Pinned Tweet
My talk at #Bitcoin2024 launching Mempool Accelerator™ youtube.com/watch?v=AFnDVL6u…
first set of red team grants announced, more soon, trying to support as quickly as possible
A dedicated fund to reimburse the cost of AI tokens that developers and security researchers are incurring to find and disclose vulnerabilities in critical Bitcoin infrastructure.
opensats.org/blog/red-team-g…
wiz retweeted
$93M DRAINED FROM TAMPERED LEDGER DEVICES | THE BITCOIN BRIEF 94 xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1nxnRBkzj…
Everyone contributes to Bitcoin in their own way.
Wiz & Associates has contributed for years as a network operator, providing DNS and other critical infrastructure for the community. We now propose to extend that operational role to the top-level of the Domain Name System 🚀
We greatly appreciate everyone from the community who sent in letters supporting our application ❤️
Huge thanks to:
Cynthia Lummis, United States Senate
Adriana Mira, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador
Juan José Barrera Montano, National Artificial Intelligence Agency of El Salvador
Alexander Gladstein, Human Rights Foundation
Conner Brown, Bitcoin Policy Institute
Ava Chow, Bitcoin Core Maintainer
Sjors Provoost, DNS Seed Operator
Stephan Oeste, DNS Seed Operator
Matt Corallo, DNS Seed Operator
Adam Back, Blockstream
Olaoluwa Osuntokun, Lightning Labs
Fabian Jahr, Core Contributor
Calvin Kim, Utreexo Maintainer
Christian Rotzoll, RaspiBlitz
Craig Raw, Sparrow Wallet
Gigi, OpenSats
Mike Schmidt, Brink
Andy Chow, Antpool
Mike Colyer, Foundry
Kenway Wang, SpiderPool
Pazza, Bisq Network
Evan Kaloudis, ZEUS
David Bailey, BTC Inc
Rod Roudi, Bitcoin Park
Martin Kuchař, BTC Prague
Anna, Hodl Hodl and Baltic Honeybadger
Lisa Neigut, bitcoin++
Michael Tidwell, TABConf
Giacomo Zucco, Plan B Network
Daniel Pichler and Harald Schilly, Bitcoin Austria
Awayslice, Bitcoin Beefsteak
Jonathan Bier, BitMEX Research
Joel Kuhns, Denver Space
Roman Reher, Blocktrainer
Alain Bayer, WeHodlBTC
Christine Gallas, Fulmo
Saifedean Ammous
Tyler Stevens, 256 Foundation
Cory Klippsten, Yan Pritzker, and Brady Swenson, Swan
Joseph Kelly, Unchained
Rob Hamilton, AnchorWatch
Francis Pouliot, Bull Bitcoin
John Magill, Zaprite
Samson Mow, JAN3
Daniel Winklhammer, 21bitcoin
Justin Hilton, Shock Network
Oscar Lafarga, SetLife
Scott Marmoll, Capital B Advisory
James Brendlinger, Fourth Sol
Alexander Leishman, River
Michael Peterson, Bitcoin Beach
Sascha Weidner and Christian Wind, EINUNDZWANZIG
Hermann Vivier, Bitcoin Ekasi
Maya Parbhoe, Bitcoin Sranan and Daedalus Labs
Philipp Hartmannsgruber and Jens Lehnert, Bitcoin Bundesverband
wiz retweeted
ICANN will reveal our application for .bitcoin in 8 days
🌟 #ICANN has announced that Reveal Day for the #NewgTLDProgram: 2026 Round will be 7 October.
ICANN will publish the list of applications proceeding through the program, including the entities that applied, the strings applied for, and the public portions of each application at 18:00 UTC on that day.
