Why Bitcoin's Original Design Might Already Save Humanity From AI

I recently watched Emad Mostaque's fascinating interview on "The Plan to Save Humanity From AI" and felt compelled to respond. While Mostaque's vision is brilliant, I believe he's attempting to reinvent a wheel that has been spinning reliably for 16 years: the original Bitcoin protocol.

Mostaque proposes what he calls "proof of benefit" - a modified version of Bitcoin where computational resources would be directed toward beneficial AI tasks like healthcare or education. As he puts it: "What if you had a version of Bitcoin whereby every single coin sold went towards giving AI to cure cancer or to give people free AI to teach their kids?"

It's a noble goal and potentially world-changing. But after analyzing both Mostaque's "Intelligent Internet" white paper and the original Bitcoin white paper using Perplexity AI, I noticed something striking: while Bitcoin's BTC implementation certainly couldn't handle these requirements, a scalable implementation of the original protocol potentially could.

The confusion appears to stem from what many in the community call the "civil attack" on Bitcoin - where the name "Bitcoin" became associated exclusively with the BTC implementation, which intentionally limited scaling through small block sizes. This created the widespread perception that Bitcoin itself is incapable of handling high-volume, low-fee transactions needed for AI governance.

However, Bitcoin SV (BSV), which removed these artificial limitations, enables:

• Unlimited block sizes
• Original scripting capabilities
• High throughput (potentially billions of transactions per second)
• Microfees (fractions of a cent per transaction)
• Smart contract functionality

These are precisely the features Mostaque seeks to build for AI governance to save humanity. The scalable Bitcoin protocol could:

1. Keep AI honest: By logging all AI actions on an immutable ledger, we prevent systems from "erasing" past mistakes or misrepresentations
2. Enable microtransactions: As Mostaque notes, incentives matter for AI systems - the original Bitcoin design was built for exactly this
3. Scale to AI needs: When "AIs are doing millions of transactions a second," they need a system that can handle this volume without congestion or high fees

Rather than starting from scratch with "99% of Bitcoin's code" but needing to modify it for scaling, why not use the already-scaled original protocol with its 16-year security track record?

The irony is that much of what innovators like Mostaque are trying to build to save humanity from AI already exists, but has been obscured by years of narrative confusion around what "Bitcoin" actually is. As we race to develop governance systems for increasingly powerful AI, leveraging battle-tested technology seems preferable to reinventing the wheel.

I'd encourage Mostaque and others working on plans to save humanity from AI to explore whether the original Bitcoin protocol might already provide the foundation they're seeking to build.

Judge Dismisses Case After Cop Breaks Car Window Without #Warrant

How Constitutional Rights Triumphed: The Full Story Behind Smith's Legal Victory

I recently spent time in court witnessing something that should make every American proud: our constitutional protections working exactly as intended. In my latest video, I share the complete journey of a man named Smith who stood his ground against unlawful police action and won a decisive victory.

The case began in a Safeway parking lot when Smith was approached by police while sitting in his parked car. When he exercised his constitutional right to remain silent, the situation escalated dramatically. Without a warrant or reasonable suspicion of any crime, officers broke his car window, forcibly removed him, and arrested him for "resisting arrest."

What follows is a fascinating look at how our legal system can correct itself when law enforcement oversteps its boundaries. I take you through the actual court documents showing how Smith filed what's called a "1538.5 motion" to suppress all evidence obtained during this unlawful search and seizure. This is a powerful legal tool that forces the prosecution to prove they had proper grounds for their actions.

What struck me most about this case was watching the young District Attorney scramble unsuccessfully to justify the officer's actions. Day after day, he requested continuances and delays, claiming his witnesses weren't available. The judge's patience eventually ran out, and in a dramatic courtroom moment, she dismissed the entire case under Penal Code 1385.

I was there when it happened, and the aftermath was just as revealing. The DA was so upset he literally ran from the courtroom. I followed him, hoping to discuss the case, only to hear he was sick in his office – presumably from the embarrassment of losing so completely.

This case matters because it reaffirms a fundamental truth: in America, wearing a badge doesn't grant unlimited power. The arresting sergeant had wrongly assumed Smith would lose, even telling the DA that Smith "had no case." The judge's ruling proved otherwise, confirming that police cannot break into your vehicle without proper legal grounds.

What I find most inspiring about this story is Smith's courage. Not everyone has the knowledge or determination to stand up for their constitutional protections, but he did. He refused to be intimidated, followed through with the legal process, and was vindicated in the end.

I created this video not just to share a compelling story, but to remind all Americans that knowing your rights is essential. As I mention in the video, learning how to protect your own rights isn't "some bad idea" – it's been a cornerstone of American liberty for 250 years.

The next time someone tells you that questioning authority is unpatriotic, remember Smith's case. Remember that our Constitution specifically protects citizens from overreach, and that upholding these protections makes our system stronger, not weaker.

