Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Lil sneak peak 👀
Putting some finishing touches on this bad boy *slaps twetch*
LIKE AND RETWEET LETS GOOOOO
If you worked on BSV and you've got a small business or a startup today,
I want you to be one of the first to use something I've built 👀 - not payment related, though.
Closed beta starts this Friday.
Free for a month.
DM me.
If you've ever used HandCash help me with a RT🙏
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
In 1948, a 32-year-old at Bell Labs published a paper nobody fully understood.
Engineers found it too mathematical. Mathematicians found it too engineering-focused. One prominent mathematician reviewed it negatively.
That paper - "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", became the founding document of the digital age.
The man was Claude Shannon. Father of Information Theory.
At 21, he wrote the most important master's thesis of the 20th century.
Working at MIT on an early mechanical computer, Shannon noticed its relay switches had exactly two states - open or closed. He had just taken a philosophy course introducing Boolean algebra, which also operated on two values: true and false.
Nobody had ever connected these two things.
His 1937 thesis proved that Boolean algebra and electrical circuits are mathematically identical, and that any logical operation could be built from simple switches.
Howard Gardner called it "possibly the most important, and also the most famous, master's thesis of the century."
Every digital computer ever built traces back to this insight.
At 29, he proved that perfect encryption exists.
During WWII, Shannon worked on classified cryptography at Bell Labs. His work contributed to SIGSALY, the secure voice system used for confidential communications between Roosevelt and Churchill.
In a classified 1945 memorandum, he mathematically proved the one-time pad provides perfect secrecy, unbreakable not just computationally, but provably, permanently, against an adversary with infinite power.
When declassified in 1949, it transformed cryptography from an art into a science. It laid the foundations for DES, AES, and every modern encryption standard.
At 32, he defined what information is.
His 1948 paper introduced one equation:
H = −Σ p(x) log p(x)
Shannon entropy. The average uncertainty in a probability distribution. The minimum bits required to encode a message.
Three things followed:
> He defined the bit - the fundamental unit of all information. His colleague John Tukey coined the name.
> He proved the channel capacity theorem, every communication channel has a maximum rate of reliable transmission. You can approach it. You can never exceed it.
> He unified telegraph, telephone, and radio into a single mathematical framework for the first time.
Robert Lucky of Bell Labs called it the greatest work "in the annals of technological thought."
Where his equation lives in AI today:
Cross-entropy loss - the function training every classifier and language model, is derived directly from H. Decision tree splits use information gain, which is H applied to data. Perplexity, the standard LLM evaluation metric, is an exponentiation of cross-entropy.
Every time a neural network trains, Shannon's formula runs inside it.
He also built the first AI learning device.
In 1950, Shannon built Theseus, a mechanical mouse that navigated a maze through trial and error, learned the correct path, and repeated it perfectly. Mazin Gilbert of Bell Labs said: "Theseus inspired the whole field of AI."
That same year he published the first paper on programming a computer to play chess. He co-organized the 1956 Dartmouth Workshop, the founding event of AI as a field.
The man:
He rode a unicycle through Bell Labs hallways while juggling. He built a flame-throwing trumpet, a rocket-powered Frisbee, and Styrofoam shoes to walk on the lake behind his house.
He called his home Entropy House.
When asked what motivated him: "I was motivated by curiosity. Never by the desire for financial gain. I just wondered how things were put together."
In 1985, he appeared unexpectedly at a conference in Brighton. The crowd mobbed him for autographs. Persuaded to speak at the banquet, he talked briefly, then pulled three balls from his pockets and juggled instead.
One engineer said: "It was as if Newton had showed up at a physics conference."
He died in 2001 after a decade with Alzheimer's, the cruel irony of information slowly leaving the mind of the man who defined what information was.
Claude, the AI model, is named after Claude Shannon, the mathematician who laid the foundation for the digital world we rely on today.
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
DMs open 📩
I am making myself available for work Branding, Logo, Animation, Interface Design, Frontend Development, Mobile Apps, Websites, 3D, whatever you need.
RT for visibility 🤩
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
This is the right formula.
Replying to @CoinbaseDev
For API providers and developers, subscription models are outdated, UX-heavy, and cumbersome for agents to navigate. Pay-per-use APIs without subscriptions are now possible with x402.
Pay-per-use API microtransactions have the potential to “kill the API key” and replace it with a paradigm where an API request is simply bundled with an onchain payment signature to authorize a request.
This approach is more scalable, more efficient, and (finally) economically viable, – and it opens up a new onchain business model for content and cloud service providers.
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Replying to @SullyMichaelvan
His mistake is in thinking BTC has a value underneath to support a "store of value". Without the money use case, abandoned by BTC, BTC's value is purely speculative.
