CatoTheElder
Cato The Elder

Confirmed spook Jason Lowery is on the same team as presumed spook Adam Back.
The US Government does not want you running BIP-110.
https://blossom.primal.net/8709d0a2a8e5816a25f43a17dd93ef0c8cde34bbd783b36d50f337239c8b2ed2.jpg

2026-06-28 01:30:33 CEST

- reply

True, but there’s been a huge propaganda push to get people to put their Bitcoin in these wrappers… we have to wake people up!

2026-06-27 19:47:32 CEST

Bitcoin Treasuries and ETF’s are “paper Bitcoin squared”, because you own paper in a wrapper that owns paper.
It’s even worse than leaving coins on exchanges. You’re the assistant to the regional manager 😆
https://blossom.primal.net/aec06730901f4d23fdb1de907c782a9f513208afdaa4b13f901fcfcf5cdfab60.gif

2026-06-26 22:53:58 CEST

- reply

Bitcoiners fight during bear markets and cheer during bull markets. It’s the nature of the beast lol
Regarding the filters debate, if Core had rolled back the OP_R change in good faith immediately, a lot of this divorce would have been avoided.
I think spam fees are a negligible part of the miners’ revenues today, but the effect of accumulating monkey JPEG dust is really bad long term for node decentralization, so that disconnect is what’s driving this. Once we can get back to reasonable filters we should continue to diversify mining and hopefully ProductionReady and other nodes get market share.
And then price will moon :)

2026-06-26 22:46:52 CEST

- reply

Nothing in that post provides any warning about the wallet bug. I’m starting to think you’re delusional.

2026-06-26 17:56:49 CEST

- reply

It seems like we have more in common than you think, I’m also very supportive of decentralizing mining and supporting new alternative implementations, (although I do run BIP-110 on my Knots node).
Is BIP-110 perfect? No. But it’s the only reasonable way I see of changing course and revert the development monopoly of Core, which I’m at this point very sure is compromised and will keep pushing gradual degradation of the protocol to weaken it slowly. Our enemies are smart, have money printers, and lots of patience to infiltrate the most centralized aspect of Bitcoin today.

2026-06-26 17:07:12 CEST

- reply

You’re a liar, post the link under here to your “purported” note dated prior to the bug deletion fix date by Core.
If you can’t, it doesn’t exist.

2026-06-26 17:05:27 CEST

- reply

Show me a Nostr or X post that you made about the v30 wallet deletion prior to the announcement of the bug fix.
Everything else is blah blah.
https://blossom.primal.net/d127170ca56a0c9a63e32e3b6ef990dd757696838519bf3f84b922f07f385c7e.gif

2026-06-26 17:03:35 CEST

- reply

On activation methodology, there is no other option. We can’t give veto power to hostile miners like F2Pool, who also mines Ethereum!
BIP-110 is a reaction to overreach by Core, who increased the attack surface for no real gain ignoring the will of the community (the OP_R uncap had 4 to 1 nacks to acks and plenty of grassroots opposition). Legal risks are real if Core keeps pushing Bitcoin from monetary network to file storage network, for example allowing huge arbitrary data in the designated arbitrary data section. The fact that a hack (libre relay) was created by a bad actor doesn’t mean we have to legitimize it.
Are you closely associated with Core? Because BIP-110 is also a reaction to several figures showing up in the Epstein files. Core has been co-opted.

2026-06-26 15:32:58 CEST

- reply

You make lots of clams and provide no proof - show me where to warned in advance about the wallet deletion bug in Core v30 as you claimed in your post.

2026-06-26 15:31:12 CEST

- reply

What proof? You just said you did things but gave no proof.

2026-06-26 15:30:18 CEST

- reply

A lot of talking but no proof provided, should I simply take you at your word?

2026-06-26 15:28:43 CEST

- reply

Well you’re right that it’s not definitive - I have to rely on public information and don’t have any specific insider information. But I’m revealing a suspicious pattern:
- Strategy has deep ties to intelligence which have not been revealed to retail investors.
- It has a highly classified classification.
- It hired way overqualified intelligence individuals for a very small amount of government sales.
- Covert BTC accumulation via Strategy would make a lot of sense for a government which doesn’t want to give the game away early, and complies with the “budget neutral” SBR requirement, since they could 6102 the stack later.