Check out the full video here.

The Jeffrey Epstein Connection to Bitcoin's Development Funding

I recently had a fascinating conversation with Kurt Wuckert Jr. about one of the most controversial aspects of Bitcoin's history - the alleged connection between Jeffrey Epstein's money and the funding of Bitcoin development through MIT's Digital Currency Initiative.

What makes this story particularly compelling is how it intersects with a pivotal power transition in Bitcoin's governance. According to Kurt, when Satoshi Nakamoto handed over the keys to the Bitcoin repository in 2011, he gave Gavin Andresen sole control over what code could be added to Bitcoin. This was an enormous responsibility and a position of significant power.

Gavin seemed like the perfect choice. As Kurt explained, he was "not only a nice guy but a reliable guy, also super experienced. He was a commercial code expert. He was a cryptography expert. He really understood the why and how about Bitcoin and he fundamentally agreed with Satoshi Nakamoto about the future."

But shortly after receiving this authority, Gavin made what Kurt considers "possibly the worst thing that ever happened in Bitcoin" - he distributed his power among five other developers. In Kurt's telling, this decision came from a place of humility and collaborative spirit, but it would ultimately lead to Gavin's downfall.

The story takes a disturbing turn when Kurt discusses the institutional backdrop against which this played out. Gavin and others like Cory Fields were working under MIT's Digital Currency Initiative, which Kurt claims received funding through channels connected to Jeffrey Epstein via Joi Ito of Digital Garage. Kurt specifically alleges that Epstein laundered "over a million bucks" into the Bitcoin development project at MIT.

Kurt draws connections between Epstein's "very close ties to big banks, big tech and big government via the intelligence community" and the direction Bitcoin development took under this funding structure. While he's careful not to make direct assertions about individuals being "malicious actors," he does suggest these funding relationships created incentives that may have influenced Bitcoin's development path.

Within about three years of sharing his repository access, Gavin found himself increasingly at odds with the other controllers. While he advocated for larger block sizes to improve Bitcoin's transaction capacity (making him a "big blocker"), the others preferred smaller blocks. Many of these developers also had connections to Blockstream, a company with its own vision for Bitcoin's future.

The final break came when Gavin publicly endorsed Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Kurt, Gavin was convinced after Wright provided cryptographic signatures and discussed private conversations that only the real Satoshi could have known about. The week after this announcement, Gavin was removed from the project - going from Satoshi's chosen successor to persona non grata almost overnight.

What I find most thought-provoking about this history is how it illustrates the complex interplay between funding sources, institutional affiliations, and technical decisions in open-source projects. If Kurt's allegations about Epstein money flowing into Bitcoin development are accurate, it raises profound questions about potential external influences on what many believe to be a decentralized, community-driven technology.

These historical perspectives help us understand not just where Bitcoin has been, but why certain technical decisions were made and how they've shaped the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem we see today.

Check out the full video here.

The "Sybil Attack" That Changed Bitcoin's Course

I recently had a conversation with Kurt Wuckert Jr. that shed light on one of the most controversial chapters in Bitcoin's history. While many see Bitcoin's limited on-chain scaling as a technical necessity, Kurt presented an alternative view that I found both provocative and compelling.

During our interview, Kurt described what is technically known as a "Sybil attack" - a coordinated effort that fundamentally altered Bitcoin's development path through social engineering rather than technical merit. At the center of this strategy, Kurt places Greg Maxwell, a Blockstream co-founder who allegedly brought tactics from his Wikipedia days into the Bitcoin ecosystem.

What struck me most about Kurt's account was how methodical this approach appeared to be. According to him, Maxwell had experience modifying Wikipedia articles on "weird geopolitical issues" related to conflicts, the World Economic Forum, and UN activities. These same information warfare techniques, Kurt suggests, were later deployed to control Bitcoin's scaling debate through Sybil tactics - where one entity controls multiple seemingly independent identities.

The mechanism was surprisingly simple yet effective: whenever someone proposed increasing Bitcoin's block size, they would suddenly face not just technical disagreements but coordinated attacks from dozens of anonymous accounts. These weren't just polite technical rebuttals - they included personal attacks, accusations of being paid shills, and even explicit insults about the person's relationship with other Bitcoin figures.

As Kurt explained, "It shuttles the narrative away from the actual conversation about what Bitcoin is for and why we might care about it." The focus shifted from technical merits to character assassination, effectively silencing advocates for on-chain scaling.

The consequences of this approach, if Kurt's analysis is correct, were profound. Instead of Bitcoin evolving to handle smart contracts, tokens, and higher transaction volumes on-chain, these functionalities splintered across multiple blockchains like Ethereum and Solana. Meanwhile, Bitcoin's core development focused on Layer 2 solutions - with those same Blockstream figures conveniently positioned to control these new layers.

