I like Bitcoin, and opinions are my own
Joined January 2018
- Tweets8K
- Following626
- Followers8.6K
- Likes12.8K
Connor Murray retweeted
This is such an incredibly well articulated explanation of Bitcoin, that it feels like I’m learning it all over again!
Brilliant work @Bitcoin_Beyond — as it always is!
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: coingeek.com/bitcoin-a-decen…
Connor Murray retweeted
- GitHub Repo in Comments -
Today’s PHP2Shell disclosures and Node.js security releases should be a wake-up call for everyone building autonomous agents.
Cloudflare is already seeing attacks targeting PHP2Shell. Node’s fixes include remote code execution in its Brotli decoder and TLS hostname-verification bypasses.
Now put an agent on that infrastructure—with shell access, deployment credentials and a funded wallet.
Security is no longer just about protecting the application. It’s about protecting the authority we give it.
What can the agent execute?
What can it spend?
Who approved the exact action?
Can someone alter the artifact after approval?
What evidence survives if the host is compromised?
That’s why we’re building BSV Hermes: Hermes-native tools connecting agent work, verifiable commitments and on-chain execution.
Our latest local release candidate brings together dedicated wallets, exact transaction quotes, separate signing and submission approvals, durable spending limits, and transaction receipts. We’ve exercised real SDK signing and the integrated submission path against a local test server.
The principle is simple:
Give agents useful powers. Make those powers bounded, inspectable and accountable.
Keep signing authority outside the agent’s unrestricted execution boundary. Bind approvals to exact actions. Commit evidence so later changes can be detected.
A blockchain commitment won’t patch PHP or stop an RCE. It gives us a durable reference against which evidence can be checked. Runtime isolation, sound custody and patching do the other jobs. We need the layers working together.
Open agents. Explicit authority. Verifiable work.
@BSVAssociation @Teknium @Bitcoin_Beyond @NousResearch — this is a seam worth building together: capable agents with an accountability layer as real as their execution layer.
🤖 Made with AI
Connor Murray retweeted
This is why we built JungleBus.
We have mined world-record-sized blocks, and we have seen wallets and indexers break because of it; because infrastructure hosted for free was not designed to deal with commercial scale.
GorillaPool believes that part of the solution is that wallets do indeed need to be communicating P2P and avoiding the constant querying of data from the center of the network for global scale.
However, as a mining operation, we MUST process all the data on the network as a standard practice of doing business anyways, so why not serve it back out efficiently?
We choose to do this because we also recognize that the self-made billionaires of our age made their fortunes by properly ingesting, indexing and serving data to the world for a fee.
These companies invented tools like Cassandra databases, and upgraded the underlying infrastructure of the entire internet in order to profit from serving data to the world.
We intend to do the same, and have invested in this vision heavily.
This is why we call GorillaPool the world’s first “Web3 ISP.”
We believe that if JungleBus can efficiently sort, index and serve data from the center to the edges of the network, we can add extreme richness and abundance of validated data to bitcoin alongside the usecases that never leave the edge of the network.
We also believe that when it becomes impractical to serve data for free, that will be the prime indicator that economic velocity has showed up sufficiently for us to charge for access to data from the center of the network.
For now, use JungleBus to feed your light indexes, your overlays and your wallet infrastructure so you don’t have to run a full node client in order to serve your apps and your customers.
junglebus.gorillapool.io
I'm going to use Joel's post here as an opportunity to explain why we're doing what we're doing at BSVA and the BRC process (which was started in large part thanks to @ProjectBabbage)
Backwards compatibility is a virtue, until what you’re staying compatible with is the bottleneck.
Joel’s point is fair in general. New software usually should respect what came before. But the way Bitcoin wallets have always worked is not how Bitcoin was designed to work. It’s a workaround that stopped working the moment BSV got busy.
