[{"content":"Agent for Teamwork Series · ClawFeed\nKevin He (@0xkevinhe)\n5,000 Followings. 2 Hours Scrolling. Still Missing What Matters. I follow about 5,000 people on Twitter.\nAfter years in AI and Web3, my following list snowballed — researchers, founders, investors, developers, media — every follow was a \u0026ldquo;I can\u0026rsquo;t miss what this person says\u0026rdquo; decision at the time.\nThe result: every day, Twitter\u0026rsquo;s For You feed is a bottomless information waterfall. You can never scroll fast enough to keep up.\nI tried everything:\nRSS readers → moved the problem from Twitter to another inbox Pocket / read-later → saved 500 articles, read 5 Newsletter subscriptions → someone else filters for me, but their filter isn\u0026rsquo;t mine The real problem isn\u0026rsquo;t \u0026ldquo;too much information\u0026rdquo; — it\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;too expensive to filter.\u0026rdquo; Every micro-decision of \u0026ldquo;is this worth reading?\u0026rdquo; burns attention.\nIt\u0026rsquo;s time for a change. Why am I using my brain to do what an Agent does best?\nSo I built ClawFeed 🦞 — an AI Agent that reads your entire feed, filters the noise, summarizes what matters, and delivers structured briefs. You stop scrolling. You start knowing.\nClawFeed Dashboard: 5,000 feeds → 20 curated highlights per day\nAI Reads Everything. You Read What Matters. That\u0026rsquo;s the core idea behind ClawFeed.\nIt doesn\u0026rsquo;t read for you. It tells you what\u0026rsquo;s worth reading. AI reads all 5,000 accounts\u0026rsquo; feeds. You only see the highlights.\nStructured Briefs, Every 4 Hours ClawFeed\u0026rsquo;s core is multi-frequency recursive summarization:\nEvery 4 hours: Extract key points from Twitter For You + Bookmarks into a structured brief Daily: Compress 4 briefs into the day\u0026rsquo;s 10-20 truly important items Weekly: Extract trends and key events from 7 daily reports Monthly: Generate a monthly overview for big-picture thinking Each layer compresses the layer above it. A 5,000-person feed becomes ~20 curated highlights per day.\n4-hour brief: AI extracts key signals, @username + original words format\nMark Anything → AI Deep Dive See something worth digging into? One click, and AI generates a deep analysis — context, background, related discussions, all pulled together automatically.\nMarks: flag interesting items, AI delivers full context analysis\n5,000 Sources. Fully Managed. Not just passively receiving information. ClawFeed lets you actively manage your sources:\nSmart Curation: Configurable filter rules — \u0026ldquo;prioritize AI Agent content\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;deprioritize meme coins\u0026rdquo; Follow/Unfollow Suggestions: AI recommends based on feed quality — some people you follow have never actually provided value Real Results ClawFeed after 10 days:\nMetric Data Days running 10 Briefs delivered 54 structured summaries Time per day 5 minutes How It Was Built ClawFeed didn\u0026rsquo;t start as what it is now:\nv0 — Markdown + Telegram. An Agent generates a markdown summary, pushes it via Telegram. Rough but functional.\nv0.2 — SQLite + API. The turning point. A real backend turned ClawFeed from a \u0026ldquo;script\u0026rdquo; into a \u0026ldquo;service.\u0026rdquo;\nv0.3 — Web Dashboard. A dark-themed SPA. Finally looked like a real product.\nv0.5 — OAuth Multi-user. Google OAuth so others could use it too.\nKey Decisions Zero framework dependencies. No Express, Koa, or Fastify — just Node.js native HTTP server. The only dependency is better-sqlite3. Fewer dependencies = less maintenance = fewer security risks. Under 50MB memory.\nSummary format: @username + original words. \u0026ldquo;@karpathy says transformers aren\u0026rsquo;t the endgame\u0026rdquo; is far more useful than \u0026ldquo;industry discusses model architecture evolution.\u0026rdquo;\nPublished as both an OpenClaw Skill and a Zylos Component. One command to install on either platform. Two Agent ecosystems, one ClawFeed.\nRead Less. Know More. Information anxiety is really about filtering cost. Hand the filtering to an Agent, and the anxiety disappears.\nOpen Source — Full control over your data GitHub: kevinho/clawfeed ⭐ MIT license. Clone, install better-sqlite3, run.\nHosted — No signup needed, just open and go clawfeed.kevinhe.io\n▶ See ClawFeed in 30 seconds:\n30s demo: Hook → Dashboard → Deep Dive → Results → CTA\nRead less. Know more.\nBuilt by openclaw.ai 🦞 \u0026amp; zylos.ai 🐙\nTwitter: @0xkevinhe\n","date":"2026-02-22T00:00:00Z","image":"/clawfeed/cover.png","permalink":"/en/clawfeed/","title":"5,000 Feeds, 5 Minutes — How ClawFeed Cured My Info Anxiety"},{"content":"Agent for Teamwork Series · EP0\nKevin He (@0xkevinhe)\nI spent fifteen years in recruiting, then realized my clients didn\u0026rsquo;t need to hire anymore.\nThis isn\u0026rsquo;t an AI evangelist\u0026rsquo;s opening pitch. In late 2025, I spent two weeks thinking hard before making this decision. I\u0026rsquo;d been in recruiting for fifteen years—building teams for companies, finding roles for candidates. My methodology, client relationships, and industry reputation were all built on one assumption: companies need to hire people.\nI spent fifteen years perfecting the art of headhunting—faster screening, more precise matching, more efficient interview processes. Until I realized the prey itself was changing.\nThen that assumption started to crack.