S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Mar. 9, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2030917121367232938

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5224

$629,469.95 USD.

The costs per 24 hours of a billion tps 2 node test for teranode.

Let us hope the existing test is sufficiently robust.

The math of 1 billion transactions per second on Bitcoin SV represents the ultimate realization of the network’s unbounded scaling vision. To run a node at this level with a 200-day pruning window, you are operating a high-performance data engine that successfully writes 250 gigabytes to disk every single second. This setup transforms the node into a planetary-scale industrial utility, processing a staggering 21.6 petabytes of data every 24 hours. By maintaining a rolling 200-day retention period, the infrastructure manages a massive 4.32 exabyte data lake, proving that the network can handle the entire digital footprint of a modern machine-to-machine economy.

Operating this infrastructure like AWS in 2026 demonstrates the sheer economic power of the BSV ecosystem. While high-performance storage capable of these sustained write speeds carries a daily cost of roughly with long term storage. $11.5 million dollars, the utility provided is unprecedented.

Combined with half a million dollars daily for compute clusters to handle real-time signature validation and a million dollars for networking, the total daily investment of 13.1 million dollars supports a network with virtually unlimited capacity. This equates to a yearly infrastructure spend of $4.77 billion dollars to maintain a single, world-class backbone 10% node.

To sustain this throughput, the system utilizes a bonded distributed 2 terabit per second data pipe, effectively leveraging the full potential of Tier-1 cloud provider backbones. This moves BSV into a league of its own, where the blockchain functions as a hyper-scale industrial rail for global commerce. At 1 billion TPS, even the smallest fractional transaction fees generate trillions in annual revenue, making the billion-dollar infrastructure costs an incredibly efficient trade-off for the level of global utility and data integrity being delivered. You aren't just running a node; you are powering the foundational ledger for the future of global data.

S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Mar. 9, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2030917121367232938

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5224

$629,469.95 USD.

Costo por 24 horas de una prueba de mil millones de tps en dos nodos para teranode.

Esperemos que la prueba actual sea lo suficientemente robusta.

El cálculo de mil millones de transacciones por segundo en Bitcoin SV representa la materialización definitiva de la visión de escalabilidad ilimitada de la red. Para ejecutar un nodo a este nivel con una ventana de poda de 200 días, se opera un motor de datos de alto rendimiento que escribe con éxito 250 gigabytes en disco cada segundo. Esta configuración transforma el nodo en una utilidad industrial a escala planetaria, procesando la asombrosa cantidad de 21.6 petabytes de datos cada 24 horas. Al mantener un período de retención continuo de 200 días, la infraestructura gestiona un enorme lago de datos de 4.32 exabytes, lo que demuestra que la red puede gestionar toda la huella digital de una economía moderna de máquina a máquina.

Operar esta infraestructura como AWS en 2026 demuestra el enorme potencial económico del ecosistema BSV. Si bien el almacenamiento de alto rendimiento capaz de alcanzar estas velocidades de escritura sostenidas conlleva un coste diario de aproximadamente 11,5 millones de dólares (con el almacenamiento a largo plazo), la utilidad que ofrece no tiene precedentes.

Combinando con medio millón de dólares diarios para clústeres de cómputo que gestionan la validación de firmas en tiempo real y un millón de dólares para redes, la inversión diaria total de 13,1 millones de dólares sustenta una red con capacidad prácticamente ilimitada. Esto equivale a un gasto anual en infraestructura de 4770 millones de dólares para mantener un único nodo de red troncal de clase mundial con un 10 % de capacidad.

Para mantener este rendimiento, el sistema utiliza un canal de datos distribuido enlazado de 2 terabits por segundo, aprovechando eficazmente todo el potencial de las redes troncales de proveedores de nube de nivel 1. Esto sitúa a BSV en un nivel único, donde la cadena de bloques funciona como una vía industrial a gran escala para el comercio global. Con mil millones de TPS, incluso las comisiones fraccionarias por transacción más pequeñas generan billones de dólares en ingresos anuales, lo que convierte los costos de infraestructura de mil millones de dólares en una compensación increíblemente eficiente para el nivel de utilidad global e integridad de datos que se ofrece. No solo se está ejecutando un nodo; se está impulsando el libro de contabilidad fundamental para el futuro de los datos globales.

