S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
People keep repeating the same tired complaint: “It’s a problem that Calvin is the only funder.”
No. It isn’t. And the fact that this keeps being said shows a complete failure to understand both the situation and responsibility.
First, the premise is wrong. He is not the only funder. He is the major funder. That distinction matters. Others exist—but they are smaller, quieter, and, notably, not the ones complaining.
Second, the idea that he should somehow “relinquish control” betrays a deeper confusion. Control over what, exactly? Funding does not magically grant protocol control. And even if influence follows capital—as it does in every system ever created—the answer is not to demand that the person funding things withdraw.
The answer is competition.
If you believe the funding base is too concentrated, then expand it. Raise capital. Bring in new participants. Build something worth funding. Crowdsource if necessary. Structure it properly. Do the work.
What you do not get to do is sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing, and complain that someone else has contributed too much.
Funding is not assigned. It is earned, attracted, and built.
If you dislike the current distribution, the solution is straightforward: change it. Not by rhetoric, not by complaint, but by action.
Otherwise, what you are offering is not a critique.
It is noise from people unwilling to do the one thing that would actually solve the problem.
Calvin has money. Yes.
But it is his money. Not yours. Not communal. Not something you get to allocate because you feel strongly about it.
That is the point people keep missing.
If Calvin chooses to spend, he spends. If he chooses not to, he does not. There is no obligation. None. Zero.
He runs nodes—as do GorillaPool and others—because he believes there is future value in doing so. Profitability, long-term positioning, legacy—those are his decisions to make.
Not yours.
The constant noise is the same tired refrain:
“He funded this.”
“Well then why hasn’t he funded everything?”
Because that is not how capital works.
Have you brought in funding?
Have you secured Series B, C, or D rounds?
Have you gone out and convinced other investors to deploy capital?
Or are you simply waiting for Calvin to do it all?
Because if that’s the case, the problem isn’t him.
It’s you.
“Price didn’t go up.”
What did you do to change that?
What did you build?
What did you invest?
What risk did you take?
There are people actually contributing—building systems, deploying infrastructure, putting real capital on the line.
And then there are those who contribute nothing but complaints and expectations.
The entitlement is staggering.
Capital is not a public resource. It is not distributed by vote. It follows risk, ownership, and decision.
If you want influence, bring something to the table.
Otherwise, stop pretending you have a say in how someone else spends what is theirs.
And then there’s the same tired nonsense about @kurtwuckertjr and @MineLikeAnApe.
“Kurt isn’t doing this.”
“GorillaPool isn’t doing that.”
“They’re mining BTC as well.”
Yes. They are.
Because they are a company.
That means they have profit targets, cost structures, operational constraints, and actual responsibilities to keep the business alive. They are not a charity. They are not there to burn capital to satisfy someone else’s expectations of ideological purity.
They have been supportive. They have contributed. They have taken risk.
But they are not going to take everything they have and throw it into a hole just to make a point.
That’s not failure. That’s rational behaviour.
If you want a world where companies ignore profitability and operate purely on sentiment, then you’re not talking about business—you’re talking about fantasy.
So get over it.
If you think more should be done, then do it. Fund it. Build it. Take the risk yourself.
Stop demanding that others do what you’re unwilling to do.
1/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
No. It isn’t. And the fact that this keeps being said shows a complete failure to understand both the situation and responsibility.
First, the premise is wrong. He is not the only funder. He is the major funder. That distinction matters. Others exist—but they are smaller, quieter, and, notably, not the ones complaining.
Second, the idea that he should somehow “relinquish control” betrays a deeper confusion. Control over what, exactly? Funding does not magically grant protocol control. And even if influence follows capital—as it does in every system ever created—the answer is not to demand that the person funding things withdraw.
The answer is competition.
If you believe the funding base is too concentrated, then expand it. Raise capital. Bring in new participants. Build something worth funding. Crowdsource if necessary. Structure it properly. Do the work.
What you do not get to do is sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing, and complain that someone else has contributed too much.
Funding is not assigned. It is earned, attracted, and built.
If you dislike the current distribution, the solution is straightforward: change it. Not by rhetoric, not by complaint, but by action.
Otherwise, what you are offering is not a critique.
It is noise from people unwilling to do the one thing that would actually solve the problem.
Calvin has money. Yes.
But it is his money. Not yours. Not communal. Not something you get to allocate because you feel strongly about it.
That is the point people keep missing.
If Calvin chooses to spend, he spends. If he chooses not to, he does not. There is no obligation. None. Zero.
He runs nodes—as do GorillaPool and others—because he believes there is future value in doing so. Profitability, long-term positioning, legacy—those are his decisions to make.
Not yours.
The constant noise is the same tired refrain:
“He funded this.”
