I like Bitcoin, and opinions are my own
Joined January 2018
- Tweets8K
- Following626
- Followers8.6K
- Likes12.8K
Connor Murray retweeted
Freedom to build starts here.
As of today, our developer tools and application-layer software are licensed under Apache 2.0.
The code was always public and the licence was always open. Now it’s also standard: one of the most widely used open-source licences there is, already tested in court and recognised by legal, procurement and IT teams.
If you’re building:
>> No custom terms to decode and no lawyer needed to check whether you can use it
>> Build on it commercially, anywhere, with no lock-in
>> Each relicensed repo includes a PATENTS notice
In plain terms:
The licence says you can use the code, and the PATENTS notice says the patent holders behind it won’t come after you over the ideas it implements when you use or build on it.
What stays the same:
>> Teranode and SV Node stay source-available under the Open BSV License. Anyone can read, modify and run the code on the BSV blockchain. Teranode is what lets the BSV blockchain scale. We built it for BSV, so that’s where it stays.
This is the first step on the path we’ve set:
>> Open the code ✅
>> Put tools in people’s hands 🔄 [open source is just the start]
>> Build together, in public
>> Prove it at scale
We’ll share each step once it’s live. From here on, that’s how we announce things: when they’re done.
It all comes back to one job: helping great technology get built and putting it in more people’s hands, so it delivers real value across identity, data traceability and integrity, and payments.
Explore freedom: github.com/orgs/bsv-blockcha…
Amazingly said, Kurt!
On yesterday's show, I opened with my thoughts on @CalvinAyre's announcement.
If you want to read it in whole, check it out:
*******
Calvin Ayre just gave away his BSV, and I think that's bullish.
On November 9, the Bodog founder and longtime backer of BSV, Calvin Ayre, announced that he has donated his BSV to the BSV Association and has launched the Ayre Think Tank, and I think it is the most bullish news this ecosystem has had since Teranode shipped.
Let's be clear about what this man paid to get us here.
Calvin put his own money behind restoring the original Bitcoin protocol when almost nobody else with real money would touch it, and he did it at tremendous personal and financial cost, through years of lawsuits, delistings and daily character assassination. But my view on it is that Calvin’s motivations were never only (and maybe even never largely) about who Satoshi is: I think was always mostly about the technology, and about making sure that a scalable, honest ledger exists for everyone to benefit from and to build on.
It’s up to us to build!
And the hate? Of course there was hate. Blockchains are tribal, but Calvin had seen this movie before in the early days of online gambling, which was every bit as toxic and every bit as tribal, and which left him with battle scars, thick skin and (by the way) a billion-dollar fortune.
Then there is the "Calvin controls BSV" crowd.
Calvin invested more money than anyone else in the BSV ecosystem. That affords him the control you would expect within his own companies, but little else. He has earned his influence, but he largely hears about what is happening in BSV the same way the rest of us do, and the same way he still hears about what is happening in the online gambling industry, which he retired from roughly 20 years ago.
He doesn’t control the independent development of a significant part of the ecosystem, nor the healthy distribution of hash power, but these sectors respect him anyways.
Which brings me to the trolls.
There are still anonymous accounts, and a few known figures, who spend every waking hour attacking Calvin, Craig, BSV, me and a few others! With the dedication of men who are on somebody's payroll. Why are they so concerned about what we are doing if BSV is "irrelevant"? What kind of grown man spends his entire life fixated on a "dead" coin unless he sees it as a threat?
These trolls aren’t screaming about the problems at Liquid Network or the nefarious parties we now know funded Blockstream and hijacked Bitcoin Core.
That's telling...
That is also a costly signal, and it plays out online every single day: after all the court cases, they still fear the technology. They can't stop it, so they use these tactics to slow adoption down, and it has worked so far, yes. But slowing a thing down is not stopping it.
