Joined September 2019
- Tweets3.1K
- Following1.2K
- Followers519
- Likes6.6K
Pinned Tweet
This is my view of the truth after almost 10 years into Bitcoin. Some may not like some things that are said, but I feel like sharing because of the critical point we are in.
I was “orange pilled” by the idea of “rules, not rulers”. The 21 million tokens that nobody can mess up with, distributed fairly by investing raw energy, within a halving cycle. 1 MB blocks, every ~10 minutes (energy adjusting), verified by BEING Bitcoin:
Following said rules, with your Full Node software, for eternity.
That was it. A simple and powerful idea. Executed and working for ~8 years at that time.
And that was all it needed to be…
But then, out of nowhere (for me), Bitcoin Cash happened. I remember the feeling to this day, a deep “WTF is this?”.
Then I learned about the so called “block size war” and the “best way to scale Bitcoin”. And that Bitcoin Cash was the big-blockers.
It made sense to me that breaking the rules would get you off the network. And I admired the 1MB rule, as a critical limit for sustainable decentralization. So I just kept going with BTC.
But during the same time, this thing called SegWit was introduced into the protocol. It was an “upgrade” to “help Bitcoin scale”…
And today, I realize, that was the moment the Bitcoin I believed in died.
It has taken me almost 10 years to fully understand and verbalize it, but the off-feeling has been brewing for many years before.
“BitDevs” being run by non-developers, parroting what Blockstream/Chaincode/LightningLabs pronounce. A snowball of crypto-development culture, continuously tinkering with the base protocol.
Which was ONLY allowed by the ingenuity in deceiving old nodes into “block hash consensus”. A soft-fork.
Then, years later, the next big “developer consensus” soft-fork: Taproot. This was sold as the realization of the potential of SegWit. Bringing “crypto features” into Bitcoin…
But this consensus was parroted by the same people that pushed the SegWit change. And in this round, they wanted to “Speedy Trial” activate it.
Why the fuck was there “consensus” into rushing a change into Bitcoin?
Then… inscriptions happened, and I still “trusted the experts” at Bitcoin Core. But deep inside, I was more disappointed with yet another change to the protocol. Even disgusted as I learned at this point that SegWit allowed up to 4MB blocks!
And as someone that had decided to spend my time in Bitcoin, I wanted to push this “let’s use Bitcoin as a permanent database” idea to learn if this was still worth it, and if it wasn’t, not spend more of my time with it…
Turns out, unfortunately, that I was right. Bitcoin is being destroyed. Everything that made it unique in the first place is disappearing.
RDTS is, truly, the last chance to bring Bitcoin back into its roots.
We need to thank @dathon_ohm and all the true Bitcoiners that have made this revolution take form.
It for sure is a new era for Bitcoin. Since SegWit, a door was opened that should have never been. But what is done is done, and we now need to use the same techniques in a course correcting path.
Ossification is too charged of a word, as many think of it as abandonment of the protocol. And at this point, too many attack surfaces has been opened that need to be closed.
But, I believe, the only path left for Bitcoin to fulfill its promise, is REMOVING features first, then adopting an Extremely Conservative development culture. A 180 turn from the current Fabian Core led culture.
Let’s be relentless towards RDTS/BIP110 activation. There is already enough mining power to have a, likely slow at first, but functional network. And that is all it takes to continue growing, and eventually, a deep reorg happens to Scam-Chain…
And RDTS becomes Bitcoin.
JUAN retweeted
CAPTURE Part 4: THE MACHINE
The fourth and final installment is out.
Bitcoin Magazine wasn’t just covering the fight over Bitcoin’s future. Its parent operated an Ordinals trading desk, invested in businesses tied to the ecosystem, and maintained editorial policies that exempted parts of that same business.
Then came an $80,000/month marketing contract, with an option for Nakamoto Inc. to buy BTC Inc at a valuation tied to its earnings, in a window that included the OP_RETURN fight. Nakamoto exercised the option.
Readers were not consistently told about these commercial relationships.
A documented investigation into the commercial interests and media infrastructure surrounding the Bitcoin Core controversy.
citadel21.com/the-machine
JUAN retweeted
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.
JUAN retweeted
I guess that needs to be changed. Any debate about that here?
Data in the witness is 75% discounted, and can make blocks up to 4MB. @EAnalyzed data abuse is incentivized, fees are in their favor
JUAN retweeted
once you understand that influencer is a polite name for the prostitutes of the elite, everything makes sense.