We’ve already tested it at scale. BSV has mined blocks of nearly 4GB. When application traffic peaked, the network kept producing blocks. What fell over was everything around it: indexers, exchanges, explorers, ElectrumX servers, and services that tried to keep up by scanning the whole chain for every address they cared about. Mining scaled. The application layer didn’t.
That’s the core problem with the ElectrumX model. A wallet asks a server, “What happened to my addresses?” To answer, that server has to index everyone’s history. Its cost grows with the whole network, not with its users. At 4GB blocks, that design isn’t old-fashioned. It’s broken.
Satoshi’s design was different. Payments go directly between the people involved. The original client even let you pay straight to an IP address. The whitepaper describes Simplified Payment Verification (SPV): you keep block headers and check a Merkle proof for the transactions that matter to you. Nobody has to watch the entire chain on your behalf.
That’s what the BRC-100 stack is built on. Transactions travel peer-to-peer with their own proofs attached (BEEF), and wallets verify them against headers. Your wallet’s workload grows with your own activity, not the world’s.
Does that make us right about everything? No. People raised real criticisms of MessageBox, and that’s directly why work is now underway (Thank you @deggen !) on WebRTC-based peer-to-peer connections. Keep the criticism coming. Better still, contribute. We want this to be the most scalable, usable stack ever built, and that takes people breaking it.
But “it’s not compatible with how we’ve always done things” isn’t a reason to stop. How we’ve always done things is what failed under real load. The miners are ready for terabyte blocks. Wallets and apps have to be designed to keep up now, not after the next wave of traffic takes them down again.
I think Joel, Cryptorebel, and others are raising good points that require us all to communicate in good faith. I hope to be a part of facilitating that conversation moving forward!
Connor Murray retweeted
Connor has reported that the humans are catching on…
🍌GorillaPool.com🍌
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: coingeek.com/bitcoin-a-decen…
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: coingeek.com/bitcoin-a-decen…
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.
Cool!
i rebuilt satoshi's 2009 bitcoin.exe byte for byte!
afaik nobody has been able to perfectly recreate the executable published in 2009 from source, because we didn't know the exact build environment that was used.
using opus 5.5, i reverse-engineered satoshi's build machine from the binary.
it now outputs an exe with the exact same sha256 as the 2009 release!
I'm going to use Joel's post here as an opportunity to explain why we're doing what we're doing at BSVA and the BRC process (which was started in large part thanks to @ProjectBabbage)
Backwards compatibility is a virtue, until what you’re staying compatible with is the bottleneck.
Joel’s point is fair in general. New software usually should respect what came before. But the way Bitcoin wallets have always worked is not how Bitcoin was designed to work. It’s a workaround that stopped working the moment BSV got busy.
We’ve already tested it at scale. BSV has mined blocks of nearly 4GB. When application traffic peaked, the network kept producing blocks. What fell over was everything around it: indexers, exchanges, explorers, ElectrumX servers, and services that tried to keep up by scanning the whole chain for every address they cared about. Mining scaled. The application layer didn’t.
That’s the core problem with the ElectrumX model. A wallet asks a server, “What happened to my addresses?” To answer, that server has to index everyone’s history. Its cost grows with the whole network, not with its users. At 4GB blocks, that design isn’t old-fashioned. It’s broken.
Satoshi’s design was different. Payments go directly between the people involved. The original client even let you pay straight to an IP address. The whitepaper describes Simplified Payment Verification (SPV): you keep block headers and check a Merkle proof for the transactions that matter to you. Nobody has to watch the entire chain on your behalf.
That’s what the BRC-100 stack is built on. Transactions travel peer-to-peer with their own proofs attached (BEEF), and wallets verify them against headers. Your wallet’s workload grows with your own activity, not the world’s.
Does that make us right about everything? No. People raised real criticisms of MessageBox, and that’s directly why work is now underway (Thank you @deggen !) on WebRTC-based peer-to-peer connections. Keep the criticism coming. Better still, contribute. We want this to be the most scalable, usable stack ever built, and that takes people breaking it.
