There are more than 10,000 people who should hear this message. The reality is that most of them never will. Modern communication systems are increasingly filtered through algorithms that decide what people see, what gains visibility, and what disappears beneath the surface. The result is that ideas are often judged not by their merit but by whether they fit the incentives of the platforms that distribute them. If this vision is ever going to become reality, it will not happen because an algorithm decides it should. It will happen because people choose to discuss it, challenge it, improve it, and share it with others.
What is being proposed is not another technology company. It is not another token project. It is not another attempt to build a larger data centre or a more powerful centralised model. The objective is something much broader. It is the creation of a distributed intelligence economy in which individuals own their knowledge, own their tools, own their models, and participate directly in the creation of value.
For too long the assumption has been that progress requires concentration. Larger institutions. Larger platforms. Larger data centres. Larger models. Larger corporations. The belief is that intelligence improves as more information is gathered into fewer hands. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that knowledge does not originate from centres of power. It originates from individuals. Discovery is distributed. Expertise is distributed. Creativity is distributed. Innovation is distributed.
Artificial intelligence should reflect that reality.
The future should not consist of a handful of corporations acting as gatekeepers to intelligence. It should consist of millions of people creating specialised tools, specialised agents, specialised services, and specialised knowledge systems. A physician understands things that an engineer does not. An engineer understands things that a lawyer does not. A scientist understands things that an accountant does not. Human civilisation works because knowledge is dispersed across society. The strength of the system comes from the interaction between specialists, not from the existence of a single authority.
The same principle can be applied to artificial intelligence. Instead of one giant model attempting to know everything, we can build networks of specialised agents that cooperate, compete, verify one another, and continuously improve. We can create systems that discover expertise rather than pretending expertise can be centralised. We can build mechanisms that reward truth, reward reliability, reward contribution, and reward innovation.
Most importantly, we can create systems that help people become more capable rather than making people increasingly dependent upon a small number of organisations. Technology should extend human potential. It should allow individuals to do more, learn more, create more, and contribute more. It should not exist primarily to extract value from users and concentrate it among a small group of owners.
This is why ownership matters. This is why reputation matters. This is why open systems matter. If individuals cannot own what they create, cannot control the knowledge they develop, and cannot participate directly in the value they generate, then the future will simply reproduce the same concentration of power under a different technological label.
A distributed intelligence economy offers a different path. It allows individuals to build. It allows communities to experiment. It allows experts to encode their knowledge into specialised systems. It allows markets to discover value through competition rather than through central planning. It creates diversity rather than uniformity and resilience rather than dependence.
1/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
What is being proposed is not another technology company. It is not another token project. It is not another attempt to build a larger data centre or a more powerful centralised model. The objective is something much broader. It is the creation of a distributed intelligence economy in which individuals own their knowledge, own their tools, own their models, and participate directly in the creation of value.
For too long the assumption has been that progress requires concentration. Larger institutions. Larger platforms. Larger data centres. Larger models. Larger corporations. The belief is that intelligence improves as more information is gathered into fewer hands. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that knowledge does not originate from centres of power. It originates from individuals. Discovery is distributed. Expertise is distributed. Creativity is distributed. Innovation is distributed.
Artificial intelligence should reflect that reality.
The future should not consist of a handful of corporations acting as gatekeepers to intelligence. It should consist of millions of people creating specialised tools, specialised agents, specialised services, and specialised knowledge systems. A physician understands things that an engineer does not. An engineer understands things that a lawyer does not. A scientist understands things that an accountant does not. Human civilisation works because knowledge is dispersed across society. The strength of the system comes from the interaction between specialists, not from the existence of a single authority.
The same principle can be applied to artificial intelligence. Instead of one giant model attempting to know everything, we can build networks of specialised agents that cooperate, compete, verify one another, and continuously improve. We can create systems that discover expertise rather than pretending expertise can be centralised. We can build mechanisms that reward truth, reward reliability, reward contribution, and reward innovation.
Most importantly, we can create systems that help people become more capable rather than making people increasingly dependent upon a small number of organisations. Technology should extend human potential. It should allow individuals to do more, learn more, create more, and contribute more. It should not exist primarily to extract value from users and concentrate it among a small group of owners.
This is why ownership matters. This is why reputation matters. This is why open systems matter. If individuals cannot own what they create, cannot control the knowledge they develop, and cannot participate directly in the value they generate, then the future will simply reproduce the same concentration of power under a different technological label.
A distributed intelligence economy offers a different path. It allows individuals to build. It allows communities to experiment. It allows experts to encode their knowledge into specialised systems. It allows markets to discover value through competition rather than through central planning. It creates diversity rather than uniformity and resilience rather than dependence.
1/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
I am not asking people to follow me. I am not asking people to join a movement. I am not interested in becoming the leader of an organisation or the manager of a bureaucracy. I intend to continue researching, building, publishing, and solving problems. Others will decide for themselves whether the ideas are useful.
But if you believe in a future where intelligence is distributed rather than concentrated, where ownership matters, where expertise matters, where individuals can build and participate rather than merely consume, then talk about it. Discuss it. Criticise it. Improve it. Build upon it. Share it with people who care about technology, economics, liberty, knowledge, and human flourishing.
Because the future should not be a world governed by a handful of AI companies and vast collections of servers. The future should be a world connected by millions of minds, millions of specialised tools, millions of independent creators, and millions of interacting intelligences, each contributing something unique to a larger and more open civilisation.
And the people who should see this probably will not, because I am shadowbanned. That is the reality of the platforms we use now: algorithms decide who is allowed to be heard, who disappears, and which ideas are permitted to spread. There are more than 10,000 people who should receive this message, but most will never see it unless others choose to talk about it. If you want this to become real, talk about it. Talk about distributed intelligence, not another AI monopoly. Talk about tools that help human beings become better, more capable, and more independent, not systems designed to enrich a few plutocrats. Talk about a future where intelligence is not trapped inside giant data centres, where knowledge is not governed from the centre, and where people can build, own, train, and use their own specialised agents. This is not about getting rich because some coin goes up. It is about building a connected world of distributed tools, distributed knowledge, and distributed intelligence.
I do not want you to believe in me. I want you to believe in the outcome.
That is what matters.
You do not need to say it was my idea. You do not need to trace it back to me. You do not need to defend me, follow me, or make this about any individual. Take the idea and distribute it. Talk about a world where intelligence is not owned by a handful of companies, where tools help people grow rather than make them dependent, where knowledge is distributed, where specialised agents can be built and owned by individuals, and where value is created through truth, expertise, and useful work. The outcome matters more than the origin.
2/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
But if you believe in a future where intelligence is distributed rather than concentrated, where ownership matters, where expertise matters, where individuals can build and participate rather than merely consume, then talk about it. Discuss it. Criticise it. Improve it. Build upon it. Share it with people who care about technology, economics, liberty, knowledge, and human flourishing.
Because the future should not be a world governed by a handful of AI companies and vast collections of servers. The future should be a world connected by millions of minds, millions of specialised tools, millions of independent creators, and millions of interacting intelligences, each contributing something unique to a larger and more open civilisation.
And the people who should see this probably will not, because I am shadowbanned. That is the reality of the platforms we use now: algorithms decide who is allowed to be heard, who disappears, and which ideas are permitted to spread. There are more than 10,000 people who should receive this message, but most will never see it unless others choose to talk about it. If you want this to become real, talk about it. Talk about distributed intelligence, not another AI monopoly. Talk about tools that help human beings become better, more capable, and more independent, not systems designed to enrich a few plutocrats. Talk about a future where intelligence is not trapped inside giant data centres, where knowledge is not governed from the centre, and where people can build, own, train, and use their own specialised agents. This is not about getting rich because some coin goes up. It is about building a connected world of distributed tools, distributed knowledge, and distributed intelligence.