2026-06-26 15:21:15 CEST

- reply

The soft fork mechanism is similar.. do you have reading comprehension issues?
And what is your problem with BIP-110?

2026-06-26 15:19:29 CEST

- reply

You should be embarrassed to come here to white knight for this fraud.
Yes, BIP-11 was great if you wanted to reveal your wallet structure immediately lol. It’s like I’m saying that the printing press made making books at scale possible, and you try to dunk on me saying that aktchually some dude in China was pressing seals on parchment before then. Get a grip.

2026-06-26 03:31:56 CEST

- reply

Send me a link to your warnings about the v30 wallet deletion bug, because if you can’t show it, you just sound narcissistically unhinged.

2026-06-26 00:21:46 CEST

- reply

Then you’re either very lost, or malicious. I hope it’s the first because that can be fixed.

2026-06-26 00:03:56 CEST

- reply

Not sure why you’re unnecessarily adversarial with me when we haven’t even interacted before.
But if you haven’t yet figured out that “crypto” is an affinity scam to leech off the reputation of the only valuable cryptocurrency (BTC), then I guess have fun staying poor.

2026-06-26 00:01:08 CEST

- reply

I can show it to you but I can’t understand it for you.

2026-06-25 21:07:01 CEST

- reply

… whose software is irrelevant because nobody runs it.
And notice how you solipsisticaly again switch the topic to yourself and how technical you want to be perceived as. You must indeed be a woman lol

2026-06-25 20:05:27 CEST

- reply

Any soft fork tightens the rules, that’s not an argument at all.
Your explanation of why Segwit improved decentralization is not satisfactory, you mention the 4MB cap, but you omit that blocks carried less data before. So there was no need for large data centers before or after - you’re confusing Segwit with the BCH hard fork that was done later.
BIP-110 does not reduce decentralization in any meaningful way, in fact it’s the opposite, the whole process has diversified nodes much more, now there are two reference implementations and more node runners.
For you, “what Core wants” = decentralization. When actual decentralization is not having an ivory tower full of co-opted developers unilaterally blowing open OP_Return against substantial opposition (4 nacks for each ack) and creating this mess in the first place.

2026-06-25 18:51:09 CEST

- reply

This is how it goes: You throw out some vaguely technical word salad, I ask for details on how that even applies. You then throw another word salad.
For example, you said “Dude it’s not about the technical piece… it’s the game theory of the networks edges and nodes”.
Ok, then explain exactly how Segwit’s “game theory of the network edges and nodes” changed the network “from distributed to decentralized”
And this is what you’ll do instead of answering:
https://blossom.primal.net/9b55877704ff78ecc687a93eddc5f6883176d9657ab55422b026dbfd01772b35.gif

2026-06-25 17:51:44 CEST

- reply

I thought you said you were done discussing, but here you are bringing me into your word salad.
You now claim that Segwit moved the network from “distributed” to “decentralized”; what technical changes did Segwit implement that achieved this?

2026-06-25 16:13:11 CEST

- reply

Alright.

2026-06-25 16:12:51 CEST

- reply

You don’t even know when Segwit activated, you’re obviously overstating your technical chops.

2026-06-25 16:01:15 CEST

- reply

Well, running Knots with BIP-110 puts your node on the stricter side of a potential soft fork, so it should operate correctly whether BIP-110 activates or not.

2026-06-25 15:53:32 CEST

- reply

Segwit was activated in 2017, not 2013.
Since the activation of Segwit and BIP-110 is mostly the same, and you say you don’t like BIP-110, what specific technical aspects of the BIP don’t you like?
Here is the BIP for reference:
https://bips.dev/110/

2026-06-25 15:45:08 CEST

- reply

So you didn’t like Segwit which enabled multisig? Or did you?