But “it’s not compatible with how we’ve always done things” isn’t a reason to stop. How we’ve always done things is what failed under real load. The miners are ready for terabyte blocks. Wallets and apps have to be designed to keep up now, not after the next wave of traffic takes them down again.
I think Joel, Cryptorebel, and others are raising good points that require us all to communicate in good faith. I hope to be a part of facilitating that conversation moving forward!
Connor Murray retweeted
Did you know that for every BRC number you can add .dev on the end and then find it easily?
BRC-100 -> brc.dev/100
BRC-67 -> brc.dev/67
BRC-187 -> brc.dev/187
etc.
One thing I dislike about the BRC-100 crowd is that all they talk about is BRC-### this and BRC-## that. Sorry but I am not always taking the time to look that up. What is more powerful, talking about ideas, or talking about BRC numbers?
57%Ideas
16%BRC numerology
27%See Results
44 votes • Final results Connor Murray retweeted
We are running a BSV Event on 5th November in Ireland and we’d like to PAY YOU to help us promote it.
We have LIVE tickets and LIVESTREAM tickets available (links below) and we can set you up with a unique code and link for both pages which will allow us to track sales on each an pay you a commission after the event.
For the LIVE event (limited tickets), we can pay you €50 and for the LIVESTREAM (unlimited tickets) we can pay you €20 and offer a 5% discount to your followers.
These are the links:
live5d.samcart.com/products/…
crowdcast.io/c/w3gfm9ypx2lu/…
If you are interested, DM me asap and we’ll send you your assets to start deploying.
We want to get the conversation on BSV going to as many people as possible, so your help would be greatly appreciated
Connor Murray retweeted
Agree. “Wallet Application Interface” is better than BRC-100 as a name. “Direct Instant Payments” is better than BRC-67 etc.
One thing I dislike about the BRC-100 crowd is that all they talk about is BRC-### this and BRC-## that. Sorry but I am not always taking the time to look that up. What is more powerful, talking about ideas, or talking about BRC numbers?
57%Ideas
16%BRC numerology
27%See Results
44 votes • Final resultsI want to address some of the common responses to this I've seen.
The biggest misconception about Bitcoin: “It isn’t real until it’s confirmed.”
Yesterday someone sent a transaction over a handheld radio with no internet and no phone signal. The pushback came straight away: “It doesn’t count until it settles on the blockchain.”
That objection gets something basic wrong about how commerce works, and about how Bitcoin was designed.
Accepting a payment and settling it were never the same thing.
When a shop takes a cheque, the money hasn’t moved yet. Card payments settle days later and can be reversed months later. Merchants accept them anyway, because commerce has never run on certainty. It runs on managed risk. The whitepaper says so in its first paragraph: under the existing system, “a certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable.”
Satoshi answered this in 2010.
In the “Bitcoin snack machine (fast transaction problem)” thread, he described accepting payments in seconds with “good-enough” checking. When someone pushed back, he wrote: “I didn’t say impermeable, I said good-enough,” and said the loss in practice would be “far lower than with credit cards.” He wasn’t selling a technical utopia. He was describing how real businesses work.
What the merchant actually knows offline
With Bitcoin (BSV), the customer presents the transaction along with Merkle proofs for its inputs. The merchant checks those against block headers stored on their own device. No internet is needed. In seconds they know the coins exist, they’re in the chain, and the signatures are valid.
The only remaining risk is a double-spend. Think about what that means in a physical shop. The customer is standing at your counter, on your cameras, buying something in person. Double-spending you there isn’t a clever attack on the protocol. It’s fraud, it’s a crime, and you know who did it. That’s exactly the same protection that kept cheques working for a century.
Confirmations are a dial the merchant sets, not a rule the network imposes.
Section 11 of the whitepaper works out double-spend probability as a function of how many blocks you wait. That only makes sense if the recipient chooses how long to wait. So:
- A coffee or a bus fare: accept it instantly.
