1-s2.0-S0165176526001345-main.pdf
551.9 KB
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?
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
(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
Audio
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
(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/
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/
The Constitutional Observer
The Executive as Legislature: Constitutional Structure and the Second Trump Administration's Systematic Displacement of Congressional…
How executive orders, impoundment, and institutional demolition are rewriting the separation of powers without amending the Constitution
By Dr Craig Wright
Constitutional crises do not always announce themselves. They sometimes arrive as administrative…
By Dr Craig Wright
Constitutional crises do not always announce themselves. They sometimes arrive as administrative…
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041004880089989155
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5241
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
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
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
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
Audio
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
(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
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
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
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
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
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…
Instead of executing on the micropayment system that had already been designed—the iDaemon model—we got a parade of reinvention. Endless…
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 7, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
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
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
What you do not get to do—what you will never be entitled to do—is mutate the underlying Bitcoin protocol because you are too mediocre to compete on top of a fixed one. The rules are set. The protocol is not your toy, not your laboratory, not your route to relevance. If you want to win, build better. If you cannot, then lose with some dignity.
That is the arrangement. It is not cruel. It is simply grown-up.
I’m a Christian. I believe in God. And whether that makes sense to you or not is entirely beside the point, because I take a long-term view of things. Not the short-term noise people obsess over, not the daily outrage cycles, but the arc of where things end up.
And on that basis, what happened a few years ago—the court case, all of it—I see as good. Not convenient. Not easy. Not something I would have chosen in the moment. But good in outcome. It removed me from a cycle of endless travel, endless noise, endless engagement with people who contribute nothing but expect everything. It gave me something far more valuable: time.
Now I travel when I choose. I work when I choose. I live my life with my wife without constantly being dragged into someone else’s drama or expectation. Yes, there are still idiots. That doesn’t change. But there are far fewer of them in my day-to-day life, and I am no longer obligated to engage with them.
And more importantly, I am no longer fighting the same pointless battles. I’ve stepped out of that.
Because here is the thing people don’t seem to grasp. If I were in the position you all obsess over, I would still be dealing with the same nonsense—people like Bryan telling me how the protocol needs to change, how it could be improved, how their latest idea should be adopted. Endless governance theatre. Endless attempts to insert themselves into something that was never meant to be governed.
Instead, there is no need for that. There is no governance. The protocol is set.
If people want to build something better than Teranode, they are free to do so. They can form a company, raise capital, compete in the market, and deliver something that works better. That is how progress happens.
But what they cannot do—what they will not do—is change the protocol itself.
And this is the distinction they keep missing. A better Teranode, if such a thing ever exists, is a better implementation. It is not a better protocol. The protocol does not change to accommodate their ambitions.
So yes, I consider the outcome good.
It removed the noise. It clarified the boundaries. It left the work intact.
And that is all that ever mattered.
2/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 7, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
That is the arrangement. It is not cruel. It is simply grown-up.
I’m a Christian. I believe in God. And whether that makes sense to you or not is entirely beside the point, because I take a long-term view of things. Not the short-term noise people obsess over, not the daily outrage cycles, but the arc of where things end up.
And on that basis, what happened a few years ago—the court case, all of it—I see as good. Not convenient. Not easy. Not something I would have chosen in the moment. But good in outcome. It removed me from a cycle of endless travel, endless noise, endless engagement with people who contribute nothing but expect everything. It gave me something far more valuable: time.
Now I travel when I choose. I work when I choose. I live my life with my wife without constantly being dragged into someone else’s drama or expectation. Yes, there are still idiots. That doesn’t change. But there are far fewer of them in my day-to-day life, and I am no longer obligated to engage with them.
And more importantly, I am no longer fighting the same pointless battles. I’ve stepped out of that.
Because here is the thing people don’t seem to grasp. If I were in the position you all obsess over, I would still be dealing with the same nonsense—people like Bryan telling me how the protocol needs to change, how it could be improved, how their latest idea should be adopted. Endless governance theatre. Endless attempts to insert themselves into something that was never meant to be governed.
Instead, there is no need for that. There is no governance. The protocol is set.
If people want to build something better than Teranode, they are free to do so. They can form a company, raise capital, compete in the market, and deliver something that works better. That is how progress happens.
But what they cannot do—what they will not do—is change the protocol itself.
