Pinned Tweet
Warning this may be confrontational for some people, you may not come back from this.
I could tell you what it is, but I think it is best, you figure this one out on your own.
So I leave it up to you to figure it out and what it means…
oudekaas retweeted
BitcoinSV -> First Person Shooter (FPSV) nitter.gq/i/broadcasts/1yxBePAQQ…
oudekaas retweeted
Translation:
“Code is law when it benefits us, but law is law when our code gets people robbed.”
To those responsible for the theft of bitcoin from the Liquid Network:
Blockstream will not pay a ransom for the return of stolen funds. Taking assets without authorization and withholding their return is a crime, not responsible disclosure. It is not white-hat activity. It is theft.
We have engaged in good faith in an effort to secure the return of stolen user funds and protect the broader Bitcoin community. That effort should not be mistaken for acceptance of the actions taken nor of the terms being demanded.
We will not be a party to the precedent that open-source software developed for the good of the Bitcoin community should subject its developers to paying a ransom that far exceeds their economic participation.
Bitcoin is hard money and can’t be minted without costs, Bitcoin doesn’t haircut users to pay a ransom.
To the Bitcoin community:
We are fighting for what we believe in, for the users whose funds were taken, and for the principles on which Bitcoin was built.
The community has demonstrated incredible resolve with teams of people dedicating their time in support of each other to identify and patch vulnerabilities in each other's products and systems. We are all driven by the mission that Bitcoin is the single best asset, for every person, company, and institution on the planet to invest, use, and build on. The world is a different place with the advancements of AI, and the Bitcoin community has responded with force to combat that threat.
Damage has been done, battles have been lost, but on the whole the Bitcoin community is gaining ground in the war with bad actors.
We want to thank the community for those efforts, for your support in hardening the network, helping users recover funds, and for your support in our assertion that crime does not deserve rewards.
To those holding the stolen bitcoin:
There is still an opportunity to resolve this responsibly. The bitcoin can be returned and we can revert to the standard of white-hat principals.
However, if the funds are not returned, we will pursue every lawful avenue available to us. We will work with law enforcement, exchanges, service providers, forensic specialists, and other relevant parties to trace and recover the assets and identify those responsible.
More importantly, Bitcoin is transparent by design and the community is made up of the most sophisticated engineers, cryptographers, and white-hat hackers globally. Transactions do not disappear, and neither does the evidence they leave behind.
We will not pay for the return of stolen property. We will not abandon our users. The Bitcoin community will not stop pursuing the funds.
Return the bitcoin.
oudekaas retweeted
Yowza! Only on the Real Bitcoin #BSV
oudekaas retweeted
Bitcoin didn’t fail.
It was sabotaged.
BSV is what survived.
Not by changing —
By refusing to change.
oudekaas retweeted
Computer science is not dying. What is dying, rather deservedly, is the absurd idea that a university degree should amount to four years of expensive vocational training in whatever programming language happened to be fashionable when the syllabus committee last woke up.
Computer science is necessary because algorithmic thinking is necessary.
It teaches abstraction, decomposition, complexity, graph structures, recursion, state, optimisation, formal reasoning and the discipline of turning vague problems into precise procedures. Those skills become more valuable as AI improves, not less.
What becomes less valuable is memorising syntax that a machine can now generate before the lecturer has finished explaining the assignment.
Education therefore has to move with the tools.
Instead, universities are characteristically reactive. Industry changes, tools change, methods change, and several years later the curriculum committee bravely discovers that something has happened.
Students should already be learning how to specify problems for AI systems, interrogate generated code, verify algorithms, test assumptions, reason about architecture, identify failure modes and distinguish an elegant answer from an elegant mistake.
The machine can increasingly write the implementation.
That makes understanding the implementation more important.
Much of what people call “degree inflation” comes from confusing education with credentialled job preparation. We created degrees for occupations that once required apprenticeships, then filled those degrees with practical instruction, and finally wondered why graduates possessing certificates sometimes lacked intellectual depth.
Computer science should not produce somebody who “knows Python”.
A competent twelve-year-old can learn Python.
It should produce somebody who understands why one algorithm terminates, another explodes combinatorially, a third fails under concurrency, and a fourth produces the wrong answer while looking beautifully correct.
The future does not make computer science obsolete.
It merely makes mediocre computer-science education embarrassingly visible.
AI is not killing the discipline.
It is exposing how much of what we called the discipline was vocational training wearing academic robes.
oudekaas retweeted
Think about what has happened.
You were told that “running your own node” gives you power. But a home node with no hash power creates no blocks, orders no transactions and cannot make anyone else follow its rules. It may verify information for you, but it does not govern the network.
You signal nothing that block producers are required to obey.
That was the bait-and-switch. Through 1984-level Newspeak, dependence was renamed “sovereignty”, restricted capacity became “decentralisation”, and developer control became “consensus”.
Meanwhile, the limits pushed ordinary users away from direct transactions and towards exchanges, custodians, payment channels and other middlemen. You were taught that running powerless software at home made you independent while the economic system became increasingly dependent upon centralised services.
Think about what you bought into.
You defended a system in which developers can alter the rules, intermediaries control access and most users cannot afford to transact directly—then congratulated yourselves for defeating centralisation.
Your node does not make you sovereign when you possess no power to produce blocks, change the economic order or make others recognise your preferred rules. You are merely choosing which system to observe.
You were sold the appearance of control while real control moved elsewhere.
Think about how dependency was marketed to you as freedom—and how willingly you accepted it.
Welcome to BTC.
oudekaas retweeted
You mean when BTC forked away from Bitcoin’s original design, changed the rules, restricted capacity and followed a completely different path—one that makes direct use uneconomic and forces users back through custodians and other middlemen?