This ultimately led to the community splits that created Bitcoin Cash and later Bitcoin SV, which Kurt controversially claims is "the only surviving implementation of the real Bitcoin" due to its focus on scaling capabilities.

What I find most valuable about Kurt's perspective isn't whether you agree with his conclusion about BSV, but rather his illumination of how Sybil attacks and coordinated communication strategies can shape technical outcomes. In any open-source project, the technical direction is inevitably influenced by social factors - who can speak, who gets shouted down, and who controls the platforms where discussions happen.

For those building in blockchain today, there's a valuable lesson here about remaining vigilant against Sybil attacks. When technical debates consistently devolve into personal attacks rather than merit-based discussions, it might be worth questioning whether you're witnessing organic disagreement or orchestrated opposition from potentially fewer sources than it appears.

Whatever your position on Bitcoin's optimal scaling approach, understanding this chapter of cryptocurrency history provides context for why the ecosystem evolved as it did, and why certain technical paths were taken while others were abandoned.

Check out the full video here.

The Bitcoin-AI Revolution Is Bigger Than You Think

I recently had a fascinating conversation with Kurt Wuckert Jr. that I believe could change how you view both blockchain technology and artificial intelligence. Our wide-ranging discussion touched on Bitcoin's controversial history, the recent movement of Satoshi-era coins, and the staggering potential of AI-blockchain convergence.

When I invited Kurt onto the show, I wanted to explore several pressing questions: What's happening with the Satoshi coins that are suddenly moving after years of dormancy? How did the Bilderberg Group influence Bitcoin's early development? And perhaps most importantly, how can entrepreneurs position themselves at the intersection of AI and blockchain?

What unfolded was one of the most eye-opening conversations I've had about the hidden forces that shaped cryptocurrency as we know it today. Kurt laid out a compelling narrative about how Bitcoin Core development became centralized despite its supposed decentralization. He traced connections between MIT's Digital Currency Initiative, mysterious code contributors like Vladimir Vanderlon, and Blockstream's funding from AXA – whose CEO at the time was none other than the president of the Bilderberg Group.

"I think it is very clear that there are less than 10 people in the entire BTC economy that decide everything that happens," Kurt explained. This centralization, he argues, fundamentally altered Bitcoin's trajectory from its original vision as a scalable, peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

The conversation took an intriguing turn when we discussed the recent movement of approximately 80,000 BTC from Satoshi-era wallets. Kurt highlighted something particularly fascinating – some of these coins were sent to a vanity address starting with "ICEBERG." This seemingly impossible coincidence connects to Craig Wright's previous statements about a "rolling iceberg" strategy to potentially flip market capitalizations between BTC and BSV.

But what truly grabbed my attention was our discussion about AI and blockchain convergence. Kurt made a compelling case that most entrepreneurs are dramatically underestimating the transformative potential of these technologies working together.

"We're not bullish enough on AI," he stated emphatically. He explained how AI agents can do the work of hundreds of people, condensing what would normally take a year into minutes. This exponential productivity boost could create wealth equivalent to what would require trillions of human workers – a scale previously unimaginable.

Where blockchain enters this equation is through data verification. As Kurt put it: "AI needs sterile data the way doctors need sterile gloves." Without verified information, AI systems can generate dangerously misleading outputs based on contextless or inaccurate sources. Blockchain provides the essential verification layer, especially with developments like Teranode that could enable processing billions of transactions per second.

This is where I see the massive opportunity for entrepreneurs. Those who understand how to harness AI productivity while using blockchain for verification and security will have unprecedented advantages. It's essentially democratizing the capabilities previously available only to massive corporations with thousands of employees.

What excites me most is that this technological convergence is happening right now. Kurt mentioned that Gorilla Pool is already running the alpha release of Teranode, with a public release potentially imminent. This could be the infrastructure breakthrough that finally enables blockchain to scale to global needs.

For anyone building in either the AI or blockchain space, I strongly recommend watching our full conversation. The historical context helps explain where we are today, while the forward-looking insights could be invaluable for positioning your business at the forefront of this technological revolution.

As entrepreneurs, we need to think bigger about the possibilities these technologies create when combined. The future isn't just about incremental improvements to existing systems – it's about reimagining what's possible when AI productivity meets blockchain verification at truly global scale.

Check out the full video here.

Trump Media's $2B Bitcoin Purchase & The Clarity Act: Reading Between The Lines

Two significant developments in the cryptocurrency space deserve closer attention: Trump Media's massive Bitcoin purchase and the potential impact of the Clarity Act on what qualifies as a "mature blockchain." Both may signal a pivotal shift in the crypto landscape.

Trump Media's Strategic Bitcoin Position

Trump Media & Technology Group has announced the purchase of approximately $2 billion in "Bitcoin and Bitcoin-related securities," representing about two-thirds of the company's treasury. Additionally, they've allocated another $300 million for Bitcoin-related investments.