And this is the distinction they keep missing. A better Teranode, if such a thing ever exists, is a better implementation. It is not a better protocol. The protocol does not change to accommodate their ambitions.
So yes, I consider the outcome good.
It removed the noise. It clarified the boundaries. It left the work intact.
And that is all that ever mattered.
2/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Apr. 7, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
El problema de blockchain no es técnico, sino psicológico.
La gente no quiere responsabilidades. Quieren un líder. Quieren un villano. Quieren a alguien a quien venerar cuando el precio sube y a quien culpar cuando baja. No quieren construir, competir, comercializar, vender ni entregar. Quieren que la criptomoneda suba mientras ellos se quedan de brazos cruzados, y luego llaman a eso "comunidad".
Así que inventan mitología. Ethereum tiene su propio sacerdocio de expertos. Bitcoin tiene interminables discusiones sobre quién debería ser Satoshi. Si no pueden tener un dios, fabrican resentimiento. Si no pueden controlar el protocolo, intentan controlar la narrativa. Si no pueden construir nada útil, exigen cambios en las reglas para sentirse relevantes.
Esa es la parte perversa. Siguen intentando convertir un protocolo en un culto a la personalidad.
Bitcoin no necesita líderes. Necesita reglas. Reglas fijas. Reglas estables. Reglas predecibles. Un protocolo no es una empresa ni un partido político. No necesita un presidente, un comité ni un rey filósofo. Debe permanecer estable para que la gente pueda construir sobre él sin preguntarse qué supuesto genio lo "mejorará" el próximo trimestre.
Las empresas necesitan líderes. Los equipos necesitan líderes. Los proyectos necesitan líderes. Compiten entre sí en el mercado. Compiten en servicio, fiabilidad, coste, rendimiento y ejecución. No compiten reescribiendo el protocolo cada vez que pierden una discusión.
Esa es la distinción que la gente suele pasar por alto. El protocolo es fijo. Las empresas no lo son. El protocolo es neutral. Las empresas no lo son. Al protocolo no le importa quién seas. Al mercado sí.
Así que no, Bitcoin no necesita un dios. No necesita un sacerdocio. No necesita un héroe que bendiga cada transacción. Necesita que la gente deje de comportarse como niños mimados y empiece a comportarse como adultos.
Crea algo. Véndelo. Apóyalo. Compite.
Si la sociedad lo quiere, sobrevive. Si no, muere.
Esa es la responsabilidad personal. Eso es el capitalismo. Ese es el punto.
Que apruebes o no esta afirmación es problema tuyo, no mío. Lo que importa es la vida que de ella se deriva, y esa vida es infinitamente mejor que el teatro interminable, la proyección, la veneración, el resentimiento y la necesidad infantil que la gente tenía de convertirlo todo en un culto a la personalidad.
No echo de menos la adoración. No anhelo vuestra reverencia. No me levanto por la mañana deseando ser objeto de la dependencia ideológica de otro hombre. Todo lo contrario. Si acaso, esa tontería era una de las peores partes de todo aquello. Así que, para aquellos que aún sienten la necesidad de arrodillarse, de mitificarme, de aferrarse a mí como si fuera una especie de santo laico del protocolo, que se vayan al diablo.
Mi vida ahora es mucho más sencilla y mucho mejor. Investigo. Construyo. Estudio. Vivo bien con mi esposa. Me dedico a lo que realmente importa, y lo hago sin el constante ruido de fondo de quienes confunden admiración con prepotencia y atención con relevancia. Es una situación mucho mejor.
Lo que no ha cambiado es el trabajo. Me fijé una meta y la he perseguido con constancia: escalar Bitcoin correctamente. No como un eslogan, ni como una cuestión estética, ni como un tema de debate para personas que no aportan nada y lo llaman comentario, sino como una realidad ingenieril y económica. Esa sigue siendo la tarea.
Si no te gusta, perfecto. Crea una empresa. Desarrolla un servicio que compita. Ofrece algo que el mercado demande más. Compite como un adulto en un sistema capitalista. Para eso existen las empresas.
1/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
7 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
La gente no quiere responsabilidades. Quieren un líder. Quieren un villano. Quieren a alguien a quien venerar cuando el precio sube y a quien culpar cuando baja. No quieren construir, competir, comercializar, vender ni entregar. Quieren que la criptomoneda suba mientras ellos se quedan de brazos cruzados, y luego llaman a eso "comunidad".
