đđť BitCoinSV . Craig is Satoshi . To no man I kneel, Ours is the kingdom of steel, High and mighty, alone we are kings, Whirlwinds of fire we ride.
Joined April 2017
- Tweets5.9K
- Following2.7K
- Followers1.6K
- Likes19.4K
iSam retweeted
The end-game in Crypto is getting close. After 16 years, Crypto has failed to gain traction. The Ponzi is running out of suckers. Only AFTER the final crash will the winner rise from the ashes - and that winner will be the original #Bitcoin that is now #BitcoinSV
cnbc.com/2026/06/03/bitcoinsâŚ
iSam retweeted
The trolls keep turning up to announce that I am âyelling into the void.â
A touching little fantasy.
There are over a billion people in China, and quite a few of them understand perfectly well that blockchain is not a toy for anarchic slogans. It is infrastructure. It is institutional governance. It is property, accountability, law, commercial order, and scale.
So no, this is not the void. It is just that the room is larger than your little echo chamber.
Try again.
iSam retweeted
What apps are really being built on BSV? @shadilayvision has created a complete directory that shows the strength of our ecosystem in motion.
Is your favourite app listed? Check for yourself, or sign up to add it & join the leaderboard: bsvradar.com/
iSam retweeted
People keep repeating the same tired complaint: âItâs a problem that Calvin is the only funder.â
No. It isnât. And the fact that this keeps being said shows a complete failure to understand both the situation and responsibility.
First, the premise is wrong. He is not the only funder. He is the major funder. That distinction matters. Others existâbut they are smaller, quieter, and, notably, not the ones complaining.
Second, the idea that he should somehow ârelinquish controlâ betrays a deeper confusion. Control over what, exactly? Funding does not magically grant protocol control. And even if influence follows capitalâas it does in every system ever createdâthe answer is not to demand that the person funding things withdraw.
The answer is competition.
If you believe the funding base is too concentrated, then expand it. Raise capital. Bring in new participants. Build something worth funding. Crowdsource if necessary. Structure it properly. Do the work.
What you do not get to do is sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing, and complain that someone else has contributed too much.
Funding is not assigned. It is earned, attracted, and built.
If you dislike the current distribution, the solution is straightforward: change it. Not by rhetoric, not by complaint, but by action.
Otherwise, what you are offering is not a critique.
It is noise from people unwilling to do the one thing that would actually solve the problem.
iSam retweeted
#BSV hasnât even started flexing its muscles - wait till things really get cooking.
Chronicle activates April 7th.
I want to take a moment to explain why this upgrade matters - not just technically, but personally.
First, huge thanks to everyone involved. The developers who did the actual work, and the community members who contributed to ensuring the scope was as airtight as possible while promoting stability. Maintaining stability while restoring the original protocol was a delicate balance, and the final release reflects all the hard work that went into ensuring that.
Why restore the original protocol?
This isn't just about completion for its own sake. Over the years, a lot of restrictions were added to Bitcoin. And in the same way that central planning can destroy an economy, centrally planning and limiting developer creativity means we have no idea what possibilities the original protocol actually enabled. We know it allowed more flexibility. We imagine that as better Bitcoin scripting engineers emerge and people learn more about the underlying protocol, they'll take advantage of use cases we can't even predict yet. Chronicle removes those artificial constraints. This is the core of the BSV Association's mandate. There should be no central person or group of people that tell you how you can build on top of the protocol.
Original Transaction Digest Algorithm (OTDA)
One of the most significant changes is the restoration of the Original Transaction Digest Algorithm. BSV will now support both the OTDA and the current BIP143 digest algorithm. Developers can opt into OTDA by setting the new CHRONICLE sighash flag (0x20). If you do nothing, existing behavior is preserved - BIP143 continues to work exactly as before. This gives developers the flexibility to choose which digest algorithm fits their use case, whether that's maintaining compatibility with existing systems or leveraging the original protocol's behavior.