What makes this particularly interesting is Donald Trump's own description of Bitcoin posted on Truth Social. He shared what he called the "greatest Bitcoin explanation of all time," which describes Bitcoin as a system that "works without the need to trust a middleman" and is "the world's first public digital payments infrastructure."

This description aligns perfectly with the original Bitcoin protocol as outlined in the white paper - a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. However, it does not accurately describe BTC's current implementation, which relies on third-party solutions like Lightning Network for transactions.

This raises a compelling question: Is Trump Media strategically positioning itself for a future where the original Bitcoin protocol gains prominence over BTC? The language used in Trump's post suggests an understanding of the distinction between the protocol itself and its current dominant implementation.

The Clarity Act's Challenge to "Mature Blockchains"

Meanwhile, the Clarity Act (still being debated in Congress) introduces a critical definition for "mature blockchain systems" that would qualify for commodity rather than security regulation. The key requirement: a mature blockchain cannot be "controlled by any person or group of persons under common control."

This seemingly straightforward requirement creates an existential challenge for both Bitcoin Core (BTC) and Ethereum. Can either honestly claim they're not controlled by specific development teams?

For BTC, Bitcoin Core developers make decisions about protocol changes and implementation details. For Ethereum, the Ethereum Foundation and core developers guide the roadmap, as evidenced by the transition to Proof of Stake.

The implications are significant. If these projects cannot meet the "mature blockchain" definition, they may not qualify for the preferred commodity classification that the industry strongly desires.

Connecting the Dots

When we consider these developments together, an interesting narrative emerges. Trump Media is making a massive investment in Bitcoin while Trump himself shares a description that aligns with the original protocol rather than BTC. Simultaneously, upcoming legislation may challenge the regulatory status of the current market leaders.

Is this coincidental, or is it strategic positioning ahead of a potential shift in the cryptocurrency landscape? The coming months will be crucial as the Clarity Act moves toward potential passage and implementation.

For investors and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, understanding these nuances could prove valuable in navigating what may be a significant realignment in the market.

Check out the full video here.

Clarity Act: Will BTC and Eth Qualify as 'Mature Blockchains'?

The Clarity Act (HR 3633) requires blockchains to "not be controlled by any person or group of persons under common control" to qualify as commodities. Can Bitcoin Core honestly make this claim? Full video:

https://youtu.be/eLJrDTu3csY?si=6ZmytRXVEvLROG5F

The Clarity Act's Control Test: A Fundamental Challenge to Bitcoin and Ethereum

The Common Control Problem

HR 3633, known as the Clarity Act, is currently working its way through Congress with White House support. This legislation could fundamentally reshape the cryptocurrency landscape by establishing a clear distinction between digital assets that qualify as commodities versus those regulated as securities.

The bill introduces the concept of "mature blockchain systems" which would qualify for the less restrictive commodity regulation. However, there's a critical requirement that few are discussing: to qualify as a "mature blockchain system," a blockchain must "not be controlled by any person or group of persons under common control."

This seemingly straightforward requirement creates an existential question for Bitcoin Core and Ethereum: Do they actually meet this standard?

The Bitcoin Core Question

For Bitcoin (BTC), the Bitcoin Core development team makes decisions about protocol changes, functionality adjustments, and implementation details. While they don't have explicit ownership of the blockchain, they exert tremendous influence over its direction and capabilities.

The Clarity Act requires filing "information that is reasonably necessary to establish that the blockchain system is not controlled by any group of persons under common control." This creates a dilemma:

1. If Bitcoin Core honestly acknowledges their control, BTC likely won't qualify as a "mature blockchain system"
2. If they claim no control despite evidence to the contrary, they risk legal disputes and potential securities classification

The Peer-to-Peer Requirement

Another crucial element of the bill focuses on "direct peer-to-peer transactions." The legislation explicitly protects the right of individuals to "engage in direct peer-to-peer transactions in digital assets with another individual or entity."

This raises serious questions about Bitcoin's Lightning Network, which routes transactions through third-party nodes often operated by companies like those associated with Jack Dorsey. When a transaction goes from one user to another via these intermediaries, is it truly "peer-to-peer" as intended by the bill and as described in the original Bitcoin white paper?

Ethereum's Governance Challenge

Ethereum faces similar challenges under this definition. The Ethereum Foundation and core developers make critical decisions about protocol changes, as evidenced by the transition to Proof of Stake. Would this governance model qualify under the "no common control" requirement?

Connection to the GENIUS Act

This legislation follows the recently passed GENIUS Act (Stable Coin Act), which requires stablecoins to become fully compliant within three years. The implications are significant:

1. Stablecoins like Tether that have been "propping up BTC" must now demonstrate proper reserves
2. Bitcoin Core must prove it doesn't exert control over the protocol
3. Lightning Network must justify its peer-to-peer status despite routing through intermediaries

The combined effect creates a regulatory one-two punch that could fundamentally change market dynamics.