I do not want you to believe in me. I want you to believe in the outcome.
That is what matters.
You do not need to say it was my idea. You do not need to trace it back to me. You do not need to defend me, follow me, or make this about any individual. Take the idea and distribute it. Talk about a world where intelligence is not owned by a handful of companies, where tools help people grow rather than make them dependent, where knowledge is distributed, where specialised agents can be built and owned by individuals, and where value is created through truth, expertise, and useful work. The outcome matters more than the origin.
2/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
Hay más de 10.000 personas que deberían escuchar este mensaje. La realidad es que la mayoría nunca lo hará. Los sistemas de comunicación modernos se filtran cada vez más mediante algoritmos que deciden qué ve la gente, qué gana visibilidad y qué desaparece. El resultado es que las ideas a menudo se juzgan no por su mérito, sino por si se ajustan a los incentivos de las plataformas que las distribuyen. Si esta visión alguna vez se convierte en realidad, no sucederá porque un algoritmo lo decida. Sucederá porque la gente elija debatirla, cuestionarla, mejorarla y compartirla con otros.
Lo que se propone no es otra empresa tecnológica. No es otro proyecto simbólico. No es otro intento de construir un centro de datos más grande o un modelo centralizado más potente. El objetivo es mucho más amplio: la creación de una economía de inteligencia distribuida en la que los individuos sean dueños de su conocimiento, de sus herramientas, de sus modelos y participen directamente en la creación de valor.
Durante demasiado tiempo se ha asumido que el progreso requiere concentración: grandes instituciones, plataformas más amplias, grandes centros de datos, grandes modelos y grandes corporaciones. Se cree que la inteligencia mejora a medida que se concentra más información en menos manos. Sin embargo, la historia demuestra repetidamente que el conocimiento no emana de centros de poder, sino de individuos. El descubrimiento, la experiencia, la creatividad y la innovación se distribuyen.
La inteligencia artificial debería reflejar esta realidad.
El futuro no debería consistir en un puñado de corporaciones que controlen el acceso a la inteligencia, sino en millones de personas que creen herramientas, agentes, servicios y sistemas de conocimiento especializados. Un médico comprende cosas que un ingeniero desconoce, un ingeniero comprende cosas que un abogado desconoce, un científico comprende cosas que un contable desconoce. La civilización humana funciona porque el conocimiento está disperso por toda la sociedad. La fortaleza del sistema reside en la interacción entre especialistas, no en la existencia de una única autoridad.
Este mismo principio puede aplicarse a la inteligencia artificial. En lugar de un modelo gigante que pretenda saberlo todo, podemos construir redes de agentes especializados que cooperen, compitan, se verifiquen mutuamente y mejoren continuamente. Podemos crear sistemas que descubran la experiencia en lugar de pretender que esta pueda centralizarse. Podemos crear mecanismos que recompensen la verdad, la fiabilidad, la contribución y la innovación.
Y lo que es más importante, podemos crear sistemas que ayuden a las personas a ser más capaces, en lugar de hacerlas cada vez más dependientes de un pequeño número de organizaciones. La tecnología debe ampliar el potencial humano. Debe permitir a las personas hacer más, aprender más, crear más y contribuir más. No debe existir principalmente para extraer valor de los usuarios y concentrarlo en un pequeño grupo de propietarios.
Por eso la propiedad importa. Por eso la reputación importa. Por eso los sistemas abiertos importan. Si las personas no pueden ser dueñas de lo que crean, no pueden controlar el conocimiento que desarrollan ni participar directamente en el valor que generan, entonces el futuro simplemente reproducirá la misma concentración de poder bajo una etiqueta tecnológica diferente.
Una economía de inteligencia distribuida ofrece un camino diferente. Permite a las personas construir. Permite a las comunidades experimentar. Permite a los expertos codificar su conocimiento en sistemas especializados. Permite a los mercados descubrir valor a través de la competencia en lugar de la planificación centralizada. Crea diversidad en lugar de uniformidad y resiliencia en lugar de dependencia.
1/2
St. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
4 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
Lo que se propone no es otra empresa tecnológica. No es otro proyecto simbólico. No es otro intento de construir un centro de datos más grande o un modelo centralizado más potente. El objetivo es mucho más amplio: la creación de una economía de inteligencia distribuida en la que los individuos sean dueños de su conocimiento, de sus herramientas, de sus modelos y participen directamente en la creación de valor.
Durante demasiado tiempo se ha asumido que el progreso requiere concentración: grandes instituciones, plataformas más amplias, grandes centros de datos, grandes modelos y grandes corporaciones. Se cree que la inteligencia mejora a medida que se concentra más información en menos manos. Sin embargo, la historia demuestra repetidamente que el conocimiento no emana de centros de poder, sino de individuos. El descubrimiento, la experiencia, la creatividad y la innovación se distribuyen.
La inteligencia artificial debería reflejar esta realidad.
El futuro no debería consistir en un puñado de corporaciones que controlen el acceso a la inteligencia, sino en millones de personas que creen herramientas, agentes, servicios y sistemas de conocimiento especializados. Un médico comprende cosas que un ingeniero desconoce, un ingeniero comprende cosas que un abogado desconoce, un científico comprende cosas que un contable desconoce. La civilización humana funciona porque el conocimiento está disperso por toda la sociedad. La fortaleza del sistema reside en la interacción entre especialistas, no en la existencia de una única autoridad.
Este mismo principio puede aplicarse a la inteligencia artificial. En lugar de un modelo gigante que pretenda saberlo todo, podemos construir redes de agentes especializados que cooperen, compitan, se verifiquen mutuamente y mejoren continuamente. Podemos crear sistemas que descubran la experiencia en lugar de pretender que esta pueda centralizarse. Podemos crear mecanismos que recompensen la verdad, la fiabilidad, la contribución y la innovación.
Y lo que es más importante, podemos crear sistemas que ayuden a las personas a ser más capaces, en lugar de hacerlas cada vez más dependientes de un pequeño número de organizaciones. La tecnología debe ampliar el potencial humano. Debe permitir a las personas hacer más, aprender más, crear más y contribuir más. No debe existir principalmente para extraer valor de los usuarios y concentrarlo en un pequeño grupo de propietarios.
Por eso la propiedad importa. Por eso la reputación importa. Por eso los sistemas abiertos importan. Si las personas no pueden ser dueñas de lo que crean, no pueden controlar el conocimiento que desarrollan ni participar directamente en el valor que generan, entonces el futuro simplemente reproducirá la misma concentración de poder bajo una etiqueta tecnológica diferente.
Una economía de inteligencia distribuida ofrece un camino diferente. Permite a las personas construir. Permite a las comunidades experimentar. Permite a los expertos codificar su conocimiento en sistemas especializados. Permite a los mercados descubrir valor a través de la competencia en lugar de la planificación centralizada. Crea diversidad en lugar de uniformidad y resiliencia en lugar de dependencia.
1/2
St. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
4 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
There are more than 10,000 people who should hear this message. The reality is that most of them never will. Modern communication systems are increasingly filtered through algorithms that decide what people see, what gains visibility, and what disappears…
No pido que me sigan. No pido que se unan a un movimiento. No me interesa convertirme en el líder de una organización ni en el gerente de una burocracia. Mi intención es seguir investigando, creando, publicando y resolviendo problemas. Otros decidirán por sí mismos si las ideas son útiles.
Pero si creen en un futuro donde la inteligencia esté distribuida en lugar de concentrada, donde la propiedad importe, donde la experiencia importe, donde las personas puedan crear y participar en lugar de simplemente consumir, entonces hablen de ello. La discusión continuó. Critíquenla. Mejórenla. Desarrollenla. Compártanla con quienes se preocupan por la tecnología, la economía, la libertad, el conocimiento y el bienestar humano.