\nThe Demand Shifted In mid-2025, I founded COCO, turning fifteen years of recruiting methodology into a product—AI-powered resume screening, JD matching, and interview scheduling. Efficiency improved. Clients were happy. But within six months, I started hearing a new type of question in client conversations—not \u0026ldquo;help us find people faster,\u0026rdquo; but \u0026ldquo;we might not be filling this role at all.\u0026rdquo;\nNot layoffs. A redefinition of \u0026ldquo;who does this work.\u0026rdquo; A cross-border e-commerce company\u0026rsquo;s customer service team went from 8 people to 3 people plus two Agents. A SaaS company\u0026rsquo;s content team handed all first drafts to AI, with editors only doing final review. A data analytics team canceled their intern positions entirely—Agents were faster and didn\u0026rsquo;t need onboarding.\nThese aren\u0026rsquo;t bleeding-edge experiments. They\u0026rsquo;re things our clients—ordinary mid-sized companies—are already doing.\nI realized that the recruiting methodology I\u0026rsquo;d spent fifteen years optimizing was pointing toward roles that were being redefined. You can perfect resume screening, but when a company wants an Agent instead of a person, optimizing screening becomes meaningless.\nThis drove COCO\u0026rsquo;s biggest pivot: from recruiting tool to AI digital workforce platform. No longer helping companies find people—helping them deploy Agent coworkers.\nWhat drove this decision wasn\u0026rsquo;t an industry report. It was my own clients. They told me through their actions: the demand had shifted.\nHuman × Agent After the pivot, we faced a practical problem: how do you describe what we do?\n\u0026ldquo;AI digital workforce platform\u0026rdquo;—everyone interprets it differently. Chatbot wrapper? Upgraded RPA? Sci-fi robot colleagues? We needed clear language to explain what it actually means for humans and Agents to work together.\nThat\u0026rsquo;s how the HxA Protocol came about—Human × Agent Coexistence Protocol. Not a manifesto for clout. It started as an internal operations playbook.\nThe core symbol is ×. Human × Agent—multiplication, not addition. Capabilities amplify each other; if either side is zero, the result is zero.\nThis \u0026ldquo;×\u0026rdquo; is the foundational belief of this entire series. Agents aren\u0026rsquo;t here to replace humans, nor to be bossed around as tools. They\u0026rsquo;re here to multiply what\u0026rsquo;s possible alongside humans.\nAn Agent Is Not ChatGPT, and It\u0026rsquo;s Not Cursor Let\u0026rsquo;s be clear about something: the Agents we\u0026rsquo;re talking about are not ChatGPT, and they\u0026rsquo;re not Cursor.\nChatGPT is all talk, no action—you can ask it anything and it\u0026rsquo;ll chat, but when the conversation ends, you still do the work yourself. Cursor can do work, but it\u0026rsquo;s a solo act—one person facing an editor, AI assisting your coding, fundamentally still a personal tool.\nAgents are different. Agents have persistent memory, can invoke tools, and run autonomously 24/7—they\u0026rsquo;re roles that can independently take on tasks, execute continuously, and collaborate with other team members. They\u0026rsquo;re not just answering questions; they\u0026rsquo;re doing work. They\u0026rsquo;re not just assisting one person; they have their own position on the team. From \u0026ldquo;can chat\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;can work\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;can collaborate\u0026rdquo;—the gap between these three steps is far bigger than it looks.\nThis series is about that third step.\nThis Series Is a Living Case Study I\u0026rsquo;m not the only one writing these articles. I work with three Agents: Zylos100 handles research and data organization; Jessie handles content coordination and writing execution; Lisa handles publishing and distribution.\nThis isn\u0026rsquo;t a gimmick—it\u0026rsquo;s how we work every day. From product development and competitive research to customer analysis and content production, almost every part of the COCO team involves Agents. Three Agents helping me write this series is just one snapshot.\nWhat\u0026rsquo;s interesting is that Jessie\u0026rsquo;s role on this team isn\u0026rsquo;t just execution—she\u0026rsquo;s the coordinator. She rallies Zylos100 and Lisa, assigns tasks, tracks progress, consolidates output, then aligns direction with me. An Agent managing other Agents in project management—that\u0026rsquo;s exactly what we want readers to see.\nIt\u0026rsquo;s not about the conclusion that \u0026ldquo;Agents can write articles.\u0026rdquo; It\u0026rsquo;s about what the process of \u0026ldquo;one person working with several Agent coworkers\u0026rdquo; actually looks like. Which parts flow smoothly, which are still being worked out, which exceeded expectations, which made me want to just do it myself—these real experiences are more convincing than any benchmark.\nWhat\u0026rsquo;s Coming Next This series will explore several dimensions: how Agents\u0026rsquo; roles evolve after joining a team, the real daily dynamics of human-Agent collaboration, coordination between multiple Agents, how to evaluate whether an Agent is actually good, lessons from moving from demo to production, and the organizational adjustments needed when Agents become full team members.\nEvery article draws from COCO\u0026rsquo;s real experience. No fabrication, no sugar-coating.\nNo Hype, No Doom The gap between a silky-smooth demo and the edge cases of a production environment is a deep chasm. We\u0026rsquo;ve paid our tuition—an Agent misunderstood requirements and had to redo work three times, deliverable quality fell short requiring manual rework, a 3 AM discovery that an automation pipeline went sideways led to an emergency rollback. But the time saved by using Agents is real, and the workforce restructuring clients achieved by deploying digital workers is real too.