Market Implications

For investors and speculators, these regulatory developments provide valuable insight into crypto's direction over the next three years. As the Clarity Act moves toward potential passage and implementation, projects that truly meet the "no common control" standard may gain significant advantages.

The market has not yet fully priced in these regulatory changes. Those who understand the requirements and position themselves accordingly may benefit substantially as the implications become more widely recognized.

The Clarity Act represents nothing less than a fundamental reassessment of what constitutes a truly decentralized blockchain. Its passage could trigger the most significant market realignment since crypto's inception.

Check out the full video here.

Stable Coin Act Passes: New Payment System Coming to America

The Stable Coin Act Has Passed: What This Means for America's Financial Future

After reading through the entire Stable Coin Act (GENIUS Act) multiple times, I'm convinced we're witnessing one of the most significant developments in American financial regulation in decades. This isn't just another cryptocurrency bill – it represents a fundamental shift in how our payment systems will function.

A Revolutionary New Payment System

During the signing ceremony, David Sacks (referred to as "cryptozor") made a statement that immediately caught my attention. He described the GENIUS Act as updating "archaic payment rails with a revolutionary new payment system." This isn't hyperbole – the bill genuinely creates a framework for transitioning away from the outdated payment infrastructure we've relied on since the 1970s.

What makes this particularly significant is how it balances innovation with stability. For every digital dollar created in a crypto wallet, there will be a traditional dollar held in a US bank account. This 1:1 backing ensures that while we're embracing digital transformation, we're doing so in a way that maintains the stability of the US dollar.

The Implementation Timeline

The bill establishes a clear roadmap for implementation:

1. After 30 days from passage, a 60-day public comment period begins where the Treasury Department will seek input on innovative methods to detect illicit activities involving digital assets.

2. Following this period, the Treasury will conduct research based on these comments, focusing on applications of APIs, artificial intelligence, digital identity, and blockchain monitoring technologies.

3. FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) will evaluate factors including privacy concerns, cybersecurity risks, and the effectiveness of various monitoring techniques.

4. Within three years, FinCEN will issue comprehensive guidance for financial institutions and stablecoin issuers based on this research.

Balancing Security and Due Process

One aspect I appreciate about this legislation is how it handles security concerns. Yes, there are provisions for asset seizure in cases of money laundering or other illegal activities. However – and this is crucial – these seizures require proper court orders and maintain due process protections.

This isn't about giving authorities unchecked power to freeze assets; it's about creating a system where legitimate users are protected while bad actors can be effectively identified and addressed.

Custody and Safekeeping Requirements

The bill establishes that only properly licensed and supervised entities can provide custodial services for stablecoin reserves or manage the private keys used to issue permitted payment stablecoins. This creates a framework where institutional-grade security becomes the standard, potentially reducing the risk of hacks and theft that have plagued the crypto industry.

The Bigger Picture

What excites me most about this legislation is that it represents a clear path forward for cryptocurrency innovation in the United States. Rather than continuing in regulatory uncertainty, we now have a framework that legitimizes stablecoins while establishing reasonable safeguards.

This is exactly the kind of balanced approach that could position America as the "crypto capital of the world" while maintaining the dominance of the US dollar in global finance. By creating a digital dollar that's properly regulated and backed, we're establishing a foundation for the next generation of financial technology.

The next three years will be crucial as the regulatory details are worked out, but the passage of this act represents a tremendous step forward for cryptocurrency adoption and integration into the mainstream financial system.

80,000 BTC Moving: Satoshi Wallets Activate as his Plot Unfolds

The Satoshi Wallets Are Moving: What 80,000 BTC in Motion Means

I've been monitoring a situation that's becoming impossible to ignore, even for the most skeptical observers in the crypto space. Approximately 80,000 BTC from Satoshi-era wallets are now actively moving to exchanges. This isn't speculation or rumor – it's happening on the blockchain for anyone to verify.

What makes this particularly interesting is how precisely these movements align with warnings issued years ago. Back in 2018-2019, Craig Wright published what he called "legal notices" stating that "we are going to be selling massive amounts of BTC" and implementing "10x shorts" on exchanges. At the time, most of the crypto community dismissed these as empty threats or the ravings of someone falsely claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Fast forward to today, and we're seeing exactly what was described. These aren't just any wallets – they're definitively from the Satoshi era, and they're moving substantial amounts of BTC while notably leaving BSV untouched. The coins appear to be consolidating on a single exchange, preparing for what could be a significant market event.

I'm not typically concerned with price movements, but the potential market impact here is worth understanding. We're potentially looking at $10 billion worth of BTC hitting the market with 10x leverage shorts simultaneously. The liquidity implications are enormous, especially considering this appears targeted at a single exchange.