“Well then why hasn’t he funded everything?”
Because that is not how capital works.
Have you brought in funding?
Have you secured Series B, C, or D rounds?
Have you gone out and convinced other investors to deploy capital?
Or are you simply waiting for Calvin to do it all?
Because if that’s the case, the problem isn’t him.
It’s you.
“Price didn’t go up.”
What did you do to change that?
What did you build?
What did you invest?
What risk did you take?
There are people actually contributing—building systems, deploying infrastructure, putting real capital on the line.
And then there are those who contribute nothing but complaints and expectations.
The entitlement is staggering.
Capital is not a public resource. It is not distributed by vote. It follows risk, ownership, and decision.
If you want influence, bring something to the table.
Otherwise, stop pretending you have a say in how someone else spends what is theirs.
And then there’s the same tired nonsense about @kurtwuckertjr and @MineLikeAnApe.
“Kurt isn’t doing this.”
“GorillaPool isn’t doing that.”
“They’re mining BTC as well.”
Yes. They are.
Because they are a company.
That means they have profit targets, cost structures, operational constraints, and actual responsibilities to keep the business alive. They are not a charity. They are not there to burn capital to satisfy someone else’s expectations of ideological purity.
They have been supportive. They have contributed. They have taken risk.
But they are not going to take everything they have and throw it into a hole just to make a point.
That’s not failure. That’s rational behaviour.
If you want a world where companies ignore profitability and operate purely on sentiment, then you’re not talking about business—you’re talking about fantasy.
So get over it.
If you think more should be done, then do it. Fund it. Build it. Take the risk yourself.
Stop demanding that others do what you’re unwilling to do.
1/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
La gente repite la misma queja manida: «Es un problema que Calvin sea el único financiador».
No. No lo es. Y el hecho de que se siga diciendo esto demuestra una total falta de comprensión tanto de la situación como de la responsabilidad.
Primero, la premisa es errónea. No es el único financiador. Es el principal financiador. Esa distinción es importante. Existen otros, pero son más pequeños, más discretos y, notablemente, no son los que se quejan.
Segundo, la idea de que deba «ceder el control» revela una confusión más profunda. ¿Control sobre qué, exactamente? La financiación no otorga mágicamente el control del protocolo. E incluso si la influencia sigue al capital —como en todo sistema jamás creado— la solución no es exigir que quien financia se retire.
La solución es la competencia.
Si crees que la base de financiación está demasiado concentrada, entonces amplíala. Recauda capital. Incorpora nuevos participantes. Crea algo que valga la pena financiar. Recurre al crowdfunding si es necesario. Estructúralo adecuadamente. Haz el trabajo.
Lo que no puedes hacer es quedarte al margen, no aportar nada y quejarte de que alguien más ha aportado demasiado.
La financiación no se asigna. Se gana, se atrae y se construye.
Si no te gusta la distribución actual, la solución es sencilla: cámbiala. No con retórica, ni con quejas, sino con acciones.
De lo contrario, lo que ofreces no es una crítica.
Es ruido de gente que no está dispuesta a hacer lo único que realmente resolvería el problema.
Calvin tiene dinero. Sí.
Pero es su dinero. No el tuyo. No es comunitario. No es algo que puedas asignar porque te importe un bledo.
Ese es el punto que la gente sigue pasando por alto.
Si Calvin decide gastar, gasta. Si decide no hacerlo, no lo hace. No hay obligación. Ninguna. Cero.
Él gestiona nodos —al igual que GorillaPool y otros— porque cree que hay valor futuro en hacerlo. Rentabilidad, posicionamiento a largo plazo, legado: esas son decisiones que él debe tomar.
No las tuyas.
El ruido constante es el mismo estribillo de siempre:
“Él financió esto”.
“Entonces, ¿por qué no ha financiado todo?”
Porque así no funciona el capital.
¿Has conseguido financiación?
¿Has asegurado rondas de financiación Serie B, C o D?
¿Has convencido a otros inversores para que inviertan capital?
¿O simplemente estás esperando a que Calvin lo haga todo?
Porque si ese es el caso, el problema no es él.
Eres tú.
“El precio no subió”.
¿Qué hiciste para cambiar eso?
¿Qué construiste?
¿En qué invertiste?
¿Qué riesgos asumiste?
Hay personas que realmente contribuyen: construyen sistemas, implementan infraestructura, invierten capital real.
Y luego están los que no aportan nada más que quejas y expectativas.
La prepotencia es asombrosa.
El capital no es un recurso público. No se distribuye por votación. Depende del riesgo, la propiedad y la decisión.
Si quieres influir, aporta algo.
De lo contrario, deja de fingir que tienes voz y voto en cómo otros gastan lo que les pertenece.