Porque el futuro no debería ser un mundo gobernado por un puñado de empresas de IA y vastas colecciones de servidores. El futuro debería ser un mundo conectado por millones de mentes, millones de herramientas especializadas, millones de creadores independientes y millones de inteligencias que interactúan, cada una aportando algo único a una civilización más grande y abierta.
Y quienes deberían ver esto probablemente no lo verán, porque estoy bloqueado en la sombra. Esa es la realidad de las plataformas que usamos ahora: los algoritmos deciden quién puede ser escuchado, quién desaparece y qué ideas se difunden. Hay más de 10.000 personas que deberían recibir este mensaje, pero la mayoría nunca lo verá a menos que otros decidan hablar de él. Si quieres que esto se haga realidad, habla de ello. Habla de inteligencia distribuida, no de otro monopolio de la IA. Habla de herramientas que ayuden a los seres humanos a ser mejores, más capaces y más independientes, no de sistemas diseñados para enriquecer a unos pocos plutócratas. Habla de un futuro donde la inteligencia no esté atrapada en gigantescos centros de datos, donde el conocimiento no se gobierne desde un centro y donde las personas puedan crear, poseer, entrenar y usar sus propios agentes especializados. No se trata de enriquecerse porque suba el precio de alguna moneda. Se trata de construir un mundo conectado de herramientas, conocimiento e inteligencia distribuidos.
No quiero que creas en mí. Quiero que creas en el resultado.
Eso es lo que importa.
No tienes que decir que fue mi idea. No tienes que atribuírmela. No es necesario que me defiendan, me sigan ni que esto se centre en ninguna persona en particular. Tomen la idea y difúndanla. Hablemos de un mundo donde la inteligencia no esté en manos de un puñado de empresas, donde las herramientas ayuden a las personas a crecer en lugar de hacerlas dependientes, donde el conocimiento se distribuya, donde los individuos puedan crear y gestionar agentes especializados, y donde el valor se genere a través de la verdad, la experiencia y el trabajo útil. El resultado importa más que el origen.
2/2
St. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
4 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
Pero si creen en un futuro donde la inteligencia esté distribuida en lugar de concentrada, donde la propiedad importe, donde la experiencia importe, donde las personas puedan crear y participar en lugar de simplemente consumir, entonces hablen de ello. La discusión continuó. Critíquenla. Mejórenla. Desarrollenla. Compártanla con quienes se preocupan por la tecnología, la economía, la libertad, el conocimiento y el bienestar humano.
Porque el futuro no debería ser un mundo gobernado por un puñado de empresas de IA y vastas colecciones de servidores. El futuro debería ser un mundo conectado por millones de mentes, millones de herramientas especializadas, millones de creadores independientes y millones de inteligencias que interactúan, cada una aportando algo único a una civilización más grande y abierta.
Y quienes deberían ver esto probablemente no lo verán, porque estoy bloqueado en la sombra. Esa es la realidad de las plataformas que usamos ahora: los algoritmos deciden quién puede ser escuchado, quién desaparece y qué ideas se difunden. Hay más de 10.000 personas que deberían recibir este mensaje, pero la mayoría nunca lo verá a menos que otros decidan hablar de él. Si quieres que esto se haga realidad, habla de ello. Habla de inteligencia distribuida, no de otro monopolio de la IA. Habla de herramientas que ayuden a los seres humanos a ser mejores, más capaces y más independientes, no de sistemas diseñados para enriquecer a unos pocos plutócratas. Habla de un futuro donde la inteligencia no esté atrapada en gigantescos centros de datos, donde el conocimiento no se gobierne desde un centro y donde las personas puedan crear, poseer, entrenar y usar sus propios agentes especializados. No se trata de enriquecerse porque suba el precio de alguna moneda. Se trata de construir un mundo conectado de herramientas, conocimiento e inteligencia distribuidos.
No quiero que creas en mí. Quiero que creas en el resultado.
Eso es lo que importa.
No tienes que decir que fue mi idea. No tienes que atribuírmela. No es necesario que me defiendan, me sigan ni que esto se centre en ninguna persona en particular. Tomen la idea y difúndanla. Hablemos de un mundo donde la inteligencia no esté en manos de un puñado de empresas, donde las herramientas ayuden a las personas a crecer en lugar de hacerlas dependientes, donde el conocimiento se distribuya, donde los individuos puedan crear y gestionar agentes especializados, y donde el valor se genere a través de la verdad, la experiencia y el trabajo útil. El resultado importa más que el origen.
2/2
St. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
4 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062471729835098315
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5382
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
There are more than 10,000 people who should hear this message. The reality is that most of them never will. Modern communication systems are increasingly filtered through algorithms that decide what people see, what gains visibility, and what disappears…
CSW S. Tominaga (2024 07) fin COPA
Estoy trabajando para lanzar un proyecto de agente de IA de código abierto a finales de este año. El objetivo no es construir otro sistema monolítico que compita en el típico escenario de "OpenAI vs. Cloud vs. Gemini". Ese modelo presupone que la inteligencia…
I have a vision, but I have no interest in becoming the leader of a movement, building an organisation around myself, or spending my time on administration, governance committees, public relations, or bureaucracy.
What I do is build.
I research.
I solve problems.
I release what I create.
Then I move on to the next problem.
If people want to participate, they are welcome to do so.
If they do not, that is their choice.
The project does not depend on consensus, permission, popularity, or approval.
It depends on whether it works.
I intend to build this on Bitcoin. Real Bitcoin. Not as a speculative asset, but as a system for micropayments, economic coordination, and machine-to-machine transactions. The purpose is to create an environment where individuals can build, train, own, and operate specialised agents that provide real services and earn real revenue.
The future I see is not another Google.
It is not another OpenAI.
It is not another giant model attempting to absorb all human knowledge into a single centralised system.
The assumption behind these projects is that intelligence improves as knowledge becomes increasingly concentrated. That if enough information can be gathered into one place, and enough computation applied to it, the result will be superior to distributed human expertise.
This is the same mistake that Hayek criticised and that Mises identified decades earlier.
Knowledge is not centralised.
Knowledge is dispersed.
Knowledge exists in the minds of billions of individuals, each possessing information, experience, judgement, and expertise that cannot be fully aggregated into a central planning system.
What we are seeing now is an attempt to centralise knowledge into AI models.
The result is larger and larger systems that know a little about everything and truly understand very little.
They are useful tools.
But they are not the future.
The future is a world where billions of people build billions of tools.
A world where specialised agents emerge from specialised knowledge.
A world where expertise is created, refined, traded, verified, and improved through open competition.
A world where agents cooperate with other agents, verify one another, challenge one another, and continuously evolve.
The objective is not to create a machine that replaces people.
The objective is to give people the ability to extend themselves.
A lawyer should be able to build legal agents.
An engineer should be able to build engineering agents.
A scientist should be able to build scientific agents.
A teacher should be able to build educational agents.
Every individual should be able to create systems that embody their expertise and contribute to a larger economic network.
The internet connected documents.
This next stage connects expertise.
Not through centralisation, but through specialisation.
Not through planning, but through competition.
Not through a single intelligence, but through an ecosystem of intelligences.
That is the future I am building toward.
What I do is build.
I research.
I solve problems.
I release what I create.
Then I move on to the next problem.
If people want to participate, they are welcome to do so.
If they do not, that is their choice.
The project does not depend on consensus, permission, popularity, or approval.
It depends on whether it works.
I intend to build this on Bitcoin. Real Bitcoin. Not as a speculative asset, but as a system for micropayments, economic coordination, and machine-to-machine transactions. The purpose is to create an environment where individuals can build, train, own, and operate specialised agents that provide real services and earn real revenue.