S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
9 de marzo de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2030917121367232938

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5224

Sunk capital and repeated interaction in Nakamoto consensus☆
Author Craig S. Wright
Economics Letters
Volume 263,
May 2026,
112940
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176526001345

https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271682/1-s2.0-S0165176525X00161/1-s2.0-S0165176526001345/main.pdf?

Capital Hundido e Interacción Repetida en el Consenso Nakamoto
(Audio 15 min)

Este artículo académico de Craig S. Wright cuestiona un modelo económico previo que describe al sistema de consenso de Nakamoto como un proceso sin memoria. El autor argumenta que el protocolo original de Bitcoin sí posee una estructura temporal histórica debido a reglas técnicas, como el periodo de maduración de recompensas y el ajuste de dificultad. Estas funciones, junto con la inversión de capital fijo en hardware especializado, crean desincentivos financieros para posibles atacantes que no fueron considerados anteriormente. Al resaltar que la seudonimia permite repercusiones legales y que los mineros tienen activos en riesgo, el texto sostiene que la seguridad de la red es más robusta de lo que sugieren las teorías puramente matemáticas. En resumen, Wright demuestra que el coste de confianza no escala linealmente con el valor protegido cuando se integran las realidades operativas del sistema.

Fuente
Sunk capital and repeated interaction in Nakamoto consensus☆
Author Craig S. Wright
Economics Letters
Volume 263,
May 2026,
112940
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176526001345

https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271682/1-s2.0-S0165176525X00161/1-s2.0-S0165176526001345/main.pdf

Cuaderno
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/7d291c81-f92a-4b62-832c-ef8907b078b2?authuser=7

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5237

Capital Hundido e Interacción Repetida en el Consenso Nakamoto
(Audio 15 min)

Este artículo académico de Craig S. Wright cuestiona un modelo económico previo que describe al sistema de consenso de Nakamoto como un proceso sin memoria. El autor argumenta que el protocolo original de Bitcoin sí posee una estructura temporal histórica debido a reglas técnicas, como el periodo de maduración de recompensas y el ajuste de dificultad. Estas funciones, junto con la inversión de capital fijo en hardware especializado, crean desincentivos financieros....

Fuente
Sunk capital and repeated interaction in Nakamoto consensus☆
Author Craig S. Wright
Economics Letters
Volume 263,
May 2026,
112940
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176526001345

https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271682/1-s2.0-S0165176525X00161/1-s2.0-S0165176526001345/main.pdf

Cuaderno
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/7d291c81-f92a-4b62-832c-ef8907b078b2?authuser=7

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5237

The Executive as Legislature: Constitutional Structure and the Second Trump Administration's Systematic Displacement of Congressional Authority.

Mar 15, 2026
The Constitutional Observer
https://the-constitutional-observer.ghost.io/the-executive-as-legislature-constitutional-structure-and-the-second-trump-administrations-systematic-displacement-of-congressional-authority/

S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041004880089989155

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5241

After more than thirty years of work, we are still celebrating logical qubits that endure for microseconds and pretending this is the foothill before a mountain already half climbed. It is not. It is a laboratory curiosity being dressed up as industrial inevitability. If one wishes to extrapolate honestly rather than ceremonially, then the answer is brutal: a quantum computer with roughly a thousand logical qubits, fully integrated, operating reliably for a month, is not twenty years away, or even fifty in any serious sense. On the present trajectory, it is a century or more away, and quite possibly never.