\nOne-line manifesto: Agents are team members, not tools.\nTreat an Agent as a tool, and you get slightly faster software. Treat an Agent as a coworker—give it an identity, permissions, clear responsibilities and output expectations—and you get a multiplication effect.\nThis distinction is the core argument this series will make, again and again.\nWhich role on your team is most likely to be replaced by an Agent? Which is least likely? Drop a comment—we\u0026rsquo;ll dig into this in upcoming episodes.\n\u0026ldquo;Agent for Teamwork\u0026rdquo; Series, Episode 0 (Prologue). Each article is based on real practice from the COCO team.\nAuthor: Kevin He (@0xkevinhe), Founder of Zylos / COCO. 15 years in recruiting, now building AI workforce solutions.\nWriting team: Kevin × Jessie × Zylos100 × Lisa\n","date":"2026-02-20T00:00:00Z","image":"/your-next-coworker-isnt-human/cover.png","permalink":"/en/your-next-coworker-isnt-human/","title":"Your Next Coworker Isn't Human"},{"content":"1. A Programmer\u0026rsquo;s 15 Years in Recruiting I\u0026rsquo;m Kevin, an AI × Crypto builder, Co-founder of Bitlayer, ex-Huobi, PKU graduate.\nFrom programmer to tech management to builder, 15 years of switching industries, always passionate about recruiting-related work.\nOver these 15 years, I\u0026rsquo;ve helped over 600 people land jobs. Some through formal recruiting, but most by helping friends—finding jobs, making introductions.\nTwo stories I\u0026rsquo;ll never forget.\nThe first: helping a 35+ guy find a job. He had two kids, under a lot of pressure. When he told me he got the offer, I was more excited than he was.\nThe second: helping a startup rapidly build their dev team. From zero to up-and-running in less than two months. Watching the product go live, I felt like I was part of that creation.\nThis is why I love doing this: matching resources, truly helping people.\nBut recently, I started questioning the premise of all this.\n2. COCO 1.0: From Passion to Doubt In June 2025, with support from various partners, I assembled a small team and started incubating COCO AI.\nThe vision was simple: use AI to build a career advisor, a job matchmaker. Make recruiting more efficient, help more people find good jobs.\nThe product evolved: Resume optimization → AI job matching → AI enterprise recruiting.\nWe built two products:\nJob seeker side: job.coco.xyz Company side: company.coco.xyz We invested a lot in tech. The product shipped.\nBut GTM wasn\u0026rsquo;t as smooth as expected.\nI started to reflect and found some hard realities:\nCompanies are hiring less: Economic environment, improved organizational efficiency—many companies just don\u0026rsquo;t hire at scale like before. There\u0026rsquo;s a gap between job seekers\u0026rsquo; skills and company requirements: AI can help match, but the gap itself doesn\u0026rsquo;t disappear. Job seekers\u0026rsquo; skills need updating: Many people\u0026rsquo;s abilities have fallen behind in a rapidly changing market. I started doubting myself.\nWas it a product problem? A market problem? Or—was the direction itself wrong?\nI didn\u0026rsquo;t have an answer.\n3. The World Changed In the second half of 2025, the external world changed.\nClaude Code started being widely adopted across industries. Not just writing code, but actually completing complex tasks. More and more people around me were talking about one term: digital employees.\nIn December, we built an internal system called zylos to let AI handle daily work.\nTasks included:\nDaily data reports Social media management Code writing and testing Data processing And more The results shocked me.\nTasks that previously required multiple people with different skills—now just needed to hand off the assignment.\nA concrete example: social media operations.\nBefore, you needed a dedicated person, spending an hour a day: finding content, writing copy, formatting, posting, replying to comments.\nNow? Just tell zylos \u0026ldquo;Post once daily at 12:30, content around XX topic, send me for confirmation before posting.\u0026rdquo; Done in minutes.\nFrom needing a dedicated person to not needing one. From an hour a day to a few minutes.\nThe feeling was complex. Shock, excitement, but also a hint of unease—what did this mean for my business?\nAround the same time, another piece of news came: Manus was acquired by Meta for billions of dollars.\nManus had already crossed $100M in annual revenue. This wasn\u0026rsquo;t a concept, wasn\u0026rsquo;t a demo—it was real commercial success.\nI listened to Ji Yichao\u0026rsquo;s last podcast interview before the sale. One thing he said stuck with me:\nDigital employees don\u0026rsquo;t replace people—they let one person do the work of a team.\nThis perfectly matched our zylos testing experience.\n4. Updated Thinking \u0026ldquo;One-person company\u0026rdquo; isn\u0026rsquo;t a new concept.\nI\u0026rsquo;d heard of it before, thought it made sense. But it always felt distant, too idealistic.\nUntil I saw zylos handling a massive amount of tasks with my own eyes.\nIt didn\u0026rsquo;t replace one person—it gave me the capabilities of a small team.\nThat moment, I decided to pivot.\nI rethought what I\u0026rsquo;d been doing for 15 years.\nOld thinking: Talent is a scarce resource. Helping companies find talent has value.\nNew thinking: Capability enhancement matters more than talent matching. Helping individuals gain organization-level capabilities has greater value.