Great. You think recreating the system Bitcoin was designed to remove is a benefit.
oudekaas retweeted
Think about the inversion for a moment.
I am the one who has been villainised for defending the individual—for insisting that Bitcoin must have a fixed protocol so that no developer, corporation, exchange or foundation can seize control of it.
I put tens of millions of my own family’s money into that fight. I threw everything at building the technology, restoring the protocol and releasing the tools. I dealt with compromised systems, intrusions, litigation and years of organised public hostility.
Then look at what stood against me.
COPA was backed by interests connected to Meta, Jack Dorsey, Coinbase and some of the largest corporate players in the world—organisations collectively representing trillions of dollars in capital and influence.
Yet many of you convinced yourselves that they represented the small individual, while I represented centralised control.
Think about that.
I argued for rules that even I could not change. They defended a system directed by a small group of developers and supported by exchanges, custodians and corporate infrastructure.
I argued that anyone should be able to build, compete and accept payment. They supported restrictions that pushed ordinary users back towards middlemen.
You were told that concentrated corporate power was decentralisation, while the person demanding a protocol beyond anyone’s control was the villain.
If you genuinely care about the small individual, stop repeating the branding and examine the structure of power.
oudekaas retweeted
Life becomes lighter when one stops asking what can be kept forever.
Nothing can.
The house changes hands. The body changes shape. Reputation fades, money moves, objects break, and even memory loosens its grip upon the details we once believed indispensable.
Yet this is not tragedy. It is instruction.
What matters is not possession, but attention.
The meal fully tasted. The person truly heard. The work done carefully when no applause was promised. The kindness offered before it became convenient. The knowledge earned slowly enough to become judgement.
We suffer because we ask temporary things to behave as though they were permanent. We clutch at people, places and identities until love becomes fear and ownership becomes anxiety.
But a flower is not less beautiful because it falls.
A day is not wasted because it ends.
A person is not lost merely because they are no longer beside you.
Those who matter remain in subtler forms: in the phrase you use without knowing why, in the patience they taught you, in the standard they left behind, in the silence where their voice still answers.
Peace does not come from securing everything.
It comes from needing less to remain unchanged.
Hold things gently. Love people deeply. Learn constantly. Leave behind more wisdom than noise.
The rest was never yours.
It was merely passing through your hands.
oudekaas retweeted
Reminder: bitcoin is a payments technology.
And not a trivial one.
It can scale larger than Visa on existing hardware for a fraction of the cost!
Good evening,
I am running bsvpoker
I try to get a handshake going with a BSV peer anyone can provide me with a correct list of ip’s on port 8333 handshakes are failing to sync the headers.
I am aware that there is more work to be done for syncing but I want to get the handshake going at least 😄
oudekaas retweeted
Death is the final critic, and unlike the others, it never troubles itself to be clever.
We spend much of life changing costumes beneath indifferent stars, mistaking applause for affection and novelty for immortality. Yet when the lights fail and the stage grows quiet, very little remains of the performance except what it gave to others.
What matters first is what we did for those we loved: whether we made their burdens lighter, their laughter easier, and their loneliness less complete. Love is the only extravagance that grows more valuable when freely given.
What matters next is what we did while we were here: whether we created, questioned, built, resisted, learned and occasionally dared to become someone stranger and better than the person the world expected.
But posterity is the final measure. A life ends; its consequences do not. The books remain open, the music continues after the singer has left the room, and ideas wander into centuries their authors were never permitted to see.
Mortality makes possession ridiculous. We keep nothing. We merely hold things briefly, alter them through use, and pass them onward.
The object is not to escape death. Even the stars fail at that. The object is to leave behind enough light that, when one finally disappears, the darkness notices.
I said a BIP hop, the bippie, the bippie
To the BIP, BIP-110, and you don’t stop
Bips in Dutch means ass cheek, I don’t make the rules.
#RoadtoBitcoin #BSV #NoBips
oudekaas retweeted
There are moments in one’s intellectual life when the world, having taken an unconscionably long time to recognise the obvious, finally concedes—though never without conditions, for even truth must pass through committee.
My paper, The Redundancy of Full Nodes in Bitcoin, has now been accepted following peer review, which is to say that five independent minds have examined it with due seriousness and, in a rare outbreak of coherence, arrived at agreement. One is tempted to call this unanimity a triumph of reason, though experience suggests it is more often an accident of clarity.
The acceptance, as is customary, comes draped in the polite fiction of conditionality. A few revisions have been suggested—minor embellishments rather than substantive corrections. They do not wound the argument; on the contrary, they strengthen it, as a well-placed epigram strengthens a conversation. These adjustments will be completed by Tuesday, and with them the final form will be sharper, not altered.
The paper is to appear in an IEEE publication later this year. Such timelines are, of course, glacial. Academia has always preferred the dignity of delay to the vulgarity of immediacy. One must wait, as one waits for recognition in any refined society—not because it is uncertain, but because it insists on being ceremonious.
The work itself concerns network topography and the persistent mythologies surrounding full nodes—those curious artefacts elevated beyond their functional necessity into articles of near-religious belief. The analysis is neither theatrical nor indulgent; it is structural, technical, and, I suspect, inconvenient to those who have mistaken repetition for truth.
That all five reviewers accepted the paper is, in its way, the most amusing detail. Consensus is so often praised in systems where it is least meaningful. Here, however, it serves merely as confirmation of what was already evident: that clarity, once properly expressed, requires very little defence.
One does not celebrate such things with noise. One notes them, adjusts the cuffs, and proceeds.