Pinned Tweet
Je salue votre courage, vous n'avez sûrement pas peur du ridicule.
Le temps se chargera de votre éducation sur les technologies de rupture et les changements de paradim. Profitez de votre ignorance tant qu'elle dure.
dewmap retweeted
FFS
All I'll say here is that it's the same supply chain issue revolving around Ledger.
CryptoBilis update
We've been made aware, through responsible disclosure, of a single hardware implant in a Trezor Safe 5 device bought from the reseller CryptoBilis in August 2026.
No CryptoBilis buyer has reported a loss of funds to us.
IMPORTANT: If you bought a Trezor from CryptoBilis from March 2026 onwards, we know this is unsettling. Here’s what to do:
Already using it?
Move your funds to a newly created wallet with a new seed as soon as possible. Do not reuse the old seed in any wallet, hardware or software. If you don’t have another secure hardware wallet available, we recommend temporarily migrating your funds to a software wallet or an exchange you are familiar with.
Not set up yet? Don’t set it up, and never enter your existing wallet backup on it.
We haven’t received the device to confirm this report, but based on the customer’s description, we’re treating it as credible and sharing it now so customers who purchased a Trezor via CryptoBilis can secure their funds as a precaution. Our security team will examine the device as soon as it arrives.
On October 9, 2026, we removed CryptoBilis as a reseller following reports of tampered Ledger devices sold through it. Since then, we have been inspecting Trezor devices that customers bought from CryptoBilis and have found no signs of tampering on any of the four devices we’ve received so far.
NEVER share your wallet backup (recovery phrase) with anyone. Trezor Support will never ask for it.
If you are affected by this incident, please keep your CryptoBilis device and contact Support to receive a new Trezor hardware wallet: trezor.io/support#open-chat
We're investigating and will post updates here as soon as we know more. Thank you to the customer who reported this through our responsible disclosure program, and to @SEAL_911 for working alongside our teams on the response. Reports and engagement like this help us protect everyone else.
For more information, visit our blog: trezor.io/blog/news/implant-…
dewmap retweeted
New reporting by Luxembourg's d'Lëtzebuerger Land reveals that Adam Back is a shareholder in STOKR, the Luxembourg-regulated platform that distributed over $1.5B in BMN2 mining note issuances.
It joins a growing list of information that appears to not have been disclosed to the mining note investors:
- Adam Back's ownership stake in STOKR, the platform distributing the notes, while his name and reputation were used to market them.
- Chris Cook's prior federal fraud conviction (2008 mail fraud case, 41-month sentence), despite being repeatedly identified as "CIO of Blockstream" in press releases and marketing materials.
- The mid-2024 operational separation of the mining companies from Blockstream, while the BMN2 program launched in July 2024 and continued to be marketed using Blockstream branding, Back's reputation, and Cook's Blockstream title.
- The overlapping financial interests across the arrangement, with Adam Back connected to both the borrowing/mining side and the platform distributing the securities.
When questioned by d'Lëtzebuerger Land about potential conflicts of interest, STOKR's CEO described the relationships as a "convergence of interests," with shareholders providing "smart money" and access to the ecosystem.
Were these relationships and material facts clearly disclosed to investors before they bought the notes?
If so, where?
Article: land.lu/economie/hashcash/
dewmap retweeted
One engineer laptop getting compromised results in a 6 Billion dollar hack.
Companies holding customer funds need to do better than this.
Bad news is they’re down 6 billion. Good news is it isn’t a novel cryptography or attack vector. It was an engineer laptop.
There shouldn’t be laptops sitting around with access that allows them to submit arbitrary withdrawals to a custody system. How are there not policy controls in the system to flag unusual volume?
dewmap retweeted
"Bleeding Edge EIP-7702 Batch Signatures"
That's why complexity is a security risk.
I don't need Bitcoin to be complex. I need it to function as money and be secure as possible.
Drained $5.6B from Binance using bleeding-edge EIP-7702 batch signatures.
Caught because MetaMask default-selected "pay gas with USDT" and logged their IP on ConsenSys servers.
You couldn't write a better script:
- Wallet had 1.75B USDT and 2 native ETH ready for gas.