Transaction malleability
Transaction malleability has been treated as this big scary problem throughout Bitcoin's history. There were a lot of patches added to Bitcoin over the years specifically to prevent it. But in doing so, they limited developer flexibility significantly.
Here's the thing: transaction malleability itself isn't actually a problem. It was only perceived as one because of how people were doing payments in Bitcoin - which was always wrong. Payments in Bitcoin were always meant to be peer-to-peer, then broadcast directly to the mining network. This is outlined in the Simplified Payment Verification section of the white paper. The work that has been done on all of the development tooling and the BRC-100 standard has enabled users and developers to utilize SPV.
Transaction malleability was a concern based on a misunderstanding of the payment flow, and a misunderstanding of nodes themselves. Because they misunderstood how payments should work and are convinced that miners will behave irrationally, they put in a bunch of restrictions on developers.
And here's the clever part: this is opt-in. Transactions using version 1 keep all existing restrictions. Only transactions with version > 1 get the relaxed rules. Existing applications remain completely unaffected. So if you are reading this and think "no way Connor is right about this" - then you can continue to ensure payments made with your wallet or application are not susceptible to malleability.
Restored opcodes
Chronicle re-instates several opcodes that were disabled years ago. Of note:
⢠OP_VER, OP_VERIF, OP_VERNOTIF â access the transaction version directly in script
⢠OP_LSHIFTNUM, OP_RSHIFTNUM â numerical bit shifting (restored to mimic the original behavior of OP_LSHIFT and OP_RSHIFT)
Business continuity
In line with BSV's commitment to stability: if you do nothing, nothing breaks. Existing applications using BIP143 without the CHRONICLE flag remain completely unaffected. The changes are all opt-in. This was deliberate - we needed to restore the original protocol while respecting that real businesses depend on the current state.
Personal note
I've been in BSV since day one. The uniting goal, shared with other community members, was always restoring the Bitcoin protocol and locking it. Set in stone. I'm proud to have played my part in that, and to have been involved in the actual work being done by the developers to enable it.
The work of the Association in doing this restoration is finally done. The protocol Satoshi designed is back.
This is cause for celebration. Let's build.
iSam retweeted
This is what the real #Bitcoin is capable of...
#BSVisBitcoin
iSam retweeted
The proclamation that ânobody uses gold as moneyâ lands with all the gravitas of a man announcing that nobody uses carrier pigeons anymoreâtrue, but catastrophically irrelevant to the argument he thinks he is making. Gold ceased functioning as money because it became technologically impractical at scale. It could not handle the velocity or volume of modern commerce. Its physical constraints throttled its utility.
Which brings us, with exquisite irony, to BTC.
The same people who mock gold for being unusable as money in a modern economy proudly worship a system that manages a heroic five transactions per secondâa throughput so pitiful it would struggle to handle the payment queue at a provincial bakery, let alone a global financial network. To call this âmoneyâ is to call a fork a bulldozer.
And then there is Lightning, the talisman clutched by those too numerically illiterate to recognise the trap they are celebrating. Lightning is not a scaling solution; it is a centralising funnel masquerading as innovation. The original 2015 paper laid it out plainly: once widely adopted, payment channels coalesce into large hubsâbanking institutions in all but name. They control flows. They intermediate. They extract rent. They become precisely the thing the cypherpunk romantics claimed to rebel against, except now with worse accounting and no consumer protections.
Worse still, Lightning does not eliminate the need for a scalable blockchainâit intensifies it. Channels open and close on-chain. Hubs rebalance on-chain. Capacity adjusts on-chain. If Lightning were actually used by more than a handful of hobbyists and ideological holdouts, BTCâs anaemic block space would collapse instantly. To support global usage, the base layer would require block sizes hundreds of times larger than the delicate, artisanal, hand-crafted kilobyte scraps the cult defends as sacred.