The future I see is not another Google.
It is not another OpenAI.
It is not another giant model attempting to absorb all human knowledge into a single centralised system.
The assumption behind these projects is that intelligence improves as knowledge becomes increasingly concentrated. That if enough information can be gathered into one place, and enough computation applied to it, the result will be superior to distributed human expertise.
This is the same mistake that Hayek criticised and that Mises identified decades earlier.
Knowledge is not centralised.
Knowledge is dispersed.
Knowledge exists in the minds of billions of individuals, each possessing information, experience, judgement, and expertise that cannot be fully aggregated into a central planning system.
What we are seeing now is an attempt to centralise knowledge into AI models.
The result is larger and larger systems that know a little about everything and truly understand very little.
They are useful tools.
But they are not the future.
The future is a world where billions of people build billions of tools.
A world where specialised agents emerge from specialised knowledge.
A world where expertise is created, refined, traded, verified, and improved through open competition.
A world where agents cooperate with other agents, verify one another, challenge one another, and continuously evolve.
The objective is not to create a machine that replaces people.
The objective is to give people the ability to extend themselves.
A lawyer should be able to build legal agents.
An engineer should be able to build engineering agents.
A scientist should be able to build scientific agents.
A teacher should be able to build educational agents.
Every individual should be able to create systems that embody their expertise and contribute to a larger economic network.
The internet connected documents.
This next stage connects expertise.
Not through centralisation, but through specialisation.
Not through planning, but through competition.
Not through a single intelligence, but through an ecosystem of intelligences.
That is the future I am building toward.
👍2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062555563599512057
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5387
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062555563599512057
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5387
I am pleased to announce that, despite repeated assurances that I already possess more degrees than common sense, I have been accepted for yet another PhD.
This year I will begin doctoral research at Birkbeck, University of London, focusing on the history of money, institutions, accounting systems, and administrative record-keeping.
Some people collect sports cars.
Others collect watches.
I appear to collect dissertations.
What particularly interests me is the evolution of the mechanisms by which societies learned to record obligations, identity, ownership, exchange, and accountability across time. This includes the study of livery records, financial administration, institutional bookkeeping, and the often-overlooked documentary infrastructure that made complex economic systems possible.
Much of modern debate about money begins in the wrong century. People argue endlessly about currencies, banking, and finance while paying remarkably little attention to the ledgers, registries, audits, censuses, rolls, and records that allowed large-scale institutions to function in the first place.
The history of money is, in many respects, the history of information.
Before one can tax, one must count.
Before one can borrow, one must account.
Before one can govern, one must record.
The romantic imagines history is shaped by kings, revolutions, and battles.
The accountant knows it is shaped by whoever kept the books.
So naturally, I have decided to spend the next several years buried in centuries-old records proving that the people with ink, ledgers, and filing systems were often more important than the people with crowns.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062555563599512057
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5387
This year I will begin doctoral research at Birkbeck, University of London, focusing on the history of money, institutions, accounting systems, and administrative record-keeping.
Some people collect sports cars.
Others collect watches.
I appear to collect dissertations.
What particularly interests me is the evolution of the mechanisms by which societies learned to record obligations, identity, ownership, exchange, and accountability across time. This includes the study of livery records, financial administration, institutional bookkeeping, and the often-overlooked documentary infrastructure that made complex economic systems possible.
Much of modern debate about money begins in the wrong century. People argue endlessly about currencies, banking, and finance while paying remarkably little attention to the ledgers, registries, audits, censuses, rolls, and records that allowed large-scale institutions to function in the first place.
The history of money is, in many respects, the history of information.
Before one can tax, one must count.
Before one can borrow, one must account.
Before one can govern, one must record.
The romantic imagines history is shaped by kings, revolutions, and battles.
The accountant knows it is shaped by whoever kept the books.
So naturally, I have decided to spend the next several years buried in centuries-old records proving that the people with ink, ledgers, and filing systems were often more important than the people with crowns.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 4, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062555563599512057
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5387
Me complace anunciar que, a pesar de mis reiteradas afirmaciones de que ya poseo más títulos que sentido común, he sido aceptado en otro programa de doctorado.
Este año comenzaré mi investigación doctoral en Birkbeck, Universidad de Londres, centrándome en la historia del dinero, las instituciones, los sistemas contables y el registro administrativo.
Algunas personas coleccionan coches deportivos.
Otras coleccionan relojes.
Yo, al parecer, colecciono tesis doctorales.
Lo que me interesa particularmente es la evolución de los mecanismos mediante los cuales las sociedades aprendieron a registrar obligaciones, identidad, propiedad, intercambio y rendición de cuentas a lo largo del tiempo. Esto incluye el estudio de los registros de libreas, la gestión financiera, la contabilidad institucional y la infraestructura documental, a menudo ignorada, que hizo posibles los sistemas económicos complejos.
Gran parte del debate moderno sobre el dinero se origina en el siglo equivocado. La gente discute interminablemente sobre monedas, banca y finanzas, prestando sorprendentemente poca atención a los libros de contabilidad, registros, auditorías, censos, registros y documentación que permitieron el funcionamiento de las grandes instituciones.
La historia del dinero es, en muchos sentidos, la historia de la información.
Antes de recaudar impuestos, hay que contar.
Antes de pedir préstamos, hay que rendir cuentas.
Antes de gobernar, hay que registrar.
La historia, en su visión romántica, está marcada por reyes, revoluciones y batallas.
El contable sabe que está marcada por quien lleva la contabilidad.
Así pues, he decidido dedicar los próximos años a sumergirme en registros centenarios que demuestran que quienes tenían tinta, libros de contabilidad y sistemas de archivo a menudo eran más importantes que quienes ostentaban la corona.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
4 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062555563599512057
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5387
Este año comenzaré mi investigación doctoral en Birkbeck, Universidad de Londres, centrándome en la historia del dinero, las instituciones, los sistemas contables y el registro administrativo.
Algunas personas coleccionan coches deportivos.
Otras coleccionan relojes.
Yo, al parecer, colecciono tesis doctorales.
Lo que me interesa particularmente es la evolución de los mecanismos mediante los cuales las sociedades aprendieron a registrar obligaciones, identidad, propiedad, intercambio y rendición de cuentas a lo largo del tiempo. Esto incluye el estudio de los registros de libreas, la gestión financiera, la contabilidad institucional y la infraestructura documental, a menudo ignorada, que hizo posibles los sistemas económicos complejos.
Gran parte del debate moderno sobre el dinero se origina en el siglo equivocado. La gente discute interminablemente sobre monedas, banca y finanzas, prestando sorprendentemente poca atención a los libros de contabilidad, registros, auditorías, censos, registros y documentación que permitieron el funcionamiento de las grandes instituciones.
La historia del dinero es, en muchos sentidos, la historia de la información.
Antes de recaudar impuestos, hay que contar.
Antes de pedir préstamos, hay que rendir cuentas.
Antes de gobernar, hay que registrar.
La historia, en su visión romántica, está marcada por reyes, revoluciones y batallas.
El contable sabe que está marcada por quien lleva la contabilidad.
Así pues, he decidido dedicar los próximos años a sumergirme en registros centenarios que demuestran que quienes tenían tinta, libros de contabilidad y sistemas de archivo a menudo eran más importantes que quienes ostentaban la corona.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
4 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062555563599512057
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5387
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
I am pleased to announce that, despite repeated assurances that I already possess more degrees than common sense, I have been accepted for yet another PhD.
This year I will begin doctoral research at Birkbeck, University of London, focusing on the history…
This year I will begin doctoral research at Birkbeck, University of London, focusing on the history…
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062915841671188644
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5390
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062915841671188644
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5390
There is no real bull run in gold.