Y luego está la misma cantinela de siempre sobre @kurtwuckertjr y @MineLikeAnApe.
«Kurt no está haciendo esto».
«GorillaPool no está haciendo aquello».
«También están minando BTC».
Sí. Lo están haciendo.
Porque son una empresa.
Eso significa que tienen objetivos de ganancias, estructuras de costos, limitaciones operativas y responsabilidades reales para mantener el negocio a flote. No son una organización benéfica. No están ahí para quemar capital y satisfacer las expectativas de pureza ideológica de otros.
Han brindado su apoyo. Han contribuido. Han asumido riesgos.
Pero no van a tirar todo lo que tienen a la basura solo para dar una lección.
Eso no es un fracaso. Es un comportamiento racional.
1/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
No. No lo es. Y el hecho de que se siga diciendo esto demuestra una total falta de comprensión tanto de la situación como de la responsabilidad.
Primero, la premisa es errónea. No es el único financiador. Es el principal financiador. Esa distinción es importante. Existen otros, pero son más pequeños, más discretos y, notablemente, no son los que se quejan.
Segundo, la idea de que deba «ceder el control» revela una confusión más profunda. ¿Control sobre qué, exactamente? La financiación no otorga mágicamente el control del protocolo. E incluso si la influencia sigue al capital —como en todo sistema jamás creado— la solución no es exigir que quien financia se retire.
La solución es la competencia.
Si crees que la base de financiación está demasiado concentrada, entonces amplíala. Recauda capital. Incorpora nuevos participantes. Crea algo que valga la pena financiar. Recurre al crowdfunding si es necesario. Estructúralo adecuadamente. Haz el trabajo.
Lo que no puedes hacer es quedarte al margen, no aportar nada y quejarte de que alguien más ha aportado demasiado.
La financiación no se asigna. Se gana, se atrae y se construye.
Si no te gusta la distribución actual, la solución es sencilla: cámbiala. No con retórica, ni con quejas, sino con acciones.
De lo contrario, lo que ofreces no es una crítica.
Es ruido de gente que no está dispuesta a hacer lo único que realmente resolvería el problema.
Calvin tiene dinero. Sí.
Pero es su dinero. No el tuyo. No es comunitario. No es algo que puedas asignar porque te importe un bledo.
Ese es el punto que la gente sigue pasando por alto.
Si Calvin decide gastar, gasta. Si decide no hacerlo, no lo hace. No hay obligación. Ninguna. Cero.
Él gestiona nodos —al igual que GorillaPool y otros— porque cree que hay valor futuro en hacerlo. Rentabilidad, posicionamiento a largo plazo, legado: esas son decisiones que él debe tomar.
No las tuyas.
El ruido constante es el mismo estribillo de siempre:
“Él financió esto”.
“Entonces, ¿por qué no ha financiado todo?”
Porque así no funciona el capital.
¿Has conseguido financiación?
¿Has asegurado rondas de financiación Serie B, C o D?
¿Has convencido a otros inversores para que inviertan capital?
¿O simplemente estás esperando a que Calvin lo haga todo?
Porque si ese es el caso, el problema no es él.
Eres tú.
“El precio no subió”.
¿Qué hiciste para cambiar eso?
¿Qué construiste?
¿En qué invertiste?
¿Qué riesgos asumiste?
Hay personas que realmente contribuyen: construyen sistemas, implementan infraestructura, invierten capital real.
Y luego están los que no aportan nada más que quejas y expectativas.
La prepotencia es asombrosa.
El capital no es un recurso público. No se distribuye por votación. Depende del riesgo, la propiedad y la decisión.
Si quieres influir, aporta algo.
De lo contrario, deja de fingir que tienes voz y voto en cómo otros gastan lo que les pertenece.
Y luego está la misma cantinela de siempre sobre @kurtwuckertjr y @MineLikeAnApe.
«Kurt no está haciendo esto».
«GorillaPool no está haciendo aquello».
«También están minando BTC».
Sí. Lo están haciendo.
Porque son una empresa.
Eso significa que tienen objetivos de ganancias, estructuras de costos, limitaciones operativas y responsabilidades reales para mantener el negocio a flote. No son una organización benéfica. No están ahí para quemar capital y satisfacer las expectativas de pureza ideológica de otros.
Han brindado su apoyo. Han contribuido. Han asumido riesgos.
Pero no van a tirar todo lo que tienen a la basura solo para dar una lección.
Eso no es un fracaso. Es un comportamiento racional.
1/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
Si quieres un mundo donde las empresas ignoren la rentabilidad y se guíen únicamente por las emociones, entonces no estás hablando de negocios, estás hablando de fantasía.
Así que supéralo.
Si crees que se debería hacer más, hazlo. Fináncialo. Construyelo. Asume el riesgo tú mismo.
