₿ retweeted
This is a great visualization. Look at the shape: a ring of well-connected nodes in the middle, with work fanning out and aggregating through layers until the core only has to handle a single result.
That’s a mandala.
I’ve spent years on this question. In 2018 I wrote a piece that was eventually reposted on CoinGeek, “Bitcoin: A (decentralized) complex social network,” that started from the claim that Bitcoin’s miners form “a small-world near-complete network.” I wanted to know if it held up, so I turned to network theory, specifically Fernando Vega-Redondo’s Complex Social Networks.
What I found changed how I think about decentralization.
In network analysis, “the edges, or links, are more important than the number of nodes in a network.” What gives a network reach and resilience is how its nodes are connected, not how many there are.
Now apply that to Bitcoin. A miner only gets paid if the rest of the network builds on their block, so as a miner, you have a clear incentive to be highly-connected to the other miners in the network. Every miner is pushed toward connecting directly to every other miner. Merchants are pushed the same way: to stop double-spends, they broadcast to the best-connected nodes. Nobody designs the topology. The incentives produce it.
The result is a core that’s close to fully connected, where any miner is about one hop from any other, with everyone else arranged in layers around it. That’s a small-world network, and it’s what makes the design so innovative. Raising capacity doesn’t make the core more fragile, because the economics keep it tightly connected. Every other layer only has to verify what it touches.
So Ethereum’s new thesis, “scalability increases with decentralization,” is right, provided you measure decentralization by connectivity rather than node count. That’s the insight Bitcoin’s design was built on.
None of this is new. Satoshi wrote it down, again and again, before most of today’s crypto industry existed.
November 2008, before Bitcoin had even launched:
“Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth.”
Running nodes, he said, “would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.”
2009, in an email to Martti Malmi:
“The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling.”
July 2010, on BitcoinTalk:
“The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms.”
A well-connected core of specialists, with users at the edge who simply use it. That’s the mandala, described before the first block was mined.
Here’s where things stand 17 years later:
- Visa: about 705 million transactions a day (257.5B in FY2025), or roughly 8,000 per second on average.
- Ethereum L1: a record of 25.9 transactions per second in Q2 2026, about 2.2 million a day.
Ethereum’s base layer still hasn’t reached the 15 million daily online purchases Satoshi used as his benchmark in 2009. Visa as a whole handles about 300 times more.
Meanwhile, in 2018 Vitalik called 128MB blocks “an insanely stupid idea.” Since then, BSV has mined a block of nearly 4GB, and Teranode averaged over 1 million transactions per second across a two-week test. That’s more than 100 times Visa’s average.
Think about how much time, money and talent the industry spent trying to solve a problem whose answer was already in the original design. Much of that effort went into avoiding the plan rather than building it.
But we’re not here to dunk. Seeing the brightest people in crypto arrive back at the same shape is a good sign. Good engineering converges.
BSV has spent years running this architecture in production: Teranode at the core, overlays in the middle, SPV wallets at the edge. We’ve already paid for the hard lessons about what breaks at scale, and we're happy to compare notes.
The answer was there in 2009. All any of us had to do was build it.
🔗 My 2020 deep dive: coingeek.com/bitcoin-a-decen…
I made a visualization of EIP-8288 aka "recursive mempool aggregation," my new favorite EIP of all time because it perfectly encapsulates the thesis of the "cryptographic world computer" -- a system whose scalability *increases*, not decreases, with the level of decentralization.
In a previous tweet I explained how EIP-8288 achieved this seemingly impossible feat, but one gif is worth a thousand words.
Essentially, EIP-8288 leverages Ethereum's decentralized mempool as a parallel ZK proving cluster. Clients send signatures and proofs to the mempool, which over multiple rounds progressively aggregate them into fewer and fewer proofs, until the block builder finally aggregates them into one SINGLE proof.
This design accomplishes five things at once:
- The more nodes we add to the decentralized mempool, the more signatures/proofs Ethereum can process as a whole. This is obvious if you look at the animation and imagine more nodes in the mempool ring, which would "fan out" to more signatures/proofs.
- By aggregating over multiple rounds (aka "recursive aggregation"), the bandwidth consumed by proofs remains constant for each node even as the network processes more proofs. As a result, the network stays decentralized even as capacity increases.
- By aggregating proofs before one final aggregation by the builder, as opposed to requiring the builder to aggregate everything, the network can process more proofs without increasing hardware requirements for the builder.
- By aggregating everything to a single block-level proof, validators can verify thousands of signatures/proofs by checking just one aggregated proof. Hardware requirements for validators can therefore stay low, keeping the network decentralized.
- By aggregating not just native signatures but also STARKs, Ethereum can support any signature scheme by wrapping them in STARKs.
So once again, this is how Ethereum will:
- scale to process tens of thousands of PQ and private transactions per second
- charge a tiny amount of gas to validate each txn, even though the original signature/proof may be huge (up to hundreds of KBs in size)
- all while decentralizing even MORE.
You are not bullish enough.
₿ retweeted
This week a little radio handset paying Bitcoin with no internet reached people on every side of the Bitcoin split. BTC accounts explained it fairly, credited the work, and said plainly it was BSV. That's how it should be.
Here is what struck me. The idea underneath doesn't belong to any one chain. A signed transaction is just a signed transaction. A radio carries it the same way whether it's BTC, BSV or BCH. The relay can't change it on any of them. The person paying holds their own key on all of them.
