
Artisan Coder 💻 Senior Principal Engineer, @Arm AI. Publications https://xitter.cf/t.co/sxf9NTmSt9 Hornet Node @hornetnode
Playa del Rey, Los Angeles
Joined June 2009
- Tweets10.1K
- Following1K
- Followers1.2K
- Likes40.2K
Bitcoin Dudebro 3.125 ⚡️🇬🇧 retweeted
A new source of BTC demand is emerging.
BTC-focused perpetual preferred stocks have accumulated more than 135,000 BTC in just over a year, despite representing only a fraction of the global fixed income market.
What could happen if adoption expands?
🔗 Read our latest research: go.fidelity.com/ernlPz
On having one's profession disrupted
Replying to @rperezmarco
One can feel disappointment and grief for dashed hopes, together with joy and excitement for new opportunities, both at the same time. It can be confusing too because the paradigm shift is so sudden.
But we do better to find our feet quickly and look ahead with hope than to despair and look back with chagrin.
Hey @Blockstream, when will swaps out of L-BTC be reenabled? Please provide an update.
Presenting my work at @tabconf today on @HornetNode: a formal specification of consensus. Thanks for the invitation and all the helpful feedback 🤓
Strong agree. Just quote the dividends in dollars per share, which is what they are, and not percentages at all.
I try to stay cheerful and constructive most days.
But today I have a bone to pick with the community. A friendly bone, but a bone nonetheless.
As advocates and issuers of digital credit, we do our customers a tragic disservice by expressing the dividends on preferred equities primarily as percentages.
Why?
Think about what happened this summer. Amidst cascading liquidations, we saw confused, scared holders of $STRC and $SATA who misunderstood how those stocks' dividends are computed.
That's not so much an ignorance problem on their part — though that is a component — but rather a marketing and communications problem on ours.
If I tell you that a preferred stock pays a 12% dividend, it's not immediately clear whether that's 12% of a constant number (the "stated amount," or par value) or 12% of a moving number (the market price).
The truth, as we all know, is the former. But to people unfamiliar with fixed-income conventions, that can sound almost too good to be true.
This isn't theoretical for me. My dad misunderstood this concept. Multiple times. And his reaction unmistakably confirmed that it sounded too good to be true.
"How??" he asked in disbelief.
Regular folks simply don't have the experience that would make this intuitive or obvious.
Some of you may be tempted to think that this misunderstanding was due to generational differences. ("Oh those old folks! Bless their hearts.")
My girlfriend — who is half my dad's age, regularly uses the Robinhood app, and is generally the quintessential educated millennial — had the same misunderstanding.
This issue does not discriminate by age. It discriminates by domain-specific knowledge.
This is why, as many of you may have noticed, I generally try to talk about digital credit dividends in a way that is precise and unambiguous.
Instead of saying "12%" I'll say "$12 per share".
$12 per share is easy to understand, and it implicitly conveys the distinction between the dividend amount and the effective yield.
If you understand that the share price can move, and you understand that the dividend per share does not change until the issuer changes it, you've already cleared one of the biggest conceptual hurdles.
The real tragic comedy in all of this is that the percentage is calculated from a fixed amount ($100), and therefore there's no need for the ambiguity in the first place.
The reference amount doesn't move, so why use a percentage as part of the first-impression handshake?
I ask everyone to thoughtfully consider, in the context of digital credit — which is already a completely new concept to many — whether the conversational familiarity of percentages is worth the risk of misunderstanding by our audience.
If you're speaking to a fellow expert who understands what you mean by "12%," the risk is tiny.
But if you're writing content that may be picked up and read by people who aren't experts, the risk, in my opinion, is much higher.
And the failure mode is silent. We don't get immediate feedback when someone misinterprets the number. We may never even know it happened.
I know that almost all of us (bears and FUDsters excluded) are trying our best to educate others in good faith. I'm grateful to be a part of this community, and I appreciate the dialogue and feedback I've received and continue to receive from so many of you.
That is all. Thanks for your time today. 🧡
$STRC $SATA $SATS
Bitcoin Dudebro 3.125 ⚡️🇬🇧 retweeted
I try to stay cheerful and constructive most days.
But today I have a bone to pick with the community. A friendly bone, but a bone nonetheless.
As advocates and issuers of digital credit, we do our customers a tragic disservice by expressing the dividends on preferred equities primarily as percentages.
Why?
Think about what happened this summer. Amidst cascading liquidations, we saw confused, scared holders of $STRC and $SATA who misunderstood how those stocks' dividends are computed.
That's not so much an ignorance problem on their part — though that is a component — but rather a marketing and communications problem on ours.
If I tell you that a preferred stock pays a 12% dividend, it's not immediately clear whether that's 12% of a constant number (the "stated amount," or par value) or 12% of a moving number (the market price).
The truth, as we all know, is the former. But to people unfamiliar with fixed-income conventions, that can sound almost too good to be true.
This isn't theoretical for me. My dad misunderstood this concept. Multiple times. And his reaction unmistakably confirmed that it sounded too good to be true.
"How??" he asked in disbelief.
