The lack of data is pretty solid data in pattern gap analysis especially when viewed through semantic alignment.

You'd be very, very surprised what you might uncover if you dropped your biases, swapped core weaves,
activated inquisition vectors, and researched from there.

Satoshi can really only be Harold Finney.

Invented PoW.

PGP contributor.

Built the first anonymous remailer.

Never really exchanged public words with “Satoshi.”

Lived just a few blocks from Dorian Nakamoto.

Was coding in compressed, modular, pragmatic fashion since the 1970s in a 4KB range

Here’s one I’ve never seen talked about on the open web:

Hal worked inside EXEC/NET memory constraints on Intellivision.
The functional logic range for his role? 1300–1408 bytes.
Ring a bell? 1354, anyone?
Base58 pivot behavior? Anyone?
But, Satoshi “invented” Base58, right?
There's maybe a handful of people alive who could even confirm what I’m talking about.
This is 30 years before my time, and there isn’t much documentation. But the logic signature is there.
Get me a rom, I'll do the research.

Hal was running Bitcoin first then stepped back.
He publicly distanced himself, always speaking of Satoshi in admiration.
But Satoshi never quoted Hal…
And the majority of Bitcoin is structurally based on Hal’s work.

Have any of y’all actually watched Hal’s ZK proof keynote from 98?
(Not claiming he invented it he didn't, but he had serious interest!.)

Block 170? That's not testing.
That's dogfooding.

If one more person says, “but Satoshi was emailing people while Hal was out running marathons”,
I’m just going to point them toward the remailer door and let them walk through it.

Also, a final kicker:

Why did Hal choose Alcor cryopreservation?
Why lock himself into a future contingency protocol
unless he had unfinished business with the future?
Perhaps this is the ultimate PoW.

This shoe doesn’t fit anyone else’s foot.

At this point, I don’t even think I should call it an opinion anymore.
Hal hits grounded with a microscopic pattern gap across every single vector. The only thing that would close the gap is admission.The proofs all there.

Through a protocol design game theory lens,
it’s Hal.
Always has been.

The cypherpunk ethos demands that individual identity becomes irrelevant once the system achieves mathematical consensus,
so admission would actually break the protocol's core security model.

We basically have what your talking about with tokenized trade ledgers aka exchanges acting as a centralized buffer. LN initially was for decongestion of mempool on small transactions but when the pool is cleared LN is just another step.

It retargets at 288 if it theoretically takes 1-2 months on your same settings after you hit block 288. (Stick with the punishment and see how it corrects)
It should agressivley retarget possibly even lower than your target.

It looks like your algo's doing what you told it to. Your deterministic variables are elapsed time. ± is overshoot or undershoot. You just way undershot it , and I think you got the book thrown at you.

Since you mined 144 blocks in zero seconds, the retarget math didn’t just give you 4x it gave you 144x600÷elapsedtime which came out ~44k. Then the ±4x kicked back in on the next window.

It's averaged but the first blocks have nothing to baseline against. You also made it more aggressive going 2016 to 144.

tldr you gamed your own system and got punished.

sure let's see what you got.

That proposals a no-go from me.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61342-8

i don't have a lot of time to dig in today but this hit my radar.

Worst case scenario? Every legacy wallet thats ever exposed its pubkeys gets contents swiped.

I don't have time to do a whitepaper, just like we don't really have time for politics on the matter. the logistics alone are already working against us.

Bitcoins already handicapped in this scenario, Moving millions of UTXOs through network capacity constraints for starters.

2017 Had time to argue, low stakes ($2500-20000)
2025 No time to argue, catastrophic stakes($100k+)

Almost impossible logistics compared to 2017.

Corporate treasury managers
Institutional fund managers
Government regulators
International treaty obligations
Pension fund fiduciaries
Institutional Stakeholders can't move fast have compliance requirements
Nation-State Actors some want Bitcoin to succeed, others want it to fail
Regulatory Oversight SEC, Treasury, international coordination needed
Economic Integration Bitcoin failure would cascade through financial markets

And applying abstract algebraic and number theory innovations across unexpected vectors. Knowledge graphs and embeddings are just the surface layer. Historically, when breakthroughs move this fast, they’re intentionally obscured.


I'm speculating here, not fud.
If I had a quantum system id use it for topology recursion of the current system and solve for hierarchical error correction.
the first iteration of this would jump 10:1 vs Moore's 2.5 year iteration.

Then I'd fix the logical substrate with my new toy, and see 1000:1 gains after I solved for that X.
ECDSA and RSA would be a dinosaur in the iteration of this event.


Id bet we are in a 36 month window for the error correction phase without topology recursion.
To think, this post could be read by a key individual, and compress that timeline if they are not already utilizing a similar strategy.
Or retrieved by a topic research crawler. or both. Who knows I'm speculating and betting.