2026-06-25 15:44:08 CEST

- reply

You didn’t answer my question - was Segwit a “successful network attack?”

2026-06-25 15:42:53 CEST

- reply

Why don’t you like BIP-110 then? I assume you did like Segwit, which was activated the same way.

2026-06-25 15:41:06 CEST

- reply

Was Segwit a “successful network attack”? It was a done by more or less the same amount of nodes that run BIP-110 today.
Or do you simply like that fork?

2026-06-25 15:36:38 CEST

- reply

My questions are to probe what you actually know. The activation method for BIP-110 is similar to Segwit.
You simply don’t like what BIP-110 does, but you still haven’t said why. Maybe you don’t know yourself.

2026-06-25 15:29:14 CEST

- reply

If you understand it so well, what is the difference in activation between BIP-110 and BIP-148?

2026-06-25 15:27:07 CEST

- reply

So what exactly of what BIP-110 does are you opposed to?

2026-06-25 15:25:29 CEST

- reply

No, Bitcoin is separate from crypto (which is all scams). My thesis is that the US Govt is covertly accumulating BTC through MSTR.

2026-06-25 15:09:53 CEST

- reply

Will you be running a URSF?
I’m not sure you understand how soft forks works, BIP-110 is not a hard fork.

2026-06-25 15:04:40 CEST

- reply

I don’t think so, I expect the trusted high ranking people with tons of intelligence experience like Karen Schaefer, are reserved for strategic (no pun intended) companies. You would expect to see them in large defense contractors, maybe in some big tech companies.
And in Strategy.

2026-06-25 13:46:36 CEST

- reply

Sure. Someone else in the comments pointed to the LinkedIn post, it should still be up. Here are some other links:
https://medium.com/microstrategy/microstrategy-takes-government-services-to-next-level-71464c75dec6
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/experts/karen-m-schaefer
https://software.strategy.com/video/leading-in-times-of-crisis-seeing-through-the-fog-a-conversation-with-radm-retired-tom-atkins

2026-06-25 13:40:44 CEST

- reply

Indeed, thanks for sharing, my research was all based on public information.

2026-06-25 13:36:00 CEST

- reply

Thank you. I suspect it’s a centralizing operation so that the US can buy as much BTC as possible in a plausible deniable way, (using retail money), which would not give up the game too early and moon the price, while complying with the stated intent of the SBR of “budget-neutral acquisition”

2026-06-25 13:30:11 CEST

- reply

Interesting! Thanks, you’re right, I’m not sure what happened or why, I received no notification of reinstatement.
I’ll probably take it easy on X for a while just in case.

2026-06-25 02:56:51 CEST

- reply

Is he? Did he ever talk about his ancestry?

2026-06-25 02:37:28 CEST

- reply

Oh you meant military operation, not OP original poster… that makes more sense. But sorry still don’t buy the Q thing

2026-06-25 02:16:46 CEST

- reply

Unfortunately if he went under, they would find a way to keep the Bitcoin, it seems like it was one-way concentration of coins away from self custody.

2026-06-25 02:14:05 CEST

- reply

He looks more and more like a prophet every day…

2026-06-25 02:11:22 CEST

- reply

You call me military because… let me check my notes… I put 2 and 2 together and identified a government operation?
And then comes the chef’s kiss, you end with the Q-tard narrative lol

2026-06-25 00:19:32 CEST

- reply

And using retail’s money too! Devious. :D

2026-06-24 23:22:32 CEST

- reply

I agree.
I’m reasonably sure Adam Back has been compromised, since not only did he take money from Epstein (which he handwaived away), but according to the DOJ emails, he went to Epstein Island as well.

2026-06-24 23:02:20 CEST

- reply

Sorry, though Coinbase can deactivate the buy button if you’d like!

2026-06-24 21:54:30 CEST

- reply

Thank you!

2026-06-24 21:54:05 CEST

- reply

Thank you!