Deja de exigir que los demás hagan lo que tú no estás dispuesto a hacer.
2/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
Así que supéralo.
Si crees que se debería hacer más, hazlo. Fináncialo. Construyelo. Asume el riesgo tú mismo.
Deja de exigir que los demás hagan lo que tú no estás dispuesto a hacer.
2/2
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
11 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2042808680761151876
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5282
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
People keep repeating the same tired complaint: “It’s a problem that Calvin is the only funder.”
No. It isn’t. And the fact that this keeps being said shows a complete failure to understand both the situation and responsibility.
First, the premise is wrong.…
No. It isn’t. And the fact that this keeps being said shows a complete failure to understand both the situation and responsibility.
First, the premise is wrong.…
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
17 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2044975200870297607
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5287
17 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2044975200870297607
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5287
It is always charming to watch a problem be solved by carefully avoiding the solution.
There exist lattice-based constructions, hash-based signatures, and other quantum-resistant schemes—some of them, quite inconveniently, resting on assumptions more conservative and structurally robust than those underpinning ECDSA itself. One might imagine that, in a moment of earnest concern for “security,” these would be the natural candidates.
And yet, they are not the ones being selected.
Pause on that.
In all this breathless discussion about securing "Bitcoin" BTC, about safeguarding assets, about defending the system from theoretical adversaries, the algorithms being proposed are not the most robust available—even within the very class being invoked. They are not the ones with the strongest classical assurances. They are not the ones that reduce reliance on brittle assumptions or implementation fragility.
They are, rather awkwardly, weaker in a classical sense.
So one is left with a rather delicate question: if the goal were truly to increase security, why not choose the most secure options available?
Especially when the supposed threat—the great spectre invoked to justify all of this—remains entirely unproven in any practical form.
Remove that spectre, and what remains is quite stark: a proposal to replace a well-understood, extensively analysed system with something demonstrably less secure against the attacks that actually exist.
It is at this point that one must resist the temptation to call it an accident.
For systems are rarely degraded by mistake. They are, far more often, adjusted in ways that serve purposes politely left unstated.
And so one observes, with a certain detached amusement, that in the name of security, something less secure is proposed; in the name of prudence, something speculative is prioritised; and in the name of progress, something demonstrably inferior is advanced.
It would be absurd, were it not so deliberate.
One is almost compelled to admire the elegance of it: to argue for protection while quietly selecting vulnerability, and to do so with such conviction that the audience applauds the performance rather than examining the script.
Think about why that might be.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
17 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2044975200870297607
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5287
There exist lattice-based constructions, hash-based signatures, and other quantum-resistant schemes—some of them, quite inconveniently, resting on assumptions more conservative and structurally robust than those underpinning ECDSA itself. One might imagine that, in a moment of earnest concern for “security,” these would be the natural candidates.
And yet, they are not the ones being selected.
Pause on that.
In all this breathless discussion about securing "Bitcoin" BTC, about safeguarding assets, about defending the system from theoretical adversaries, the algorithms being proposed are not the most robust available—even within the very class being invoked. They are not the ones with the strongest classical assurances. They are not the ones that reduce reliance on brittle assumptions or implementation fragility.
They are, rather awkwardly, weaker in a classical sense.
So one is left with a rather delicate question: if the goal were truly to increase security, why not choose the most secure options available?
Especially when the supposed threat—the great spectre invoked to justify all of this—remains entirely unproven in any practical form.
Remove that spectre, and what remains is quite stark: a proposal to replace a well-understood, extensively analysed system with something demonstrably less secure against the attacks that actually exist.
It is at this point that one must resist the temptation to call it an accident.
For systems are rarely degraded by mistake. They are, far more often, adjusted in ways that serve purposes politely left unstated.
And so one observes, with a certain detached amusement, that in the name of security, something less secure is proposed; in the name of prudence, something speculative is prioritised; and in the name of progress, something demonstrably inferior is advanced.
It would be absurd, were it not so deliberate.
One is almost compelled to admire the elegance of it: to argue for protection while quietly selecting vulnerability, and to do so with such conviction that the audience applauds the performance rather than examining the script.
Think about why that might be.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
17 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2044975200870297607
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5287
Siempre resulta fascinante observar cómo se resuelve un problema evitando cuidadosamente la solución.
Existen construcciones basadas en retículos, firmas basadas en funciones hash y otros esquemas resistentes a la computación cuántica; algunos de ellos, de forma bastante inconveniente, se basan en supuestos más conservadores y estructuralmente robustos que los que sustentan el propio ECDSA. Cabría pensar que, en un momento de seria preocupación por la «seguridad», estos serían los candidatos naturales.
Y, sin embargo, no son los que se están seleccionando.
Reflexionemos sobre esto.