Teranode is published for the public. The mantle has been passed to the builders. The entire focus now is building out the common, scalable infrastructure that applications need to succeed.
We will keep getting attacked, and we will not be deterred.
A man who already won his war just effectively gave his own stack over to the BSVA to separate himself from the project, and that is a costly signal too.
Why is it bullish? Because the tooling has never been better, and passing the torch to people who love bitcoin indicates that this phase of the work is done.
Now, it's time for the leadership of the new phase to rise up and carry the ball down the field!
1
31
1,132
Connor Murray retweeted
This is an interesting development!
Calvin is arguably the most important figure in the Bitcoin Civil War. Few men have been so steadfast, and nobody put more of their personal capital and money into making sure the people who hijacked bitcoin were given serious resistance!
Not enough people understand the nefarious influence of Thiel, Hoffman, Epstein and other financial titans who tried to enslave bitcoin, and just how much maneuvering it took to keep the remnant safe for long enough for it to get on its own feet.
Calvin deserves to be remembered nobly for standing against the forces of control in the history of Bitcoin.
This is the moment to renew my commitment to my vision: to empower human progress by building a better connected and prosperous world for all.
I remain confident that Emerging Technologies are the engine that will power a more inclusive future where data, value and opportunity move freely.
That is why I have donated my BSV to BSV Association to help further their mission, and have announced the creation of the Ayre Think Tank to drive my vision forward.
We are moving from belief to execution by backing the ideas, companies and people who can build a better world for all.
Calvin - you've overseen the preservation of the original Bitcoin protocol fully restored in April of this year, and you've helped show the world that this protocol can scale globally to the world. As someone who just wanted to see this network scale, I am so thankful for all you've done for the BSV ecosystem.
For years, the people who backed the original design kept building while the rest of the industry went another way. Teranode and the builders now producing amazing new solutions on BSV are what that patience produced.
I am so proud of the work being done at BSV Association, and I am deeply grateful for your trust in our mission and the work ahead.
This is the moment to renew my commitment to my vision: to empower human progress by building a better connected and prosperous world for all.
I remain confident that Emerging Technologies are the engine that will power a more inclusive future where data, value and opportunity move freely.
That is why I have donated my BSV to BSV Association to help further their mission, and have announced the creation of the Ayre Think Tank to drive my vision forward.
We are moving from belief to execution by backing the ideas, companies and people who can build a better world for all.
Connor Murray retweeted
I need to look into BSV. Someone mentioned awhile back that it is the bitcoin the whitepaper describes.
Connor Murray retweeted
Guys, have you heard the news?
@bsv/ecpm-permission-module implements the BRC-229 "p ecpm" semantic module for BRC-100 wallets. It applies or removes a BRC-42/43-derived scalar to an arbitrary validated secp256k1 point.
🧠 Ask AI what this unlocks. #BSV
github.com/bsv-blockchain/ts…
Connor Murray retweeted
Arcade just got a new name & a promotion. 🚀
Developers using ARC or Arcade to send transactions to the BSV blockchain, read on - this is for you.
TL;DR
► Arcade is now called BSV Broadcaster, the supported broadcaster for the BSV blockchain
► BSV Broadcaster replaces ARC
► Using the arc.taal.com instance? It closes 30 Nov. Users have been notified by its provider.
Connor Murray retweeted
For 17 years the rules of BitCoin script have lived in one place: the node's C++.
Not anymore.
All of BSV consensus as a Lean 4 definition that runs.
- 0 sorry.
- 1,896 theorems, every rule cited to its source.
Run any engine against it: a disagreement comes back as a transaction, not an argument.
Prove a contract instead of testing it.
Public today.
Connor Murray retweeted
Built a solo bsv mining pool at solo.bsv.cx after being disappointed with all the other solo pools which mine only empty blocks (@KryptexMining, @MOLEPOOL1, @bitofsin). Coinbase issues directly to you, @bsvcx_ keeps the tx fees.
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!