I promise the final version will look better. I’m just curious what that “Buy SOL” button is for and if it takes Credit.

What if BSV/SOL? What if BSV/SPL Token? I’m not saying this is what might be possible with LocalBSV… I’m saying it’s technically possible. Same wallet. Different chains. On-chain settlement. BSV ↔ SOL BSV ↔ SPL Token BSV-21 ↔ SPL Token Maybe there’s something interesting here.

I’ve sent out another BSV airdrop to active localBSV wallets 🍻🎃 bananablocks.com/tx/387802e7… #BSV #Bitcoin #BCH #BTC #BTG #SATS

And another one. Although I must admit, this was just a test to ensure the function improvements I made weren’t affected. Either way more SATS 😎 bananablocks.com/tx/f08c7ee6…

One thing I quite firmly believe is that there will always be an opposition. It doesn’t matter what you build, what you believe, what you discover, or how compelling the evidence appears to you. There will always be someone on the other side of the line. What I find more fascinating isn’t necessarily the question of who is right. It’s that humanity somehow continues to function despite the fact that we have constructed ourselves around disagreement. Science has it. Politics has it. Religion has it. Economics has it. Technology has it. Even within individual fields of study, people can spend entire careers arguing over interpretations, methodologies, assumptions and models. Sometimes the opposition is wrong. Sometimes it is right. Sometimes both sides are looking at different pieces of a much larger problem. And yet, we continue building. The internet is probably one of the greatest examples. TCP/IP doesn’t care whether the person using it agrees with your politics, your religion, your scientific worldview or your economic philosophy. The protocol doesn’t ask whether you are morally correct before routing your packet. It simply follows the rules. That distinction is important. A neutral system doesn’t have to eliminate disagreement. It can actually make disagreement irrelevant to the operation of the system. Bitcoin falls into this category for me. The underlying mechanism doesn’t need everyone to believe in Bitcoin. It doesn’t need everyone to agree with the philosophy behind it. It doesn’t even need everyone to like the people building on it. If the rules are deterministic and the network accepts the transaction, the system doesn’t care about the ideology of the person signing it. Bitcoin SV fits into that same question. Someone can disagree with BSV. Someone else can believe passionately in it. Someone can think the entire concept is misguided. Another person can build something useful on it. The protocol itself doesn’t have to resolve any of those disagreements. That is where I think blockchain has the opportunity to become genuinely interesting. Instead of asking, “How do we eliminate the opposition?” Maybe the better question is: “How do we build systems where the opposition doesn’t matter?” If two people fundamentally disagree but can still transact under the same rules, exchange value, verify the same data, execute the same program and independently reproduce the same result, then the system has accomplished something humans often struggle to accomplish themselves. It has created a common ground without requiring common beliefs. I’ve been part of the opposition myself. There have been plenty of situations where I believed I was right and someone else believed they were right. That’s simply part of being human. We aren’t detached observers. We have experiences, incentives, assumptions and identities that influence how we interpret the world. The danger begins when disagreement becomes an identity rather than an investigation. You can see it everywhere. Someone becomes so deeply invested in a narrative that they can spend days mechanically repeating the same argument to an opposing audience, hoping that repetition itself will eventually produce agreement. But perhaps agreement isn’t actually necessary. A builder doesn’t need everyone to believe in their architecture. A scientist doesn’t need every hypothesis to survive. A protocol doesn’t need everyone to agree with its philosophy. A blockchain certainly doesn’t need everyone to believe in it. It needs rules. Rules that can be independently verified. Rules that apply consistently. Rules that don’t change depending on who is using them. And perhaps most importantly, rules that allow people who fundamentally disagree to participate in the same system without requiring them to surrender their beliefs.

That is what I think neutrality should mean. Not the absence of opposition. The ability to function despite it. Humanity has spent an extraordinary amount of time divided, yet somehow we continue to construct things together. Maybe the next evolution isn’t figuring out how to make everyone agree. Maybe it’s learning how to build better systems where agreement isn’t a prerequisite for cooperation. That is a much more interesting problem to me than simply deciding who is right.