If you believe there is, you do not understand what is happening. Gold is not suddenly becoming magical. What we are seeing is a change in the value of money.
The unit of account is failing. Purchasing power is being drained. People think prices are rising; the deeper truth is that what their money can buy is diminishing.
Productive assets.
Gold is a signal, not the whole answer. The hedge is ownership of things that retain utility when the unit of account is being debased: land, energy, productive businesses, infrastructure, and systems that generate real cash flow.
I am not “parking” money as if money itself is safe. I want exposure to assets that produce, serve, and remain necessary when purchasing power is being quietly destroyed.
Not speculative.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062915841671188644
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5390
If you believe there is, you do not understand what is happening. Gold is not suddenly becoming magical. What we are seeing is a change in the value of money.
The unit of account is failing. Purchasing power is being drained. People think prices are rising; the deeper truth is that what their money can buy is diminishing.
Productive assets.
Gold is a signal, not the whole answer. The hedge is ownership of things that retain utility when the unit of account is being debased: land, energy, productive businesses, infrastructure, and systems that generate real cash flow.
I am not “parking” money as if money itself is safe. I want exposure to assets that produce, serve, and remain necessary when purchasing power is being quietly destroyed.
Not speculative.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062915841671188644
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5390
No existe una verdadera racha alcista en el oro.
Si crees que sí, no entiendes lo que está sucediendo. El oro no se está volviendo mágico de repente. Lo que estamos viendo es un cambio en el valor del dinero.
La unidad de cuenta está fallando. El poder adquisitivo se está agotando. La gente piensa que los precios están subiendo; la verdad es que lo que su dinero puede comprar está disminuyendo.
Activos productivos.
El oro es una señal, no la solución definitiva. La protección consiste en poseer bienes que conservan su utilidad cuando la unidad de cuenta se devalúa: tierras, energía, empresas productivas, infraestructura y sistemas que generan flujo de caja real.
No estoy «guardando» dinero como si el dinero en sí mismo fuera seguro. Busco exposición a activos que produzcan, sirvan y sigan siendo necesarios cuando el poder adquisitivo se destruye silenciosamente.
No de forma especulativa.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062915841671188644
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5390
Si crees que sí, no entiendes lo que está sucediendo. El oro no se está volviendo mágico de repente. Lo que estamos viendo es un cambio en el valor del dinero.
La unidad de cuenta está fallando. El poder adquisitivo se está agotando. La gente piensa que los precios están subiendo; la verdad es que lo que su dinero puede comprar está disminuyendo.
Activos productivos.
El oro es una señal, no la solución definitiva. La protección consiste en poseer bienes que conservan su utilidad cuando la unidad de cuenta se devalúa: tierras, energía, empresas productivas, infraestructura y sistemas que generan flujo de caja real.
No estoy «guardando» dinero como si el dinero en sí mismo fuera seguro. Busco exposición a activos que produzcan, sirvan y sigan siendo necesarios cuando el poder adquisitivo se destruye silenciosamente.
No de forma especulativa.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062915841671188644
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5390
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
There is no real bull run in gold.
If you believe there is, you do not understand what is happening. Gold is not suddenly becoming magical. What we are seeing is a change in the value of money.
The unit of account is failing. Purchasing power is being drained.…
If you believe there is, you do not understand what is happening. Gold is not suddenly becoming magical. What we are seeing is a change in the value of money.
The unit of account is failing. Purchasing power is being drained.…
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
Evil is often described as the absence of good, as though it were merely a void, a deficiency, a darkness where light once stood. But that account seems too simple. There are absences that wound, yet evil possesses a force and direction of its own. It acts. It chooses. It imposes itself upon the world.
What marks the truly evil man is not that he fails to recognise the good, but that he ceases to feel the weight of his actions. Guilt is not merely an unpleasant emotion; it is the boundary that reminds us that other people are real. It is the inward acknowledgement that our deeds have consequences beyond ourselves. To feel guilt is to remain connected to the moral reality inhabited by others.
The dangerous man is not the one who struggles with temptation, nor even the one who falls to it. The dangerous man is the one who no longer cares. He has severed the link between action and conscience. He exercises power without restraint because he experiences no obligation toward those over whom that power is exercised. He sees suffering and feels nothing. He causes injury and feels nothing. He destroys trust, dignity, and hope, and remains untouched by the wreckage.
Power itself is not evil. Indeed, power is often necessary for the defence of what is good. But power detached from remorse becomes something else. Without guilt, without responsibility, without the capacity to recognise another person's claim upon us, power becomes self-justifying. It acknowledges no limits because it recognises no duties.
The most frightening thing about evil is not hatred. Hatred still contains an object; it recognises the existence of the person it despises. Indifference is colder. Indifference denies the significance of the other altogether. It is the refusal to grant that another human being matters.
In the end, perhaps the deepest form of evil is not cruelty, greed, or malice, though all of these may flow from it. It is the simple decision that nothing outside oneself deserves concern. It is the abandonment of responsibility, the extinguishing of conscience, the refusal to care.
The moment a man no longer gives a damn about what he has done to others is the moment he becomes capable of almost anything.
Evil begins when the person ceases to experience the other as a claim upon him. Guilt is not weakness; it is the civilising knowledge that one’s freedom is bounded by another’s reality. Power without guilt becomes desecration, because it treats persons as things.
The phrase “not giving a damn” would be close to the centre of it. Not vulgar indifference merely, but metaphysical indifference: the soul emptied of reverence, obligation, shame, and piety. That is where evil lives.
I shall hone this by saying, tyat the essence of evil is not the absence of guilt but the refusal to judge oneself honestly.
The evil man is not merely the man who does not care. It is the man who refuses to know. He abandons reason, and having abandoned reason, abandons responsibility. From that abandonment comes the willingness to sacrifice others for power, comfort, or convenience.
1/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
What marks the truly evil man is not that he fails to recognise the good, but that he ceases to feel the weight of his actions. Guilt is not merely an unpleasant emotion; it is the boundary that reminds us that other people are real. It is the inward acknowledgement that our deeds have consequences beyond ourselves. To feel guilt is to remain connected to the moral reality inhabited by others.
The dangerous man is not the one who struggles with temptation, nor even the one who falls to it. The dangerous man is the one who no longer cares. He has severed the link between action and conscience. He exercises power without restraint because he experiences no obligation toward those over whom that power is exercised. He sees suffering and feels nothing. He causes injury and feels nothing. He destroys trust, dignity, and hope, and remains untouched by the wreckage.
Power itself is not evil. Indeed, power is often necessary for the defence of what is good. But power detached from remorse becomes something else. Without guilt, without responsibility, without the capacity to recognise another person's claim upon us, power becomes self-justifying. It acknowledges no limits because it recognises no duties.
The most frightening thing about evil is not hatred. Hatred still contains an object; it recognises the existence of the person it despises. Indifference is colder. Indifference denies the significance of the other altogether. It is the refusal to grant that another human being matters.
In the end, perhaps the deepest form of evil is not cruelty, greed, or malice, though all of these may flow from it. It is the simple decision that nothing outside oneself deserves concern. It is the abandonment of responsibility, the extinguishing of conscience, the refusal to care.
The moment a man no longer gives a damn about what he has done to others is the moment he becomes capable of almost anything.
Evil begins when the person ceases to experience the other as a claim upon him. Guilt is not weakness; it is the civilising knowledge that one’s freedom is bounded by another’s reality. Power without guilt becomes desecration, because it treats persons as things.
The phrase “not giving a damn” would be close to the centre of it. Not vulgar indifference merely, but metaphysical indifference: the soul emptied of reverence, obligation, shame, and piety. That is where evil lives.