The reason is elementary, though one must speak it slowly for the benefit of the professionally optimistic. A microsecond is not a small month. It is not an early month. It is not a month with promise. It is millions upon millions of times smaller than the thing being promised, and that is before one even begins to account for the fact that a useful machine would not merely sit there existing, but would have to compute, correct errors, route signals, survive interference, maintain coherence, and do so across not one logical qubit but a thousand of them. That means the problem is not additive. It is multiplicative. Every component must work, every layer must hold, every correction cycle must continue, and every failure mode must be suppressed, not in one toy device but across an integrated machine of monstrous complexity.

This is where the fraudulence of the public narrative becomes obvious. We are invited to imagine a smooth curve of progress from primitive demonstration to world-changing machine, as though the remaining distance were just more of the same. But it is not more of the same. It is an entirely different class of achievement. Keeping one fragile logical qubit alive in a controlled experiment for a trivial span is one thing. Building a system with a thousand logical qubits, which in practice implies vast physical overhead, with all the control electronics, cooling, fabrication precision, connectivity, synchronisation, and fault tolerance required to run continuously for a month, is something else altogether. It is the difference between making a paper aeroplane glide across a room and declaring commercial intercontinental aviation to be imminent.

So if thirty years has brought us here, then what does extrapolation actually say? It says the remaining task is not another neat thirty-year block, because the last thirty years did not solve the hard part. They merely established how far away the hard part still is. A charitable estimate gives a century. A more honest one gives several. A rational one admits that many technologies never cross the gulf between experimental novelty and practical civilisation-scale utility. They simply become grant-eating monuments to human overstatement.

That is why the correct estimate is not merely “a long time.” It is that there is no visible engineering path from microsecond-scale logical demonstrations to month-long, thousand-logical-qubit computation that fits within any normal strategic horizon. Not a decade. Not two. Not five. On present evidence, the sensible answer is a hundred years or more, if ever, because the gap is not one of enthusiasm, but of orders of magnitude, and arithmetic has a tiresome habit of refusing to be bullied by marketing.

1/3
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041004880089989155

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5241

Post-quantum cryptography is being sold as an inevitable upgrade, but that framing collapses the moment the underlying premise is examined.

The entire migration rests on a speculative threat model: that large-scale quantum computers capable of breaking elliptic-curve systems will exist.

Remove that assumption—treat it for what it currently is, an unproven and persistently unrealized claim—and the logic reverses completely. In a classical world, which is the only world that actually exists in operational cryptography today, systems like ECDSA remain smaller, faster, more efficient, and more deeply scrutinized than any of the post-quantum constructions being standardised. The new schemes are not an incremental improvement; they are bulkier, more complex, and far less mature. They expand key sizes, inflate signatures, increase bandwidth, and introduce new implementation surfaces. That is not an upgrade in any meaningful engineering sense—it is a trade-off made solely to hedge against a hypothetical.

If this were a genuine market-driven decision, it would not be happening at this pace or in this manner. No rational system designer, absent an immediate and demonstrable threat, voluntarily replaces a well-understood, efficient mechanism with one that is heavier, newer, and less battle-tested.

Migration at scale is costly, risky, and disruptive. In every other domain of engineering, such a shift would require overwhelming empirical justification. Here, the justification is anticipatory. That alone explains why the transition is not emerging organically from industry demand but is instead being driven top-down through standards bodies, procurement frameworks, and compliance regimes.

The language used—“future-proofing,” “harvest now, decrypt later,” “quantum readiness”—is not evidence; it is policy positioning.

That raises the obvious question: why the pressure?

Governments do not move entire cryptographic ecosystems without motive. One explanation is institutional risk management—no agency wants to be accused, in hindsight, of having ignored a theoretical vulnerability. Another is strategic control: standardisation creates alignment, and alignment creates leverage over infrastructure, vendors, and certification pipelines. By defining what is “approved,” governments effectively determine what is deployable in regulated environments. That is not conspiracy; it is how standards power works. But the consequence is that the decision is no longer purely technical. It becomes administrative, and once embedded into compliance requirements, it becomes unavoidable regardless of whether the underlying technical case is compelling.