- In a panic, the operator blindly clicked confirm without noticing MetaMask's smart gas station.
- MetaMask relayer paid the ETH, charged 127 USDT, and logged the raw client request on their backend API.
Advanced chain exploitation defeated by Web2 frontend UX.
One more thing to avoid.
dewmap retweeted
1/
Since publishing my CAPTURE investigation into Bitcoin Core governance and taking a public position on BIP-110, I've been repeatedly targeted by @Coinicarus.
On his show Pleb Underground, and X, he's compared me to Craig Wright, tied me to a scheme to “monetize the people that we scammed”, and named me when asked to identify a grifter. His co-host has explicitly called me a scammer.
I only discovered this on 21 October, after first seeing a post on X where he said I had “gone completely off the deep end.” I contacted him privately that same day and asked him to explain. He didn't want to.
Thread. 🧵
dewmap retweeted
Watch how institutional power is not merely normalized, but openly celebrated in Bitcoin's social layer.
Wealth, status, access, and proximity to power are elevated, while Bitcoin's founding principles, including sovereignty and the separation of money and state, are ridiculed.
The values of the fiat system Bitcoin was created to challenge are being repackaged as Bitcoin's path to success.
On November 5, Mars Spits Bars takes this worldview to BTC Inc's Bitcoin Amsterdam, on a Whale Pass-only panel titled:
“BIG BITCOIN: IN CONTROL?”
The CAPTURE articles documents the institutional relationships and mechanisms of influence.
Bitcoin's social layer is the final line of defense against complete institutional capture.
But if that very social layer is being conditioned to celebrate institutional power, ridicule principled opposition, and attack those exposing its concentration, who exactly is left to resist it?
dewmap retweeted
I appreciate this response. Genuine good-faith engagement has been painfully scarce in response to my articles.
I don't think there's a single technical fix. Better processes, greater transparency around funding and conflicts of interest, and more independent implementations would all help.
But a big part of the remedy has to come from the social layer.
People need to start engaging seriously with well documented criticism instead of reflexively attacking the messenger, questioning motives, and treating scrutiny of influential Bitcoin institutions as an attack on Bitcoin itself.
That's how informal power in Bitcoin imo has become entrenched and unaccountable.
A system's resistance to capture depends on people being willing to scrutinize power, especially when it's exercised by people and institutions they trust.
I appreciate you doing exactly that here.
dewmap retweeted
You're drawing a distinction the series already makes.
CAPTURE doesn't claim that BTC Inc controls Bitcoin Core.
It's a four-part investigation into how influence over Bitcoin development, funding, governance, and public narratives can accumulate through overlapping institutional relationships.
Article 4 examines the media and commercial side of that picture. Articles 1-3 document the developer networks, institutional levers, and decision-making process surrounding the OP_RETURN change.
You can't rebut the broader investigation by isolating one article, reducing it to disclosure failures, and then demanding that it independently prove direct control of Core.
The connections between the parts are the point.
dewmap retweeted
Here's Opus 5.5 with a visual reading of Karpathy's latest tweet. Watch on 2x speed. (one prompt btw)
Dusting off this tweet from April because this gap in shared understanding of LLM capability is *widening*. It's now less "two groups of people speaking past each other" and more a sharp funnel.
- Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all.
- Around 1-2B (~20%) are casual and infrequent users of free-tier ChatGPT-like products. This group sees derpy chatbots and treats them a bit like a better Google search, a writing aid, or etc. Maybe an agent tries to book you a flight. I have non-tech friends who (reasonably, imo) say they have not much use for it at all. Even many professionals outside of math&code are in this tier. For example, execs and many other functions spend a lot of their time talking to other people, so while they understand what is happening intellectually, it is still second-hand and a bit abstract.
- Now we get to professional use of frontier-grade LLMs in math&code. Somewhere around 20M people (0.2%) see first-hand that large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt. Building apps, copying apps, translating apps, decompiling apps from binaries... This has all happened very quickly and recently - less than 1 year ago, I was writing code manually by hand, typing memorized computer code commands into a code editor character by character, occasionally pressing Tab to autocomplete a little chunk of code.