I shall hone this by saying, tyat the essence of evil is not the absence of guilt but the refusal to judge oneself honestly.
The evil man is not merely the man who does not care. It is the man who refuses to know. He abandons reason, and having abandoned reason, abandons responsibility. From that abandonment comes the willingness to sacrifice others for power, comfort, or convenience.
1/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
So...Evil is not merely the absence of good. That is too passive a description. Evil is active. It chooses, evades, justifies, and imposes. It does not simply lack light; it turns away from it, then demands the world be rearranged around the darkness it has chosen.
At its root, evil begins in the refusal to face reality. A man first refuses to see what he is doing. He refuses judgment. He refuses the discipline of truth. He substitutes appetite, power, vanity, resentment, or convenience for reason. Once that evasion has occurred, conscience begins to decay. Guilt can no longer perform its proper office, because guilt depends upon recognition: the recognition that the world is real, that other people are real, and that one’s actions have consequences beyond oneself.
Guilt, properly understood, is not weakness. It is not the inherited shame by which lesser moralities try to punish strength, success, or independence. False guilt is a weapon used by the corrupt against the virtuous. But true guilt is different. True guilt is the mind’s moral recoil before the fact of betrayal: betrayal of truth, betrayal of justice, betrayal of another person, betrayal of one’s own highest values.
Power becomes evil when it is severed from that recognition. Power governed by reason and conscience can build, defend, order, and protect. Power without reason becomes brute force. Power without guilt becomes desecration. It ceases to treat persons as persons and begins to treat them as material: things to be used, broken, deceived, or discarded.
The most dangerous man is therefore not merely the man who hates. Hatred at least acknowledges its object. The deeper evil is indifference: the refusal to care whether one has lied, injured, humiliated, betrayed, or destroyed. It is the condition in which another person’s suffering no longer appears as a claim upon the self.
To not give a damn is not a small moral failure. It is the collapse of the inner tribunal. It is reason abandoned, conscience silenced, and power released from the limits that make human life possible.
Evil is the refusal to know, followed by the refusal to care.
2/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
At its root, evil begins in the refusal to face reality. A man first refuses to see what he is doing. He refuses judgment. He refuses the discipline of truth. He substitutes appetite, power, vanity, resentment, or convenience for reason. Once that evasion has occurred, conscience begins to decay. Guilt can no longer perform its proper office, because guilt depends upon recognition: the recognition that the world is real, that other people are real, and that one’s actions have consequences beyond oneself.
Guilt, properly understood, is not weakness. It is not the inherited shame by which lesser moralities try to punish strength, success, or independence. False guilt is a weapon used by the corrupt against the virtuous. But true guilt is different. True guilt is the mind’s moral recoil before the fact of betrayal: betrayal of truth, betrayal of justice, betrayal of another person, betrayal of one’s own highest values.
Power becomes evil when it is severed from that recognition. Power governed by reason and conscience can build, defend, order, and protect. Power without reason becomes brute force. Power without guilt becomes desecration. It ceases to treat persons as persons and begins to treat them as material: things to be used, broken, deceived, or discarded.
The most dangerous man is therefore not merely the man who hates. Hatred at least acknowledges its object. The deeper evil is indifference: the refusal to care whether one has lied, injured, humiliated, betrayed, or destroyed. It is the condition in which another person’s suffering no longer appears as a claim upon the self.
To not give a damn is not a small moral failure. It is the collapse of the inner tribunal. It is reason abandoned, conscience silenced, and power released from the limits that make human life possible.
Evil is the refusal to know, followed by the refusal to care.
2/2
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
El mal suele describirse como la ausencia del bien, como si fuera simplemente un vacío, una deficiencia, una oscuridad donde antes brillaba la luz. Pero esa explicación resulta demasiado simplista. Hay ausencias que hieren, pero el mal posee una fuerza y una dirección propias. Actúa. Elige. Se impone al mundo.
Lo que caracteriza al hombre verdaderamente malvado no es que no reconozca el bien, sino que deja de sentir el peso de sus actos. La culpa no es solo una emoción desagradable; es el límite que nos recuerda que los demás son reales. Es el reconocimiento interno de que nuestros actos tienen consecuencias que nos trascienden. Sentir culpa es permanecer conectados a la realidad moral que habitan los demás.
El hombre peligroso no es el que lucha contra la tentación, ni siquiera el que sucumbe a ella. El hombre peligroso es el que ya no se preocupa. Ha roto el vínculo entre la acción y la conciencia. Ejerce el poder sin restricciones porque no siente ninguna obligación hacia aquellos sobre quienes ejerce ese poder. Ve el sufrimiento y no siente nada. Causa daño y no siente nada. Destruye la confianza, la dignidad y la esperanza, y permanece impasible ante las consecuencias.
El poder en sí mismo no es malo. De hecho, a menudo es necesario para la defensa del bien. Pero el poder desprovisto de remordimiento se convierte en otra cosa. Sin culpa, sin responsabilidad, sin la capacidad de reconocer el derecho del otro sobre nosotros, el poder se justifica a sí mismo. No reconoce límites porque no reconoce deberes.
Lo más aterrador del mal no es el odio. El odio aún contiene un objeto; reconoce la existencia de la persona que desprecia. La indiferencia es más fría. La indiferencia niega por completo la importancia del otro. Es la negativa a reconocer que otro ser humano importa.
En última instancia, quizás la forma más profunda del mal no sea la crueldad, la codicia o la malicia, aunque todas ellas puedan derivarse de ella. Es la simple decisión de que nada fuera de uno mismo merece preocupación. Es el abandono de la responsabilidad, la extinción de la conciencia, la negativa a preocuparse.
El mal comienza cuando la persona deja de percibir al otro como una obligación. La culpa no es debilidad; es el conocimiento civilizador de que la libertad de uno está limitada por la realidad del otro. El poder sin culpa se convierte en profanación, porque trata a las personas como cosas.
Para profundizar, diré que la esencia del mal no es la ausencia de culpa, sino la negativa a juzgarse a uno mismo con honestidad.
El hombre malvado no es simplemente el que no se preocupa. Es el que se niega a saber. Abandona la razón y, al abandonarla, abandona la responsabilidad. De ese abandono surge la disposición a sacrificar a otros por poder, comodidad o conveniencia.
1/2
St. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
Lo que caracteriza al hombre verdaderamente malvado no es que no reconozca el bien, sino que deja de sentir el peso de sus actos. La culpa no es solo una emoción desagradable; es el límite que nos recuerda que los demás son reales. Es el reconocimiento interno de que nuestros actos tienen consecuencias que nos trascienden. Sentir culpa es permanecer conectados a la realidad moral que habitan los demás.
El hombre peligroso no es el que lucha contra la tentación, ni siquiera el que sucumbe a ella. El hombre peligroso es el que ya no se preocupa. Ha roto el vínculo entre la acción y la conciencia. Ejerce el poder sin restricciones porque no siente ninguna obligación hacia aquellos sobre quienes ejerce ese poder. Ve el sufrimiento y no siente nada. Causa daño y no siente nada. Destruye la confianza, la dignidad y la esperanza, y permanece impasible ante las consecuencias.
El poder en sí mismo no es malo. De hecho, a menudo es necesario para la defensa del bien. Pero el poder desprovisto de remordimiento se convierte en otra cosa. Sin culpa, sin responsabilidad, sin la capacidad de reconocer el derecho del otro sobre nosotros, el poder se justifica a sí mismo. No reconoce límites porque no reconoce deberes.
Lo más aterrador del mal no es el odio. El odio aún contiene un objeto; reconoce la existencia de la persona que desprecia. La indiferencia es más fría. La indiferencia niega por completo la importancia del otro. Es la negativa a reconocer que otro ser humano importa.