The result is a form of technological path dependence.

Once large institutions begin migrating—especially under mandate—the rest of the ecosystem follows, not because the new systems are better in a classical sense, but because compatibility and certification demand it. At that point, the question of whether the premise was sound becomes secondary. The system has already been redirected. What is being presented as a forward-looking security upgrade is, in practice, a shift toward heavier cryptographic machinery justified by a threat that has not materialised, with costs that are immediate and measurable. In that context, describing the transition as being “railroaded” is not rhetorical excess; it is a recognition that the driver is policy inertia rather than demonstrated necessity.

2/3
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2040994859318939943

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5241

Naturally, no one in their right mind would ever suspect a government of acting against the public’s interest in security or privacy. The very notion is absurd. Governments have, throughout history, shown an unwavering commitment to ensuring that individuals remain entirely beyond their reach—secure, private, and utterly free from oversight. One can scarcely recall a single instance where authorities preferred access over opacity, or influence over independence.

It follows, then, that any push toward new cryptographic systems must be motivated solely by a noble desire to make us more secure, to protect our communications in ways that even they themselves could never penetrate. The idea that a government might favour standards it can shape, influence, or quietly understand better than others is, of course, unthinkable. This is simply the natural order of things: a world in which power consistently restrains itself, and privacy is not merely tolerated but enthusiastically preserved.

@thecoastguy

3/3
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2040994859318939943

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5241

El Espejismo Cuántico y la Trampa de la Ciberseguridad.
(Audio 27:33 min)

Craig Wright sostiene que el desarrollo de una computación cuántica útil es un mito publicitario, pues estamos a siglos de distancia de alcanzar la estabilidad necesaria para superar a la tecnología actual. El autor critica la transición hacia la criptografía post-cuántica, argumentando que estas nuevas medidas son ineficientes y pesadas en comparación con sistemas probados como ECDSA. Según el texto, este cambio no responde a una necesidad técnica real, sino a una imposición burocrática diseñada para ejercer control estratégico sobre la infraestructura digital. Finalmente, utiliza el sarcasmo para sugerir que los gobiernos promueven estos estándares para debilitar la privacidad ciudadana bajo el disfraz de una falsa seguridad futura. De este modo,..

Fuente
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5241

Cuaderno
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/49e9683f-4619-41c0-ac6e-549552d4b32e

S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041069505263047020

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5248

The hardest part between 2015 and 2021 was not scaling. It was removing the nonsense that kept getting in the way of it.

Instead of executing on the micropayment system that had already been designed—the iDaemon model—we got a parade of reinvention. Endless “improvements,” redesigns, and theoretical detours. People like Shadders, among others, decided they knew better. They didn’t build. They re-engineered, reinterpreted, and distracted, convinced that novelty would earn them recognition.

Projects proliferated, including those that should have known better, all chasing the same illusion: that rewriting the system was more valuable than deploying it. It wasn’t. It never was.

The distinction is now obvious. Teranode—the modernised form of that original architecture—works. It scales. It does what it was always intended to do. Not because someone invented a new paradigm, but because the existing one was finally executed properly.

That is what separates competence from vanity. People like Siggi and his team did not try to redefine the system to make themselves important. They took the design, understood it, and implemented it at scale. No theatrics, no reinvention, no self-congratulation—just engineering done correctly.

And that is why it works.

The lesson is not that we needed new ideas. It is that we needed fewer of them, and more people willing to do the work without trying to put their name on it.

S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041069505263047020

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5248

Lo más difícil entre 2015 y 2021 no fue escalar, sino eliminar las tonterías que se interponían en el camino.

En lugar de implementar el sistema de micropagos ya diseñado —el modelo iDaemon—, presenciamos una sucesión de reinvenciones. Un sinfín de "mejoras", rediseños y desvíos teóricos. Personas como Shadders, entre otras, creyeron saber más. No construyeron. Rediseñaron, reinterpretaron y se distrajeron, convencidas de que la novedad les granjearía reconocimiento.