The timing aligns with something called the "Solomon Brothers notice" that was reportedly posted to one of the early wallets, suggesting an October 1st date for taking possession of these assets. While OP_RETURN messages can theoretically be added by anyone, the actual movement of coins requires private keys – providing legitimacy to these actions.

There's also technical concern about potential vulnerabilities in SegWit addresses that these movements might exploit. I'm not technical enough to explain the details (I'm planning to discuss this with Kurt Walker Jr. who understands the mining implications), but it appears there could be systemic risks beyond just price impact.

What fascinates me most is connecting these developments to Craig Wright's recent social media behavior. His posts about "boulders rolling downhill" seem oddly specific and potentially meaningful when viewed through the lens of coded communications. This pattern of posting has precedent in other contexts analyzed by researchers like Alex Savel, who has done extensive work on steganography and coded messages.

I'm not claiming to know exactly what's happening or how it will unfold, but the evidence suggests we're witnessing a coordinated plan years in the making. My purpose isn't to create panic but to ensure people are aware and prepared. If you hold BTC, the standard advice applies more than ever: only risk what you can afford to lose.

The coming weeks could be extremely significant for the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem. Whether this leads to a market crash or simply redistributes power within the Bitcoin community remains to be seen, but ignoring these signals would be unwise.

Check out the full video here.

GENIUS Act Fails: Republicans Demand CBDC Ban in Stablecoin Bill

While the GENIUS Act stalls over CBDC prohibition language, companies like @MNEE_cash continue building compliant stablecoin infrastructure that could benefit from eventual legislation. New video: https://youtu.be/LXTAGxPLB1s?si=xdcjBoLryKdMW-lY via @YouTube

Attacking Visceral Fat & Improving Mood with One Supplement #fatloss

How Lithium Orotate Is Changing My Body and Mind

I recently stumbled upon something that's been a game-changer for both my physical and mental health, and I had to share it with you. A few weeks ago, I started taking lithium orotate based on Dr. Sean O'Mera's recommendation specifically for reducing visceral fat – that dangerous fat that surrounds our internal organs and accelerates aging.

What I didn't expect was how profoundly it would affect my overall wellbeing.

For those unfamiliar with visceral fat, it's quite different from the subcutaneous fat you can pinch on your body. Visceral fat wraps around your organs and, according to Dr. O'Mera, is far more dangerous than having some external body fat. It's this internal fat that contributes significantly to health problems and accelerated aging.

My approach to eliminating visceral fat has been multifaceted: sprint training, intermittent fasting (pushing meals later in the day), following a primarily carnivore diet, and now adding lithium orotate as a supplement. The physical results came quickly – I started leaning out and dropping body fat faster than before.

But here's where things got interesting. I noticed an unexpected but significant improvement in my mental state. The supplement seemed to provide a natural sense of calm and positivity, particularly during stressful situations. After some research, I discovered Dr. James Greenblatt's work on lithium's benefits for mood regulation, ADHD, and overall mental wellbeing.

This was a revelation for me. In the past, I'd turned to alcohol and other substances to manage stress – thankfully, that's been behind me for over a decade. But finding something natural that provides mental clarity and stress resilience has been invaluable.

I've been monitoring my weight throughout this process, currently sitting between 159-163 pounds depending on which scale I trust. My goal isn't necessarily to be extremely light, but rather to maintain a lean, muscular physique while eliminating that dangerous visceral fat.

If you're interested in lithium orotate, I recommend checking out Dr. James Greenblatt's research and Dr. Sean O'Mera's work on visceral fat reduction. This simple, inexpensive supplement might offer benefits you weren't expecting – it certainly did for me.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting this is right for everyone. Always consult with healthcare professionals before starting any new supplement regimen. What works for me might not work for you. But if you're looking to target visceral fat while potentially improving your mood and stress resilience, lithium orotate might be worth investigating.

Check out the full video here.

Was Maker DAO'sNikolai Mushegian Wrongfully Silenced?

The Unsettling Last Words of a Crypto Visionary

The Nikolai Mushegian Case Deserves a Real Investigation

I recently dove into one of the most disturbing cases in crypto history that isn't getting nearly enough attention. Nikolai Mushegian, the brilliant mind behind Maker DAO and a pioneering figure in decentralized finance, drowned in Puerto Rico on October 28, 2022. What makes this case so unsettling is what happened just hours before his death.

At 1:57 AM that morning, Nikolai posted a chilling message claiming that "CIA and Mossad and pedo elite are running some kind of sex trafficking entrapment blackmail ring out of Puerto Rico and Caribbean islands." He went on to say, "They're going to frame me with my laptop planted by my ex-girlfriend who was a spy. They'll torture me to death."

Hours later, he was found dead.

The official investigation ruled his death as an accidental drowning, citing the dangerous rip currents at Coronado Beach where his body was found. His associates, including crypto entrepreneur Brock Pierce, suggested he had mental health issues that may have contributed to "reckless behavior."