En toda esta discusión acalorada sobre la seguridad de Bitcoin (BTC), sobre la protección de los activos, sobre la defensa del sistema frente a adversarios teóricos, los algoritmos que se proponen no son los más robustos disponibles, ni siquiera dentro de la misma clase que se invoca. No son los que ofrecen las garantías clásicas más sólidas. No son los que reducen la dependencia de supuestos frágiles o la fragilidad de la implementación.
Son, paradójicamente, más débiles en un sentido clásico.
Así pues, surge una pregunta bastante delicada: si el objetivo fuera realmente aumentar la seguridad, ¿por qué no elegir las opciones más seguras disponibles?
Sobre todo cuando la supuesta amenaza —el gran fantasma invocado para justificar todo esto— permanece completamente sin probar en la práctica.
Eliminando ese fantasma, lo que queda es bastante crudo: una propuesta para reemplazar un sistema bien comprendido y ampliamente analizado por algo demostrablemente menos seguro frente a los ataques que realmente existen.
Es en este punto donde hay que resistir la tentación de llamarlo accidente.
Porque los sistemas rara vez se degradan por error. Mucho más a menudo, se ajustan de maneras que sirven a propósitos que se dejan sutilmente implícitos.
Y así, uno observa, con cierta ironía, que en nombre de la seguridad se propone algo menos seguro; en nombre de la prudencia, se prioriza algo especulativo; y en nombre del progreso, se promueve algo demostrablemente inferior.
Sería absurdo si no fuera tan deliberado.
Uno casi se ve obligado a admirar su elegancia: abogar por la protección mientras se opta sutilmente por la vulnerabilidad, y hacerlo con tal convicción que el público aplaude la actuación en lugar de analizar el guion.
Piensa en por qué podría ser así.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
17 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2044975200870297607
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5287
Existen construcciones basadas en retículos, firmas basadas en funciones hash y otros esquemas resistentes a la computación cuántica; algunos de ellos, de forma bastante inconveniente, se basan en supuestos más conservadores y estructuralmente robustos que los que sustentan el propio ECDSA. Cabría pensar que, en un momento de seria preocupación por la «seguridad», estos serían los candidatos naturales.
Y, sin embargo, no son los que se están seleccionando.
Reflexionemos sobre esto.
En toda esta discusión acalorada sobre la seguridad de Bitcoin (BTC), sobre la protección de los activos, sobre la defensa del sistema frente a adversarios teóricos, los algoritmos que se proponen no son los más robustos disponibles, ni siquiera dentro de la misma clase que se invoca. No son los que ofrecen las garantías clásicas más sólidas. No son los que reducen la dependencia de supuestos frágiles o la fragilidad de la implementación.
Son, paradójicamente, más débiles en un sentido clásico.
Así pues, surge una pregunta bastante delicada: si el objetivo fuera realmente aumentar la seguridad, ¿por qué no elegir las opciones más seguras disponibles?
Sobre todo cuando la supuesta amenaza —el gran fantasma invocado para justificar todo esto— permanece completamente sin probar en la práctica.
Eliminando ese fantasma, lo que queda es bastante crudo: una propuesta para reemplazar un sistema bien comprendido y ampliamente analizado por algo demostrablemente menos seguro frente a los ataques que realmente existen.
Es en este punto donde hay que resistir la tentación de llamarlo accidente.
Porque los sistemas rara vez se degradan por error. Mucho más a menudo, se ajustan de maneras que sirven a propósitos que se dejan sutilmente implícitos.
Y así, uno observa, con cierta ironía, que en nombre de la seguridad se propone algo menos seguro; en nombre de la prudencia, se prioriza algo especulativo; y en nombre del progreso, se promueve algo demostrablemente inferior.
Sería absurdo si no fuera tan deliberado.
Uno casi se ve obligado a admirar su elegancia: abogar por la protección mientras se opta sutilmente por la vulnerabilidad, y hacerlo con tal convicción que el público aplaude la actuación en lugar de analizar el guion.
Piensa en por qué podría ser así.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
17 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2044975200870297607
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5287
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
It is always charming to watch a problem be solved by carefully avoiding the solution.