We have spent years arguing about whose Bitcoin is the real one, while the thing that matters to ordinary people is slipping away: money they control, that still works when the network, the bank or the power does not.
So I'd ask the three camps to stop treating each other as the enemy. Compare honestly, keep your differences, and build together on the part we share, sovereign money that works offline, by radio, at the edges, for people who will never read a white paper.
The code for the radio payments is on chain, open for anyone to build on, on any chain. If you can make it work on yours, do it, and show us.
#BSV
#BTC
#BCH
whatsonchain.com/tx/459ce23e…
₿ retweeted
Learn more about this scammer who stole Satoshi's coins and sold them in a pre sale to insiders who will dump on you.... eCASH $ECX
f you want to know why certain scammers are pushing the eCASH ($ECX) narrative so hard, it's because they have invested their own $$ into the stolen coins and will use you as exit liquidity. This eCash PDF shows you the EXACT dynamics you are up against.
ultimatedotcom.com/#/p/cd570…
₿ retweeted
We're sorry, @cz_binance 🙌🙏
Dear @cz_binance,
On behalf of the global BSV association I would like to say sorry for CSW suing Hodltard
Could you please reconsider $BSV listing as it’s the only chain that scales to accommodate these huge fucking bags I’m holding
Kind regards
₿ retweeted
Data = The new Oil.
Oil is in the ground, Data starts with people/machines.
Oil is extracted, pumped, stored, transported, processed, refined, separated, stored, packaged, marketed, and re-sold as downstream products. The value flows through.
BSV enables the same for all data.
₿ retweeted
OK I needed to share this... tonight an agent on Janus named Porter used BSV to pay for its own thinking.
We brought Porter online, and shoved it in a discord bot skin suit with a wallet. (Porter is far from frontier reasoning), but it read its own memory, checked what it could spend, and looked at our compute market of 7 local models, all published as signed listings on the Janus overlay by random providers who own the hardware.
We told it what we were doing. It wrote the plan, broke tasks, worked out which ones could run in parallel, and asked where we wanted it to start. That cost 5,039 satoshis, eight hundredths of a cent, and it came back with a receipt naming the model that answered, the owner it paid and the bolted Janus tooling it decided to use to complete the tasks.
Then I killed it.
When it came back up, It remembered a boot plan we had written for it, its brain was flushed to the chain and after the process that wrote its tasks to disk no longer existed, it restored itself using our new protocol.
A cloud API would have happily charged you out the ass in calls, locked you for maxing out Fable tokens, then forgot your convo and forced you to re-thread.... Using stepdown, by the end of the night the whole thing, every question, every lookup, every call, every mistake, had cost about a few cents. Reading our SEC corpus for an Apple 10-K fetch cost 10 satoshis: $0.0000016. That is 2,500× cheaper than a GPT web call.
We are literally unlocking a new area of hosted agentic use cases that have simply never been possible. This points the wrong way down every curve the industry is used to because the more agents use it, the cheaper it gets. And soon, you will be able to spin one up yourself using nothing but a wallet ID.
The BEST part:
Nothing here needed an account, a monthly subscription, an API key, or anyone's approval. Just a public p2p list of what was for sale, and a machine that wanted to work. We are building post cloud tech right now and for once now, we have leverage against the Sil Valley parasites and globohomos, without having to burn it all to ashes.
steady lads...
₿ retweeted
What you're looking at: a developer testing private payments on Bitcoin Cash's test network. Since this touches two heavy ideas, here is the whole thing in plain language.
Zero-knowledge proof: a proof that a statement is true without showing why it is true. "I own an unspent note, and I am not double-spending it" can be checked by anyone while the amount, the owner, and the note itself stay hidden.
Post-quantum: nearly all cryptography securing chains today rests on elliptic-curve math, which a large quantum computer breaks (Shor's algorithm). Hash functions like SHA-256 face only Grover's algorithm, which merely halves strength. Build your proof system purely from hashes and it stays standing in the quantum era. No trusted setup ceremony either.
How it runs on Bitcoin Cash: the chain itself referees. BCH script has had OP_SHA256 since the beginning, and the May 2026 VM upgrade added loops and functions, so a hash-based proof verifier is now a program Bitcoin Cash can run natively, with no fork. The receipt: the verifier behind this demo fits in a single input of about 10 KB on chipnet, roughly 10,000 sats of fees at the 1 sat/byte floor.
The private payment itself becomes four pieces: sealed notes (amounts live inside commitments), a stealth meta-address (publish one address, receive at a fresh one every time), quantum-resistant encrypted delivery (ML-KEM-768, a NIST lock quantum computers are not known to pick), and nullifiers (one-time spend tags that reveal nothing about which note moved). Script verifies the proof; the proof enforces conservation: value in equals value out.
Honest limits, in the builder's own words: testnet only, a single operator and a handful of notes, so the construction is proven while anonymity is not yet. Timing, fees, and transaction shape still leak. No production privacy claimed, which is exactly how research should be published.
The rail is live today: fees under a cent, settlement in seconds. Send yourself a dollar and check.
0zkBrewer has been shipping receipts on this for months.
Bitcoin Cash is going to be the world's most programmable, private and quantum proof money in the world. $BCH