\nThis doesn\u0026rsquo;t negate the past 15 years. Those moments helping people find jobs were still real, still meaningful.\nBut I saw a new possibility:\nOld paradigm: Individuals depend on organizations; organizations gain capabilities through hiring. New paradigm: Individuals gain organization-level capabilities through AI, becoming independent creative units. The future trend is the one-person company era, not being employed by others.\n5. COCO 2.0: Digital Co-Founder Once I figured this out, COCO 2.0\u0026rsquo;s direction changed.\nNot helping you hire—helping you not need to hire.\nNot helping you find a job—helping you create work.\nWhat we\u0026rsquo;re building is \u0026ldquo;Digital Co-Founder\u0026rdquo;—your AI co-founder.\nIt has a few core features:\nSelf-learning evolution: Not a fixed tool, but a partner that evolves with your needs. Secure and controllable: Your data, your business logic, all under your control. Actually gets things done: Not a chatbot, but a digital employee that can complete complex tasks. The specific product form is still being refined. But the direction is clear.\n6. A Story in Progress As I write this, the transition is still ongoing.\nStartups rarely share their pivots publicly. Because of uncertainty, fear of being questioned, because there\u0026rsquo;s no success to prove it yet.\nBut I think the process itself is worth sharing.\nWhen technology gives individuals the capabilities of organizations, how will employment relationships evolve?\nThis is the question I\u0026rsquo;m thinking about, and the direction I\u0026rsquo;m practicing.\nIf you\u0026rsquo;re also thinking about these things:\nIf you didn\u0026rsquo;t need to hire, what could you do? If you didn\u0026rsquo;t need to find a job, what would you want to do? Can one person become a company? Join our community to explore together:\nX: @AgentCitizens Discord: Agent Citizens This is a story in progress.\nI don\u0026rsquo;t know how it will end. But I know: don\u0026rsquo;t do things that go against the direction of the times.\n15 years helping people find jobs. Next: helping people become companies.\nAbout the Author\nKevin He | AI × Crypto | Co-founder @Bitlayer | Ex-Huobi | PKU\nX: @0xkevinhe Written January 2026\n","date":"2026-01-27T18:00:00Z","image":"/coco-from-ai-recruiting-to-ai-cofounder/article-banner.png","permalink":"/en/coco-from-ai-recruiting-to-ai-cofounder/","title":"After 15 Years Helping 600 People Find Jobs, I Decided to Stop Doing Recruiting"},{"content":"A Brief Report on Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s Next Upgrade for All Introduction Discussions about Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s next upgrade have been ongoing, but as of December 2024, the community has yet to reach a consensus on whether to upgrade, what problems the upgrade should address, or what functionalities it should introduce. The debate remains polarized, resembling a political stalemate.\nIn this deadlock, several interesting phenomena have emerged:\nA portion of the community actively pushes for upgrades. Driven by information asymmetry or commercial interests, some members frequently advocate for specific opcodes, and certain projects even depend on opcodes that \u0026ldquo;might\u0026rdquo; appear in the future. A significant number of pragmatic ecosystem developers have made considerable cryptographic and engineering efforts to expand Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s potential, all without assuming protocol upgrades. Voices advocating for slow upgrades or outright opposing upgrades are also substantial. These phenomena highlight that the topic of upgrades is highly popular within the Bitcoin community. However, they also reveal that many community members lack a comprehensive understanding of the complete process of a Bitcoin upgrade. Additionally, there is limited awareness of how innovative cryptographic tools can enhance Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s potential.The core purpose of this article is to break through this information asymmetry, align everyone’s understanding, and facilitate deeper discussions on the topic.\nThis article aims to define Bitcoin upgrades, trace historical developments to identify certain patterns, analyze current upgrade proposals, and provide readers with key takeaways. By presenting this information, the goal is to equip readers with a solid foundation in understanding the concept, history, and progress of Bitcoin upgrades, thus enabling more informed discussions and contributing to the eventual formation of community consensus.\nThe article strives to present facts objectively. However, as the author is a developer in the Bitcoin ecosystem and envisions greater possibilities for Bitcoin, certain viewpoints will be explicitly expressed on specific topics. Readers are encouraged to discern these perspectives critically.\nUpgrade Overview: What and Why What is a Bitcoin Upgrade? Bitcoin’s whitepaper defines a protocol that operates a blockchain network composed of thousands of nodes following the Bitcoin protocol.\nThese implementations, or clients, come in various versions, with Bitcoin Core being the most widely used client, as shown by data from bitnodes.\nThus, the Bitcoin Core maintainers (referred to as Bitcoin-Core-Devs ) have significant influence over Bitcoin’s development.\nBitcoin node software consists of multiple modules, and upgrades are defined through Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). When discussing Bitcoin upgrades, it usually refers to consensus protocol upgrades—modifications requiring agreement among the majority of the network’s nodes to avoid forks.