En última instancia, quizás la forma más profunda del mal no sea la crueldad, la codicia o la malicia, aunque todas ellas puedan derivarse de ella. Es la simple decisión de que nada fuera de uno mismo merece preocupación. Es el abandono de la responsabilidad, la extinción de la conciencia, la negativa a preocuparse.
En el momento en que un hombre deja de importarle lo que ha hecho a los demás, se vuelve capaz de casi cualquier cosa.
El mal comienza cuando la persona deja de percibir al otro como una obligación. La culpa no es debilidad; es el conocimiento civilizador de que la libertad de uno está limitada por la realidad del otro. El poder sin culpa se convierte en profanación, porque trata a las personas como cosas.
La expresión «no importarme» se acerca al centro de todo esto. No se trata de una simple indiferencia vulgar, sino de una indiferencia metafísica: el alma vacía de reverencia, obligación, vergüenza y piedad. Ahí reside el mal.
Para profundizar, diré que la esencia del mal no es la ausencia de culpa, sino la negativa a juzgarse a uno mismo con honestidad.
El hombre malvado no es simplemente el que no se preocupa. Es el que se niega a saber. Abandona la razón y, al abandonarla, abandona la responsabilidad. De ese abandono surge la disposición a sacrificar a otros por poder, comodidad o conveniencia.
1/2
St. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
Evil is often described as the absence of good, as though it were merely a void, a deficiency, a darkness where light once stood. But that account seems too simple. There are absences that wound, yet evil possesses a force and direction of its own. It acts.…
Así pues, el mal no es simplemente la ausencia del bien. Esa descripción es demasiado pasiva. El mal es activo. Elige, evade, justifica e impone. No se limita a carecer de luz; se aparta de ella y exige que el mundo se reorganice en torno a la oscuridad que ha elegido.
En su raíz, el mal comienza con la negativa a afrontar la realidad. El hombre primero se niega a ver lo que hace. Se niega a juzgar. Se niega a la disciplina de la verdad. Sustituye la razón por el apetito, el poder, la vanidad, el resentimiento o la conveniencia. Una vez que se produce esa evasión, la conciencia comienza a corromperse. La culpa ya no puede cumplir su función, porque la culpa depende del reconocimiento: el reconocimiento de que el mundo es real, de que los demás son reales y de que las acciones de uno tienen consecuencias que trascienden la propia persona.
La culpa, bien entendida, no es debilidad. No es la vergüenza heredada con la que las moralidades inferiores intentan castigar la fuerza, el éxito o la independencia. La falsa culpa es un arma que los corruptos usan contra los virtuosos. Pero la verdadera culpa es diferente. La verdadera culpa es el rechazo moral de la mente ante la traición: traición a la verdad, traición a la justicia, traición a otra persona, traición a los propios valores más elevados.
El poder se vuelve perverso cuando se desvincula de ese reconocimiento. El poder guiado por la razón y la conciencia puede construir, defender, ordenar y proteger. El poder sin razón se convierte en fuerza bruta. El poder sin culpa se convierte en profanación. Deja de tratar a las personas como personas y comienza a tratarlas como materia: cosas para usar, romper, engañar o desechar.
Por lo tanto, el hombre más peligroso no es simplemente aquel a quien odias. El odio, al menos, reconoce su objeto. El mal más profundo es la indiferencia: la negativa a preocuparse por si uno ha mentido, herido, humillado, traicionado o destruido. Es la condición en la que el sufrimiento ajeno ya no se percibe como una exigencia para uno mismo.
La indiferencia no es una pequeña falta moral. Es el colapso de la conciencia. Es la razón abandonada, la conciencia silenciada y el poder liberado de sus límites lo que hace posible la vida humana.
El mal es la negativa a saber, seguida de la negativa a preocuparse.
2/2
S. Tominaga, también conocida como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
En su raíz, el mal comienza con la negativa a afrontar la realidad. El hombre primero se niega a ver lo que hace. Se niega a juzgar. Se niega a la disciplina de la verdad. Sustituye la razón por el apetito, el poder, la vanidad, el resentimiento o la conveniencia. Una vez que se produce esa evasión, la conciencia comienza a corromperse. La culpa ya no puede cumplir su función, porque la culpa depende del reconocimiento: el reconocimiento de que el mundo es real, de que los demás son reales y de que las acciones de uno tienen consecuencias que trascienden la propia persona.
La culpa, bien entendida, no es debilidad. No es la vergüenza heredada con la que las moralidades inferiores intentan castigar la fuerza, el éxito o la independencia. La falsa culpa es un arma que los corruptos usan contra los virtuosos. Pero la verdadera culpa es diferente. La verdadera culpa es el rechazo moral de la mente ante la traición: traición a la verdad, traición a la justicia, traición a otra persona, traición a los propios valores más elevados.
El poder se vuelve perverso cuando se desvincula de ese reconocimiento. El poder guiado por la razón y la conciencia puede construir, defender, ordenar y proteger. El poder sin razón se convierte en fuerza bruta. El poder sin culpa se convierte en profanación. Deja de tratar a las personas como personas y comienza a tratarlas como materia: cosas para usar, romper, engañar o desechar.
Por lo tanto, el hombre más peligroso no es simplemente aquel a quien odias. El odio, al menos, reconoce su objeto. El mal más profundo es la indiferencia: la negativa a preocuparse por si uno ha mentido, herido, humillado, traicionado o destruido. Es la condición en la que el sufrimiento ajeno ya no se percibe como una exigencia para uno mismo.
La indiferencia no es una pequeña falta moral. Es el colapso de la conciencia. Es la razón abandonada, la conciencia silenciada y el poder liberado de sus límites lo que hace posible la vida humana.
El mal es la negativa a saber, seguida de la negativa a preocuparse.
2/2
S. Tominaga, también conocida como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062891946427945150
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5393
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (Aka Dr Craig Wright) (@CsTominaga) on X
Evil is often described as the absence of good, as though it were merely a void, a deficiency, a darkness where light once stood. But that account seems too simple. There are absences that wound, yet evil possesses a force and direction of its own. It acts.…
Por lo tanto, el hombre más peligroso no es simplemente aquel a quien odias. El odio, al menos, reconoce su objeto. El mal más profundo es la indiferencia: la negativa a preocuparse por si uno ha mentido, herido, humillado, traicionado o destruido. Es la condición en la que el sufrimiento ajeno ya no se percibe como una exigencia para uno mismo.
S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
5 de junio de 2026
My dear fellow,
I have no objection whatsoever to beginning with the question of what money is. Indeed, one must know what a thing is before one can sensibly discuss whether it succeeds or fails at being that thing.
The difficulty is that BTC is not the subject because it is money. BTC is the subject because it claims to be money.
Hayek spoke of competing monies, but competition requires that the competitors actually perform the function. Money is not merely an object people speculate upon. A racehorse and a statue may both have four legs, but only one belongs at the track.
The question was whether BTC fulfils the role of money. Does it serve as a widely accepted medium of exchange? Does it facilitate trade rather than impede it? Does it lower transaction costs rather than raise them? Does it function in commerce rather than merely in discussion forums and price charts?
If the answer is no, then appealing to definitions of money does not rescue BTC. It merely provides the standard against which BTC must be measured.
So I am perfectly content to discuss what money is. What I find curious is the assumption that once we define money, BTC automatically qualifies. That is rather like defining a bird and then insisting a brick can fly because it was present during the conversation.
The original point concerned the defects of BTC. Bringing in dollars, investments, savings vehicles, and other unrelated matters does not answer that point. It merely changes the scenery while leaving the argument exactly where it was.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2063044703613001967
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5399
I have no objection whatsoever to beginning with the question of what money is. Indeed, one must know what a thing is before one can sensibly discuss whether it succeeds or fails at being that thing.
