Rearden 🛩️ BIP448 🥖 fork/acc @reardencode

End of an era

Charles Hoskinson @IOHK_Charles

11 hours ago

I'm taking a break. TTYL

814 146 2K 501K 122

@3lectricBrawl I use it to bring firewood home from my parents' place... And forget it there for months.

A more verbose explanation regarding my grant from @bitcoinbrink conduition.io/bitcoin/my-fir…

Woohoo, merged. github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi…

@PiusSprenger but it's going to zero faster than usual today.

DJB has transitioned his focus toward post-quantum cryptography (PQC)!!! The main takeaway from this paper is that the transition to post-quantum cryptography must be handled with great care. Even minor implementation mistakes can easily lead to full key compromise. The migration to PQC should optimize for overall system risk, not focus solely on quantum-threat resistance. In the near term, this may justify a hybrid approach combining classical and post-quantum cryptography to better mitigate operational and deployment risks, even if it comes with additional complexity!

@MrHodl Yeah, actually… Shout-out to @rodarmor for designing Runes as a BRC20 alternative, because BRC20 was such a terrible design.

* Quantum computing is a fantasy, it's impossible in all likelihood. * Bitcoin is not some magical quantum-proof system. * If quantum computing turns out to be possible, bitcoin (as it is) is vulnerable. * Bitcoin can be enhanced with quantum resistant cryptography if it ever becomes necessary, which it won't. * Bitcoin should add new suitable cryptography when it becomes available because secp256k1 will likely not last forever.

Giovanni's BTC_POWER_LAW @Giovann35084111

a month ago

Every scientifically literate person in Bitcoin needs to push back on this — hard. The claim that the mempool is a quantum superposition and that this somehow makes Bitcoin quantum-resistant is spreading, and it's being repeated by prominent voices in the space. That's what

8 5 40 13K 5

The only thing gayer than pride month is bip110

Someone should build a version of polymarket where you can bet on something and then you win the bet if that thing happens

BTC: Short story about Right-angled Ascending Broadening Wedges. Maybe? 👀🤔❓

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

I went flying yesterday and y'all broke the bitcoin market? Sheesh.