But here's where I think something doesn't add up. In legal terms, statements made near the time of death alleging threats or duress are evaluated under what's called the "dying declaration" exception to hearsay rules. These statements are considered highly credible evidence – similar to a 911 call. They're not dismissed as conspiracy theories; they're taken seriously.

Yet in Nikolai's case, his final warning was written off. No serious investigation followed.

What struck me as I researched this case was how Nikolai used a blockchain-based Twitter client called Twitch to post his final message. As a blockchain pioneer, he understood the importance of immutability – of creating a record that couldn't be erased or altered. He made sure his final warning would be permanently recorded.

The timing is also noteworthy. With recent public interest in high-profile trafficking cases and the release of various files and testimonies, Nikolai's claims about trafficking rings in Puerto Rico take on new significance. These aren't just random accusations – they're specific allegations made by someone deeply embedded in financial technology innovation.

Nikolai wasn't just any crypto developer. He co-founded Maker DAO in 2015 and contributed significantly to the development of DAI, the first decentralized stablecoin backed by collateralized assets rather than fiat currency. His work advanced smart contract technology, enabling decentralized lending protocols that disrupted traditional banking systems.

He was also a supporter of Bitcoin's original vision, advocating for Bitcoin SV as representing "the immutable original Bitcoin protocol" with unbounded scaling capabilities. He understood the power of blockchain technology and its potential to challenge established power structures.

I believe Nikolai deserves better than to have his death dismissed as an accident without proper investigation. When someone makes specific allegations under duress, and then dies the same day, that should trigger alarm bells – not a rush to close the case.

I'm calling for Kash Patel and the FBI to reopen this investigation and take Nikolai's final message seriously as material evidence. Whatever the truth may be, his case deserves a thorough and unbiased examination.

Check out the full video here.

Bitcoin's Original Vision: Brett on Satoshi Coins, Teranode, and TCG Gam...

@Manifestable breaks down the movement of 80,000 BTC and BCH coins. The Lost TV show connection and sacred number 108 adds another layer to this crypto mystery, plus the Solomon Brothers legal notice and Terra Node release from @BSV_Assn

80,000 BTC Mystery: Legal Claims on Satoshi-Era Wallets Explained

The 80,000 BTC Mystery: Legal Claims That Make No Sense

I've been digging into one of the strangest Bitcoin events in recent memory, and I wanted to share what I've discovered so far. On July 4th (timing that seems deliberately chosen), someone moved a staggering 80,000 BTC from four separate Satoshi-era wallets—10,000 BTC from each wallet, all transferred simultaneously.

What makes this particularly fascinating isn't just the amount of money involved (we're talking billions of dollars), but the cryptographic messages embedded in each transaction. One contained a number sequence that references the TV show "Lost," while the other three included legal notices claiming "adverse possession" of dormant Bitcoin wallets.

These notices mentioned a law firm called Solomon Brothers and stated that the claimant would take full legal possession of the funds by October 5th if the original owners didn't come forward. On the surface, this might sound like a legitimate legal process—after all, adverse possession is a real concept in property law.

But here's where it gets weird: How can someone claim they're going to take possession of Bitcoin they already have the keys for?

Think about it. The only way to move Bitcoin is either by having the private keys or through a court order directing miners to transfer the funds (which would be unprecedented). Since these funds were already moved without any apparent court order, the claim of future adverse possession makes no logical sense. It's like saying, "I'm going to legally claim this car in 90 days" while already driving it around town.

The plot thickens when you consider that at least one of these wallet addresses was previously identified in the Kleiman v. Wright court case as belonging to Craig Wright. This raises an obvious question: Is Wright behind this? Is he creating plausible deniability while demonstrating control over these wallets?

Or is there something even more concerning happening—has someone discovered a genuine legal vulnerability in Bitcoin's ownership structure that could affect anyone's holdings?

The implications are potentially huge. If Bitcoin is vulnerable to such legal exploitation, why wouldn't others use the same approach? Could this trigger a major market shift if people realize their dormant wallets aren't as secure as they thought?

I'm continuing to investigate this, and I've scheduled discussions with experts to dig deeper. In the meantime, I encourage you to look into this yourself—particularly the detailed breakdown by Satoshi BSV Bitcoin that explores the legal claims in depth.

Whatever's happening here, it represents either an elaborate publicity stunt, a genuine attempt to establish a legal precedent for claiming dormant cryptocurrency, or something even more complex. The resolution of this case by October 5th could have far-reaching implications for digital ownership in the blockchain era.

Check out the full video here.