Así que inventan mitología. Ethereum tiene su propio sacerdocio de expertos. Bitcoin tiene interminables discusiones sobre quién debería ser Satoshi. Si no pueden tener un dios, fabrican resentimiento. Si no pueden controlar el protocolo, intentan controlar la narrativa. Si no pueden construir nada útil, exigen cambios en las reglas para sentirse relevantes.
Esa es la parte perversa. Siguen intentando convertir un protocolo en un culto a la personalidad.
Bitcoin no necesita líderes. Necesita reglas. Reglas fijas. Reglas estables. Reglas predecibles. Un protocolo no es una empresa ni un partido político. No necesita un presidente, un comité ni un rey filósofo. Debe permanecer estable para que la gente pueda construir sobre él sin preguntarse qué supuesto genio lo "mejorará" el próximo trimestre.
Las empresas necesitan líderes. Los equipos necesitan líderes. Los proyectos necesitan líderes. Compiten entre sí en el mercado. Compiten en servicio, fiabilidad, coste, rendimiento y ejecución. No compiten reescribiendo el protocolo cada vez que pierden una discusión.
Esa es la distinción que la gente suele pasar por alto. El protocolo es fijo. Las empresas no lo son. El protocolo es neutral. Las empresas no lo son. Al protocolo no le importa quién seas. Al mercado sí.
Así que no, Bitcoin no necesita un dios. No necesita un sacerdocio. No necesita un héroe que bendiga cada transacción. Necesita que la gente deje de comportarse como niños mimados y empiece a comportarse como adultos.
Crea algo. Véndelo. Apóyalo. Compite.
Si la sociedad lo quiere, sobrevive. Si no, muere.
Esa es la responsabilidad personal. Eso es el capitalismo. Ese es el punto.
He aquí algo que sin duda ofenderá a la gente adecuada: me gusta no ser Satoshi.
Que apruebes o no esta afirmación es problema tuyo, no mío. Lo que importa es la vida que de ella se deriva, y esa vida es infinitamente mejor que el teatro interminable, la proyección, la veneración, el resentimiento y la necesidad infantil que la gente tenía de convertirlo todo en un culto a la personalidad.
No echo de menos la adoración. No anhelo vuestra reverencia. No me levanto por la mañana deseando ser objeto de la dependencia ideológica de otro hombre. Todo lo contrario. Si acaso, esa tontería era una de las peores partes de todo aquello. Así que, para aquellos que aún sienten la necesidad de arrodillarse, de mitificarme, de aferrarse a mí como si fuera una especie de santo laico del protocolo, que se vayan al diablo.
Mi vida ahora es mucho más sencilla y mucho mejor. Investigo. Construyo. Estudio. Vivo bien con mi esposa. Me dedico a lo que realmente importa, y lo hago sin el constante ruido de fondo de quienes confunden admiración con prepotencia y atención con relevancia. Es una situación mucho mejor.
Lo que no ha cambiado es el trabajo. Me fijé una meta y la he perseguido con constancia: escalar Bitcoin correctamente. No como un eslogan, ni como una cuestión estética, ni como un tema de debate para personas que no aportan nada y lo llaman comentario, sino como una realidad ingenieril y económica. Esa sigue siendo la tarea.
Si no te gusta, perfecto. Crea una empresa. Desarrolla un servicio que compita. Ofrece algo que el mercado demande más. Compite como un adulto en un sistema capitalista. Para eso existen las empresas.
1/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
7 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
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…
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…
Lo que no puedes hacer —lo que jamás tendrás derecho a hacer— es modificar el protocolo subyacente de Bitcoin porque eres demasiado mediocre para competir sobre uno fijo. Las reglas están establecidas. El protocolo no es tu juguete, ni tu laboratorio, ni tu camino hacia la relevancia. Si quieres ganar, construye algo mejor. Si no puedes, pierde con dignidad.
Ese es el acuerdo. No es cruel. Es simplemente lo que hacen los adultos.
Soy cristiano. Creo en Dios. Y que esto tenga sentido para ti o no es irrelevante, porque yo veo las cosas a largo plazo. No me fijo en el ruido momentáneo que obsesiona a la gente, ni en los ciclos diarios de indignación, sino en la trayectoria de las cosas hasta el final.