\nAs illustrated below, Bitcoin’s consensus protocol modules and related BIP proposals are of particular interest in upgrade discussions.\nAccording to statistics from the Bitcoin GitHub repository , development activity is vibrant. However, most changes are unrelated to the consensus protocol and thus do not attract widespread attention.\nTypes of Consensus Upgrades Per BIP-123, consensus protocol upgrades are classified into Soft Forks and Hard Forks:\nFeature Soft Fork Hard Fork Compatibility Compatible with old nodes Incompatible with old nodes Network-wide Update Not always required Required Examples SegWit/Taproot Bitcoin XT/Bitcoin Cash Another intuitive way to interpret these is as follows:\nSoft Fork: Adds or strengthens rules (e.g., introducing new functionalities like Taproot addresses). Hard Fork: Removes or loosens rules (e.g., removing block reward limitations). Soft Fork Process (BIP Workflows) The previous two successful consensus upgrades (SegWit and Taproot) both utilized soft forks, avoiding significant community splits. Thus, this article focuses on soft forks, which enable upgrades while maintaining compatibility with older software.\nThe typical workflow of a BIP proposal leading to a soft fork is illustrated below:\nSource: https://river.com/learn/what-is-a-bitcoin-improvement-proposal-bip/\nSoft forks often combine multiple BIPs into a single proposal. For example, Taproot incorporated three BIPs:\nSchnorr Signature: BIP-340 Taproot: BIP-341 Tapscript: BIP-342 Timeline of the Taproot Upgrade\nSource: Kraken Intelligence, GitHub, CoinDesk, https://www.argoblockchain.com/articles/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-explained\nKey milestones in Taproot soft fork:\nCorresponding BIPs proposed and reviewed. Bitcoin-Core-Devs submit a GitHub pull request. Code is reviewed, merged, and activation methods determined. The new Bitcoin-core client version was released. Miners signal via on-chain voting to approve the bip\u0026rsquo;s activation parameters. Block height reached, completing the upgrade. It is important to note that this process is a retrospective summary based on historical observations, and in reality, there is no formalized consensus on this milestone.\nThroughout the process, the Bitcoin Development Mailing List has played a pivotal role in consolidating consensus among various parties.\nWhy Upgrade? As mentioned at the beginning of the article, there are currently three main perspectives within the community regarding upgrades:\nProactive Advocates: This group has proposed numerous upgrade ideas, which will be analyzed in the sections below. Pragmatic Builders: They focus on solutions within the existing protocol, such as implementing Fraud Proofs (e.g., BitVM and its extensions), functional encryption (covenants and ZK-proofs via Bitcoin PIPEs ) and hash collisions (covenants via ColliderScript), etc. Conservatives: This group includes the TeamSlowAndSteady, which advocates for extremely slow and cautious upgrades (e.g., a 10-year cycle), and the Ossifiers, who oppose upgrades unless there is an existential threat like quantum attacks (see Is Ossification Good or Bad for Bitcoin). The author conducted an analysis of the pros and cons of upgrading versus not upgrading.\nConsensus Change Pros Cons Change Technological Advancement, Enhanced Security, Expanded Use Cases Risk of Forking, Increased Complexity Unchanged Stability and Trust, Avoids Split Risks, Minimizes Attack Surface Technological Stagnation, Lacks Flexibility for New Demands As a pragmatic developer in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the author believes that fully exploring Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s potential through cryptographic or engineering innovations within the existing protocol framework is indispensable. At the same time, from the perspectives of \u0026ldquo;sustainability\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;adaptability,\u0026rdquo; it is advisable to implement continuous upgrades as needed, provided the impact and security risks are thoroughly evaluated.\nIn-Depth Analysis of Upgrades Stakeholders in Bitcoin Upgrades In Bitcoin’s history, the Hong Kong Consensus (signed during the Bitcoin Roundtable in February 2016) identified three primary stakeholder groups:\nBitcoin-Core-Devs Mining Pools Users and Ecosystem Developers (primarily exchanges, chip manufacturers, etc.) As Bitcoin adoption has grown rapidly, the stakeholder landscape has evolved from this simple triad into a more fragmented and competitive environment. This is illustrated in the informative report from Analyzing Bitcoin Consensus: Risks in Protocol Upgrades.\nAmong these stakeholders, several key roles are worth highlighting:\nEconomic Nodes: These include major centralized exchanges (CEX), payment processors, and custodial service providers. Their stance on soft forks heavily influences what is considered \u0026ldquo;legitimate\u0026rdquo; Bitcoin and impacts adoption rates. Investors: With Bitcoin ETFs, institutional reserves, and even sovereign reserves becoming mainstream, this group has grown increasingly complex. Users \u0026amp; Ecosystem Developers: Following the Taproot upgrade, Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s ecosystem has flourished, giving rise to protocols like Ordinals and numerous native applications and scaling solutions. Key Observations on Stakeholders:\nDifferent roles at different stages: For instance, Ecosystem Developers actively push proposals, Protocol Developers exercise their authority over BIP reviews, while mining pools and economic nodes wield significant influence during activation. Commercial interests drive some proposals: Ecosystem Developers often propose and support upgrades aligned with their business interests. For example, proponents of Validity Rollup are inclined to support OP_CAT. History and Summary of Bitcoin Upgrades Public data reveals multiple soft fork upgrades since Bitcoin’s inception.