Found In Blocks retweeted
Notorious $MSTR hater privates account and deletes all posts in wake of Bitcoin climbing 25% in a week.
This is why you take screenshots people.
No one will escape what’s coming when the bookmarks begin to come out.
Everyone will realize they were fudded out of a generational entry by people chasing some clicks.
Few.
Found In Blocks retweeted
I think there’s one thing we all deserve to know:
What price did @comic (lil retard) buy most of his $MSTR at?
Every villain has an origin story.
I need the full story arc of how he became Strategy’s No. 1 villain.
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Check out my artwork used in @AAStack post !! 🧡
I see Bitcoiners complaining that Trump hasn’t done enough for Bitcoin.
Fine. Hold him accountable.
But some of you have incredibly short memories.
The alternative wasn’t some imaginary libertarian administration waiting to embrace Bitcoin.
It was four more years coming out of an administration where regulators told banks to pause crypto-related activity, Biden fought Congress over repealing SAB 121, his Treasury proposed a massive electricity tax on digital-asset mining, and Elizabeth Warren was openly making crypto a political enemy while repeatedly framing it as a national-security and criminal-finance threat.
Kamala started talking about clearer digital-asset rules when the election got close. Maybe she would have changed course. Nobody can prove the counterfactual.
But even Crypto4Harris existed partly because Democrats inside the industry were desperately trying to convince her campaign to reverse the existing Democratic approach. That tells you something.
Compare that trajectory with where we are now: a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a materially friendlier banking environment, SAB 121 gone, and Washington debating how America can lead in Bitcoin and digital assets rather than how to choke the industry out.
Trump deserves criticism when he fails to deliver.
But pretending the two political outcomes were interchangeable is intellectually dishonest.
Bitcoin doesn’t need Republicans.
Bitcoin doesn’t need Democrats.
Bitcoin doesn’t need Trump.
Bitcoin will keep producing blocks regardless.
But if you think the government standing out of Bitcoin’s way doesn’t matter, you weren’t paying attention from 2021–2024.
Found In Blocks retweeted
I see Bitcoiners complaining that Trump hasn’t done enough for Bitcoin.
Fine. Hold him accountable.
But some of you have incredibly short memories.
The alternative wasn’t some imaginary libertarian administration waiting to embrace Bitcoin.
It was four more years coming out of an administration where regulators told banks to pause crypto-related activity, Biden fought Congress over repealing SAB 121, his Treasury proposed a massive electricity tax on digital-asset mining, and Elizabeth Warren was openly making crypto a political enemy while repeatedly framing it as a national-security and criminal-finance threat.
Kamala started talking about clearer digital-asset rules when the election got close. Maybe she would have changed course. Nobody can prove the counterfactual.
But even Crypto4Harris existed partly because Democrats inside the industry were desperately trying to convince her campaign to reverse the existing Democratic approach. That tells you something.
Compare that trajectory with where we are now: a U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a materially friendlier banking environment, SAB 121 gone, and Washington debating how America can lead in Bitcoin and digital assets rather than how to choke the industry out.
Trump deserves criticism when he fails to deliver.
But pretending the two political outcomes were interchangeable is intellectually dishonest.
Bitcoin doesn’t need Republicans.
Bitcoin doesn’t need Democrats.
Bitcoin doesn’t need Trump.
Bitcoin will keep producing blocks regardless.
But if you think the government standing out of Bitcoin’s way doesn’t matter, you weren’t paying attention from 2021–2024.
Check out my artwork used in @AAStack post 🟧🧡
Bitcoin didn’t die on 8/8.
If anything, BIP-110 proved it’s alive and working exactly as designed.
Decentralization was never supposed to eliminate conflict. It was designed to survive it.
Miners have influence.
Developers have influence.
Wall Street has influence.
Governments have influence.
Node operators have influence.
But influence is not control.
There’s no CEO of Bitcoin. No headquarters. No master server. No institution that can simply rewrite the rules and force everyone else to accept them.
Bitcoin doesn’t require us to agree.
