Pinned Tweet
0/x
๐งก Introducing the Ginger Gallery! ๐งก
An @oncyber collection of 40+ Gingers from NFT Artists!
Featuring orange hair ๐ฉโ๐ฆฐ, green eyes ๐๏ธ, butterflies ๐ฆ& rainbows ๐
oncyber.io/gingergallery
Credit ๐งต below. ๐
#GingerGallery #oncyber #nft #NFTCommunity
Ginger retweeted
I trained a new pixel art image model!
nano banana is so bad at getting sizes right, you basically can't get 32x32 no matter how hard you try. So we're doing this now.
I think it's kinda good, better than i was expecting. You can generate any size from 16px - 128px, and up to 4:1 aspect ratio. Oh and it generates with a transparent background ๐ช
I feel like this unlocks so many cool things for generating with pixel engine. You can build whole pixel art worlds now.
Ginger retweeted
One thing few people consider about $STRC buybacks is the optics for the actual BUYERS of the product.
Everyone is looking at things from the perspective of an $MSTR common shareholder.
But put yourself in the shoes of someone considering buying $STRC.
Knowing that Strategy is willing to deploy its own capital to repurchase shares below par gives you greater confidence in the product.
It signals that management is committed to supporting the productโs long-term success and protecting its reputation in the market.
And the more confidence buyers have in $STRC, the more attractive it becomes which itself is likely to drive stronger demand and lower Strategyโs long-term cost of capital.
In turn, stronger organic demand and a more stable shareholder base is likely to reduce the potential need for Strategy to intervene in the future through further buybacks or dividend increases.
This creates a positive feedback loop that can improve the long-term quality of $STRC as an investment product while making it increasingly self-sustaining.
Buybacks arenโt just about the immediate financial benefits.
Theyโre also about building trust in the product itself.
And for what itโs worth, increasing the dividend rate doesnโt guarantee that it will solve the underlying demand problem.
Long game.
Unpopular opinion but these $STRC buybacks frustrate me.
We have now spent $1.65B in total on buybacks.
This week alone, $192M went on buybacks at an average price of $99.58.
Strategy's stated objective is for $STRC to trade around $99-$100. Why are we buying it back when it's already trading at target?
Raising the yield by 0.5% today would cost around $45M a year. 1% would cost around $90M.
That would stimulate demand. It's a variable rate, after all.
I believe buybacks should be an act of last resort, used when the discount is significant, such as when it's trading below $90.
Not a fan.
I remain bullish on $MSTR but I don't believe this is the best use of capital right now.
Ginger retweeted
WE COUNT THE ENEMIES WE KILL. WE RARELY COUNT THE ONES WE CREATE.
Nidal Hasan was a patient on my floor in the surgical trauma ICU at Brooke Army Medical Center.
I wasn't there when he arrived. I had just left for my deployment to Mosul, Iraq. But the nurses and doctors who cared for him were my peers and my friends, and I know exactly what that required of them, because every one of us had done some version of it before. Before anyone tells me what strength looks like, understand what that work demands.
I have cared for a drunk driver who wiped out an entire family and landed in our ICU himself. I have cared for gang members who shot up a block while children were stepping off a school bus, then ended up on our unit with bullets of their own. I have kept alive people who murdered their own families and failed at taking their own lives. And in Iraq, I saved the lives of the very enemy fighters who had just tried to kill us and miraculously survived our response.
Every one of those patients got our best. Not because we felt anything for them, but because of who we were. You set aside anger, grief, prejudice and every personal feeling you have, because a life in front of you is a life in front of you. That's the oath. That's the duty.
So when Hasan came through those doors, my colleagues did what we had always done. They preserved the life of a man who murdered thirteen people and would have killed them too, given the chance. He killed those men and women in one of the very same buildings many Soldier's like myself have been in when I was stationed at Fort Hood.
He is alive today because they did their jobs. That was not sentiment. It was a hard, tangible expression of the values this country claims to stand for. Our principles had to mean something even when the person benefiting from them had violated everything we believed in.
Now the Pentagon plans to livestream his execution by firing squad on Dec. 3, and our leaders apparently believe turning his death into a public spectacle will demonstrate American strength. I think it demonstrates how little they understand the enemy they claim to be fighting. We kept Nidal Hasan alive, now our leaders want to make him a martyr.
Hasan walked into Fort Hood expecting to die. He believed his death would be rewarded. At his trial, he called no witnesses and offered no defense, and his own court-appointed lawyers worried he was seeking execution. He failed at martyrdom once. Now we're about to hand it to him, in high definition, for every extremist with an internet connection to replay, manipulate and celebrate.
