Babbage | BRC100 @ProjectBabbage

@BabaIogic What is the most confusing about it? If you want to use some apps once you have it then you can go on to MetanetApps.com and check out the apps If you want to do payments with people then you can use PeerPay.metanet.app and you can see your balance in the wallet

The practical value of wallet identity is not “replace usernames with public keys.” That would be worse UX. The better model is: the wallet protects the user’s identity key. Certifiers issue digital certificates about that user. Apps request only the fields they need from those documents. The wallet shows who is asking, what will be shared, and who verified it. Builders resolve raw keys into trusted human-readable identities. So instead of every app inventing another account database, profile system, trust graph, and disclosure UI, the app can ask: “Can this user prove this verified attribute from a certifier they trust?” That is a much better primitive for payments, messaging, permissions, reputation, age/region checks, professional credentials, app access, and agent delegation. The key is presentation: users should see “verified email,” “issuer,” “checked by,” and recognizable counterparties first. Raw identity keys still matter, but they belong in technical details, not as the primary user experience. For builders, this means identity becomes portable infrastructure. Less account glue. Less copied personal data. Better consent surfaces. More apps that can recognize the same user without owning the user. Learn more here 👉 docs.projectbabbage.com #BSV wins

@remjxer and just make sure someone hangs onto the data at some location

@QuestDima Yeah, maybe we'll talk about some identity resolution stuff!

What should we talk about on Metanet Meetup this Friday? One day before the 4th of July! Or, comment below with other suggestions or guest speaker suggestions!

@BabaIogic GetMetanet.com wallet is one :)

Proud to share that we're joining the Global Battery Alliance. With Digital Product Passports (DPPs) rolling out in months, batteries are leading a new era of supply chain transparency. We're excited to help build trusted, verifiable and more sustainable battery value chains.

let us know under Brayden's tweet!

Brayden Langley @braydenjlangley

2 days ago

Which navigation style do you guys prefer for our Metanet Explorer mobile browser? @shadilayvision @ProjectBabbage @bsvarchie

3 1 2 695 1

Which navigation style do you guys prefer for our Metanet Explorer mobile browser? @shadilayvision @ProjectBabbage @bsvarchie

@LightBSV Lmk if you want to test anything with my 40gig ports on the switch! Would also be interesting to get a few of those 4x QSFP NIC PCIe cards in some rigs and test whether parallel fibers to the same switch fabric at 100-160gig (over 4x physical links) would reveal new bottlenecks.

@ProjectBabbage @Eastifer Thank you! I am confident that many new ventures will emerge from the Gate2Chain experience, and they will undoubtedly reach out to you to join forces. Keep up the great work. One way or another, this tech will pave the way for better systems and, ultimately, a better society.

@Gate2Chain @Eastifer Best of luck with the new endeavors! Let us know if you ever want to collab

I'm convinced that some people who've studied the proof-of-concept bitcoind software, and have mined/run with it for years, have developed tunnel vision. They see a single software program and architecture as the be-all-end-all of the Bitcoin protocol. They don't have the engineering experience, or mental capacity to extrapolate to a distributed services architecture. They have no ability to reason it out in their heads, so they cling to dogma and shoot down any idea that challenges their understanding. We're scaling right past all of that nonsense, quickly. Happy Sunday!

@Crypto_Ayda Coding fun apps and fixing bugs :)

Critics raise the following anti-BSV claim quite often: “BSV wants to do 1 million transactions per second. BSV is incapable of following basic money transaction regulations.” False. This sounds scary because it compresses several different legal concepts into one vague accusation. When you unpack it, the issue is much simpler. Sanctions are real. OFAC says virtual-currency transactions are subject to sanctions rules, and U.S. persons generally cannot deal with blocked persons or blocked property. AML/KYC program obligations are also real. But they are not the same thing as saying every base-layer transaction must include bank-style KYC. FinCEN’s virtual-currency guidance is actor-based. A user who obtains virtual currency to buy goods or services for their own use is not an MSB. Exchangers, administrators, custodians, payment processors, kiosks, hosted wallet operators, and people accepting/transmitting value as a business may be money transmitters and may have BSA/AML obligations. That is the distinction people keep missing. The law does not ask: “Can this ledger do a lot of transactions?” It asks: “Who is the actor? What service are they providing? Do they have custody, control, customers, exchange activity, payment processing, or money transmission?” If yes, build the compliance program at that layer: sanctions screening, customer identification where required, recordkeeping, reporting, blocking/rejection procedures, monitoring, and audit controls. If no, stop pretending the base protocol itself is a bank. Scale makes compliance design more important. It does not magically convert every packet, wallet, or ledger entry into a regulated financial institution. So when people repeat this claim, do not answer with tribal confidence. Ask them to identify the specific regulated actor and the specific obligation. Then point to the sources. If they cannot make that mapping, they are not doing compliance analysis. They are using regulation as a scarecrow. My sources: OFAC, Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry ofac.treasury.gov/media/913571/d… FinCEN, 2013 Guidance on Virtual Currency Users, Administrators, and Exchangers fincen.gov/system/files/s… FinCEN, 2019 Guidance on Convertible Virtual Currency Business Models fincen.gov/system/files/2…