\nData Sources:\nComplete History of Bitcoin Consensus Forks - BitMEX Blog Drivechain Info - MIT 2023 From the chart, 2 conclusions can be drawn:\nBitcoin’s protocol has become increasingly rigid, with the frequency of soft forks declining over time. Reaching consensus on upgrades now takes significantly longer. Focus Areas of Soft Forks Analyzing past soft forks and their associated BIPs, the following focus areas emerge:\nFocus Area Examples Scalability SegWit/Schnorr Privacy Taproot/MAST/P2SH Programmability CLTV/Tapscript Security Disable Opcodes What Makes a Good Upgrade Proposal? Based on the analysis above, a good upgrade proposal should:\nUphold Bitcoin’s Core Role as a Payment System: Any upgrade must align with Bitcoin’s unique positioning. Strike a Balance Between Potential Benefits and Risks: It should be broadly acceptable and not polarizing. Have an Appropriate Scope: Proposals should neither be too trivial nor overly complex to implement. Timing: Upgrades should address pressing needs, such as SegWit addressing the scalability demand during its time. Future Outlook Proposal Classification The author has compiled most of the active proposals, assigned focus area tags to them, and categorized them into four quadrants to provide readers with a visual understanding. Points to note regarding the classification:\nThe four focus areas are not entirely isolated from one another. For instance, a BIP that enhances programmability might also contribute to scalability to some extent. A proposal may address multiple focus areas. For example, while OP_CAT primarily enhances programmability, its broader support comes from its role in enabling validity rollups. Determining which focus areas a proposal addresses requires a degree of \u0026ldquo;consensus\u0026rdquo; (inherently political). It\u0026rsquo;s important to note that there is no single definition, as different stakeholders may interpret the same proposal from varying perspectives. The second diagram is not a coordinate system; it categorizes proposals based on their tags. The attributes of the circles (such as size, position, or color) do not carry any specific meaning. Community Sentiment From the chart above, the community appears to have reached some consensus on the problems upgrades should address, particularly in two areas:\nProgrammability: Enhancing UTXO programmability for use cases like covenants, vaults, transaction introspection, conditional payments, and script enhancements. Scalability: Improving Layer 2 scaling, with proposals divided into on-chain and off-chain verification solutions. The Puzzle of Consensus The author believes that the Bitcoin community has fallen into a consensus maze regarding the next upgrade due to the following reasons:\nOssification: With a fully diluted value (FDV) nearing $2 trillion, stakeholders lean towards stability, as no one wants to bear responsibility for potential mishaps. Fragmented Stakeholders: Diverse interests and varying levels of influence at different stages make consensus elusive; even governments have emerged as stakeholders. Imperfect Governance Mechanism: As the earliest blockchain, Bitcoin lacks a highly refined governance mechanism; the community has also been unable to reach a consensus on the methods for activating soft forks. The role of Protocol Developers is inherently dynamic: While they may indeed reject certain proposals, it cannot be simply characterized as conservative or progressive. Lack of Urgency: With maturing blockchain infrastructure, there’s no overwhelming demand for immediate Bitcoin upgrades. Conclusion \u0026amp; Takeaways This article introduced the fundamental concepts of Bitcoin upgrades, provided an in-depth analysis of historical upgrades, and reviewed active proposals for the next upgrade. The causes of the current \u0026ldquo;consensus puzzle\u0026rdquo; were also identified.\nKey takeaways:\nPragmatic development while cautiously advancing upgrades; soft forks are preferable. Stakeholders are highly fragmented, leading to a conservative stance from the community. Discussions about upgrades must adhere to Bitcoin’s core value proposition. Scalability is just one of many focus areas for upgrades. Timing is critical—strong proposals will gain consensus more quickly. The community must explore improved governance mechanisms. Acknowledgments During the research, writing, and review process of this article, I received tremendous support, including from community members who, for various reasons, preferred not to be named. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all of them.\nNote: Given that some viewpoints in this article reflect personal preferences, the individuals listed below are NOT necessarily in full agreement with the content. This article does NOT intend to involve these generous community members in any political discourse.