Regular folks simply don't have the experience that would make this intuitive or obvious.
Some of you may be tempted to think that this misunderstanding was due to generational differences. ("Oh those old folks! Bless their hearts.")
My girlfriend — who is half my dad's age, regularly uses the Robinhood app, and is generally the quintessential educated millennial — had the same misunderstanding.
This issue does not discriminate by age. It discriminates by domain-specific knowledge.
This is why, as many of you may have noticed, I generally try to talk about digital credit dividends in a way that is precise and unambiguous.
Instead of saying "12%" I'll say "$12 per share".
$12 per share is easy to understand, and it implicitly conveys the distinction between the dividend amount and the effective yield.
If you understand that the share price can move, and you understand that the dividend per share does not change until the issuer changes it, you've already cleared one of the biggest conceptual hurdles.
The real tragic comedy in all of this is that the percentage is calculated from a fixed amount ($100), and therefore there's no need for the ambiguity in the first place.
The reference amount doesn't move, so why use a percentage as part of the first-impression handshake?
I ask everyone to thoughtfully consider, in the context of digital credit — which is already a completely new concept to many — whether the conversational familiarity of percentages is worth the risk of misunderstanding by our audience.
If you're speaking to a fellow expert who understands what you mean by "12%," the risk is tiny.
But if you're writing content that may be picked up and read by people who aren't experts, the risk, in my opinion, is much higher.
And the failure mode is silent. We don't get immediate feedback when someone misinterprets the number. We may never even know it happened.
I know that almost all of us (bears and FUDsters excluded) are trying our best to educate others in good faith. I'm grateful to be a part of this community, and I appreciate the dialogue and feedback I've received and continue to receive from so many of you.
That is all. Thanks for your time today. 🧡
$STRC $SATA $SATS
Today is one of the days where everyone confidently asserts without evidence exactly what the future will be like. My prediction is that correctness will be inversely correlated with confidence.
Bitcoin Dudebro 3.125 ⚡️🇬🇧 retweeted
I wasn’t going to comment since this is a really bad take IMO, but since it’s taken off I feel the need to. To my understanding, there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to a break of decades old hardness assumptions like elliptic curve cryptography. 1/n
Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash.
Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase).
Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets.
IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).
Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot.
Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time?
Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.)
Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once.
Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case.
I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026).
Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS.
Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security.
The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.
Bill Miller absolutely *destroys* MSCI in this brutal but accurate response! Read the whole thing!
"Digital assets and cryptocurrencies are among the most novel concepts at the intersection of finance, technology and human behavior today – Bitcoin specifically represents an opt-in accountability system backed by open source code, energy and transparency, unlike traditional fiat systems backed by a local monopoly on the threat of violence. The technologies’ novelty and infrastructure, however, make their direct ownership largely inaccessible to institutional fund managers due to multiple stale, but evolving, regulatory frameworks. Indeed, digital assets existed for over a decade prior to becoming accessible through the equity of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) in 2020. The company’s innovation and bold execution have generated returns to equity holders that have trounced indices which would have been better off with Strategy in them."
Important open letter from @millervalue to @MSCI_Inc regarding its new "operating assets" test, clearly reverse-engineered to exclude digital asset treasury companies from its indices. Worth a read.
millervalue.com/what-belongs…
Bitcoin Dudebro 3.125 ⚡️🇬🇧 retweeted
Strategy is proposing daily dividends on $STRF, $STRC, $STRK, and $STRD, accruing every calendar day, including weekends and holidays, and paid the next business day, with economics unchanged. The proposed changes aim to support price stability, liquidity, and demand.
Bitcoin Dudebro 3.125 ⚡️🇬🇧 retweeted
Just a reminder that every single pleb who has been dollar cost averaging bitcoin is now in profit no matter when they first started DCA'ing. Every single one of them!
Just a reminder that every single pleb who has been dollar cost averaging #bitcoin is now in profit no matter when they first started DCA'ing. Every single one of them!
It is absolutely insane that banks will tell customers their transfer/wire should be complete within seven business days.
Me: "So within 12,960 minutes, you say? How many seconds is that? Have you heard of Bitcoin?"
I read the first few pages but unfortunately its content is obscured by the poor writing in my opinion.
It's crammed full of leading negatives and other AI-popular formats that disrupt flow, weaken the argument, and discredit the authorship.
Why do people expect others to read what they are not willing or not able to write?
I'm happy that @NakamotoProjct didn't take that route for their current series.
Bitcoin is an open, global reserve asset with absolute scarcity. The Investor Guide explores Bitcoin’s monetary properties, investment case, market structure, portfolio role, custody and risks. $BTC
strategy.com/bitcoin/brief
i’m afraid of KYC and you should be too.
KYC is a risk to your personal safety.
collecting personal information in the age of cyber security breaches everywhere is extremely irresponsible. and it’s not going to get any better any time soon.
our laws shouldn’t require institutions to KYC, they should prevent them from doing so.
institutions that leak KYC information or fail to defend it from hackers should be punished by the law for risking their user’s safety.