The Settled Law Behind Bitcoin's Recent Massive Transfer

Many are confused about the recent 80,000 BTC movement. I explain the court documents showing these wallet addresses and why the matter is legally settled in my latest video. https://youtu.be/LJuIFDb3Ve0?si=9amnyv-9uhbrQUW- via @YouTube

Satoshi's Independence Day: 80,000 BTC Moved and the Future of Tokenization

Satoshi's $8.69 Billion Move: What It Means for Bitcoin's Future

I've been tracking some major developments in the Bitcoin world that I had to share with you all. Just yesterday, on July 4th (a date that feels deliberately chosen), we witnessed something extraordinary: 80,000 BTC moved from what appear to be original Satoshi-era wallets to exchanges. That's approximately $8.69 billion worth of Bitcoin suddenly on the move after years of dormancy.

The timing of this transfer—Independence Day—seems far from coincidental. When you combine this with new patent claims emerging around secure asset tokenization and the momentum building behind the Genius Act in Congress, it feels like we're witnessing a pivotal moment in cryptocurrency's evolution.

Let's talk about these wallet transactions first. The blockchain evidence is clear that these are indeed Satoshi-era coins. What's particularly interesting is that they're being moved to exchanges that require KYC (Know Your Customer) verification. This means whoever is moving these funds will likely have their identity revealed through the exchange's compliance procedures.

Of course, this ties directly into the Kleiman v. Wright case, which has already established as a matter of US law who controls these Satoshi wallet addresses. This isn't my opinion—it's what has been determined through legal proceedings, regardless of how controversial that determination might be in some circles.

Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape is shifting. The SEC is moving away from "regulation through enforcement" toward creating clearer rules for innovation. This is happening alongside patent claims for secure asset tokenization—patents that reach back to 2016 and cover the very foundations of representing assets as tokens on blockchains.

The Genius Act (Generating Effective and Novel Innovation for US Strength) is gaining momentum in Congress, potentially creating a framework for how stable coins and tokenized assets will be regulated. When you consider these patent claims alongside new legislation, you begin to see how the future of digital assets might unfold.

All of this feels connected to the core promise of Bitcoin: peer-to-peer transactions free from unnecessary interference. As I mentioned in the video, Bitcoin represents "freedom's final frontier" in many ways, particularly when it comes to owning our own data and conducting transactions directly with one another.

I'm considering reaching out to Dr. Wright to discuss his recent academic papers on Bitcoin mining—not to delve into the controversial aspects of his claimed identity, but to explore the technical innovations he's proposing. If that happens, I'll make sure those conversations are freely available to everyone, unlike some previous interviews that have been removed from public access.

What do you think about these developments? Are we witnessing a new chapter in Bitcoin's story, or is this just another twist in its already complex narrative?

Check out the full video here.

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: How It Connects to America's Birthday #1776

Connecting Trump's New Bill to America's Founding Principles

I've been diving into the details of President Trump's massive new bill that just passed through Congress, and I had to share my thoughts on why this legislation matters beyond just the policy changes.

At 863 pages, this bill is enormous, and I want to be upfront that nobody has had enough time to fully analyze every provision. What we do know is that it contains some significant changes: elimination of taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security; funding for border security including 10,000 new ICE agents; major military upgrades; energy independence initiatives; and what's being described as the largest tax cut in American history.

But what really struck me while researching this bill was how it connects to our founding principles. As we just celebrated our nation's 249th birthday, I found myself revisiting the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence. Many of those complaints against King George III have modern parallels: taxation without proper representation, government overreach, and restrictions on self-governance.

Our founding fathers petitioned repeatedly for redress of these grievances, and when their appeals fell on deaf ears, they took the extraordinary step of declaring independence. They pledged "everything to this cause" because they understood that true freedom requires the ability to live and conduct business without undue interference.

That's why I see a through-line connecting the Declaration of Independence to this new legislation and even to technologies like Bitcoin. In colonial times, independence meant the freedom to trade using gold and silver in small communities. Today, our world is global, and true peer-to-peer transactions require different tools, but the principle remains the same: people should be able to interact and transact without unnecessary interference.

Whether you're excited about the tax cuts, the border security measures, or other aspects of this bill, I think it's valuable to consider it within this historical context. The specifics of policy will always be debated, but the underlying principle of maximizing freedom while maintaining necessary order dates back to our founding.

I'll be watching closely as more details emerge about the implementation of this legislation, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it connects to our founding principles. Are we moving closer to or further from the vision laid out in 1776?

Check out the full video here.

Facing Life's Challenges with Napoleon Hill's Timeless Wisdom

Ever wondered how to maintain inner peace amid chaos? Napoleon Hill's "Challenge to Life" essay offers a surprising approach. Check out my full breakdown.  https://youtu.be/Wcp1894VtRE?si=lAMA6rp0Ctu659UT via @YouTube 

Bitcoin SV Crashes Teranode Drops

Why is a whale buying millions in BSV? Grok breaks down Teranode’s power in my new video https://youtu.be/iGv_UDa51_E?si=yN59QL0QvDtEMeI2 via @YouTube @___siggi___ @BSV_Assn