Jack, Bitcoin Core shipped a wallet deletion bug last year. Versions 30.0 and 30.1 had a migration failure that could delete your entire wallet directory. The binaries were pulled from bitcoincore(dot)org. After that, Core 31.0 shipped a private broadcast feature that leaked your IP address to any malicious peer who forced a v1 retry. The stated privacy guarantee was that recipients would never know your IP. It was broken on release. This is not a new pattern. CVE-2018-17144 was an inflation bug that sat in production for 18 months. A miner could have created Bitcoin out of thin air, in violation of the 21 million cap. It was never exploited, but not because the process caught it. A high-severity consensus bug, CVE-2024-52911, was fixed in Core 29.0 and publicly disclosed in May of this year. The governance structure that produces these bugs is not incidental. Our quantitative analysis of 25,122 Core PRs shows that 25.5% of maintainer-merged PRs are self-merges. Three people control 81.1% of all merges in the repository's history. Since 2022, one maintainer accounts for roughly half. The "arsonist and fireman" pattern is documented: same contributor introduces a bug and authors the fix, independent verification bypassed. When roughly 99% of Bitcoin nodes run one implementation lineage, that is the attack surface. Every bug in that codebase is a systemic Bitcoin risk, not a software bug with a narrow blast radius. You said Strategy and Strike have incentives to keep Core safe. Here is the actual structure. Five people hold commit access to Bitcoin Core. They are employees and grantees of a small set of institutions whose founders and funders circulate among each other and have direct financial interests in specific protocol directions. Bitcoin was designed to eliminate trusted third parties. Its reference implementation is controlled by them. The people with the most to lose have every incentive to keep that quiet, because the narrative that Bitcoin infrastructure is sound is load-bearing for their business models. Hardware wallet failures are real. But you told people to just buy a laptop and run Bitcoin Core on it. Windows and macOS both ship zero-days on a regular cadence, Microsoft has a decades-long pattern of bundling attack surface directly into the OS, and your browser runs in the same process space as your wallet. Whatever hardware security a laptop has is built for OS integrity and disk encryption, not for Bitcoin key isolation. A hardware wallet exists precisely to take your keys off that machine entirely, into a purpose-built environment with no network exposure and no shared process space. Telling people to abandon that for a laptop running Core is not a security upgrade. It is a step backward dressed up as one. I am completely allocated to Bitcoin. I have spent 12 months and significant capital building the quantitative and governance case for implementation diversity as Bitcoin's ideal security posture. No one has engaged with the risks and incentives of this space more rigorously than this work has. I am not bragging. I am begging. The data is there. The argument is there. If you actually care about Bitcoin, prove it. Engage with it.