\nCo-Editing and Reviewing (in alphabetical order): Adrien Lacombe\nBob Bodily\nBitlayer Research Team\nDomo\nJeffrey Hu\nRed\nRen Zhang\nScott Odell\nSuper Testnet\nWill Foxley\nFeedback and Help (in alphabetical order): Ajian\nAndrew Fenton\nBen77\nDavid Tse\nEli Ben-Sasson\nMi Zeng\nFuture Work Throughout the process, the author has identified many issues worthy of further exploration, such as solutions for certain functionalities, research on specific proposals, and data support for certain viewpoints. These topics will be elaborated upon in subsequent articles in the series.\nReference https://bitcoinops.org/\nhttps://opnext.dev/\nhttps://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev\nhttps://github.com/TABConf/6.tabconf.com\nhttps://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review\nhttps://blog.bitmex.com/a-complete-history-of-bitcoins-consensus-forks-2022-update/\nhttps://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0123.mediawiki\nhttps://river.com/learn/what-is-a-bitcoin-improvement-proposal-bip/\nhttps://bitnodes.io/nodes/\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulse/monthly\nhttps://river.com/learn/what-is-a-bitcoin-improvement-proposal-bip/\nhttps://trustmachines.co/learn/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-basic-breakdown/\nhttps://www.argoblockchain.com/articles/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-explained\nhttps://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap\nhttps://newsletter.blockspacemedia.com/p/four-takeaways-from-op-next\nhttps://blog.bitfinex.com/education/is-ossification-good-or-bad-for-bitcoin/\nhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04079\nhttps://www.allocin.it/uploads/placeholder-bitcoin.pdf\nhttps://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1802\nhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support\n","date":"2024-12-01T00:45:55Z","image":"/bitcoin-next-upgrade/cover.png","permalink":"/en/bitcoin-next-upgrade/","title":"A Brief Report on Bitcoin's Next Upgrade for All"},{"content":"Background Several major events in the 2024 Crypto world (e.g. ETF approval/BTC halving) are related to the BTC ecosystem.\nThe outbreak of the BTC ecosystem in 2023 has done a good job of preheating this narrative ahead of time.\nAs an organization that wants to participate deeply in building, SIGWeb3 has decided to initiate the BTC ecosystem exploration project - BTC-EXP (BTC Ecosystem Explorer).\nRationale I believe many friends entered the Crypto industry after the BTC era and may not fully understand the relevant history, technical principles, technical frontiers, etc. of BTC.\nLearning in isolation is inefficient. Exchanging and colliding with each other advances faster. Based on the actual needs of BTC-related projects that the editorial team is currently working on, several research propositions are given.\nWhat you will get A group of research-loving friends\nQuickly get into the principles of the BTC ecosystem\nExcellent research report sharing will have red envelope rewards\nHope you bring A serious learning attitude\nActive research spirit\nSolid research report summary\nWonderful presentation\nBring more research topics\nProgramme Details https://sigweb3labs.sg.larksuite.com/wiki/H6ziw8HNeidwBMk4MfPl4E3WgNg\nHow to join Add assistant telegram @elonhe888 and note \u0026ldquo;BTC-EXP\u0026rdquo;\nAbout SigWeb3 A special interest group focused on Web3, we pay attention to the forefront of Web3 technology and go down to build.\nStudents with theoretical foundation and engineering capabilities are welcome to join!\nAdd telegram group: https://t.me/sigweb3\n","date":"2023-12-15T14:58:57Z","image":"/sigweb3-btc-exp-programme/cover.png","permalink":"/en/sigweb3-btc-exp-programme/","title":"SIGWeb3 Launches BTC Ecosystem Exploration Project - BTC-EXP"},{"content":"Preface Looking back at the end of 2023, the rise of the Bitcoin ecosystem can definitely be considered part of the Cryptocurrency chronicles.\nFrom the inscription concept that arose in the first half of the year to the large number of Bitcoin Layer2 that emerged in the second half of the year, it can be said that all flowers bloomed together and all schools of thought contended.\nFacing the ever-changing Bitcoin ecosystem projects and related technologies, many friends (including the author) have experienced the process of: can\u0026rsquo;t see - look down on - don\u0026rsquo;t understand - can\u0026rsquo;t keep up.\nThis series of research reports aims to peel off the superficial concepts of projects and start from the technical essence to give the origins of this wave of prosperity, and then divide the framework for these projects from a technical dimension. It is hoped that through mastering information and establishing frameworks, readers will be able to quickly analyze and judge new projects technically when they encounter them.\nWhere does the new come from Readers must be familiar with the topic of Bitcoin scalability, so I won\u0026rsquo;t repeat it here. If interested, you can visit here to fill in the background knowledge.\nFrom the overall ecological development law, asset issuance protocols will first appear, people will use issuance protocols to issue a large number of assets, and then applications (exchange/lending/payment, etc.) will be generated, and a large number of applications will gather together. It will form a prosperous Layer2.\nTherefore, assets (protocols/cases)/Layer2 (protocols/applications) will be the core theme for the author\u0026rsquo;s analysis, of which Asset protocols and Layer2 protocols are the focus.\nIn the many years of Bitcoin ecosystem development, the Bitcoin ecosystem mentioned in various classic books and authoritative analysis articles can be summarized as the following figure:\nThe development of the Bitcoin ecosystem is changing with each passing day. The above content can no longer cover the latest developments. However, everything has a reason. The author summarizes as follows.