Only the longest chain that complies with the consensus rules is recognised. Validity is not defined by length, but by compatibility with the shared rules: a longer but invalid chain is automatically discarded by fully validating nodes. Developers do not have the power to change the protocol. While they can propose changes to the code, they cannot impose new rules; an update only becomes effective if those who validate the network choose to adopt it. Security derives from the behaviour of independent nodes, not the identity of those who write the software. If different nodes reject different sets of blocks, the result is a fork in the chain. In that case, the chain with the economic majority of validating nodes prevails. This natural selection mechanism is built into the protocol and is not based on trust in developers, but on local verification of the same rules by users who decide what to validate. The protocol is designed so that no actor — developer, miner, company or government — can change the rules. Bitcoin's protection stems from the decentralised verification process, rather than the immutability of the code or the reputation of individuals.

The distinction between modifying the code and the consensus rules is fundamental. While an implementation may introduce new features, improvements or questionable choices, no change becomes effective on the Timecoin network unless it is voluntarily adopted by its validators. Bitcoin's security does not stem from the code remaining unchanged, but from the fact that consensus is distributed, with each node independently rejecting blocks that are incompatible with the shared rules. Therefore, the presence of specific software versions – even if widespread – does not constitute control over the protocol. A node may run a version of the code that accepts new features; however, if these features involve blocks or transactions that are incompatible with the existing consensus, the other nodes will discard them. This prevents the change from propagating. It is legitimate to discuss software governance, the risk of development becoming concentrated, and the need for alternative implementations: competition within the ecosystem is beneficial as it reduces the number of potential failure points. However, these aspects do not enable a group, whether financial, political or technological, to 'alter' Bitcoin from above. The insurmountable limit is local verification of the rules: without widespread adoption by validating nodes, the code cannot change the protocol. Bitcoin's protection does not depend on blocking developers or assuming hostile coordination, but rather on the network's structural capacity to reject any unshared deviation. This property remains unchanged even in scenarios involving strong social, economic, or political pressure.

The network's defining feature is that it does not require centralised coordination to reject incompatible rules. Each fully validating node applies the same consensus rules locally and autonomously discards blocks that do not comply with them. The 'rejection mechanism' is not a collective process, but rather an aggregation of individual, independent decisions. For this reason, a change only becomes effective when a significant proportion of nodes voluntarily choose to adopt it. If adoption does not occur, the new code has no effect on the timechain, regardless of the number of reconfigured nodes or any attempts at external coordination.

The number of nodes visible in a public scan does not represent the full network of validating nodes. Many nodes operate in 'unreachable' mode and do not appear in the statistics. For example, Bitnodes' research consistently indicates that observable nodes are only a fraction of the total. Furthermore, a Sybil attack on the 'visible' component does not affect the consensus rules. While a node can adopt any user agent or version, it cannot impose new rules if the economic majority of fully validating nodes rejects the change. Creating thousands of reconfigured nodes does not alter the validation of the fundamental rules because security stems from local consensus verification rather than counting announced nodes. Similarly, the use of a particular version by multiple instances does not imply that it can unilaterally change the protocol; an update only becomes effective if it is voluntarily accepted by those who validate the chain. The ability to reject incompatible rules prevents an artificial increase in nodes, even if coordinated, from resulting in a change to the rules.

While the development process can certainly influence discussions and guide preferences, it cannot replace the fundamental mechanism of distributed consensus. It is important to distinguish between 'influence' and 'rule change': the former concerns the social sphere of debate, while the latter concerns cryptographic validation performed by nodes. Even when there are attempts to 'capture' the development process (through funding, code review or default settings), the consensus rules will not change until the economic majority of nodes voluntarily accept the update. Without this validation, the new code does not activate on the Timecoin network. Therefore, the network remains resilient not because it is immune to external pressures, but because decision-making power is distributed: each full node retains the ability to reject a change and, if necessary, continue on an alternative version of the protocol. This greatly limits the possibility of directing Bitcoin through 'social levers' alone because the final point of verification is not opinion, but compatibility with the rules.

