funding the right pro-Bitcoin candidates pays off, because their message and values resonates strongly with even non-Bitcoiners.

With current, levels of support it is likely that Maya and her NPS party will gain enough votes to be able to make Suriname the world's 2nd country to adopt Bitcoin behind El Salvador.

But that's just 5% of what's possible.

Maya is planning full separation of money and State. With 18-26 seats, this becomes possible.

Maya has assembled a team of some of the top Austrian economics including Philipp Bagus (close friends with Milei)

This means
1. Removing the central bank
2. Replacing the SRD currency fully with SATS
3. All govt transactions in SATS. Suriname has the resources to be the 8th richest nation on earth, but because of corruption is one of the poorest. This makes govt open source, with everything traceable, which means corruption can be seen and exposed if people attempt it.
4. All govt spending (including govt salaries) and earning in Bitcoin
5. Privatization of healthcare and education, but not like the US did when it was captured by big pharma, but with consumer protection in place and properly thought out alignment of incentives

If you want to theorize about separation of money from State, listen to a podcast.

If you want to see it happen, donate to Maya's campaign

She's raised 75K on Geyserfund so far. Her first target is 300K to "get them kicking". Let's see if we can get her there this month.

We are at one of the most exciting junctures of history. And this is the closest leader and the closest opportunity we have by a long shot for fully separation of money from state. Suriname's hospitals are leaving people to die who can't pay, their orphanages are near abandoned, there is no legal protection for women and children, and Maya and Bitcoin represents hope to change this.

But she can't do it alone. She needs our help. Let's get behind her. Please support her however you can, including donating generously to her campaign to turn around the history of a nation.

https://t.co/nz1WV0nNCF

[Tehol the Only @Tehol_the_Only]

I just contributed to Presidential Campaign Maya 2025 on Geyser! Check it out: https://t.co/Qch5y4eOLx

[calle @callebtc]

I wrote an article on the basics of blind signatures – the core cryptographic building block of Chaumian ecash systems.

Learn how ecash protects privacy by limiting the possible denominations (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 sats...) – and how do it even better!

https://t.co/CMonZdBByF

[Tehol the Only @Tehol_the_Only]

@callebtc @BTCsessions @paulkrugman Prof. Dr. Calle, PhD is the greatest 😂

[Cashu @CashuBTC]

New blog post!

Learn about the basic cryptography of blind signatures in Cashu, why there are only a limited set of possible amounts of ecash tokens, and how we're going to improve this in the future.

https://t.co/UO3queiDJy

[Danny Knowles @_DannyKnowles]

What Bitcoin Did is Back!

Subscribe to the pod here:
YouTube: https://t.co/6UCVYtY2JQ
Spotify: https://t.co/7Ybb1Spvy5