There exist lattice-based constructions, hash-based signatures, and other quantum-resistant schemes—some of them, quite inconveniently, resting on assumptions more conservative…
There exist lattice-based constructions, hash-based signatures, and other quantum-resistant schemes—some of them, quite inconveniently, resting on assumptions more conservative…
When the Tollkeepers Disappear: The Consequences of Real Digital Cash
A structural analysis of a world where intermediaries no longer extract value, and individuals regain direct control over exchange, time, and economic agency
Craig Wright
Apr 15, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/when-the-tollkeepers-disappear-the
A structural analysis of a world where intermediaries no longer extract value, and individuals regain direct control over exchange, time, and economic agency
Craig Wright
Apr 15, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/when-the-tollkeepers-disappear-the
Substack
When the Tollkeepers Disappear: The Consequences of Real Digital Cash
A structural analysis of a world where intermediaries no longer extract value, and individuals regain direct control over exchange, time, and economic agency
Rent-Seeking
The Quiet Drain Nobody Wants to Name
Craig Wright
Apr 16, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/rent-seeking
The Quiet Drain Nobody Wants to Name
Craig Wright
Apr 16, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/rent-seeking
Substack
Rent-Seeking
The Quiet Drain Nobody Wants to Name
Authority Without Command: The Alert Key, Coordination, and the System That Might Have Been
On Signalling, Governance, and the Lost Architecture of Operational Consensus
Craig Wright
Apr 17, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/authority-without-command-the-alert
On Signalling, Governance, and the Lost Architecture of Operational Consensus
Craig Wright
Apr 17, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/authority-without-command-the-alert
Substack
Authority Without Command: The Alert Key, Coordination, and the System That Might Have Been
On Signalling, Governance, and the Lost Architecture of Operational Consensus
The Marionette Fallacy
Why AI Will Not Replace Humanity—and Why the Proposal That It Will Is Neither New, Nor Honest, Nor Free
Craig Wright
Apr 18, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/the-marionette-fallacy
Why AI Will Not Replace Humanity—and Why the Proposal That It Will Is Neither New, Nor Honest, Nor Free
Craig Wright
Apr 18, 2026
https://singulargrit.substack.com/p/the-marionette-fallacy
Substack
The Marionette Fallacy
Why AI Will Not Replace Humanity—and Why the Proposal That It Will Is Neither New, Nor Honest, Nor Free
✍1
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048256508300075113
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5297
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048256508300075113
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5297
Let me be precise about what decentralization actually entails. When you see arguments around BTC—claims that it should only be used for cash, that certain transactions are “spam,” or that particular uses are invalid—that is not neutrality. That is control.
The moment a group can assert how the system must be used, define acceptable behaviour, or constrain implementation, you are no longer looking at an open system. You are looking at a controlled one.
A system is not permissionless if participants can be told they are using it “wrong,” or if their activity can be curtailed based on subjective rules. True decentralization means there is no authority capable of imposing those constraints—no gatekeeper dictating form, function, or purpose.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048256508300075113
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5297
The moment a group can assert how the system must be used, define acceptable behaviour, or constrain implementation, you are no longer looking at an open system. You are looking at a controlled one.
A system is not permissionless if participants can be told they are using it “wrong,” or if their activity can be curtailed based on subjective rules. True decentralization means there is no authority capable of imposing those constraints—no gatekeeper dictating form, function, or purpose.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048256508300075113
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5297
Permítanme ser preciso sobre lo que implica la descentralización. Cuando se ven discusiones en torno a Bitcoin —afirmaciones de que solo debería usarse para efectivo, que ciertas transacciones son "spam" o que determinados usos son inválidos— eso no es neutralidad. Eso es control.
En el momento en que un grupo puede imponer cómo debe usarse el sistema, definir el comportamiento aceptable o restringir su implementación, ya no se trata de un sistema abierto. Se trata de un sistema controlado.
Un sistema no es libre si se puede advertir a los participantes que lo están usando "mal" o si su actividad puede ser restringida según reglas subjetivas. La verdadera descentralización significa que no existe una autoridad capaz de imponer esas restricciones; ningún guardián que dicte la forma, la función o el propósito.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
26 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048256508300075113
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5297
En el momento en que un grupo puede imponer cómo debe usarse el sistema, definir el comportamiento aceptable o restringir su implementación, ya no se trata de un sistema abierto. Se trata de un sistema controlado.
Un sistema no es libre si se puede advertir a los participantes que lo están usando "mal" o si su actividad puede ser restringida según reglas subjetivas. La verdadera descentralización significa que no existe una autoridad capaz de imponer esas restricciones; ningún guardián que dicte la forma, la función o el propósito.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
26 de abril de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048256508300075113
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5297
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
Let me be precise about what decentralization actually entails. When you see arguments around BTC—claims that it should only be used for cash, that certain transactions are “spam,” or that particular uses are invalid—that is not neutrality. That is control.…
You were told Ethereum would deliver fully decentralized applications. Others have made similar claims. The difference here is that Bitcoin already has the capacity to do it, and BSV has addressed the practical constraints—scaling, cost, and the ability to run these systems at real-world levels.
Over the next 12 months, that stops being theoretical. You’ll start to see these systems actually operating—peer-to-peer applications between individuals that scale properly, without operators, without central points of control. Systems that function as they were originally envisioned.
At that point, it becomes self-evident.