2026-06-24 21:21:15 CEST

- reply

That argument has little merit.
The whole game of MSTR is acquiring large quantities of BTC without using Govt funds and therefore alerting everyone. In fact, based on the SBR regulation, the Govt is only allowed to seek budget neutral ways of acquiring Bitcoin, that’s why the whole point of MSTR is that it uses retail’s money to concentrate BTC.
If the Govt ever bought STRC as you state, they would be revealing the end game and the BTC price would immediately moon. Conversely, the Govt would be fine with MSTR failing - it would depress BTC price for years and other controlled players would buy the BTC for cheap.

2026-06-24 21:08:42 CEST

- reply

Bingo.

2026-06-24 20:46:17 CEST

- reply

Yeah, all my posts on X are gone. I was “unpersoned”.

2026-06-24 20:22:47 CEST

- reply

I was suspended.

2026-06-24 19:36:48 CEST

- reply

Thanks, following suggestions I made the same post but on a Nostr format.

2026-06-24 19:35:47 CEST

- reply

Summary: High level intelligence operatives are embedded into MSTR. This makes it more likely that it’s a centralizing op or a proto-SBR.

2026-06-24 19:13:03 CEST

- reply

Thank you!

2026-06-24 18:55:18 CEST

Below is my banned X post but now in Nostr-friendly format:
Did you know that MSTR’s software business has a “shadow” board employing CIA and Homeland Security Veterans?
And that its affiliate company Microstrategy Government Services (created after starting the BTC strategy) provides no info on its intelligence clients and revenues?
Let’s dig in.
Strategy does classified work and must submit to rules set by an agency under the Department of Defense - the Defense Counterintelligence & Security Agency.
Strategy’s affiliate Microstrategy Government Services (MGS) is governed by a Security Agreement whereby Strategy surrenders governance and operational control of MGS to an outside board. Revenues of MGS flow up to the parent company, but MSTR’s financial statements provide no breakdown of government clients and their revenues, and classified contracts are handled by the proxy board.
So who really runs MGS? The answer is Defense veterans.
Rick "Ozzie" Nelson is an EVP at Strategy. He is a CSIS senior associate of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and has testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security.
In 2022 he announced the engagement of two board members for MGS, (which had been incorporated in 2021 shortly after Strategy’s adoption of the BTC strategy), Karen Schaefer and Tom Atkin:
Karen Schaefer is a CIA veteran of 26 years, who was chief of operations, deputy chief of counterintelligence, and managed covert action programs at the National Security Council (NSC).
Is all that expertise needed for MSTR to sell only an estimated $50M in annual software revenues to the US Government? Why isn’t the overqualified Karen Schaefer employed at a top military contractor such as Raytheon or Lockheed instead?
MSTR also engaged Tom Atkin for the same board. Tom has over 36 years of government experience and was Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security.
Contrary to how Strategy’s “legacy” business has been presented to retail investors, Strategy has deep ties to US intelligence, to which they sell software via a company controlled by intelligence veterans.
Strategy’s government products can be seen as a back-looking Palantir, tools built to summarize, report, and analyze what already happened, instead of predicting the future.
Was MSTR, a company authorized to access classified defense info, chosen to become a vehicle for holding BTC for the US in a plausible deniable manner?
Check out their convenient HQ location along with the other supporting materials attached below:
https://blossom.primal.net/9e02e823cf622385f6f3e8a1f20037dc796bec9cd61e439993e3562ee325bac4.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/a87b79420c345c70faf97b469468edc67ce9eba154429f9735719b3faa1d510b.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2355524d9c0804bef2cea73984d3be5e54b17ff9d1c11e9fb156148a184ebe7b.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/9265b50ba90d1d5d803f4e00e570393d7ed97f95eaad3646243eb1ca6652f3af.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/50132965ccf68b167dac31e0e62fee1a3efe38b4c48fcf341e8bcb7c18b0357e.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2b6b2756373aa559de9e175ba18e76824322d820272ec7b6c09676752fc00e5e.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/f69ed76d12b9f881677756e28d3a035a8838f690a79aac603434a59907f937fa.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/adbf44eaa4c238b938dc69abad0358f4d1c30304e4b2d9ebbf122dc9eac03900.jpg

2026-06-24 18:46:06 CEST

- reply

Thanks for the heads up… I had no idea lol.
The problem was that the pictures were for each post, so it didn’t read well when combined.
I saw Knotzi reposted it on X, I think he missed the last conclusions post.