We supply the footage. They supply the meaning.
Long after the politicians finish congratulating themselves, that video will still exist. Their moment of bravado becomes somebody else's recruiting material for decades. And this failure to think past the immediate display of power reaches far beyond one execution. We count the enemies we kill. We rarely count the enemies we create.
Look at the school in Minab, Iran, where multiple investigations attributed the strike that killed more than 100 children and their teachers to us. You cannot bury people's children beneath the rubble of their classrooms and expect a speech about American intentions to decide how they remember you. No denial brings those children home. No claim of good intentions makes their parents forget whose weapons killed them.
If those were our children, we would remember for the rest of our lives. We would demand accountability. Many of us would want vengeance. We would tell their stories to the next generation. We know this because we did exactly that after September 11.
Why do we imagine other people love their children less, grieve less deeply, or remember less clearly?
We have developed a horrifying talent for creating more terrorists than we will ever stop. We inflict suffering, evade responsibility, and then act as though the anger that follows came out of nowhere.
Think back to the first time you saw one of those al Qaeda videos of an American being beheaded. Remember the sickness in your stomach. Remember the rage. Remember thinking that only savages would film a killing and send it out for the world to watch. Now ask yourself what the rest of the world will see when the camera is ours.
Terrorist organizations stage executions for the cameras. Authoritarian regimes make death a public spectacle to feed fear and rage. Watching our own leaders reach for those same tools should force us to confront how much of ourselves we are surrendering in the name of defeating them.
The line separating us from the people we condemn has to live in our conduct. A flag cannot hold it for us. Neither can a uniform, a title, or a declaration that we are the good guys.
On that ICU floor, on a bloody street in Mosul, and in trauma bays across this country, people like my colleagues hold that line every day under circumstances most will never face. They keep monsters alive because their duty and their humanity are bigger than their hatred of what those monsters have done.
Execute him if that's the sentence. But do it the way a confident nation does; quietly, lawfully, and without giving him the stage he always wanted. Let him be forgotten.
I expect our leaders to show at least as much discipline as the nurses who had to care for him.
They keep telling us they are defending what makes America different. Every day, they make that difference harder to see.
Robert W. Burns III is the editor and publisher of The Space Coast Rocket, an Army veteran and a retired trauma nurse. The views expressed in this column are his own.
Ginger retweeted
ignore this and you can lose everything.
vitalik's post is hard to follow if you're not technical. here's a simplified version so you can understand it.
1. the last lock on your coins is a math problem nobody has solved. not uncrackable. uncracked. rsa (the early internet's lock) had to grow to ~400-byte signatures because mathematicians kept finding shortcuts. your wallet gets away with 64 because nobody has found one. yet.
2. his scenario: ai brings "50 years of math in 2 years" and bots find the shortcuts we missed. nothing is broken today.
3. the scary new: your wallet's math has gears a locksmith can study. so do lattices, the "quantum-safe" lock the world is switching to. he sees "a good chance" they "take serious hits from the next two years of ai math." quantum-safe might not be ai-safe.
hashes are a blender, built to have no gears. a big reason ethereum's long-term plan is going hash-only.
4. the trick: your address is a sealed box with your lock inside. receiving doesn't open it. signing anything does. you can't pick a lock you've never seen.
already open: any eth wallet that ever sent or signed, and 6-8m btc (30-40% of supply, depending on who counts).
open from day one: solana and btc taproot (bc1p).
5. his first line is don't scramble today. he's lost more money in botched migrations than in all hacks combined.
only if it's easy:
> park savings on an address that never signed anything (permits, nft listings, "sign in" pop-ups all count)
> btc: a fresh bc1q, not bc1p
> tiny test send first. check every character. no rush
> "quantum migration tool" in your dms = a drainer (a scam that empties your wallet). never type your seed into a website
I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography.
The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices.
(and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation)
So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math.
The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be?
This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-.
For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption.
And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10.
To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety.
And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all.
Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems.
For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size).
Concrete TLDR, my own personal views:
* Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all
* For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ...
* For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism.
* If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**.
* For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money"
firefly.social/post/x/210783โฆ
Ginger retweeted
New York Democrats have declared WAR ON THE AMISH. Thanks to their unconstitutional attack on religion, they're now able to fine EACH unvaccinated Amish child $2,000 EVERY SINGLE DAY.