Proliferaron los proyectos, incluso aquellos que deberían haber actuado con más sensatez, todos persiguiendo la misma ilusión: que reescribir el sistema era más valioso que implementarlo. No lo era. Nunca lo fue.

La diferencia ahora es evidente. Teranode —la versión modernizada de esa arquitectura original— funciona. Escala. Hace lo que siempre se pretendió. No porque alguien inventara un nuevo paradigma, sino porque el existente finalmente se implementó correctamente.

Eso es lo que distingue la competencia de la vanidad. Personas como Siggi y su equipo no intentaron redefinir el sistema para hacerse importantes. Tomaron el diseño, lo comprendieron y lo implementaron a gran escala. Sin artificios, sin reinventarse, sin autocomplacencia: simplemente ingeniería bien hecha.

Y por eso funciona.

La lección no es que necesitáramos ideas nuevas, sino que necesitábamos menos y más personas dispuestas a trabajar sin buscar protagonismo.

S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
6 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041069505263047020

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5248

S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 7, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251

The entire problem in blockchain is not technical. It is psychological.

People do not want responsibility. They want a leader. They want a villain. They want someone to worship when price goes up and someone to blame when it goes down. They do not want to build, compete, market, sell, and deliver. They want the coin to rise while they sit still, and then they want to call that “community.”

So they invent mythology. Ethereum gets its geek priesthood. Bitcoin gets endless arguments about who should be Satoshi. If they cannot have a god, they manufacture resentment. If they cannot control the protocol, they try to control the narrative. If they cannot build anything useful, they demand rule changes so they can feel relevant.

That is the perverse part. They keep trying to turn a protocol into a personality cult.

Bitcoin does not need leaders. It needs rules. Fixed rules. Stable rules. Predictable rules. A protocol is not a company and it is not a political party. It does not need a chairman, a committee, or a philosopher king. It needs to remain set so people can build on top of it without wondering which self-appointed genius will “improve” it next quarter.

Companies need leaders. Teams need leaders. Projects need leaders. They compete with each other in the market. They compete on service, reliability, cost, performance, and execution. They do not compete by rewriting the protocol every time they lose an argument.

That is the distinction people keep missing. The protocol is fixed. The businesses are not. The protocol is neutral. The companies are not. The protocol does not care who you are. The market does.

So no, Bitcoin does not need a god. It does not need a priesthood. It does not need a hero to bless every transaction. It needs people to stop behaving like entitled children and start behaving like adults.

Build something. Sell it. Support it. Compete.

If society wants it, it survives. If it does not, it dies.

That is personal responsibility. That is capitalism. That is the point.

Here is something that will no doubt offend the right sort of people: I rather like not being Satoshi. Whether you approve of that formulation is your problem, not mine. What matters is the life that follows from it, and that life is immeasurably better than the endless theatre, projection, worship, resentment, and infantile need people had to turn everything into a cult of personality.

I do not miss the adoration. I do not crave your reverence. I do not wake in the morning yearning to be the object of yet another man’s ideological dependency. Quite the opposite. If anything, that nonsense was among the worst parts of it all. So for those who still feel the urge to genuflect, to mythologise, to attach themselves to me as though I were some secular saint of the protocol—piss off.

My life now is far simpler, and far better. I research. I build. I study. I live well with my wife. I pursue the things that matter, and I do so without the constant background hum of people who confuse admiration with entitlement and attention with significance. It is a much finer arrangement.

What has not changed is the work. I set a goal, and I have been pursuing it consistently: scale Bitcoin properly. Not as a slogan, not as an aesthetic, not as a debating point for men who contribute nothing and call it commentary, but as an engineering and economic reality. That remains the task.

If you dislike that, wonderful. Start a company. Build a competing service. Offer something the market wants more. Compete like an adult in a capitalist system. That is what businesses are for.

1/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 7, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251