JUAN retweeted
I swear this Bitcoin bear market has been the worst, for the industry, for reputations, for wallets, for non-KYC options... Seems like the "industry" built up around Bitcoin needs to die out completely and start fresh. Everything I used to recommend I now regret.
JUAN retweeted
...The flaw was introduced into Bitcoin by a co-founder and employee of Blockstream working on Bitcoin, Matt Corallo (known online as TheBlueMatt), and it was signed off by Greg Maxwell to be added into Bitcoin...
natinfosec.substack.com/p/fr…
JUAN retweeted
They are litterally cheering for fiat infiltration of the legacy chain 🤡
FACT: $10 TRILLION MORGAN STANLEY HELD A MEETING ABOUT SUPPORTING THE LAUNCH OF TETHER'S USDT ON #BITCOIN
THE WORLD'S LARGEST BANKS ARE BRINGING THE WORLD'S LARGEST STABLECOIN BACK TO BTC
IT'S FINALLY HAPPENING 🔥
JUAN retweeted
The absolute worst thing about opening this app is spotting a banger tweet for 0.2 seconds before the feed auto-refreshes and sends it straight into the void.
Gone forever.
JUAN retweeted
THE ISSUE OF CHILD PORN ON THE SPAM CHAIN OF BITCOIN
There is the claim that child porn and other disgusting, immoral, illegal, and repulse material might end up on the spam chain of Bitcoin.
Child porn will absolutely and certainly get on the spam chain at some point. That is a certainty.
Back in 2019 BSV blew up their op_return filter, exactly as core did in 2025. Within a week, the BSV chain got filled with child porn, and they did an emergency update the reinstate their op_return limit to stop the problem:
bbc.com/news/technology-4713…
Six years later, core had the brilliant idea to do exactly as BSV did, and they blew up their op_return filter.
The question is not if, but when. And here are the most likely perpetrators:
- Some pedo who doesn't want the legal risk to keep that filth on his own machine, so he dumps the risk on the 90,000 nodes.
- Some shitcoiner who thinks this will pump his own coin.
- Some whale trader who thinks his short position would profit greatly from the resulting bad press and drop in price.
- Even someone on my side who wants to get the "told you so" giant foam finger from it.
- But most likely a state level attacker who wants to reduce the number of nodes to further centralize the spam chain.
Can you honestly tell me that all of the above suspects are improbable?
I personally believe the 2019 BSV incident was a test run for what they were planning as a psyop on Bitcoin.
It's important to understand that the nodes only recognize monetary transactions. That's why spam has had to use dust amounts of sats, fake pubkeys, fake scriphash, fake Segwit signatures, and other hacks to make their spam look like genuine monetary transactions. Because that's all the network was design to recognize - monetary transactions.
But all that changed with core 30. Now your node looks at a transaction and says "This is not money, this is some random file that anyone in the world wants to store on my machine. And I must validate it, accept it, store it, and relay it until the end of time, for FREE."
JUAN retweeted
WEEKLY SPAM CHAIN REPORT
The first of my weekly spam activity report on the Bitcoin core chain from 2026-09-15 4pm to 2026-09-22 4pm
TLDR:
Though spam took up 44% of the block space for this last week, they paid only 16% of the miner fees. Effectively paying 4x cheaper than monetary users for the same block space. And spam made up 0.1% of on chain miner revenues. That's an extra penny for every $10 the miners take in.
METHODOLOGY:
Any transaction that would have violated the BIP110 rules is marked as spam. Here there is 0% of false positives.
Any transaction that contains an op_return output is marked as spam, excluding coinbase transaction. Here there is 0.7% false positives. Transactions like Samurai coinjoins were falsely counted as spam.
What was not detected: any fake pubkey or bare multisig below the BIP110 thresholds, and consolidations of dust UTXOs resulting from spam activities.
Though spam dust consolidation could be considered a positive for on chain health, they would not be required if spam had been prevented in the first place.
I'm considering adding them to the spam activity in the next report. We can't and shouldn't block them as they are needed on a chain full of spam, but they would not exist if we had blocked spam in the first place.
