Post

More from @CsTominaga

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Sep 26

The deliberate destruction of evidence is not a mistake; it is an act of evasion. The Vistomail and AnonymousSpeech websites were intentionally shut down after solicitors accessed the Satoshi account, proving that COPA will stop at nothing to hide the truth.

Truth is a value that cannot be compromised. The shutdown of these sites, which referenced Craig Wright (spelt incorrectly of course) by name, is evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal facts crucial to the case. COPA’s actions reflect not a defence but an admission of guilt.

Worse still, the impartiality of this court has been compromised. David Pearce, a party linked to COPA, met with Justice Mellor before the judgment. This is not justice; it is an abandonment of principle.

The integrity of the process has been shattered.

Read 10 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Sep 23

The notion that BTC will somehow reach a billion users, with each one happily transacting away, is the kind of absurdity only the truly gullible could believe. Let’s start with the hard numbers: BTC, at its best, can handle about 5 to 6 transactions per second. That’s a grand total of around 173 million transactions per year. And yet, we’re supposed to believe this system will support a billion people? Do the math—each person would be lucky to get a single transaction every five or six years. It’s like imagining a global highway system where everyone can only drive once a decade. Ludicrous, isn’t it?

Then we’re treated to the invocation of Metcalfe’s Law, as if it’s some magical incantation that will make BTC’s scaling issues disappear. The law suggests that the value of a network grows with the square of its users, but it assumes the network can actually support those users in the first place. BTC can’t. It’s not that adding more users will suddenly increase value—it’ll just clog an already congested system. The reality is that BTC’s architecture simply wasn’t designed for this kind of load, and waving Metcalfe’s Law around like a magic wand doesn’t change that.

And Murphy’s Law? What on earth is that doing in this conversation? Murphy’s Law is nothing more than a grim joke about how things go wrong. It has no bearing on BTC’s future, unless the point is to concede that everything is bound to fail anyway. It’s a meaningless flourish, thrown in to sound profound but really just a hollow bit of rhetoric.

Read 5 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Sep 23

The idea that BTC could ever reach $1 million is not just improbable; it is entirely detached from economic and technical reality. Let’s address this logically. At $1 million per BTC, with a supply of 21 million, the total market cap would sit at $21 trillion. To put that into perspective, the global economy is roughly $100 trillion. Are we really to believe that over 20% of the world’s economy could be tied up in a speculative digital asset that produces nothing? It doesn’t generate goods, it doesn’t provide services, and it certainly isn’t widely used as a medium of exchange. What we are dealing with here is pure speculation, and to claim that such a figure is possible ignores basic economic principles.

Even if BTC were to rise to $600,000, which some seem to suggest is feasible, we would still be looking at a market cap of $12.6 trillion. This would eclipse the largest companies and some entire economies, all for something that serves no productive purpose. This is not an asset being driven by utility or innovation; it is being driven by speculative greed. There is no real-world foundation to support such valuations.

Now, the ripple effects of such a rise would be significant. The energy consumption required for mining BTC is already substantial. Should BTC prices surge to such levels, the demand for energy would skyrocket, driving electricity prices up across the globe. The mining process is energy-intensive, and miners would chase after profits, pushing the cost of energy and oil higher. This wouldn’t just affect those directly involved in mining; it would have knock-on effects throughout the global economy, inflating costs in everything from manufacturing to transport.

Read 6 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Sep 23

Bitcoin, as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto, was never meant to be a cypherpunk creation aimed at absolute anonymity. The idea that Bitcoin is somehow a purely anonymous, untraceable digital currency is a misunderstanding of its very purpose and architecture. Bitcoin is traceable by design, and while it provides privacy, it does not provide anonymity—and these two concepts are often mistakenly conflated.

The cypherpunk movement generally advocates not for privacy, but anonymity through strong encryption, radical (Marxist) decentralisation, and anonymity, resisting surveillance and control and being outside of legal constraints.However, Bitcoin, while enabling peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries, was designed with transparency in mind. Every transaction on the Bitcoin network is recorded in a public ledger—the blockchain. This ledger ensures that every transaction can be viewed and verified, which directly counters the idea of Bitcoin as an anonymous system.

The white paper made it clear: Bitcoin was designed to be a digital cash system with privacy in transactions, similar to traditional cash, but with a ledger for verification. It’s crucial to remember that privacy does not mean anonymity. Privacy in Bitcoin refers to the ability to conduct transactions without needing to disclose identifying details to third parties or intermediaries, but it does not mean that the transactions are hidden. They are fully traceable on the blockchain, accessible to anyone with the proper tools and knowledge.

Read 7 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Sep 23

Adam Back's claim of a future $100 trillion asset class is not just a failure of truth—it is a betrayal of reality itself. Such a figure cannot be conjured from thin air without foundation, without reason, without the relentless pursuit of fact. To assert that the global economy, already limited by the constraints of wealth and productivity, could support such a notion is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

This is not a mistake of calculation. It is a deliberate evasion of reality, a conscious effort to distort the minds of those who trust in facts. He seeks to profit not by creating value, not by producing, but by manipulating the perceptions of those who would follow him into this financial abyss.

And what is more insidious than a man who, knowing the limits of truth, chooses instead to perpetuate a falsehood?

Adam Back, in failing to address the impossibility of his claim, in allowing it to fester and grow unchallenged, commits the gravest of intellectual sins: fraud by omission. To remain silent when truth is required is to be complicit in the deception that follows. He builds his empire not on production, not on innovation, but on the gullibility of those who trust in his unspoken lie.

Read 7 tweets

S Tominaga

@CsTominaga

Sep 23

Dr. Adam Back’s online actions, or rather his deliberate inactions, represent a sophisticated form of dishonesty—an act of deception not through explicit falsehoods, but through strategic silence. He quietly states that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, yet he has never taken meaningful steps to dispel the widespread belief that he may be. This subtle allowance for others to build a narrative around him is not merely a passive acceptance of an incorrect assumption, but a calculated maneuver to gain credibility and attract investment.

The lie lies not in what he has said, but in what he has failed to say. He has never truly quashed the rumors, allowing the myth to grow and allowing others to believe what benefits him. By doing so, he has positioned himself as someone whose name is constantly associated with Bitcoin’s origin, even though he is fundamentally disconnected from its creation. It is a deception of omission—by allowing people to believe he is Satoshi, without ever fully rejecting the notion, Back has engaged in a subtle, insidious form of fraud.

He raised money for Blockstream, and many of those investors bought into the belief that they were funding the work of Bitcoin’s creator or someone intimately tied to its invention. Back's carefully crafted silence allowed them to connect the dots themselves, to invest not only in Blockstream, but in the idea that the mind behind Bitcoin was steering their venture. By doing this, he capitalized on the misconception, manipulating the market without ever openly stating a lie—yet the fraud is just as real. He built a platform and attracted millions based on the idea that his involvement was synonymous with Bitcoin’s origins, all while knowing that this belief was false.

Read 12 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

S Tominaga

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @CsTominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

S Tominaga

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!