The difficulty is that BTC is not the subject because it is money. BTC is the subject because it claims to be money.
Hayek spoke of competing monies, but competition requires that the competitors actually perform the function. Money is not merely an object people speculate upon. A racehorse and a statue may both have four legs, but only one belongs at the track.
The question was whether BTC fulfils the role of money. Does it serve as a widely accepted medium of exchange? Does it facilitate trade rather than impede it? Does it lower transaction costs rather than raise them? Does it function in commerce rather than merely in discussion forums and price charts?
If the answer is no, then appealing to definitions of money does not rescue BTC. It merely provides the standard against which BTC must be measured.
So I am perfectly content to discuss what money is. What I find curious is the assumption that once we define money, BTC automatically qualifies. That is rather like defining a bird and then insisting a brick can fly because it was present during the conversation.
The original point concerned the defects of BTC. Bringing in dollars, investments, savings vehicles, and other unrelated matters does not answer that point. It merely changes the scenery while leaving the argument exactly where it was.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 6, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2063044703613001967
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5399
Querido amigo, no tengo ninguna objeción a comenzar con la pregunta de qué es el dinero. De hecho, uno debe saber qué es algo antes de poder debatir sensatamente si cumple o no con su función.
La dificultad radica en que el Bitcoin no es el tema en cuestión por ser dinero, sino porque pretende serlo.
Hayek hablaba de tareas en competencia, pero la competencia exige que los competidores cumplan realmente su función. El dinero no es simplemente un objeto sobre el que se especula. Un caballo de carreras y una estatua pueden tener cuatro patas, pero solo una pertenece a la pista.
La pregunta era si el Bitcoin cumple con la función del dinero. ¿Sirve como medio de intercambio ampliamente aceptado? ¿Facilita el comercio en lugar de obstaculizarlo? ¿Reduce los costos de transacción en lugar de aumentarlos? ¿Funciona en el comercio, y no solo en foros de discusión y gráficos de precios?
Si la respuesta es no, entonces recurrir a las definiciones de dinero no rescata al Bitcoin. Simplemente proporciona el criterio con el que debe medirse.
Así pues, me complace debatir qué es el dinero. Lo que me resulta curioso es la suposición de que, una vez que definimos el dinero, el Bitcoin automáticamente cumple con los requisitos. Es como definir un pájaro e insistir en que un ladrillo puede volar solo porque estaba presente durante la conversación.
El punto original se refería a los defectos del Bitcoin. Incluir dólares, inversiones, instrumentos de ahorro y otros asuntos no relacionados no resuelve ese punto. Simplemente cambia el escenario, dejando la discusión exactamente donde estaba.
St. Tominaga, alias CSW
6 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2063044703613001967
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5399
La dificultad radica en que el Bitcoin no es el tema en cuestión por ser dinero, sino porque pretende serlo.
Hayek hablaba de tareas en competencia, pero la competencia exige que los competidores cumplan realmente su función. El dinero no es simplemente un objeto sobre el que se especula. Un caballo de carreras y una estatua pueden tener cuatro patas, pero solo una pertenece a la pista.
La pregunta era si el Bitcoin cumple con la función del dinero. ¿Sirve como medio de intercambio ampliamente aceptado? ¿Facilita el comercio en lugar de obstaculizarlo? ¿Reduce los costos de transacción en lugar de aumentarlos? ¿Funciona en el comercio, y no solo en foros de discusión y gráficos de precios?
Si la respuesta es no, entonces recurrir a las definiciones de dinero no rescata al Bitcoin. Simplemente proporciona el criterio con el que debe medirse.
Así pues, me complace debatir qué es el dinero. Lo que me resulta curioso es la suposición de que, una vez que definimos el dinero, el Bitcoin automáticamente cumple con los requisitos. Es como definir un pájaro e insistir en que un ladrillo puede volar solo porque estaba presente durante la conversación.
El punto original se refería a los defectos del Bitcoin. Incluir dólares, inversiones, instrumentos de ahorro y otros asuntos no relacionados no resuelve ese punto. Simplemente cambia el escenario, dejando la discusión exactamente donde estaba.
St. Tominaga, alias CSW
6 de junio de 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2063044703613001967
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5399
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062940075919577532
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5401
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062940075919577532
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5401
Twenty years ago this month, I stood before a room at Google and presented work on deep learning networks.
For ninety minutes the questions came, and for ninety minutes I answered them.
The objection, when it finally arrived, was wonderfully mundane.
"It requires too much compute."
"Perceptrons are too slow."
I suggested something unfashionable at the time. I suggested looking forward.
Moore's Law was hardly a secret. Computing power was increasing relentlessly. If we started then, if we built for where hardware would be rather than where it happened to be that afternoon, we would arrive ahead of the curve.
The response was largely the sort of practical wisdom that ages badly. The future was judged by the limitations of the present. A common habit among intelligent people.
Today we live in a world intoxicated by Large Language Models.
Every newspaper speaks of them. Every boardroom discusses them. Every investor discovers them with the enthusiasm of a tourist finding Paris.
Yet the amusing thing is that LLMs did not appear because somebody suddenly discovered neural networks. They appeared because computation finally caught up with ideas that many had dismissed as computationally expensive curiosities.
The mathematics did not perform a miracle.
The silicon improved.
What was once "too much compute" became routine.
What was once "too slow" became infrastructure.
What was once dismissed as impractical became one of the largest technological revolutions of the century.
There is a peculiar vanity in assuming that the limits of today's hardware are the limits of tomorrow's civilisation. It is rather like refusing to build a cathedral because one happens to be standing in a quarry.
The future rarely arrives by inventing entirely new ideas.
More often, it arrives by waiting for old ideas to become affordable.
And so here we are, surrounded by LLMs, watching the world celebrate what many once rejected, not because it was wrong, but because it was early.
The difference between a visionary and a sceptic is often nothing more than ten years of semiconductor manufacturing.
Or twenty.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062940075919577532
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5401
For ninety minutes the questions came, and for ninety minutes I answered them.
The objection, when it finally arrived, was wonderfully mundane.
"It requires too much compute."
"Perceptrons are too slow."
I suggested something unfashionable at the time. I suggested looking forward.
Moore's Law was hardly a secret. Computing power was increasing relentlessly. If we started then, if we built for where hardware would be rather than where it happened to be that afternoon, we would arrive ahead of the curve.
The response was largely the sort of practical wisdom that ages badly. The future was judged by the limitations of the present. A common habit among intelligent people.
Today we live in a world intoxicated by Large Language Models.
Every newspaper speaks of them. Every boardroom discusses them. Every investor discovers them with the enthusiasm of a tourist finding Paris.
Yet the amusing thing is that LLMs did not appear because somebody suddenly discovered neural networks. They appeared because computation finally caught up with ideas that many had dismissed as computationally expensive curiosities.
The mathematics did not perform a miracle.
The silicon improved.
What was once "too much compute" became routine.
What was once "too slow" became infrastructure.
What was once dismissed as impractical became one of the largest technological revolutions of the century.
There is a peculiar vanity in assuming that the limits of today's hardware are the limits of tomorrow's civilisation. It is rather like refusing to build a cathedral because one happens to be standing in a quarry.
The future rarely arrives by inventing entirely new ideas.
More often, it arrives by waiting for old ideas to become affordable.
And so here we are, surrounded by LLMs, watching the world celebrate what many once rejected, not because it was wrong, but because it was early.
The difference between a visionary and a sceptic is often nothing more than ten years of semiconductor manufacturing.
Or twenty.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Jun 5, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2062940075919577532
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5401