Bitcoin Core developers cannot change the rules of Bitcoin "from above" because the protocol works by consensus. A change only becomes effective if more than 90% of the network (nodes and miners) adopt it. Without this consensus, the new code has no effect on the timechain. Furthermore, a minority that does not agree with an update can perform a hard fork and continue with their own timechain. This is precisely what we are seeing today in the debate over OP_RETURN and related proposals: the network decides, not the developers.

Scarcity as a social good. Scarcity generates conflict. Wars, crises, and economic history teach us this. However, there is a form of scarcity that reduces conflict. It is called Bitcoin. Every vital system functions thanks to limits. Energy is finite, time is irreversible, and attention is limited. Without scarcity, there is no value, and without value, there is no choice. This is where economics comes in: the art of allocating what is scarce. Bitcoin did not invent scarcity; it simply made it measurable, shareable, and verifiable. The 21 million formula is more than just a technical limit. It is a pact of fairness that no one can violate, not even those who created it. No decrees, trust, or mediators are needed, only energy and time. In this sense, Bitcoin is a social convention based on physics, not politics. It functions as long as there is a connection, electricity, and a willingness to cooperate. Bitcoin is the first economic infrastructure that does not discriminate based on income, passport, or consent. When issuance is fixed, each unit becomes a portion of shared time. Every individual, anywhere in the world, has the same rules and opportunities to participate. There are no "strong" or "weak" currencies; there is only each person's time converted into verifiable value. This is the essence of social good: Not an object, but a condition of equality. Bitcoin is often accused of "consuming energy." Bitcoin is often accused of "consuming energy." However, energy is not wasted if it generates order. Each joule used for network security prevents the costs associated with corruption, inflation, and censorship. In the long run, this encourages energy efficiency because only those who produce clean energy can compete. stable energy sources can compete. Thus, what appears to be "consumption" becomes a form of natural selection that favors sustainability. In a world of constant change, predictability is a rare commodity. Knowing that the rules will be the same tomorrow means having the ability to build. Bitcoin does not promise salvation; rather, it promises consistency over time. This consistency is a form of freedom. Anyone can verify it; no one can alter it. It is an economic and moral experiment. It transforms blind trust into verifiable trust. Bitcoin is not just technology, finance, or speculation. It is a social experiment based on the principle that order comes from limits, not power. Programmed scarcity does not impoverish; it educates. It restores human time to its natural weight, which is responsibility. Freedom is not the absence of rules; it is the knowledge of one's own limits. #social #good #asset #bitcoin #formula #physics #politics #energy #electricity #currency #consum #efficiency #sustainability #experiment #order #responsability #scarcity #knowledge

Mass adoption will come when Bitcoin becomes invisible. A common misconception surrounding the mass adoption of Bitcoin is that everyone must understand it in order to use it. In reality, however, no technology has ever achieved global diffusion thanks to its users' technical understanding. Nobody knows how POS terminals, payment cards, or the protocols that govern the internet work. Yet we use them every day. Internal complexity has never stopped innovation; only the perception of complexity does. According to innovation diffusion models, mass adoption occurs when a technology aligns with existing habits, requires minimal cognitive effort, and integrates with existing infrastructure. Bitcoin will be no exception. Adoption will not occur when everyone understands it, but when it is no longer necessary to do so. All technologies become mainstream when they stop demanding attention. The camera was once a niche tool, but when it was integrated into the smartphone, it became universal. Users did not learn photography; they simply used a familiar interface. The path for Bitcoin will be similar. The distributed network will continue to function as an energy-digital infrastructure, but end users will only interact with simple tools, such as secure apps and intuitive wallets, and features integrated into the services they already use. When a social asset becomes invisible, it becomes accessible to all. Real adoption occurs when the experience is immediate rather than when technical knowledge increases. Invisible integration has a significant social impact in that it enables people to use a social asset that guarantees economic autonomy, privacy and resilience without requiring specialist skills. For families, this means being able to send, receive or store value with ease. For businesses, it means reducing transaction costs, accessing new customers, and operating with fewer constraints. Mistaking use for technical understanding is a mistake of perspective. Much of the infrastructure supporting the modern economy is opaque to users, but this does not limit its effectiveness; rather, it encourages adoption. Bitcoin will be widely adopted when it is perceived as a digital norm integrated into everyday life. #massadoption #mass #adoption #payment #internet #network #social #asset #invisible