And none of this requires permission.
Fixed is the only way to have decentralisation
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048187809043988534
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5300
Over the next 12 months, that stops being theoretical. You’ll start to see these systems actually operating—peer-to-peer applications between individuals that scale properly, without operators, without central points of control. Systems that function as they were originally envisioned.
At that point, it becomes self-evident.
And none of this requires permission.
Fixed is the only way to have decentralisation
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048187809043988534
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5300
Se les dijo que Ethereum ofrecería aplicaciones totalmente descentralizadas. Otros han hecho afirmaciones similares. La diferencia radica en que Bitcoin ya tiene la capacidad para hacerlo, y BSV ha abordado las limitaciones prácticas: escalabilidad, costo y la capacidad de operar estos sistemas a nivel real.
En los próximos 12 meses, esto dejará de ser teórico. Empezarán a verse estos sistemas en funcionamiento: aplicaciones peer-to-peer entre usuarios que escalan adecuadamente, sin operadores ni puntos de control centrales. Sistemas que funcionarán tal como fueron concebidos originalmente.
En ese momento, será evidente.
Y nada de esto requiere permiso.
(Protocolo) Fijo es la única manera de tener descentralización.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048187809043988534
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5300
En los próximos 12 meses, esto dejará de ser teórico. Empezarán a verse estos sistemas en funcionamiento: aplicaciones peer-to-peer entre usuarios que escalan adecuadamente, sin operadores ni puntos de control centrales. Sistemas que funcionarán tal como fueron concebidos originalmente.
En ese momento, será evidente.
Y nada de esto requiere permiso.
(Protocolo) Fijo es la única manera de tener descentralización.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 26, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048187809043988534
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5300
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
You were told Ethereum would deliver fully decentralized applications. Others have made similar claims. The difference here is that Bitcoin already has the capacity to do it, and BSV has addressed the practical constraints—scaling, cost, and the ability to…
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 28, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048759776688091469
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5302
april 28, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048759776688091469
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5302
My life, one is almost embarrassed to admit, has contrived to reassemble itself. Not elegantly—nothing so theatrical—but with the quiet persistence of something that refuses, quite stubbornly, to remain broken. It did, of course, fall apart. Spectacularly, at times. There were years—far too many to be dismissed as a mere interlude—when I was less a man than a collection of fragments, held together by habit and a certain perverse refusal to disappear entirely.
One learns, in such periods, that collapse is rarely dramatic in the way novels promise. It is instead administrative. Papers go unsigned, days go unmarked, purpose becomes negotiable. And yet, somehow, one continues. It is the most irritating feature of existence.
Now, imagine—if one can tolerate the exercise—having brought something into being. Not merely an idea, but a mechanism, a system, a form of cash whispered into existence and left, rather carelessly, to circulate. Imagine having suggested, hinted, perhaps even declared its nature, only to watch as it finds its audience.
And then imagine, with a certain grim amusement, that the only enthusiast to arrive promptly is the devil.
It is a vulgar metaphor, of course, but vulgarity has its uses. One creates with intent, or at least with a theory of intent, and the world responds not with the anticipated chorus of rational actors but with something altogether more feral. Adoption is never dignified. It is messy, opportunistic, and deeply revealing of the creatures who first recognise utility when they see it.
There is a peculiar isolation in that realisation. Not pride—pride would be too simple—but a kind of cold observation. One sets a system into motion, and the earliest participants are not the philosophers, nor the careful stewards, but those who see immediately how it may be bent, tested, exploited, or worn like a mask.
And so, yes—life collapses, and life reconstitutes itself. Not because it is deserved, but because it persists. And what one has made continues also, indifferent to the condition of its maker, circulating through hands one would not choose, in contexts one did not design, answering questions that were never asked quite that way.
There is no tragedy in this. Only consequence.
And consequence, unlike reputation, has the decency to be honest.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 28, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048759776688091469
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5302
One learns, in such periods, that collapse is rarely dramatic in the way novels promise. It is instead administrative. Papers go unsigned, days go unmarked, purpose becomes negotiable. And yet, somehow, one continues. It is the most irritating feature of existence.
Now, imagine—if one can tolerate the exercise—having brought something into being. Not merely an idea, but a mechanism, a system, a form of cash whispered into existence and left, rather carelessly, to circulate. Imagine having suggested, hinted, perhaps even declared its nature, only to watch as it finds its audience.
And then imagine, with a certain grim amusement, that the only enthusiast to arrive promptly is the devil.
It is a vulgar metaphor, of course, but vulgarity has its uses. One creates with intent, or at least with a theory of intent, and the world responds not with the anticipated chorus of rational actors but with something altogether more feral. Adoption is never dignified. It is messy, opportunistic, and deeply revealing of the creatures who first recognise utility when they see it.