2026-06-24 16:03:21 CEST

- reply

Contrary to how Strategy’s “legacy” business has been presented to retail investors, Strategy has deep ties to US intelligence, to which they sell software via a company controlled by intelligence veterans.
Strategy’s government products can be viewed as a sort of back-looking Palantir, tools built to summarize, report, and analyze what already happened, instead of predicting the future.
The question is: Was MSTR, a company authorized to access classified defense info, chosen to become a vehicle for holding BTC for the US in a plausible deniable manner?
Their location would make sense:
https://blossom.primal.net/f69ed76d12b9f881677756e28d3a035a8838f690a79aac603434a59907f937fa.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/adbf44eaa4c238b938dc69abad0358f4d1c30304e4b2d9ebbf122dc9eac03900.jpg

2026-06-24 15:59:25 CEST

- reply

MSTR also engaged Tom Atkin for the same board.
Tom has over 36 years of government experience and was Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security.
https://blossom.primal.net/2b6b2756373aa559de9e175ba18e76824322d820272ec7b6c09676752fc00e5e.jpg

2026-06-24 15:57:55 CEST

- reply

Karen Schaefer is a CIA veteran of 26 years, who was chief of operations, deputy chief of counterintelligence, and managed covert action programs at the National Security Council (NSC).
Is all that expertise needed for MSTR to sell only an estimated $50M in annual software revenues to the US Government? Why isn’t the overqualified Karen Schaefer employed at a top military contractor such as Raytheon or Lockheed instead?
https://blossom.primal.net/9265b50ba90d1d5d803f4e00e570393d7ed97f95eaad3646243eb1ca6652f3af.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/50132965ccf68b167dac31e0e62fee1a3efe38b4c48fcf341e8bcb7c18b0357e.jpg

2026-06-24 15:55:11 CEST

- reply

Rick "Ozzie" Nelson is an EVP at Strategy. He is a CSIS senior associate of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and has testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security.
In 2022 he announced the engagement of two board members for MGS, (which had been incorporated in December 2021 shortly after Strategy’s adoption of the BTC strategy), Karen Schaefer and Tom Atkin:
https://blossom.primal.net/a87b79420c345c70faf97b469468edc67ce9eba154429f9735719b3faa1d510b.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2355524d9c0804bef2cea73984d3be5e54b17ff9d1c11e9fb156148a184ebe7b.jpg

2026-06-24 15:52:58 CEST

- reply

Strategy does classified work and must submit to rules set by an agency under the Department of Defense - the Defense Counterintelligence & Security Agency.
Strategy’s affiliate Microstrategy Government Services (MGS) is governed by a Security Agreement whereby Strategy surrenders governance and operational control of MGS to an outside board. Revenues of MGS flow up to the parent company, but MSTR’s financial statements provide no breakdown of government clients and their revenues, and classified contracts are handled by the proxy board.
So who really runs MGS? The answer is Defense veterans.

2026-06-24 15:51:40 CEST

I was suspended on X shortly after posting this thread:
Did you know that MSTR’s software business has a “shadow” board employing CIA and Homeland Security Veterans?
And that its affiliate company Microstrategy Government Services (created after starting the BTC strategy) provides no info on its intelligence clients and revenues?
Let’s dig in.
https://blossom.primal.net/9e02e823cf622385f6f3e8a1f20037dc796bec9cd61e439993e3562ee325bac4.jpg

2026-06-24 15:27:32 CEST

- reply

Agreed, even if I get access back, I’ll always cross post.

2026-06-24 15:24:57 CEST

- reply

It’s where the conversion funnel for people to become Bitcoiners is… over here everyone is already converted.

