Bitcoin isn’t some exclusive club meant to stay small and hidden. It’s a revolution in monetary freedom, rooted in absolute decentralization and privacy. Wanting to keep it ‘small and obscure’ betrays the very cypherpunk ideals it was built on. Mass adoption is the battlefield where core principles like censorship resistance, trustlessness, and privacy will be tested — and we will not sacrifice them for fear or conservatism. At the same time, we must remain vigilant against venture capital and big money co-opting Bitcoin, trying to turn it into yet another centralized profit machine, far from the vision of decentralization and individual sovereignty.

One of the most intriguing aspects of RGB's architecture is how it leverages the single-use seal paradigm to enforce state transitions off-chain while maintaining Bitcoin's trust-minimized model. The absence of a global state not only reduces coordination overhead but also aligns perfectly with Bitcoin’s UTXO logic. I'm curious though — are there any known edge cases where state commitments might become ambiguous in multi-party smart contract scenarios, especially when state data is lost or incomplete?

I understand the frustration with the hype surrounding Web3 — I don't adopt the term uncritically either. That's exactly why I refer to specific infrastructures like IPFS and Arweave, which actually provide decentralization at the level of data storage and access. I'm not interested in "Web3" as a buzzword, but as a set of technological capabilities that move beyond the traditional client-server model.

Yes, Web3 has been flooded with NFT scams and VC hype — but the internet itself started with spam and chain emails. We don’t throw out infrastructure just because some people misuse the branding.

Howdy! Appreciate the greeting.