So yesâgold is unusable as money today. But BTC is not âthe replacement.â It is gold with worse physics, wrapped in a mythology so dense it bends reason like gravity around a black hole of ignorance.
Gold died because it couldnât scale.
BTC never lived because it canât.
iSam retweeted
Private Keys, Proofs, and the Illusion of Ownership in Digital Cash Systems
Iâve spent years watching people mistake control for ownership. Holding a private key doesnât make you sovereign any more than holding a car key makes you the manufacturer. Bitcoin was never about escaping accountability â it was about proving it, mathematically.
open.substack.com/pub/singulâŚ
iSam retweeted
Satoshi was clearâcrystal clearâabout the purpose of Bitcoin when it came to micropayments and the recovery of lost coins.
One of the specific use cases he pointed to was the sale of intellectual property.
Thatâs right: intellectual property, the very concept that todayâs collectivists love to deny has any place in Satoshiâs writings.
Yet itâs right there.
Satoshiâs vision wasnât some utopian fantasy of free-for-all data sharing and the abolition of ownership. It was about empowering creators, enabling fair transactions, and providing a system where the fruits of intellectual labour could be traded and valued in a decentralised, efficient way.
The argument that Bitcoin somehow excludes intellectual property is not just baselessâitâs a deliberate twisting of Satoshiâs words.
The white paper and subsequent writings envisioned a world where Bitcoin facilitated the sale of digital content, the exchange of ideas, and yes, the protection of property rights. To deny this is to ignore the fundamental utility that Bitcoin was designed to provide: micropayments for digital goods, intellectual property, and beyond.
So hereâs the problem for the collectivists: when you claim that intellectual property has no place in Satoshiâs vision, youâre contradicting the very purpose of Bitcoin.
The system wasnât built to erase ownership or reward theftâit was designed to make ownership stronger, to give creators and innovators a tool to monetise their work without intermediaries. Satoshi recognised that value comes from labour and creation, not from taking or collectivising.
To use Bitcoin while denying this principle is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is and why it was created.
iSam retweeted
As Iâve said many times, #BSV will start to shine only AFTER the big #Crypto crash, which will also coincide with the stock market crash. Blow off top of ALL assets, then a deep correction. #BSV at $30 is a joke and even if it âcrashesâ to $10 or whatever, when ##Crypto crashes - who cares. True #BSV value wonât be coming around for a whileâŚ
Keep building viable apps on the #BSV platform and garnering clients who actually use the #BitcoinBSV platform. That is what will âeventuallyâ make #BSV wildly successful.
My take on BSV right now:
Yeah, we're seeing some price movement and Teranode news is exciting. But I think we need to be realistic about the market conditions.
The hard truth.. We're still tied to BTC's movements. When BTC corrects, everything follows. That's just how the market works right now.
So even with all the actual development happening with BSV, I don't think we'll see the real breakout until 2026.
The foundation is being built now. The real run comes later.
Just my very personal view.
#bsv #bitcoin
iSam retweeted
Decentralisation has never been about the mob raising its hands in some parody of democracy. It is not about the endless chatter of âgovernance,â nor about how many individuals can click a button in a pseudo-vote. To reduce the idea to ballots and polling is to strip it of all substance and reforge it into a toy for those who crave power. The mob has no sovereignty here.
The mob does not build.
The mob does not create.
The mob exists in silence, and its silence is not weaknessâit is the very strength of civilisation.
The silent majority does not run nodes. The silent majority does not sit in forums and committees, drafting proposals to change the very bones of a system. They do not waste themselves on slogans and conferences. They work. They live. They simply demand that the system works. And it works precisely when it does not change. Permanence is their shield. Stability is their fortress. The rules that are set in stone protect the individual from the arbitrary whims of rulers, demagogues, and mobs.
This is why #BTC has betrayed the very principle it pretends to embody. Its self-proclaimed âdecentralisationâ is a farce. What you have is not the silent majority, but a politburoâa small, self-appointed elite, playing the part of revolutionary commissars. They sit in their committees and declare new rules, new edicts, new âimprovements.â They dress their power grabs in the language of progress. They are not decentralised. They are the communist controllers of a digital gulag, perpetually revising the law to suit their interests, their envy, their craving for control.