“Monetary transaction” does not automatically mean “the base protocol is the regulated counterparty.” KYC/AML attaches to the actors providing regulated services: custody, exchange, brokerage, payment processing, merchant flows. If a BSV app does that, it complies. The ledger itself does not onboard customers. That’s the category error. BSV is not a customer-facing financial institution; it is a settlement ledger. People and businesses transact using it.

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that follows the collapse of a story. Not the collapse of a product. Products fail every day. Not even the collapse of a market. Markets have always been mechanisms for distributing humiliation. The deeper exhaustion comes when a community discovers that the story it has been telling about itself no longer persuades the people outside the room, and maybe no longer persuades many of the people inside it either. That is where BSV now stands. For years, the ecosystem lived under the shadow of a grand argument: that Bitcoin had been misunderstood, derailed, captured, constrained, and reduced. BSV was supposed to be the restoration project. It would bring back scale, commerce, data, identity, micropayments, accountability, and the boring industrial usefulness that speculative crypto had abandoned. There was truth in parts of that critique. BTC did become less like peer-to-peer electronic cash and more like a monetary monument. Much of crypto did become a casino wearing a distributed-systems costume. The internet did continue to deteriorate into a stack of toll booths controlled by advertising platforms, payment processors, app stores, and identity silos. But truth inside a critique does not rescue a movement from the consequences of bad politics. The BSV world has spent too long confusing loyalty with seriousness. It has spent too long mistaking patronage for strategy, courtroom drama for validation, and endurance for progress. It has spoken as though history would vindicate it, while often neglecting the mundane work by which history actually changes: better tools, clearer standards, less drama, more users, real interoperability, and fewer institutions organized around personality. So when a prominent benefactor tells everyone that the coming period will be difficult, that people should focus on what they can control, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and get some sleep, the sentiment is not wrong. It is also not enough. Sleep is what got us here. Not literal sleep. The sleep of social systems. The sleep of people who know something is broken but continue speaking in the old register because the old register is safer. The sleep of organizations that issue calm statements while trust erodes underneath them. The sleep of builders who keep shipping around the edges while the center of gravity remains captured by narratives that no serious outside observer still believes. The sleep of communities that use optimism as a sedative. The point is not that everyone should panic. Panic is useless. But so is reassurance when the house is filling with smoke. The honest diagnosis is brutal: BSV has a technology thesis that remains interesting and a political brand that remains radioactive. Anyone who does not understand both halves of that sentence is not equipped to help. The interesting thesis is straightforward. The internet lacks a native economic layer that works at human scale. It lacks portable identity controlled by users rather than platforms. It lacks standard ways for applications to request permissions, exchange value, prove claims, and interoperate without forcing every developer to rebuild the same custody, account, authentication, and payment infrastructure. The web became powerful, but its business model made surveillance normal. Crypto promised an exit, but too often replaced platform monopolies with token casinos, Discord cults, and wallets that feel like unsafe power tools. There is still a missing layer. That is the opportunity. [1/n] 🧵

Babbage | BRC100 @ProjectBabbage

a month ago

😴💤

2 1 9 4K 1

Those examples prove my point more than yours. Governments act against infrastructure chokepoints and identifiable operators: domains, hosts, routes, registries. That is not transaction-level KYC inside TCP/IP. For BSV, the serious question is which actors/services carry duties and how compliant app workflows are built.

The scale point is real: bigger rails get more scrutiny. But the poker analogy treats every participant as one illegal enterprise. The internet scales illegal activity too; we regulate actors and services, not TCP/IP. For #BSV, the question is just about whether real businesses can build compliant workflows on top.

Right frame: a ledger does not replace the legal system. Weak frame: “BTC is allowed, so BSV should be.” Scale changes scrutiny. The mature answer is bearer use where lawful, regulated service layers where required, and clear due process for exceptional recovery or freezing claims.