BTC abandoned the money function in the name of "decentralization" because the users don't understand. Decentralization at the protocol level is POW. Users running nodes without POW is in no functional way decentralized. Making blocks small only reduces the economic capacity of Bitcoin and therefore refuces the decentralization of miners. Less economic capacity means less money for miners which means less miners.
User decentralization is important, but has nothing to do with running a node. Users affect the network by buying and paying tx fees to miners. They can do this using SPV which is defined in the Bitcoin whitepaper and deeply embedded in the core design of Bitcoin data structures.
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Thanks for your hard work @JamesBelding @KarlTheProgrmr Scott and the rest of the team...
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Dear Tokenized users,
We regret to inform you that the Tokenized platform will be shutting down in one month (April 14th). Please ensure you withdraw your BSV from our wallet before this date.
We would appreciate sharing this msg w/ friends or family who use our platform 🧵
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Other token protocols seem better at first look because all you have to do is spend the right output into another output and you are done. The reality is that that is just the beginning of the complexity. You have to handle an ecosystem of overlays and trusted fourth parties. With any token action the issuer is the third party. Bringing another party into the operation only complicates things more.
@Tokenized_com simplifies this by merging the overlay and the issuer. The holder simply sends a signed tx to the issuer's smart contract agent and gets an on chain signed tx as a response. This holds the agent accountable and also gives very explicit validation of the token action.
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
The 1 megabyte block size limit was temporary. BTC decided to make it permanent. They intentionally limited Bitcoin's capabilities. All other blockchains and crypto projects followed suit. Only @BSVBlockchain fixes this properly.
"I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code. Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea. Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed. The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale."
- Ray Dillinger
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Many companies tried to do what @Tokenized_com accomplished over the last 6 years. They all failed because they didn't fully understand the economics of tokens and their purpose. Many built functional platforms but as soon as people tried to integrate it into the rest of the ecosystem they ran into serious issues.
Anyone who says that the best option is to attempt to rebuild what we built is either dishonest or incompetent.
We already have a functional enterprise grade token issuing and administration platform that is highly secure, scalable, and elegantly supports multi-sig approval of token actions. To rebuild that will be several years, at minimum, and that is if they can succeed.
That will hold the BSV ecosystem back even more than it already has. We need to standardize, cooperate, and move forward.
It is not difficult to integrate Tokenized holding and transfer into a wallet implementation. Building elegant issuing and administration is another order of magnitude of difficulty.
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
So many stupid conversations over the years when reality was so obvious...
Tokenized is/was the best platform on BSV.
But the tokens are decentralized I was told.
The tokens on ETH were permission less and the issuer doesn’t have the power I was told.
Tokenized will never work because it’s centralized around the issuer I was told.
Stable coins are ALWYAS dependent on the issuer. Tokenized put the contract on chain so it was more transparent than USDt
BSV was held back for at least 3 years from having a stable coin because the egg heads couldn’t understand this
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Yes, Greg is such a vindictive and sociopathic person, that I think it very very likely that Greg poured hundreds of hours of his own time, into meticulously researching Roger's Bitcoin history and constructing a detailed message to the IRS (likely mixing true facts with clever insinuation and total fabrication), with the sole purpose of making Roger's life miserable. Since Greg was very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and Bitcoin privacy, he probably filled his message, with all kinds of impressive-looking speculation -- and he likely poured every ounce of his intellect into making it as damaging to Roger as possible.
Even if Roger were perfectly compliant, the IRS would easily be duped by a specialist of Greg's caliber.
Throughout my time in Bitcoin, countless people have anxiously whispered to me how much they secretly hate Greg, and yet also how afraid of him they are. So they pretend to like him in public. The whole thing is a scandal. He is basically the Joseph Stalin of Bitcoin. Everything Greg claimed about Blockstream ended up being a lie. Of his many original bitcointalk posts, none were ever brought to fruition by him -- and in fact mostly he stalled / sabotaged these ideas when other people finally got around to working on them, to jealously guard the credit. Thus he would complain about the do-ers , but was too lazy to ever ship anything. That's all he does, write posts and then sabotage real progress. Nonetheless, at all times, Greg was certain that his way of doing things was the ONLY right way. This included:
- Blockstream, which purchased (what is today) like 40 billlion dollars worth of BTC that is all gone with nothing to show for it, in fact it mostly delayed and sabotaged the all-important two-way-peg idea, in exactly the way I have described
- betting on LN, which was a total failure
- being 100% certain that ethereum would go to zero, opinion held continuously from 2014-present , certain it has no value
And Greg justified all this hatred (of Roger and others), in his mind, entirely because he thought that Lightning was the way to go. In his mind, Greg was the protector of Bitcoin, rightfully shepherding it to LN. In other words, Greg ended up being totally in the wrong. (Roger was also wrong, about L1 largeblocks, but he waged no sociopathic narking campaign as far as anyone knows)
I have personally observed Greg make at least 5 or 6 serious lies (deliberately misleading the public for his own selfish purposes), on topics that I happened to know about. Certainly he would lie to the IRS.