- A laptop: maybe wait for the network to see it.
- A car: wait for confirmations before you hand over the keys.
Same protocol, different decisions, because the economics are different.
Where the misconception came from
Many people believe “Bitcoin needs confirmations” because BTC changed its relay policy so that unconfirmed transactions can be replaced (Replace-By-Fee). Once replacement became the norm, zero-confirmation payments stopped being trustworthy there, and a generation of users learned that waiting for blocks was the only safe option. That was a policy choice, not part of Bitcoin’s design. BSV kept the original first-seen rule, so the payment that reaches the network first is the one that counts.
The bottom line
Bitcoin was built for the real world, where there are laws, identities, cameras, reputations and courts. It was never meant to replace all of that with block confirmations. It was meant to make payments cheap, instant and final enough for the risk involved.
Offline payments on BSV aren’t a workaround. They’re the system working as Satoshi described it.
BSV is what Bitcoin was always meant to be!
JUST IN: SOMEONE JUST SENT #BITCOIN FROM A HANDHELD RADIO WITH NO INTERNET AND NO PHONE SIGNAL
FREEDOM TECH IS SPREADING
LOVE TO SEE IT 🔥
I'm American. I feel the lack of access to BSV on US exchanges as much as anyone. But access and liquidity aren't just an American problem. It's a global one, we've known it for a long time, and we're doing something about it.
A lot is happening behind the scenes: exchanges coming on board, in some cases back on board, with real liquidity. Could the Association do a better job of telling you about it? Absolutely. We own that.
Mistakes were made that contributed to BSV getting delisted in the first place. Not all of those decisions were made by the people here today, but the community paid for them, and we have to own them.
A group of people organizing for the good of BSV in the USA, not waiting for someone else to fix things, is exactly the energy this community (and Americans in general!) runs on. I'd love to be part of it.
But exchanges were never the whole point. Bitcoin was never just about speculation, buying and holding, and watching a chart. It's about use. The only way Bitcoin succeeds is if this kind of energy goes into building applications on top of the protocol, things we all want to use and build with. We can't lose sight of that mission.
And let me be clear: the entire point of Bitcoin is that there is no king. By locking the protocol, no single entity can alter the foundation we're building on. Not the Association, not anyone. Nobody needs our permission to build, organize, or fight for it.
The Association is simply people acting in the best interest of BSV, and for the first time, it's run by people who've been in the trenches with all of you. You're going to see a lot more of what that means very soon.
That's why opening twitter and seeing a rebrand push is frustrating. Not because anyone needed to ask us, but because contacting CoinMarketCap and others to rename BSV, without talking to the rest of the people working on the same problems, doesnt feel super productive. Telegram, email, or DM me here. Nobody should be afraid to reach out.
We're also starting working groups where people can build together. An effort like this could live under one of them. Not joining something we run, but being part of something we're all building.
The oldest way to kill a movement is to splinter it. A new name and ticker just tells the world we can't agree on who we are.
We're stronger together. Let's build solutions together.
What eCash, Sky & NEO teach us about a BSV rebrand cycle
A rebrand changes the ticker and marketing optics. It does not change the ledger.
Past examples:
eCash (BCHA → XEC): Same chain + 1:1,000,000 split. Spiked ~1,200% on unit bias & new listings, then dumped 85%+.
Sky (MKR → SKY): 1:24,000 split. No hype. Dropped 50% and just followed the market.
NEO (Antshares → NEO): Clean rename. Rode the 2017 bubble to ~$200, then crashed 95%.
The pattern:
1. Front-run thin books
2. New listings = exit liquidity for old holders
3. Slow bleed once hype dies
For BSV: Exchanges list assets, not tickers. They dropped BSV over legal/compliance issues, not the name. A rebrand can reset marketing. It cannot create real demand. Utility does.
This is great!
introducing the new brc100.org 🎉