Y sobre esa base, lo que sucedió hace unos años —el juicio, todo— lo veo como algo positivo. No conveniente. No fácil. No es algo que hubiera elegido en ese momento. Pero el resultado fue positivo. Me liberó de un ciclo de viajes interminables, ruido constante, interacción constante con personas que no aportan nada pero lo esperan todo. Me dio algo mucho más valioso: tiempo.
Ahora viajo cuando quiero. Trabajo cuando quiero. Vivo mi vida con mi esposa sin verme constantemente envuelto en los dramas o expectativas de otros. Sí, todavía hay idiotas. Eso no cambia. Pero hay muchos menos en mi día a día, y ya no estoy obligado a interactuar con ellos.
Y, lo que es más importante, ya no lucho las mismas batallas inútiles. Me he liberado de eso.
Porque esto es lo que la gente parece no entender. Si yo estuviera en la posición que tanto les preocupa, seguiría lidiando con las mismas tonterías: gente como Bryan diciéndome cómo hay que cambiar el protocolo, cómo se podría mejorar, cómo se debería adoptar su última idea. Un teatro interminable de gobernanza. Intentos interminables de inmiscuirse en algo que nunca se concibió para ser gobernado.
En cambio, no hay necesidad de eso. No hay gobernanza. El protocolo está establecido.
Si alguien quiere crear algo mejor que Teranode, es libre de hacerlo. Pueden formar una empresa, conseguir financiación, competir en el mercado y ofrecer algo que funcione mejor. Así es como se produce el progreso.
Pero lo que no pueden hacer —lo que no harán— es cambiar el protocolo en sí.
Y esta es la distinción que siguen pasando por alto. Un Teranode mejorado, si es que alguna vez existe, es una mejor implementación. No es un mejor protocolo. El protocolo no cambia para adaptarse a sus ambiciones.
Así que sí, considero que el resultado es bueno.
Eliminó el ruido. Clarificó los límites. Dejó el trabajo intacto.
Y eso es lo único que siempre importó.
2/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
7 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
Ese es el acuerdo. No es cruel. Es simplemente lo que hacen los adultos.
Soy cristiano. Creo en Dios. Y que esto tenga sentido para ti o no es irrelevante, porque yo veo las cosas a largo plazo. No me fijo en el ruido momentáneo que obsesiona a la gente, ni en los ciclos diarios de indignación, sino en la trayectoria de las cosas hasta el final.
Y sobre esa base, lo que sucedió hace unos años —el juicio, todo— lo veo como algo positivo. No conveniente. No fácil. No es algo que hubiera elegido en ese momento. Pero el resultado fue positivo. Me liberó de un ciclo de viajes interminables, ruido constante, interacción constante con personas que no aportan nada pero lo esperan todo. Me dio algo mucho más valioso: tiempo.
Ahora viajo cuando quiero. Trabajo cuando quiero. Vivo mi vida con mi esposa sin verme constantemente envuelto en los dramas o expectativas de otros. Sí, todavía hay idiotas. Eso no cambia. Pero hay muchos menos en mi día a día, y ya no estoy obligado a interactuar con ellos.
Y, lo que es más importante, ya no lucho las mismas batallas inútiles. Me he liberado de eso.
Porque esto es lo que la gente parece no entender. Si yo estuviera en la posición que tanto les preocupa, seguiría lidiando con las mismas tonterías: gente como Bryan diciéndome cómo hay que cambiar el protocolo, cómo se podría mejorar, cómo se debería adoptar su última idea. Un teatro interminable de gobernanza. Intentos interminables de inmiscuirse en algo que nunca se concibió para ser gobernado.
En cambio, no hay necesidad de eso. No hay gobernanza. El protocolo está establecido.
Si alguien quiere crear algo mejor que Teranode, es libre de hacerlo. Pueden formar una empresa, conseguir financiación, competir en el mercado y ofrecer algo que funcione mejor. Así es como se produce el progreso.
Pero lo que no pueden hacer —lo que no harán— es cambiar el protocolo en sí.
Y esta es la distinción que siguen pasando por alto. Un Teranode mejorado, si es que alguna vez existe, es una mejor implementación. No es un mejor protocolo. El protocolo no cambia para adaptarse a sus ambiciones.
Así que sí, considero que el resultado es bueno.
Eliminó el ruido. Clarificó los límites. Dejó el trabajo intacto.
Y eso es lo único que siempre importó.
2/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
7 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2041304361939480577
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5251
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
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…
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…