It was designed specifically because we won’t.
The fighting, competing incentives, different implementations, lobbying, signaling and disagreement aren’t necessarily signs that decentralization failed.
That’s what a system without a king looks like.
Bitcoin didn’t die on 8/8.
It did exactly what it was designed to do.
Tick tock, next block.
Found In Blocks retweeted
Bitcoin didn’t die on 8/8.
If anything, BIP-110 proved it’s alive and working exactly as designed.
Decentralization was never supposed to eliminate conflict. It was designed to survive it.
Miners have influence.
Developers have influence.
Wall Street has influence.
Governments have influence.
Node operators have influence.
But influence is not control.
There’s no CEO of Bitcoin. No headquarters. No master server. No institution that can simply rewrite the rules and force everyone else to accept them.
Bitcoin doesn’t require us to agree.
It was designed specifically because we won’t.
The fighting, competing incentives, different implementations, lobbying, signaling and disagreement aren’t necessarily signs that decentralization failed.
That’s what a system without a king looks like.
Bitcoin didn’t die on 8/8.
It did exactly what it was designed to do.
Tick tock, next block.
Thank you for the support!! Everyone go check out @corn_hodl awesome stuff 🧡! xitter.cf/i/jf/cards/money/share…
Found In Blocks retweeted
Bitcoin doesn’t need to be “saved” from institutions because institutions don’t control Bitcoin.
They can build products around it.
They can create ETFs, derivatives, lending markets, and custodial services.
They can influence public narratives.
They can lobby regulators.
But none of that changes the protocol unless the broader ecosystem voluntarily adopts those changes.
Bitcoin’s strength is that no single company, government, developer, or billionaire can redefine its monetary policy or force a consensus change on unwilling participants.
Attempts to steer Bitcoin are not new. Exchanges, miners, companies, governments, and influential individuals have all tried to shape its direction over the years.
Sometimes they succeed in influencing discussion.
Sometimes they influence adoption.
But they don’t automatically control consensus.
If institutions over-financialize Bitcoin, users can still self-custody.
If custodians become dominant, users can withdraw.
If one implementation changes in an unpopular way, alternatives can emerge.
If regulation becomes restrictive in one jurisdiction, the network continues elsewhere.
Bitcoin’s resilience comes from voluntary participation, open competition, and the ability of anyone to reject changes they disagree with.
The real question isn’t whether powerful actors will try to influence Bitcoin, they almost certainly will.
The question is whether Bitcoin’s decentralized incentives remain strong enough that no group can permanently subordinate the network to its own interests.
Found In Blocks retweeted
It is a multi-vector attack.
First, embrace Bitcoin publicly. Increase its supply through financialized exposure and suppress its volatility through the derivatives complex.
Control the narrative through X, institutional media, influencers and conferences. Then attack the critical choke point: the code itself, by influencing developers and Core through concentrated funding channels.
Introduce technical changes gradually, using a boiling-frog strategy that avoids triggering broad resistance within the community. Meanwhile, build the Wall Street infrastructure and political cover required to achieve regulatory capture inside the existing financial system.
This is not a spontaneous shift. It is a sophisticated, multi-year operation.
The objective is to neutralize Bitcoin’s monetary threat to the dollar. Do not ban it. Do not seize it. Financialize it. Contain it. Turn it into a store-of-value asset that can be controlled, collateralized and absorbed into the existing system.
It is the modern version of 6102.
Pre-position inside the asset. Integrate the infrastructure before the broader public understands what is happening. Then validate Bitcoin from the top down by formally recognizing it as a new form of collateral.
The announcement triggers the repricing. The repricing recapitalizes the institutions and political actors who were positioned in advance.
Bitcoin then becomes the inflation-capture mechanism for the AI transition: a controlled monetary release valve capable of absorbing the currency debasement, capital formation and collateral expansion required to finance the next technological era.
The threat is not that they will destroy Bitcoin.
The threat is that they will successfully capture its economic function while preserving only the appearance of monetary freedom.