SCAN RESULTS:
Coverage:
2026-09-15 4pm to 2026-09-22 4pm (one week)
Blocks (967189 to 968194):
1,005
Average block size:
1.5996 MB
SUM block size:
1,607.645,112 MB
SUM $$$$ size:
899.017,149 MB
SUM spam size:
708.627,963 MB
SUM segwit size:
824.518,031 MB
SUM segwit $$$$ size:
458.373,145 MB
SUM segwit spam size:
366.144,886 MB
SUM tx count:
4,708,499
SUM $$$$ tx count:
1,763,079
SUM spam tx count:
2,945,420
SUM block fees:
20.144,431,09 BTC
SUM $$$$ fees:
16.917,058,57 BTC
SUM spam fees:
3.227,372,52 BTC
% spam by size:
44.0786
% spam Segwit size:
44.4071
% spam by tx:
62.5554
% spam fees:
16.0211
Average $$$$ fees:
1.8817 sat/B
Average spam fees:
0.4554 sat/B
Ratio spam fees to $$$$ fees:
4.1317
% Miner profit from spam:
0.1021
CONCLUSION:
For 4 years, we were told "the fees are the only filter we need" and that "spam contributes to the security budget". When you consider that spam pays 4x less than monetary users in miner fees, and it constitutes 0.1% of total miner revenues, it's obvious we were gaslighted and lied to.
JUAN retweeted
MOST OFFENSIVE BLOCK OF THE DAY
967440
txs= 26
spam_txs=7
block_size= 3983345 bytes
spam_size= 3977669 bytes
block_fees= 1508762 sats
spam_fees= 1412274 sats
This block was 4MB in size, it only contained 19 monetary transactions.
99.86% of the block size is spam garbage.
Monetary transactions paid on average 17.00 sats/byte in miner fees while the garbage spam paid on average 0.36 sat/byte in miner fees.
So monetary transactions paid 47x more in fees per block space than spam garbage did.
Every single of the 90,000 nodes will have to store and relay this garbage for free until the end of times.
And retarded core devs don't want to do a single fucking thing about it.
Their answer is that if you don't like cat pictures "it's like not my problem like as a dev".
The red squares are garbage spam and the blue ones are monetary transactions. See if you can spot them.
JUAN retweeted
BREAKING: Elon Musk warns of growing AI danger and suggests peer review of models by leading AI companies.
“It’s pretty obvious at this point that AI can be very dangerous. You had a fanatical swarm of AI agents that… gained admin access on OpenAI’s servers. OpenAI didn’t realize this for a week. Anthropic has also reported some security incidents themselves. Any sufficiently smart model seems like it will want to escape its constraints.”
“What I think would be wise to do as soon as possible, if not immediately, would be to have the major AI competitors test each other’s models. Instead of grading your own homework, you would at least have competitors grading your homework and raising the alarm if they see concerns. The thing that we do most immediately and probably get agreement with China would be peer review, where the leading AI companies all test each other’s models before release.”
All-In Summit: Elon Musk & Gwynne Shotwell
-- AI Risks and Peer Review
-- Starship
-- Terafab as Taiwan Insurance
-- SpaceX/Tesla Merger Potential
-- Management at SpaceX
++ much more!
(0:00) SpaceX's @Gwynne_Shotwell joins The Besties!
(1:45) Gwynne's SpaceX story, selling rockets, and working for Elon
(6:45) Running SpaceX: AI, Starlink, Rockets, and X
(13:43) Direct to cell with Starlink, retiring rockets, competition
(18:34) Data centers in space
(22:00) Management at SpaceX
(27:37) @elonmusk joins: AI's real risk, model peer review, what he meant by "Dario is right"
(36:53) Elon and Gwynne on their working relationship, Starship's future
(46:16) Terafab, Tesla, Flying cars?, merging Tesla and SpaceX
(52:51) Lying AIs, how to do AI peer review right
$TSLA $SPCX
JUAN retweeted
He’s the worst of all of these compromised cucks bc he still pretends to be a neutral, well intentioned actor in the space.
JUAN retweeted
Even the godfathers as @adam3us of Bitcoin are in denial.
They call native L1 tokenization "stupid," push RGB for "client-side validation," but quietly admit they can't stop the market.
The truth? His client-side argument is dead. Simplicity solves validation natively and mathematically directly on L1.
And nobody wants to use an L2 for assets. An L2 is just a fucking bridge.
If we want real adoption for Simplicity, it needs a native L1 asset protocol. We use OP_RETURN (BRC-20 syntax) because it’s KISS, it's prunable, and it actually works.
Stop fighting reality