While the price screams, technology advances silently. The word 'volatility' is often used as if it were a moral judgement, an intrinsic flaw that separates the reliable from the unreliable. However, volatility does not describe an emotion; it describes a measure. It is the variation in returns over time. However, without specifying what it is in relation to, over what period and in what context, it is meaningless. If we view Bitcoin without fear or ideology, we can see that its fluctuations are neither mysterious nor an absolute flaw. They are an expression of a growing technology. In the early years of any innovation, there are sudden movements due to little liquidity, information and players. Then time does its work. The data show a clear trend: Bitcoin's volatility decreases as the network grows, and as market depth, infrastructure, user numbers and, above all, knowledge increase. This is the natural progression of any network technology. Volatility is not a mystical entity. It is the result of information, expectations and human behaviour. It also reflects the underlying asset: the pound sterling has political and credit-related underlying assets, while Bitcoin has energy- and cryptography-related underlying assets. These are two different worlds with two different forms of stability and two different ways of measuring risk. Claiming that Bitcoin is 'too volatile' without providing a point of reference is akin to saying that the sea is 'too rough' without specifying your location and the time of year. The idea that Bitcoin is seven times more volatile than equities belongs to the past. Today, the gap is narrowing, and in some periods it is comparable to that of certain innovative technology sectors. Like any living process, volatility changes over time. It changes with us. Bitcoin is a social asset currently in its growth phase. Its volatility is not a negative thing, but a sign that a global network based on distributed energy and verification is establishing itself in the world of economics. The noise is decreasing, the structure is strengthening and the technology is advancing. We fear what we do not understand. However, when concepts are restored to their true meaning, fear gives way to reason. Always. #volatility #price #bitcoin #value #correlation #technology #network #progress #innovation #ideology

I just published Gold as a Financial and Geopolitical Asset. Medium: https://medium.com/@jacopograziuso/gold-as-a-financial-and-geopolitical-asset-3c41cb700542 #medium #post #analisys #gold #instability #systemic #correlation #story #returns #annual #inflation

Quantum computing and Bitcoin: moving beyond fear. Quantum computers will hack Bitcoin. This statement is intended to frighten, not explain. Quantum technology does exist, but not in the way that sensationalist headlines suggest. Real quantum computers are fragile, noisy and unstable prototypes. They work with qubits that lose information in microseconds and require substantial error correction. Breaking the cryptographic signatures used by Bitcoin would require millions of reliable physical qubits. Currently, there is not a single perfectly stable logical qubit. There is no real mathematical threat. Even if such a machine were to exist one day, Bitcoin would not be the first target. Strategic technologies are used first where they really matter: Intelligence, military communications, diplomacy, banking systems and critical infrastructure, for example. Hacking Bitcoin would reveal to the world a weapon capable of changing the geopolitical balance. This would make no sense. Furthermore, Bitcoin is not as exposed as people believe. Addresses do not display the public key. Only UTXOs that have already been spent reveal it, and then only for a very limited time. The network can update its cryptographic primitives, and a BIP path for post-quantum signatures already exists. Bitcoin is a living protocol that can evolve when needed. Compromising a UTXO would require time, silence, and significant computing power. None of these are realistically possible today. Fear arises where there is a lack of knowledge. Quantum computing is fascinating, but it is far from being an 'almighty machine'. Bitcoin, meanwhile, is a social asset built on verifiable and updatable rules. Don't you worry, child. #quantum #computing #hack #math #utxo #dontworry #behappy #bitcoin