🔗 Learn more about Reveal Day and upcoming program milestones >> go.icann.org/4jtfGer
I did a full audit of Liquid's blockchain using elements-23.3.4 with "Range proof cache disabled via -norangeproofcache" from block 0 to 4054253 so I could independently verify that Liquid's blockchain contains no fraudulent LBTC or other assets and I got the correct chain tip 👍
Replying to @FarsideInsights
2026-09-06T13:52:11Z UpdateTip: new best=aad24e4fb64ca8adf4961667da87820cd48e553957ac64e75de7cdb298b5d66b height=4050335 version=0x20000000 log2_work=21.949610 tx=10343053 date='2026-09-06T13:52:10Z' progress=1.000000 cache=1.4MiB(3105txo)
2026-09-06T13:53:11Z ERROR: ConnectBlock: CheckQueue failed
2026-09-06T13:53:11Z InvalidChainFound: invalid block=e1d9a2aae69e0fc3ca18f7f7f84e0615e92a5e3b5000d66c10c34043346da0d5 height=4050336 date=2026-09-06T13:53:10Z
2026-09-06T13:53:11Z InvalidChainFound: current best=aad24e4fb64ca8adf4961667da87820cd48e553957ac64e75de7cdb298b5d66b height=4050335 date=2026-09-06T13:52:10Z
2026-09-06T13:53:11Z ERROR: ConnectTip: ConnectBlock e1d9a2aae69e0fc3ca18f7f7f84e0615e92a5e3b5000d66c10c34043346da0d5 failed, block-validation-failed
2026-09-06T13:53:11Z InvalidChainFound: invalid block=e1d9a2aae69e0fc3ca18f7f7f84e0615e92a5e3b5000d66c10c34043346da0d5 height=4050336 date=2026-09-06T13:53:10Z
2026-09-06T13:53:11Z InvalidChainFound: current best=aad24e4fb64ca8adf4961667da87820cd48e553957ac64e75de7cdb298b5d66b height=4050335 date=2026-09-06T13:52:10Z
here are the transactions that caused the liquid consensus split and inflation bug, prior to the peg-out
1. two valid setup txs primed the rangeproof cache:
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/2…
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/7…
2. follow-up tx carried a garbage 4234-byte "proof" with an identical cache key that forked the network at block 4050336 and created 3,996.0183 L-BTC
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/f…
they later then pegged out va sideswap
you are only allowed to peg out if ur on the whitelist but i think sideswap just let anyone add their key or something 🫠
wiz retweeted
Replying to @wiz
This transaction appears to be the problem:
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/f…
"Failed to broadcast transaction, reason: bad-txns-in-ne-out, value in != value out" does not seem good
The others were fine
wiz retweeted
Looks like there is a confirmed network split on the liquid network based on the version of Elements you ran.
Replying to @FarsideInsights
Yeah, my liquid.network nodes are running a different version of elements than blockstream.info, which is related to the consensus split: seems this is the “valid” transaction which caused the consensus split, which obviously should not have been allowed
2025 -> “web3 domain names”
Various companies sold fake “domain names” that were just entries in a database completely unrelated to the Internet’s Domain Name System run by ICANN. Sorry for your loss but they were just another trendy form of shitcoins like we see every few years
wiz retweeted
Is your hardware wallet putting this much thought into its designs and replying with this levels of detail + ethos?
We’ll be sharing more about this soon. But internally nobody that can push app code can push server code to production.
And nobody that can push app or server code can push firmware code.
And you need at least 2 people on the Bitkey team (not anyone at block) to push to any of them. Nobody is in more than one group.
So for rogue employees to write code that attempts to compromise two keys would take collusion of at least 4 people just to attempt it.
But in reality even more because our security team at Block (outside of Bitkey) controls gates that review all code with LLMs before they go into the release and if it finds a security issue it blocks the release PR from merging.
So now you’ve got probably 6-7 people on the mix. Plus if it were done through our normal release pipeline any Android code that’s malicious would be pushed to the public to create visibility. We have people scanning our public repository constantly. Both internally and externally.
And our mobile app is 98% shared mobile code via Kotlin Multiplatform. Which means there’s no iOS only repo to go make changes in. You’ve gotta then find a way to get malicious iOS code into the release pipeline and you’ve still then only got a shot at one key in this hypothetical situation.
Our release pipeline is also hardened in that we do reproducible builds internally. So we build the version of the app in 3 distinct build environments and if any of them don’t match the others it halts.
Ok so now you’ve gotta find a way to compromise 3 distinct/different build systems each with their own security pipelines including one run in the local machine of the release manger which changes hands periodically, and do in a way that’s not detectable to all the layers of safeguards we have. And that’s still just trying to get to one key.
And if you think that’s me trying to shut down a conversation about possibility space, I’m not. I’m saying rogue Bitkey employees doing this would be extraordinarily difficult. We all see each others’ PRs. We all helped build these safeguards because don’t trust verify is in our veins.
And yes I know this does not fully address what if Block decides to risk its Fortune 500 business on rigging its own customers. If that’s what you’re worried about, keep reading.
Long conversations about possibility space is what this team thrives on. And we’re never done.
Which means we’re looking at ways that you wouldn’t even need to trust me on the above to get the protections against app-key compromise some people in this thread are asking for.
Hence our discussions on a two hardware option for those that care a lot about this specific area. And some other interesting related ideas we’ll share if they pan out.
Whatever you do, whether you choose Bitkey or not, go with a solution built by people that care this much about protecting you from themselves.
Hope this helps!
Replying to @InderpreetSingh
or more simply, if it’s not part of the Domain Name System, it’s not a domain name
Replying to @natebit
Many companies sell fake “domain names” that don’t resolve for anyone who doesn’t use their proprietary app - it’s just a private namespace, unrelated to the global DNS system, and is not recognized by ICANN. Meanwhile you are using the global DNS system to read this on X dot com




























