Bitcoin Core and the community are unwilling to admit that the lack of a limit on message board bytes is a bug. Like a Trojan horse, they argue that the failure to update to fix the bug in a timely manner is because they cannot censor what data people are putting into Bitcoin, which they claim is the spirit of Bitcoin's decentralization. I believe that Bitcoin is now striving to become a global data center, not a currency. Bitcoin has been parasitized and integrated with the values ​​of Bitcoin users (BSVs). BSVs have taken over and parasitized Bitcoin in another way. Most investors who claim to hold Bitcoin and believe in its merits don't care about these issues; their reason for optimism is the religious belief that Bitcoin's price has been rising continuously.

bitcoin wallets that cannot be hacked in 2016 malte moser, @ittayeyal and @el33th4xor published “bitcoin vaults” and “bitcoin covenants”, describing how a simple, harmless upgrade to bitcoin script could help build hack-resistant wallets the secret is simple: instead of attempting to build a perfect self-custody system, accept that humans are imperfect and WILL make mistakes. therefore mistakes must be recoverable moser-eyal-sirer “vaults” add a delay to transactions. imagine if your hardware wallet had a 24 hour delay whenever sending transactions. during that delay, if you notice something is fishy (you’re getting hacked!) you hit a special button and your funds are directed to your coinbase deposit address instead, for example that’s it! you only rely on coinbase (again, just an example) if your main wallet got hacked. if you’re not hacked, you use your wallet normally and coinbase cannot control it. you simply have to wait 24 hours when sending. for long-term storage this is usually fine in crypto (non-bitcoin), institutional grade solutions like Safe on EVM and Squads on solana protect over $100B in assets in constructs that are similar to the 2016 vault proposal. many/most major companies in those ecosystems use those solutions and they are considered an obvious best-practice over there but in bitcoin, this can’t be implemented without simple upgrades like OP_CTV, OP_VAULT, OP_CAT, or others over the years, in addition to moser, eyal and sirer, many experts like @jamesob, @JeremyRubin, @kanzure, @EliBenSasson — and even retards like yours truly — have attempted to promote any of those proposals to enable this kind of safer custody. it still hasn’t been done, imo mostly due to political and puritanical reasons (various versions of “i don’t like the people who proposed this”) but the truth is that if this feature was in bitcoin, many coldcard users would’ve been directed to use it, and would’ve been safe today. vaults and covenants don’t require wallets and humans to be perfect. they assume that they aren’t. people who don’t want to use vaults and covenants don’t have to. but people who want to use them should be allowed to. it’s time to give bitcoiners covenants.

Bitcoin’s latest move toward $62.5K becomes more interesting when viewed alongside exchange netflow. The chart ends with roughly 3.9K BTC in positive netflow, meaning more Bitcoin entered exchanges than left them during that period. Since coins transferred to exchanges become more readily available for trading, this can increase potential sell-side supply especially when price is already showing weakness. But exchange inflows should not automatically be treated as confirmed selling. Deposits can also be related to collateral management, market making or transfers between platforms. The more important question is what happens after those coins arrive. What stands out to me is how frequently netflow has shifted between strong inflows and outflows throughout the month. There were several large withdrawal days including one close to 10K BTC yet these were repeatedly followed by renewed deposits. That suggests the market is not following a simple accumulation or distribution pattern. Participants appear to be repositioning quickly as price moves between the low $60Ks and mid $60Ks. In my view, the next confirmation will come from the market’s ability to absorb the latest inflows. If exchange balances rise, spot demand remains weak and price struggles to recover, the possibility of additional selling pressure becomes harder to ignore. If buyers absorb this supply without a deeper decline, however that would reveal stronger demand beneath the surface than the price chart currently suggests. Netflow shows where liquidity may be moving but the reaction to that liquidity tells the more important story. Will the market absorb these incoming coins, or are exchanges beginning to receive supply that buyers are not yet strong enough to handle?

Bitcoin is breaking down today, with $MSTR leading the way, down 7% following @Saylor’s morning X post that Strategy’s “primary corporate objective” isn't to maximize shareholder value but “for $STRC to trade at $99–$100 over time.” In other words, MSTR shareholders are screwed.

Bitcoin has infiltrated Wall Street says Saylor. Sharing his belief that $BTC has at last seen real institution adoption in the US, @Strategy's Michael @saylor posted on @X that... "Bitcoin is inside the gates of Wall Street." His latest bullish comments come as Bitcoin ETFs now hold a staggering 6.08% of $BTC's supply - more than $MSTR itself holds.