โ
The $118,000 bill is one day, not the cap. Three one-room schools alone already owe that much for 59 children, at $2,000 each.
โ
Health Commissioner Mary Bassett imposed it on December 15, 2022. She called the sum conservative because it assumed only one day out of compliance.
โ
Dygert Road was billed $52,000 for 26 children. Pleasant View was billed $46,000 for 23.
โ
Shady Lane was billed $20,000 for 10.
โ
Footnote 9 of the Second Circuit opinion records the state's view. Each day an unvaccinated student attends is a fresh violation and a fresh $2,000 fine.
โ
Another day for those 59 children is another $118,000. A 180-day year at that rate is about $21 million, and the families say they cannot pay the first bill.
โ
Joseph Miller, Jonas Smucker, and Ezra Wengerd run the schools. The schools sit in Clymer and Heuvelton, plus the Canajoharie settlement, and take no public money.
โ
They had a religious exemption for decades. On June 13, 2019, Democrats repealed it after measles spread through Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Rockland County.
โ
Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill. Governor Kathy Hochul left it in force.
โ
A parent may not excuse a child for faith.
โ
Senator James Skoufis said the exemption was made up and fake. Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz called it utter garbage.
โ
Counsel Aaron Siri told the New York Post the families can pay only if the state takes their land. Some in the community have talked of leaving the state.
โ
The case is Miller versus McDonald. The Second Circuit ruled against them on June 30 in 2026.
โ
A Supreme Court petition was due around September 28.
Make sure EVERYONE sees this. If WE don't stand up for these incredible men and women - WHO WILL?!?!?!
โ
Where is the โmy body my choice crowd nowโ? ๏ฟผ
Ginger retweeted
On August 6, 2025, a Manhattan jury found me guilty of one count: conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business under 18 U.S.C. ยง 1960. They hung on money laundering and sanctions. I have not been sentenced. A motion for acquittal is still pending. Retrial of the hung counts is set for April 26, 2027.
Fifteen days later, on August 21, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, said this in a published speech:
"Our view is that merely writing code, without ill-intent, is not a crime."
And: "where the evidence shows that software is truly decentralized and solely automates peer-to-peer transactions, and where a third party does not have custody and control over user assets, new 1960(b)(1)(C) charges against the third-party will not be approved."
"Generally, developers of neutral tools, with no criminal intent, should not be held responsible for someone else's misuse of those tools. If a third-party's misuse violates criminal law, that third-party should be prosecuted โ not the well-intentioned developer."
Section 1960 is the statute I was convicted under.
I am not asking anyone to take my word for it. Read the Department's own remarks, then read what happened in my case.
DOJ speech: justice.gov/opa/speech/actinโฆ
#FreeRomanStorm
FreeRomanStorm.com
๐ค Made with AI
Ginger retweeted
The Amish in New York are facing massive fines over Democrats vaccine mandates. Amish families will likely have to flee the state after losing the religious exemption theyโve had for decades
Amish private schools are being hit with crushing fines for not having students vaccinated
The fines are roughly $2,000 per noncompliant children, multiplied by the number of school days
3 small schools were sited, of the 59 children already cited, one more day of attendance brought the total fines to $118,000, they say they canโt pay it
New York Democrats position is that every day an unvaccinated child attends school there will be a fresh violation worth up to $2,000
Ginger retweeted
A federal district judge just declared that Flock camera systems violate the Fourth Amendment! Applying Chatrie, the court concludes that extensive camera networks engage in unlawful "indiscriminate mass surveillance." A major ruling. storage.courtlistener.com/reโฆ
Ginger retweeted
NEW: A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching Flock and other license plate reader data without a warrant, accessing more than 50 records of a driverโs movements across multiple states over a month.
Ginger retweeted
NEW: A Federal judge just ruled that a warrantless Flock/ALPR search violated a woman's 4th Amendment rights!
"Why is it the government's business where everyone goes all the time?"
"Freedom from persistent, dragnet-style surveillance while in public is not a foreign concept in our society, and it is a reasonable expectation that society already accepts"
Judge Sara Hill (N.D. Oklahoma) notes other courts, including in Oklahoma, ruled the other way on Flock searches. She argues that a decision from 1983 shouldn't govern 2026 networks of what she calls "indiscriminate mass surveillance."
"This Court is now faced with technology that appears to be approaching the dragnet type law enforcement practice Mr. Knotts warned of."
Setting up for an interesting fight in circuit court if the government appeals.