A British biologist looked at 200,000 years of human history and found that the entire reason humans broke out of poverty was not intelligence, not language, not even agriculture, but one mechanism so simple a 6-year-old could explain it. His name is Matt Ridley. He is a zoologist by training, an evolutionary biologist by career, and in 2010 he wrote a book called The Rational Optimist that quietly argued the most important fact about human progress had been hiding in plain sight for the entire history of economics. Naval Ravikant has been telling people to read everything Ridley has ever written for the last 15 years. The reason is the argument inside this one book. For 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans walked around with the same brain you have right now. Same skull size. Same neural architecture. Same raw capacity for language, planning, and abstract thought. For roughly 190,000 of those years, almost nothing happened. Generation after generation lived and died inside the same Stone Age toolkit their great-great-grandparents had used. Then somewhere around 50,000 years ago, the line on the chart of human progress started to tick upward. Then it bent. Then it exploded. The question Ridley spent years on was the only question that mattered. What changed. It was not the brain. The brain had been the same for 190,000 years. It was not language, which had existed long before the takeoff. It was not even agriculture, which arrived only 10,000 years ago and was actually preceded by the upward bend, not the cause of it. What changed was that humans started trading with strangers. This sounds too small to be the answer. Ridley argues that it is the answer to almost everything. The moment one human exchanged a useful object with another human from a different group, something happened that no other species on earth had ever done. Two ideas that had developed in isolation came into contact. The flint knapper learned what the spear maker had figured out. The fisherman from the coast learned what the hunter from the forest had figured out. The two pieces of knowledge fused into something neither side could have produced alone. Ridley calls this ideas having sex. The phrase sounds frivolous and it is meant to. The point is that ideas, like genes, get better when they combine with other ideas from different lineages. An idea sitting inside one head, no matter how brilliant the head, eventually hits a ceiling. The same idea exposed to ten thousand other ideas does something genes do under sexual reproduction. It mixes. It recombines. It produces offspring nobody planned. The cleanest proof of this argument is the most uncomfortable case study in the book. Tasmania. Around 10,000 years ago, rising sea levels cut Tasmania off from mainland Australia. A population of roughly 4,000 humans was now isolated on an island, with no possibility of contact with the rest of humanity. They had the same brains. The same language. The same starting toolkit as their cousins 150 kilometers north. The natural experiment was now running. What happened next is something no economist or geneticist had ever predicted. The mainland Australians kept inventing. Boomerangs. Spear-throwers. Fishing nets. Bone needles for sewing fitted clothes. Watercraft with paddles. Their technology compounded slowly across the centuries. The Tasmanians went the other way. They did not just fail to invent the new tools their cousins were developing. They started losing the tools they already had. Fishing was abandoned within a few thousand years. Bone tools disappeared. Fitted clothing disappeared. They forgot how to make fire from scratch and started carrying lit firebrands from camp to camp instead, relighting their fires from a neighbor's whenever their own went out. By the time European explorers arrived in the 17th century, the Tasmanians had the simplest toolkit of any human society ever recorded. Their material culture had gone backward for 8,000 years. The archaeologist Rhys Jones called it a slow strangulation of the mind. Joseph Henrich at Harvard later proved with formal mathematical models that there was nothing wrong with Tasmanian brains. There was something wrong with their network. A toolkit requires a critical mass of people exchanging skills to maintain itself. The act of teaching a skill is imperfect. Every generation loses a small percentage of what the last generation knew. If your population is large enough and trading widely enough, those losses get caught and corrected by someone else who still remembers. If your population shrinks below a certain threshold and stops mixing with outsiders, the small losses compound until entire technologies disappear. This is the part that should haunt anyone reading this in 2026. Intelligence is not a property of the individual brain. Intelligence is a property of the network the brain is connected to. A genius in isolation will produce less than a mediocre thinker inside a dense exchange of other mediocre thinkers. The thing your ancestors needed in order to break out of 190,000 years of stagnation was not better brains. It was better connections between brains they already had. The implication for any individual is direct and uncomfortable. If you are smart and isolated, you will be outproduced by people half as smart who are connected. The most successful people in any field are almost never the smartest people in it. They are the ones positioned at the intersection of the most idea flows. They are reading more authors than their competitors. They are talking to more people from more disciplines. They are in the rooms where ideas from different lineages bump into each other. Ridley ends the book on the line that sounds optimistic but is actually a warning its this "The future will be invented by people who connect ideas, not by people who guard them."

If you are still genuinely confused about why Bitcoin doesn’t need to counter-fork to resists a fork attempt with <1% of the hashrate, I explained it here:

Murch @murchandamus

3 months ago

1/21 There is this claim that comes up a lot that a soft fork will win, even if it starts out with a minority of the hashrate upon activation. Let’s dig into that for a bit: 🧵

7 36 147 26K 67

I don’t know about you all, but I’m having a good time with my bitcoins.

Brink’s first grant for post-quantum, part of our focus on potential threats that could affect Bitcoin’s long-term security. I've considered for some time how Brink can thoughtfully participate with quantum work. I've always been impressed with @conduition_io's work and blog and it seems like a great fit.

Brink @bitcoinbrink

3 days ago

We are excited to announce that conduition (@conduition_io) has joined Brink as cryptographic engineer working on post-quantum cryptographic research and implementation!

6 28 110 64K 8

I just bought 800,000 bitcoins Now crash the market after I sell 32 of them

Oh hell yes.

Brink @bitcoinbrink

3 days ago

We are excited to announce that conduition (@conduition_io) has joined Brink as cryptographic engineer working on post-quantum cryptographic research and implementation!

6 28 110 64K 8

@_julian256_ @4moonsettler @getDibbys @januszg_ @rusty_twit I think doing GSR without CSFS and TX is not a great idea. But thrilled to see your work in this direction.

@JoinCrowdHealth Loving that pregnancy percent. Does the Crowd bias toward natalism? I suspect yes.