2026-06-24 04:43:55 CEST

- reply

I appreciate the support. I can’t be 100% sure of the reason because I only got an automated suspension notice, but timing is suspicious.
Bright side, I finally made an account here :)

2026-06-24 03:47:34 CEST

- reply

Don’t worry, you’ll know :)

2026-06-24 03:46:57 CEST

- reply

I’ll post the whole post tomorrow since I’m recovering it, but in my mind there are several issues:
1) The caliber of the board hires is top notch, one of them was running transition for the Biden administration.
2) All for selling about $50M per year to the US Government. They could have hired much much lower profiles if it was only that.
3) Timing was right after starting the Bitcoin strategy.
4) No clear communication to investors- had you heard that Strategy did highly classified work?
This, plus other things, paints a potential picture of covert accumulation. Confirmation in my mind will be if when BTC price recovers, MSTR burns through the equity ATM pinning the mNAV to 1. Meaning that stock price is secondary.

2026-06-24 02:16:39 CEST

- reply

I was not :)

2026-06-23 23:13:51 CEST

- reply

I definitely have some spare time now that I’m not on X lol

2026-06-23 22:59:19 CEST

- reply

Sure thing, I’ll post the whole thread shortly.

2026-06-23 22:57:28 CEST

- reply

Much appreciated!

2026-06-23 22:24:09 CEST

- reply

Thank you all for your support. I’ve been moved by many of the messages, it’s a pleasure to be in the trenches with you gentlemen!
I’m currently in bureaucratic hell appealing the suspension, hopefully with time I’ll be able to recover my account access. If I can, I’ll post something to make sure you all know it’s me!

2026-06-23 22:21:11 CEST

- reply

2026-06-23 22:18:13 CEST

- reply

2026-06-23 22:05:26 CEST

- reply

Thank you all for the support, I’ve been very moved by many of your messages. I’m really glad to be in the trenches with you gentlemen!
I’m currently in bureaucracy purgatory, attempting to appeal the suspension on X. Hopefully with time I’ll be successful, and if I get back my access I’ll be sure to post something to let everybody know it’s still me :)

2026-06-22 17:44:01 CEST

- reply

Core made it easier to spam, not harder, that’s what we need to revert.
Fees have never in the history of BTC been the only filter, since it costs peanuts for motivated attackers with a money printer to attack the network.
Spammers don’t use L2’s, we can’t cede the battlefield on L1 to them.
I’m also not in board with pruning my node, we need to be fighting to avoid people having to prune nodes at all.

2026-06-22 17:08:10 CEST

- reply

Core will continue moving Bitcoin towards the file storage use case, degrading decentralization and efficency of the protocol. Please read Hodlonaut’s exposee of the shenanigans at Core that led to the OP_Return uncap.

2026-06-22 14:38:11 CEST

- reply

I just got suspended on X likely for pointing out MSTR’s ties to US intelligence.
MSTR has a “shadow” board comprised of CIA and Homeland Security veterans, and has access to classified information via its affiliate MGS (Government Services). Rick “Ozzie” Nelson, a homeland security veteran who is an EVP at MSTR, hired for the MGS board Karen Schaefer, a 26 year CIA veteran.
https://medium.com/microstrategy/microstrategy-takes-government-services-to-next-level-71464c75dec6
I suspect MSTR is the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

2026-06-22 14:12:33 CEST

- reply

It’s not.

2026-06-22 14:06:09 CEST

- reply

Lightning exists on BTC, not sure what you’re taking about

2026-06-22 13:51:53 CEST

- reply

Sorry but BIP-110 is existential… Either we reclaim Bitcoin from the co-opted Core developers or Bitcoin will continue degrading and we will slowly lose.

2026-06-22 13:44:25 CEST

- reply

Cast BCH into the fire. Let it go, it’s dead.

2026-06-22 13:39:48 CEST

- reply

Luke did not even write BIP-110. Nobody running it, (like me) would run a change in POW. This is a distraction based on one single post which has been misinterpreted to appear like a broad plan.

2026-06-22 02:40:51 CEST

- reply

The answer is nobody is changing the POW algorithm. Not sure where you heard that.