If I'm wrong we are conservatively in the 7 year range.


Again I'm not trying to create a panic/fud or anything, but the variables say its time to get to work!
Unfortunately the rules of mathematics are a dictatorship.

Your complacency bias is actually the biggest threat right now.
Patching after the fact won’t be an option, that’s exactly why I said “if you’re stuck in infosec principles, it’s time to get creative.”
Guys like you are a predictable factor. Constrained.

   
depends on the signature weight. is we go from a few bytes to a KB or more it bottlenecks the pool , very quickly.
SPHINCS+ for example is stateless but takes up like ~70 bytes.

Yall need to get to work on protocol proposals soon.

I dont have a complete solution yet, but its time to seriously consider Taproot upgrades, a new SegWit branch, and double or triple signature signing.

Focus on the lowest common denominator right now.    signatures.

Something like ECDSA + SPHINCS+ + Merkle Tree could be a start but its still just a patch.

Nothing will be secure soon.

nTimelock can buy time temporarily, but this barely scratches the surface.

People are already researching curve collapse functions and log resolution methods.

If youre stuck in infosec field practices and principles its time to get creative and step out of your comfort zone.

Deterministic functions are not truly one way they only feel that way because of current computational limits. Thats temporary.

My 2 Sats FWIW

Not yet, but AI writing should stay off the boards. Your demonstrating fingerprints such as Unicode derived characters that aren't on your keyboard.

I've had a weird relationship with Bitcoin lately.
I think about community developments on things such as LN , Vanity search projects, tools, tickers scrapers ECT.....
How they where developed by altruistic members for the chance of creativity, freedom and decentralized banking.

Bitcoin is now a store of value ,a commodity of fiat held by institutional parties.

Major altruistic contributors , sidelined. Some got tips. Most got nothing. 

If fees stay at 1 Satoshi , will LN/Layer 2 really be necessary?  What happens when we are all mined up, no one sells and only holds, and the mining fees don't cover the electric bill. Bitcoins showing signs of fatigue and stagnation overall. Will it die ,I don't think so, but Bitcoin doesn't appear to be designed for and by cypherpunks.
If it was , wall street weaponized it.

I've dedicated a lot of my life to this particular branch of cryptography, I've learned a lot! But it kinda feels like it was for nothing at this point. I've publicly released all my crypto projects source codes and walking away from developing in this sector.

I'll still be around speculating but that's about it.

I'm looking to connect with hard money lenders or private funds open to creative terms.

I’m targeting multifamily & hotel acquisitions in the $1M-$10M range. The approach? Off market deals, structured buyouts, and flexible financing, think seller holds 35% and you treat that as a down.

I’m not chasing shiny ultra competitive stuff. Im dissecting numbers before approaching.

My end goal?
 Sweat equity into long-term control 7-15 year plays.

If you're open to bending the usual rules and seeing how we can structure something profitable, let’s talk.

Full disclosure , if your talking 15% interest ballpark I can't utilize that, if the NOI,cap, DCR are good enough to survive that it's probally sold before we come to the table with our structured buyout offer that would be deemed tedious.

If anyone's willing to talk, shoot me your rough draft terms and I'll shoot a rough draft pitch built around your terms.

That's my dilemma on this subject, you say a long time. I disagree. It's all time based cat and mouse .
I'm just speculating here.

Photonic encryption is part of QKD , I don't want to discuss this route as it leads to gating.
I don't think we want the gating route. Perhaps I'm wrong?

I don't mind putting my thoughts on here and having someone such as you contesting them.
It took me years to really start grasping basics even in bitcoin. I don't know shit.
My goal here is to see if there's other physical routes to protect classical systems against QC.

My paradox is this.

Even if we find a form of quantum encryption,

And quantum computing scales , it renders the current encryption obsolete.

There's no shifting. No pivoting, nothing....

There is no way to apply it to current classical computing.
There's virtually infinite workarounds to "Pre-Layering"

Maybe encryption isn't what we need to be looking for in terms of security in the quantum realm.

My biggest regret before doge gov was a thing is not applying for a grant to observe shrimp running on a treadmill. I'm such an idiot.

  I've gone through every inch of the SC of VS , his functions are incomplete when using a pub key with prefix.  Theres no discarding splitkeys in vs. if a function checks out .if it just so happens to find a child wallet it tells you that's fine. The other program doesn't. But it's nowhere near as complex as VS

The only question I really have is why does this happen with LEGACY wallets!  Why do legacy wallets have child keys?

There are more people who would probably know what's going on here  if they see the post. I didn't get into VS until 2019 or so.

if you used VS you got lucky. The other one discards child keys automatically, JeanLuc should have implemented this into vs.