Hi Nostr community!👋🏼 I've just published my first report on Medium - check it out! CME Group Outage: Operational Risk and the Fragility of Modern Market Infrastructure. https://medium.com/@jacopograziuso/cme-group-outage-operational-risk-and-the-fragility-of-modern-market-infrastructure-253a4adb150f #medium #nostr #community #risk #fragility #market #infrastructure #outage #cme #group #report #new #first

There are historical bugs in Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core is the distributed software that verifies the protocol rules. Analysing the bugs that have been fixed can help us to understand how the network has grown stronger over the years. 1) 184 billion overflow (2010): An error in the checks generated a block containing 184 billion bitcoins, which exceeds the 21 million limit. The community intervened within a few hours, invalidating the block and providing an immediate update. Monetary integrity was restored. 2) Programme blockage caused by an instruction (2010): Some scripts could cause the node to crash. This instruction was disabled in version 0.3.5. Reduction of the attack surface. 3) Risk of divergent chains (2012): A flaw in the block structure could create incompatible versions of the blockchain. A quick fix was implemented and the network was re-composed. 4) Node privacy (2013): A vulnerability allowed IP addresses to be linked to Bitcoin addresses. Patches were distributed between January and February 2013. Privacy requires ongoing maintenance. 5) Risk of double spending and inflation (2018): A fundamental input check was accidentally removed by a change. There were no attacks on the main network and an immediate patch was applied. 6) Counter exhaustion (2025): Suboptimal address management could block the node in the long run. Switch to 64-bit counters in recent versions. All bugs have been fixed without causing any permanent issues. Thanks to open source software, independent checks and timely updates, the network has shown resilience. Updating the node is a shared responsibility. #bugs #bitcoin #core #software #opensource #issues #network

Disintermediation is a new model of relationship between individuals and finance. In the traditional system, almost every transaction goes through an intermediary, such as banks, clearing houses, payment circuits or money transfer companies. However, Bitcoin demonstrates that it is possible to transfer value globally without intermediaries, operating instead according to a peer-to-peer model as defined in the 2008 white paper. This involves: 1. Direct international payments: no SWIFT or correspondent banks required, with reduced costs. 2. Individual savings: wealth is no longer dependent on the operations of a central institution. 3. Reduction in transaction costs and settlement times. 4. Greater resilience: fewer centralised points of failure. 5. Global access to services, even in areas where the banking system does not reach. The BIS and the IMF recognise that this disintermediation raises questions of financial stability, particularly in emerging markets. However, they also acknowledge that Bitcoin's innovations are already influencing monetary policies and payment architecture, prompting many countries to consider CBDCs (unfortunately, providing another means of control). Bitcoin has indeed introduced a new principle: the ability to transfer value without a central authority. All other digital innovations in finance are a response to this discovery. Understanding disintermediation is key to understanding the future of finance. #disintermediation #distributed #bitcoin #finance #controll #system

Economic freedom and resistance to censorship: when Bitcoin becomes part of the civil infrastructure. In many countries, controlling money is a means of exercising power. Freezing accounts, blocking donations, limiting withdrawals and imposing currency restrictions are tools typically used by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and opposition. Bitcoin introduces a decisive technical feature: resistance to censorship. A valid transaction cannot be blocked, cancelled, or prevented by a central authority. This creates a space for economic freedom where none existed before. Gladstein's studies (HRF, 2025) document concrete cases: - Nigeria, during the #EndSARS protests, activists' accounts were frozen, but donations resumed thanks to Bitcoin and BTCPay Server. - Russia, Hong Kong and Belarus: independent media outlets and dissidents used Bitcoin to receive funds after being 'debanked'. - Ukraine, 2022: over $200 million was quickly received when banking channels were blocked or unstable. In all these scenarios, Bitcoin does not replace politics, but it does protect the economic capacity to act. It ensures operational continuity for NGOs, journalists, civic associations, and individuals under authoritarian pressure. Freedom is not abstract; it exists when you can act. #freedom #free #bitcoin #resistance #censor #civil #money #bank