Story by @jason_koebler
404media.co/federal-judge-ruโฆ
Ruling: storage.courtlistener.com/reโฆ
Ginger retweeted
BREAKING: FEDERAL JUDGE RULES COPS USING FLOCK CAMERAS TO TRACK DRIVER FOR WEEKS WITHOUT A WARRANT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
A Federal Judge In Oklahoma Just Ruled That Police Violated Constitutional Rights When They Used Flock Cameras To Pull A Driverโs Travel History Without A Warrant.
On October 1, 2026, The U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of Oklahoma Threw Out Evidence In United States V. Melisa Susan Kyle. The Court Said A Warrantless Search Of Flock & Another Plate-Reader System Was An Illegal Search Under The Fourth Amendment.
Tulsa County Deputy Freddie Alaniz Looked Up A California Plate During A Traffic Stop. The Search Returned More Than 50 Sightings Over At Least 30 Days In Many States. The Record Showed The Car Leaving Locust Grove, Oklahoma, Heading Toward The California & Arizona Border, Then Turning Back Toward Missouri.
Here Is How The System Works. Cameras On Patrol Cars & Fixed Spots Snap License Plates. They Log The Date, The Time, & The Place. Officers Can Then Search That Stored History Across The Country. In This Case The Deputy Typed In Reasons Like โTraffic Violationโ & โInvestigationโ & Got Weeks Of Movement Data. He Did Not Have A Warrant. He Did Not Have Probable Cause For That Search.
The Judge Said People Have A Real Privacy Right In That Long Record Of Where They Go, Even On Public Roads. Older Cases Let Police Watch One Car On One Trip. This Is Different. The Court Called It Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance On A Dragnet Scale. Modern Plate Readers Can Follow A Car Across States For Weeks. That Kind Of Tracking Needs A Warrant.
The Stop Itself Started Lawfully. The Deputy Said The Car Followed Another Vehicle Too Closely, About 30 Feet, Which Can Break Oklahoma Traffic Law. But The Court Said He Had No Good Reason To Hold The Driver After He Gave Back The License & Papers. He Kept Her To Run A Drug Dog. Nervousness, A Rental Car, Luggage, & A Short Trip Did Not Add Up To Real Suspicion Of A Crime.
Because Both The Extra Detention & The Plate-Reader Search Were Unlawful, The Court Suppressed What Came After Them. That Includes The Later Vehicle Search & Statements. The Judge Said No Exception Saved The Evidence.
This Order Does Not Shut The Cameras Off. It Says Searching The Stored History Of An Americanโs Drives, With No Warrant, Violates The Constitution. The Case Number Is 26-CR-00189-SEH.
Ginger retweeted
I gotta say, @Fold_App's new Reserve system feels like a straight scam. They've bait and switch'd their customers by gating most of the old Fold+ membership perks behind this new scheme that requires you take out what appears to be a large an unsecured loan to the company, and they do who knows what with this money, all just to get a few percentage points back on credit card purchases. How does this make sense for a consumer? At that point why not just buy UST bills yourself? Less risk and better reward. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
Ginger retweeted
NEW FINDINGS: We took a close look at MSCIโs effort to exclude Bitcoin treasury companies from major stock indexes.
We found an internal project trail buried in a public document, years of ESG advocacy, and proposed rules that could reach far beyond Bitcoin.
Our new paper, โWall Streetโs Invisible Committee,โ documents what we uncovered and provides recommendations for policymakers.
MSCI reports an astonishing $21 trillion benchmarked to its indexes. When its committees change which companies qualify, funds tracking those indexes must adjust their holdings. A methodology decision can trigger billions in reallocation.
Hereโs what we found.
๐ญ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐โ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ป๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ.
In 2025, MSCI proposed excluding Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATCOs) holding at least half their assets in digital assets. After substantial opposition, it shelved the proposal.
It later returned this year with a broader, facially neutral test for โnon-operating companies.โ MSCIโs own simulation would exclude Strategy and Metaplanet.
We examined the public consultation PDF and found something revealing in its embedded metadata.
The source presentationโs internal file path includesโ
โProjects/DATCOs/Operating vs Non Operatingโ
A proposal presented as a general classification rule retains a source-file path explicitly associated with the category targeted by the earlier exclusion effort.
While metadata alone cannot prove the outcome was predetermined, it raises a direct question for MSCI. Were these criteria developed to classify companies consistently, or engineered to reach the same exclusions against digital asset companies through a broader rule?
