@bsvdripon X · 2026-10-05
A tamper-evident, on-chain timestamp of what this post said. Captured 2026-10-05 03:32 UTC.
104 tokens imported/minted on LocalBSV. Hundreds of BSV in volume, with activity constantly fluctuating. BSV will have access to USDC, USDT, PYUSD, USD1, trending memes, and RWAs, all available to be used as cash. The infrastructure is still being built. Costs still outweigh earnings. That’s the reality of open development. You build, you test, you fail, you rebuild, and eventually the market decides what survives. So because Jack says he doesn’t approve of it, I’m supposed to scrap the entire thing? Forget the time, forget the money, forget the users, forget the infrastructure that has already been built, and forget the experimentation because one person believes it’s a bad idea? That is not the philosophy I thought we were building around. Satoshi didn’t create Bitcoin by asking everyone for permission first. The entire point was to create a system where participation was voluntary, rules were transparent, and no central authority had to decide who was allowed to transact. That philosophy shouldn’t disappear the moment someone builds something you personally don’t like. 104 BSV-21 tokens are already supported on LocalBSV, and 17 are paid listings. The user base exists, the activity exists, and the demand fluctuates because this is still early. Maybe it succeeds. Maybe parts of it fail. Maybe something completely unexpected emerges from it. That’s what experimentation is. The argument that one person doesn’t approve, therefore nobody will ever want this, is exactly the kind of thinking Bitcoin was supposed to challenge. I gave BSV a chance. Now I’m building. I’m building toward a world where people don’t need centralized exchanges or centralized gatekeepers to access markets. Where BSV can function as money while connecting people to multiple ecosystems, stablecoins, tokens, memes, RWAs, and whatever else the market decides has value. Not because someone in a boardroom approved it, but because people choose to use it. That distinction matters. Satoshi’s invention was not simply a new asset. It was a demonstration that coordination could happen without requiring permission from a central authority. So no, I’m not scrapping a year of development because someone doesn’t approve of it. The market can decide. Users can decide. Builders can decide. That is the entire point. And yes, it costs money. Right now, the costs still outweigh the earnings. That’s the price of building infrastructure before the demand fully arrives. Yet somehow we are perfectly comfortable funding endless discussions, personalities, and narratives while questioning the person actually spending his own time and money building something people can use. Maybe it’s time some of that funding started reaching the builders. I’m not asking anyone to believe in LocalBSV. I’m asking for the same thing Bitcoin was supposed to give everyone: the freedom to build anyway.
Verify it yourself: the manifest is the exact JSON whose
SHA-256 is 433773fa0c1c4b4ea343a2c7e2bd7a38a9f9eacad11b0f72e954829373449143; it binds the tweet id, author, post time, and the SHA-256 of the text above. Re-hash the text to match cc0fdbaa7684d6d16681300db77aecd1bbaaa8f4e99a96bdacb93d3f9c27f1dd, and read the anchor transaction's OP_RETURN
bsv.cx / x1 / 433773fa0c1c4b4ea343a2c7e2bd7a38a9f9eacad11b0f72e954829373449143 — the block's timestamp proves the post said this at or before that time,
with no trust in bsv.cx. Content archived via the X API.