There is a peculiar isolation in that realisation. Not pride—pride would be too simple—but a kind of cold observation. One sets a system into motion, and the earliest participants are not the philosophers, nor the careful stewards, but those who see immediately how it may be bent, tested, exploited, or worn like a mask.
And so, yes—life collapses, and life reconstitutes itself. Not because it is deserved, but because it persists. And what one has made continues also, indifferent to the condition of its maker, circulating through hands one would not choose, in contexts one did not design, answering questions that were never asked quite that way.
There is no tragedy in this. Only consequence.
And consequence, unlike reputation, has the decency to be honest.
S. Tominaga, alias CSW
april 28, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2048759776688091469
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5302
Ask Greg. Ask Max. Ask the others too—the ones whose reputations now require so much careful upholstery and scented air.
Ask them what they were doing in 2014, before the money acquired its respectable costume, before everyone discovered morality as a late-career accessory. Ask them about the island. Ask them who was there. Ask them whom they met. Ask them what was discussed. Ask them why the memory, so vivid when useful, becomes suddenly consumptive when inconvenient.
Do not accuse. That would be vulgar.
Simply ask.
There is no instrument of torture quite so elegant as a well-placed question. It requires no shouting, no theatre, no melodrama. Merely place the inquiry before them like a silver knife beside the fish course and watch which hand trembles first.
For men of this sort are never afraid of lies. Lies can be managed, polished, improved, endowed, footnoted, and served to the public with a little parsley. What they fear is chronology. Dates are terribly ill-bred things. They refuse to flatter. They sit there, plain and stubborn, while clever men perspire around them.
So ask them about 2014.
Ask them before they began presenting themselves as guardians of virtue, stewards of progress, philosophers of the public good, or whatever other inexpensive costume ambition found hanging in the charity shop of institutional respectability.
Ask them about the visit.
Ask them who opened the door.
Ask them who was already inside.
Ask them who they recognised.
Ask them who recognised them.
Ask them what they thought they were doing there.
Then be quiet.
Silence is underrated. It gives cowards room to decorate themselves. Some will laugh too quickly. Some will become legalistic. Some will become offended, which is always the most economical substitute for innocence. Some will suddenly discover the sanctity of privacy, having spent years treating everyone else’s life as raw material for their own ascent.
And then, having asked, do not help them. Do not soften the question. Do not provide the exit. Let them build their own little ladder out of denials, evasions, qualifications, and that most exquisite modern material: reputational concern.
One should never interrupt a man while he is composing his own indictment.
https://x.com/i/status/2048754361308967069
Hey. I doubt Adam forgot the 13 year old Sth. American girls promised to service them while there.
I was offered this in 2012 and 13.
I refused and nearly all VC money dried up. Funny how the deal with the devil works.
Ask them what they were doing in 2014, before the money acquired its respectable costume, before everyone discovered morality as a late-career accessory. Ask them about the island. Ask them who was there. Ask them whom they met. Ask them what was discussed. Ask them why the memory, so vivid when useful, becomes suddenly consumptive when inconvenient.
Do not accuse. That would be vulgar.
Simply ask.
There is no instrument of torture quite so elegant as a well-placed question. It requires no shouting, no theatre, no melodrama. Merely place the inquiry before them like a silver knife beside the fish course and watch which hand trembles first.
For men of this sort are never afraid of lies. Lies can be managed, polished, improved, endowed, footnoted, and served to the public with a little parsley. What they fear is chronology. Dates are terribly ill-bred things. They refuse to flatter. They sit there, plain and stubborn, while clever men perspire around them.
So ask them about 2014.
Ask them before they began presenting themselves as guardians of virtue, stewards of progress, philosophers of the public good, or whatever other inexpensive costume ambition found hanging in the charity shop of institutional respectability.
Ask them about the visit.
Ask them who opened the door.
Ask them who was already inside.
Ask them who they recognised.
Ask them who recognised them.
Ask them what they thought they were doing there.
Then be quiet.
Silence is underrated. It gives cowards room to decorate themselves. Some will laugh too quickly. Some will become legalistic. Some will become offended, which is always the most economical substitute for innocence. Some will suddenly discover the sanctity of privacy, having spent years treating everyone else’s life as raw material for their own ascent.
And then, having asked, do not help them. Do not soften the question. Do not provide the exit. Let them build their own little ladder out of denials, evasions, qualifications, and that most exquisite modern material: reputational concern.
One should never interrupt a man while he is composing his own indictment.
https://x.com/i/status/2048754361308967069
Hey. I doubt Adam forgot the 13 year old Sth. American girls promised to service them while there.
I was offered this in 2012 and 13.
I refused and nearly all VC money dried up. Funny how the deal with the devil works.