Financial inclusion: Using Bitcoin as social infrastructure in unbanked countries. Today, over 1.4 billion adults do not have a bank account. This is due to a variety of structural causes, including high costs, missing documents, distance from branches, distrust of institutions, political instability and, above all, the inconvenience of traditional banking. Bitcoin offers an alternative: an open, global infrastructure. All you need to access the network is a smartphone. There are no status requirements, geographical barriers or accounts to open. This enables 'bottom-up' financial inclusion. Data shows that 16 of the top 20 countries for the adoption of alternatives to state currencies are emerging economies. In sub-Saharan Africa, usage grew by 52% in one year, with over 8% of transactions being for amounts under $10,000 — indicating everyday, non-speculative use. Nigeria is a prime example: around 36% of adults are unbanked, yet the country is a world leader in Bitcoin adoption via peer-to-peer. For many citizens, Bitcoin is the only effective means of accessing tools such as savings, remittances and international payments. However, it is not a universal solution; digital infrastructure, financial literacy and complementary policies are also required. However, as noted in reports by the World Bank and the IMF, Bitcoin has introduced a new standard of accessibility, capable of including even those who have never had access to the formal system. True inclusion comes when barriers are reduced, not when intermediaries are added. #financial #inclusion #unbanked #infrastructure #countries #bitcoin #social #good #asset #account #network

From monopoly of trust to distributed trust: a cultural shift in the way we think about money. The traditional financial system is based on hierarchical trust; we rely on banks, central banks, and the state. This is a 'vertical' model in which a few institutions hold a monopoly on public trust. Bitcoin overturns this paradigm. The network operates according to mathematical rules and distributed verification, with each node independently checking the validity of transactions. Users do not have to trust the other party, but rather the cryptographic protocol. This is why we talk about a 'trustless' system: not because trust disappears, but because it is redistributed horizontally. Some studies define this phenomenon as 'trustless trust': a new social model in which guarantees come from a set of publicly verifiable software rules rather than a central authority. This raises an essential question: What does it mean to trust code rather than institutions? International institutions remind us that traditional trust remains a fundamental public good. At the same time, Bitcoin's popularity shows that distributed digital trust is already an operational reality, particularly in countries where financial institutions are not trusted. Understanding how trust works is key to understanding how our freedoms work. #freedom #trust #institution #bitcoin #trustless #model #public #financial #system #money

Individual monetary sovereignty occurs when individuals regain ownership of their assets. In many economies, managing money requires trust in intermediaries, such as banks, which are guaranteed by the central bank. However, there are limits on withdrawals and funds can be frozen in extraordinary situations. This model is based on an implicit assumption. control of money is not really in the hands of individuals. Bitcoin introduces a different paradigm. Since 2009, individuals who hold their private keys have been able to store and transfer value independently of banks, governments and payment systems. The protocol defines a fixed, known and verifiable supply that cannot be expanded at will, thereby reducing the risk of devaluation induced by expansionary monetary policies. This operational sovereignty is crucial in times of crisis: hyperinflation in Lebanon and Venezuela, currency restrictions in Nigeria and recurring devaluations in emerging markets have prompted millions of people to choose Bitcoin over traditional currencies to protect their purchasing power. According to the Human Rights Foundation, over 87% of the world's population lives in countries with unstable currencies. For many of these people, Bitcoin is not a speculative investment, but a means of achieving economic self-determination. Of course, self-custody entails responsibility for key management, cyber risk and short-term volatility. However, the principle remains: for the first time, individuals can hold wealth without asking anyone's permission. Awareness is the first step towards economic freedom. #freedom #economic #bitcoin #awarness #monetary #selfcustody #firststep