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Replying to @abrkn
It makes sense to me that there will be tricks, like the one you point out, to allow some degree of parallel processing of Ethereum transactions.
With a UTXO model, _all_ transactions can be processed in parallel. The only sequential processing is that which is needed to ensure that a coin (UTXO) is not spent more than once.
The UTXO architecture by its nature is more scalable, while the account architecture by its nature is more flexible for smart-contracting. What is not clear to me is the trade-offs between the two:
(1) Using all the tricks in the book, to what degree can Ethereum transactions be processed in parallel?
(2) Given a Turing-complete scripting language on a UTXO-based coin, what transactions can Ethereum do that a UTXO-based coin cannot?
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Replying to @pete_rizzo_
> Isn't the barrier to using multiple implementations the lack of a consensus library where they can all be used safely?
NO. This has been done but they still attack alt impls.
It's the same code Satoshi wrote in 2010. They didn't change anything. For example Bitcoin messages have a checksum and are message based, yet it still uses TCP. TCP doesn't need a checksum. They could upgrade to UDP, or just remove the checksum. The code is still shit. Nobody can write any app like tx radar or use the code without forking the full node. They complained back in 2011, we called our project libbitcoin because they wanted to make a bitcoin library. It's 2024 and they still haven't managed to do that. In fact they cannot make any big cleanup or refactor of the code. They refuse to write a spec because in their words, it uses "undocumented features of C++", which C++ is a fully specced language. The only thing which isn't specced in C++ is Undefined Behaviour (look it up). According to the C++ spec, if you invoke UB, the compiler can generate absolutely any code such as formatting your hard drive or whatever. Yep, you heard that right, Bitcoin code is using UB which is technically invalid. Truth is they don't want to write a spec and be forced to conform to it. It's lazy and intellectually stupid. Worst yet they shit on alternative impls and actively block other competing teams from funding. Their stupid maxi army thinks its a decentralized project where nobody is control, which is the biggest lie sold by the shadow government in Bitcoin to prevent any proper governance or accountability for their incompetence. I'm beyond trying to change it though. I saw how it was in 2018 and left to change Eth, but then saw that was impossible too. People were looking at me like crazy, but now the things I said turn out to be true. In the end I started DarkFi to prove the things I say by action rather than speech, as they say "don't throw pearls to pigs". Not only that but Peter Todd is a lying sack of shit. They made the CoinJoin bounty fund, the community shipped the money and we delivered the code. Then the owners changed the rules randomly from "whoever makes it first" to "as they see fit". Peter Todd was a complete nobody and we brought him up out of obscurity. He was our 'chief scientist'. Little did we know he was helping to cheat us out of the money. Now he says "that guy claimed to be intel but I thought he could be anybody". Bruh, if some randomer emails you and says "bro I want to help you cheat your friends out of money. I work for intel, ship me the funds so I can sign a message", you wouldn't go "yep lets go", you'd tell that guy to get fucked, right? Not Peter, he took action to cheat a broke opensource dev team out of money. Absolute unapologetic intel-collaborating scumbag. Most normal people in the face of irrefutable evidence would apologize and make amends but he doubles down smug. Imagine that's part of Core, an influencer who doesn't create jackshit and is invited to all the events to speak despite this history being known. It's super super corrupt, and there's way more stories like this. People are completely clueless what's going on in Core. They're not just incompetent, they're compromised.
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
The True Dawn of ZKP and Secure MPC: Privacy and The Digital Pound medium.com/asecuritysite-whe…
Jonathan Vaage retweeted
Teranode just mined its first block on a public network. Probably nothing...
test.whatsonchain.com/block-…
The entire point of promoting a congested base layer is to prevent bank runs! Don’t be conned by the psyop!
Please consider the incentives: Rivalrous BSV miners have an enormous profit motive to detect invalid base layer inflation and expose it publicly so they can capture block rewards from a valid branch. It only takes one party to sound the alarm and it’s PERMISSIONLESS!
You have to compare that to the alternative where any custodian can locally inflate the supply of paper-Bitcoin and there’s no systemic, permissionless way to audit them.
Replying to @JonathanVaage
When you get a chance, could you check your BSV node for the current supply? Oh wait…whoopsies.

