- And finally we get to the ~5,000 people (~0.00006%) with access to frontier-grade systems internally. The external world has seen the preview. It looks like swarms of thousands of agents collaborating over weeks on software mega projects: minting zero days, running cyber attacks and defenses at machine speeds, discovering new science, advancing the frontier of mathematics. Things that would have taken top professionals in the industry years of work. Meanwhile, human review and comprehension are starting to fall behind. For example, people are still involved in the "archeology" of the OpenAI-HF incident from many months ago. Mathematicians may be poring over the 722 manuscripts on frontier mathematics for a while.
The funnel is driven by a combination of factors:
1. The impact scales with ambition, problem size, and horizon. A question with a paragraph answer barely stresses the system. You need a reservoir of big, difficult problems that you really care about. This aspect drives the consumer / professional dimension of the funnel.
2. The jaggedness of the system (which I have written about a lot separately). Capability peaks in domains that are digital, verifiable and economically valuable. This is because LLM capability emerges from reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards on a curated environment mixture driven by revenue potential. This aspect primarily drives the area (e.g. math&code) dimension of the funnel.
3. Access. Free-tier, paid-tier, internal.
So this is the weirdness of the moment. The general public has mostly not interacted with these systems. When they have, it looks like a derpy chatbot. The majority of professionals still see only a modest uplift. And a small sliver of professionals are experiencing the vertigo of the curve going vertical. And it is all happening at the same time.
dewmap retweeted
A pattern is emerging in the responses to CAPTURE: The Machine.
Joe Nakamoto: “Saved you a click. Old news.”
Now Jonathan Bier, CEO of Farside Investors, posting as @FarsideInsights: “TLDR. Already widely publicised.”
Same straw man. Same dismissal. Reduce an investigation to one already-public fact, then declare the entire thing old news.
But that's precisely the point of CAPTURE. The individual facts were often public. What matters is the picture that emerges when you put the editorial conflicts, disclosure failures, policy exemptions, financial arrangements, institutional relationships, and timelines together.
Break that picture back into isolated facts, and each becomes easier to dismiss.
Worth noting: Bier sits on Brink's board, administers Bitcoin developer grants, and personally answered questions for the CAPTURE investigation about Brink's internal governance.
He's not an outside observer of the institutional structures this series examines.
Don't trust. Verify.
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
dewmap retweeted
Censorship resistance isn’t a feature you install. It’s a property that emerges from the distribution of power, and one that must be continuously defended.
Everything you love about bitcoin are EMERGENT PROPERTIES. The code is just a tool.
A bank can approve every transaction you make for 20 years. That doesn’t make it permissionless.
Don’t confuse the absence of censorship with the inability to censor.
What happened to “don’t trust, verify” ?
And “only the paranoid survive”?
You’ve listed properties of the software and mistaken them for guarantees of the system.
Id say that’s a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Bitcoin..
dewmap retweeted
I truly love playing and hanging out with you, Joe. So I say this as a friend.
Dismissing the work of the most thoughtful and thoughrogh journalist in Bitcoin as something people should TL;DR is not a good look.
I know you might think Mr. Cat is your enemy, but he is not. On the contrary, he's a man of greater integrity than most others in the space, and IMO, all bitcoiners should read this article series.
They should read the rebuttals too, of course, and make up their own opinions, but disregarding it as controversy click-bait is far more more telling about you than Mr. Cat.
Bitcoin can only give you true self-sovereignty if you do your homework. All the homework. The economic principles, the technical aspects, and figuring out who you can trust or not. There are scammers everywhere.
I have to balance cypherpunk values and sponsorship money too, and I know it's a tricky thing to navigate while keeping your soul uncorrupted.
You quit Cointelegraph for a reason. You're a bitcoiner. Act the part, ffs!
Looking forward to continuing this conversation in-person.
dewmap retweeted
So? There are plenty of people presenting the opposite perspective. Including everyone at Bitcoin Magazine, for example. People are allowed to have opinions and points of view.
Hodlonaut is allowed to investigate what he believes is worthy of investigating. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean his findings aren't legitimate.
Rebut the actual content, instead.