๐ฎ. ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ โ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฝ๐๐ผโ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฟ.
We traced its public record back to an October 2021 article titled โCreeping Crypto.โ
MSCI publicly warned about cryptocurrency exposure entering equity portfolios, described most cryptocurrencies as โspeculative investments with little evident utility,โ and flagged Bitcoinโs Proof of Work as environmentally dangerous.
They identified 26 exposed public companies and promoted tools for screening additional exposure. Singled out at the very bottom of their ESG rankings... was Strategy.
While the article did not call for exclusions, it does establish that an internal belief at MSCI that Bitcoin and digital asset companies were an ESG concern four years before proposing to remove digital asset treasury companies.
๐ฏ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐๐ป๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐.
CEO Henry Fernandez has repeatedly, publicly proclaimed the urgent importance of ESG investing. In 2021, he recounted urging bankers to โrefuse to take a company public or do a bond offeringโ without a net-zero pledge.
MSCIโs leadership also combined responsibility for ESG and index governance. Its then-head of indexes described an ambition for its flagship global index to become โgreen, one company at a time.โ
These statements do not prove the motive behind todayโs proposal. They make the boundary between MSCIโs advocacy and its broad-market index decisions a serious governance question.
๐ฐ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎโ๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐
๐ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐๐๐ฟ๐.
The proposed test relies on โoperating assetsโ without a sufficiently clear, reproducible classification framework.
How should it treat a satellite awaiting launch? A mine under construction? Capital raised to build a factory?
Our analysis shows how plausible interpretations could disadvantage emerging, strategic industries before they have the chance to compete.
Americans buying broad-market funds deserve transparent rules, reproducible decisions, and meaningful accountability from the committees deciding what they own.
Read the full findings and our recommendations below โ
btcpolicy.org/articles/wall-โฆ
Ginger retweeted
BREAKING: ๐บ๐ธ ILLINOIS JUST RELEASED RULES TO TAX EVERY #BITCOIN TRANSACTION STARTING IN 2027
0.2% ON EVERY BTC TRANSFER, REGARDLESS OF PROFIT OR LOSS
THEY WANT TO PUNISH YOU FOR USING BTC
THIS IS INSANE ๐ก
Ginger retweeted
i asked opus 5.5 to make a 3 min video about the history of bitcoin
i told claude to rely on data from my local 1.8 tb postgres database of bitcoin data (coins, blocks, hacks, attribution, everything)
hereโs what opus made in 1 hour 22 mins on max effort with a 10 line prompt
Ginger retweeted
Some melodies arenโt just meant to be heard, they can be experienced visually, too. Pachelbelโs โCanon in Dโ offers a captivating blend of music and visual beauty.
Ginger retweeted
Could this be the best AI-generated animation style yet?
Later today, Iโll reveal all the secrets behind it to my subscribers.
๐ค Made with AI
Ginger retweeted
In an alternate timeline, Trump takes a liking to Thomas Massie, lobbies for him to replace Mike Johnson, the Epstein criminals are in jail, Bibi is fending for himself, DOGE is codified, the Department of Education doesnโt exist, farmers are happy, and the GOP wins in 2026
Ginger retweeted
Legislative Trojan horses
๐ช๐บ Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0
๐ช๐บ Social media ban for children
๐ช๐บ Addictive design ban for adults
๐ช๐บ Combat fraud and serious crime
๐ฆ๐บ Social media ban for children
๐บ๐ธ Social media ban for children
๐บ๐ธ Addictive design restrictions for children
๐ณ๐ฟ Social media ban for children
๐ฎ๐ช Social media ban for children
๐ซ๐ท Social media ban for children
๐จ๐ฆ Social media ban for children
๐ฌ๐ง Social media ban for children
๐ฌ๐ง Addictive design restrictions for children
๐ฌ๐ง Child exploitation & grooming protection
๐ฌ๐ง Force platforms to prioritise "trusted" news
๐ฆ๐ช Social media ban for children
๐ช๐ธ Social media ban for children
๐ฌ๐ท Social media ban for children
๐ฉ๐ฐ Social media ban for children
๐ณ๐ด Social media ban for children
๐ฆ๐น Social media ban for children
๐ต๐ฑ Social media ban for children
๐ธ๐ฎ Social media ban for children
๐น๐ท Social media ban for children
๐ฎ๐ฉ Social media ban for children
๐ฒ๐พ Social media ban for children
๐ง๐ท Social media restrictions for children
๐ต๐น Social media restrictions for children
๐ฎ๐ณ Social media ban for children
๐ธ๐ช Social media ban for children
๐ฉ๐ช Social media restrictions for children
๐ฎ๐น Social media restrictions for children
๐จ๐ณ Social media restrictions for children
Iโm sharing this because more journalists have started following my work, and I want to show what Iโm exposing through technical analysis anyone can understand.