True decentralisation is not a mobâs consensus. It is not a show of hands. It is not mutable at the whim of a committee, however large or small. True decentralisation is permanence. A system that cannot be bent, altered, or redefined to suit the fashions of the ageâthat is decentralisation. When rules are fixed, no party can manipulate them. When the foundation is stable, no faction can seize it and twist it to punish its enemies or enrich its allies. The fixed law liberates the individual precisely because no oneânot even a majorityâcan use it as a weapon against him.
Here lies the paradox the modern mind refuses to grasp: mutability is control. Change is tyranny. The mob calls for flexibility, but what it truly asks for is power over others. The politburo cloaks its edicts in the rhetoric of decentralisation, but in reality, it centralises everything into its own hands. Only permanence, only the refusal to bend, ensures freedom.
The silent majority does not cry out for endless revisions. They do not hunger for technocratic committees. They do not even care for the petty theatre of ânodes.â They care for stability. They care for a system that simply works, year after year, decade after decade. They are the true decentralised force, because their will is for permanence, not power.
And this is what terrifies the politburo. For within permanence, their ambitions suffocate. They cannot bend stone. They cannot rewrite what is set in place. They cannot weaponise a system that refuses to yield. It is only when mutability is permitted, when âgovernanceâ is enthroned, that their hunger for domination can be fed.
The truth is stark. A system that changes is not decentralised. A system with a politburo is not free. A system that yields to committees is not stable. Decentralisation belongs not to those who shout the loudest, nor to those who tinker endlessly, but to those who refuse compromise, who enshrine rules beyond the reach of mobs and rulers alike. It belongs to permanence. It belongs to stability. It belongs to the silent majority whose strength lies not in endless noise, but in the quiet demand that things workâand keep working.
This is why real Bitcoin was set in stone. And this is why the impostors, the pretenders, the self-proclaimed revolutionaries in their digital politburos, will forever betray the very principle they pretend to serve. Because they cannot stop changing, and every change is a new chain clamped on the neck of freedom.
Decentralisation is not noise. It is not power. It is not the mob. Decentralisation is silence. It is permanence. It is the immutable stone that no politburo can ever bend. That is its beauty. That is its terror. That is its truth.
This is why #BitCoin was set in stone.
iSam retweeted
Are you a Bitcoin Developer? Read This threadâŚâŹď¸âŹď¸âŹď¸
1/6
DEV Q&A: We spoke to @deggen, our Distributed Applications Lead about the key to successfully building on BSV. Here's what we learned:
iSam retweeted
Looks like @BTC_Tither is getting a live education on Bitcoin from Satoshi himself - he better appreciate what's going on here...
No, I see that only as a misstatement, a lie, or an error on your part. Nodes create blocks. Thatâs it. Read Section 5 of the White Paperâagain, slowly this time. The only nodes are the ones that create blocks. If youâre not creating blocks, youâre not a node. If youâre just validating someone elseâs work, passively replaying history without contributing to it, then congratulationsâyouâre a spectator, not a participant. Youâre not part of the network consensus mechanism. Youâre irrelevant.
Now letâs talk scale. If you actually did the mathâreal math, not magical thinkingâyouâd realise that storage and network throughput double roughly every 1.25 years. Thatâs not a guess; itâs an empirical observation thatâs been holding steady for decades. Four doublings in five years. Thatâs 16x. This isnât Mooreâs Law; itâs faster. So the size of the blockchain isnât an issue for people building real systems. Itâs only an issue for people who fetishise artificial constraints and mistake personal hobby setups for global infrastructure. Bitcoin was built to scale. If your argument is that scaling reduces the number of so-called ânodes,â then goodâbecause only block-producing nodes matter.
The rest is noise.