Iโm working on one of my most consequential investigations into legislation and technology built for digital surveillance. Itโs called Chat Control. What follows looks like coordination between governments and a handful of tech companies.
Tech companies get more data to monetise. Governments gain the ability to monitor who says what, to whom, why, where they go and how they spend money.
Technical Trojan horses
๐ช๐บ Compulsory identity verification
๐ช๐บ Scan private communications
๐ช๐บ Weaken end to end encryption
๐ช๐บ Expand lawful access
๐ฌ๐ง Compulsory identity verification
๐ฌ๐ง Compulsory on-device scanning for every app
๐ฌ๐ง Algorithms to prioritize trusted news sources
๐ฆ๐บ Compulsory identity verification
๐ณ๐ฟ Compulsory identity verification
๐ฎ๐ช Compulsory identity verification
๐ซ๐ท Compulsory identity verification
๐ช๐ธ Compulsory identity verification
๐ฌ๐ท Compulsory identity verification
๐ฉ๐ฐ Compulsory identity verification
๐ณ๐ด Compulsory identity verification
๐ฆ๐น Compulsory identity verification
๐ต๐ฑ Compulsory identity verification
๐ธ๐ฎ Compulsory identity verification
๐น๐ท Compulsory identity verification
๐ฆ๐ช Compulsory identity verification
๐ฎ๐ฉ Compulsory identity verification
๐ฒ๐พ Compulsory identity verification
๐ง๐ท Compulsory identity verification
๐ต๐น Compulsory identity verification
๐จ๐ฆ Compulsory identity verification
๐บ๐ธ Compulsory identity verification
Spot the pattern.
๐ Australia set the stage. Other countries are now following with "robust" age assurance language in their TV appearances, including the US, UK and Ireland. The US AGs have added it to the proposed legislation following the Meta lawsuit.
๐ก Australiaโs own standard says age checks must be "technically accurate, robust, and reliable".
"Robust" means fault proof. It brings meaning like "best" endeavours.
Age estimation canโt meet that standard. As Australia defines it, age verification determines age "to a high level of accuracy", while age estimation only provides an approximate age.
Fault proof age checking requires identity verification.
Now look at the tech companies and what they built recently.
Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft built identity verification capabilities before governments started saying existing age assurance wasnโt "robust" enough.
They knew what was coming.
๐ชช Apple has age assurance APIs that can return verified age ranges, including confirmation using government ID, and its Wallet API lets apps verify age or identity from government issued digital ID.
๐ชช Google recently built an Age Signals API so apps can receive age ranges and verification status. Android already lets parents block apps by age across the entire device, so this isnโt technically necessary for child safety.
Google has also added facial verification to Google Account and Gmail recovery through selfie video matching, presented as account security.
๐ชช Meta launched selfie based Facebook verification that checks a video selfie against profile photos and plans to expand it globally.
๐ชช Microsoft has rolled out age assurance across Microsoft Accounts using facial age estimation, identity documents and government systems. Refuse to verify and some content and features are blocked.
๐ญ A handful of tech companies control the operating systems, app stores and identity layers across almost every mobile device. Governments barely need to negotiate outside G7 rooms. If Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft enforce the same rules, billions of people are instantly impacted.
The same technical capability keeps appearing: identify verification.
Identity the person first, then decide what theyโre allowed to do, who they're allowed to speak to, and when they're allowed to move money.
p.s. Anthropic and OpenAI have identity verification services and the US government holds a kill switch that decides who has permission to use AI.
---
Let me know if I got anything wrong. I have 60 minutes to make an edit. Or just leave a comment so others can see your correction.
Ginger retweeted
This is a pretty big deal: a new bill in Congress would let US courts order VPNs and DNS resolvers to block websites.
VPNs are explicitly named in a US site-blocking bill for the first time.
Itโs being sold as an anti-piracy measure but once the legal machinery for blocking websites exists, the obvious question is where it goes from there.
And weโve already seen how badly this can go. Spainโs anti-piracy blocking has swept up legitimate sites along with the targets...








