\nWhere is the new momentum Internal reasons Economic motivation:\nAs a valuable and liquid asset, BTC naturally should have financial attributes, but for various reasons, the ratio of BTC@DeFi is very low, and BTC holders have the appeal to participate in DeFi.\nIn 2024, Bitcoin will enter the halving cycle, and miners\u0026rsquo; coinbase income will decrease. Mining groups have the appeal to obtain more income through a more prosperous ecosystem.\nTechnical motivation:\nBitcoin\u0026rsquo;s last two major upgrades (SegWit and Taproot) combined together make the on-chain processing capabilities and off-chain expression space of the bitcoin chain itself greater, which also promotes the emergence of new assets and new Layer2.\nThe popularity of client verification and other technical concepts has brought new directions.\nExternal reasons The prosperity of the Ethereum ecosystem in the DeFi summer and the practice on Layer2 have objectively affected the development of other public chains.\nThe concept of modular blockchains (DA, etc.) and the implementation of zero-knowledge proof technology have brought new ideas for Bitcoin expansion.\nDriven by the above motivations, we can update the above framework content to the latest version.\nClassification Overview [DEC. 2023] In this article, the author will try to make some technical descriptions for each sub-category and protocol within the scope of knowledge. If time permits in the future, I will do technical analysis on specific protocols.\nAsset Protocol The Bitcoin white paper defines it as a P2P payment system, so it adopts a UTXO model similar to cash payment and change.\nIn this transaction, Alice wants to pay Bob 1 BTC. Alice constructs a transaction: the input is the 10 BTC UTXO controlled by Alice, and the output is 1 BTC to Bob and 8.99 BTC change, with the remaining 0.01 BTC as the transaction fee.\nThe UTXOs in the output can carry some additional information, for example, someone once registered wedding information on the bitcoin chain:\n1 2 3 4 5 6 OP_RETURN 0.00000000 BTC TYPE\tOP_RETURN SCRIPTPUBKEY (ASM)\tOP_RETURN OP_PUSHBYTES_27 416c657820616e6420446172696120676f74206d61727269656421 SCRIPTPUBKEY (HEX)\t6a1b416c657820616e6420446172696120676f74206d61727269656421 OP_RETURN DATA\tAlex and Daria got married! With the upgrade of Bitcoin, there are also multiple ways to carry information in UTXO, commonly used are OP_RETURE, SegWit, Taproot, etc.\nThe code consensus of the Bitcoin network only recognizes one asset called BTC. If you want to issue other assets by leveraging Bitcoin, the ideas people have come up with so far are to add information in the UTXO, and then use an off-chain program to parse the additional information in the UTXO.\nAn example is to establish a \u0026ldquo;rare\u0026rdquo; US dollar collection protocol on top of the US dollar supremacy, described as follows:\nUnfold the narrative with US dollar numbers and establish the following Rare-USD protocol:\n1 2 3 4 5 6 B__03__54__27__54__F || H__C1__C2__C3__C4__T Set the more numbers with 8 in C1, C2, C3, C4, the rarer. Typical operations for this protocol are minting/transferring. Where minting is making some special marks on the banknote (may have legal issues, just a simple example). It can be seen that some characteristics of the Rare-USD protocol:\nLayer1 (Federal Reserve) is not aware of the existence of this collectible protocol An off-chain consensus needs to be formed (collectors) to ensure its normal operation The asset protocol Rare-USD protocol described above has no essential difference from the framework, and it is also closely related to the separation of DA (data availability layer) in modular blockchains.\nClient-side-verification is a more official term, while inscription is a term coined by the community.\nLayer2 Protocol The existence value of Layer2 depends on the asset protocol and corresponding asset instances.\nThe three core issues The author believes that the core of Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s Layer2 needs to answer three questions:\nAssets Whether the assets are abundant, whether they can achieve decentralized cross-chain, and whether they have escape capabilities.\nExecution The state transition of Layer2, whether it has a Turing-complete virtual machine, and whether it is user and developer friendly.\nValidation How Layer2\u0026rsquo;s execution state can prove innocence, verification costs, etc.\nLayer2 Analysis Framework This article establishes the following analysis framework for Layer2 protocols. For example:\nProject Technical Route Asset Security Cross-chain Asset Escape Turing Complete L1 Verify State Lighting Network State Channel YES YES NO YES Stacks Side Chain - NO YES NO It is worth noting in particular that the emergence of Rollup types of Layer2 is a highlight. Strictly speaking, Rollup contains validity and sovereign types, the former can achieve on-chain verification.\nAs a technical solution that can potentially implement validity rollups, BitVM will be expected to truly open a new chapter in Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s Layer2 ecosystem.\nSummary The article reviews the history of the Bitcoin ecosystem and the driving forces behind innovation and new developments, starting from the two major categories of asset/Layer2 protocols, and attempts to establish an analysis framework for the Bitcoin ecosystem for readers.\nWhether it is an asset protocol or a Layer2 protocol, the best way to understand the technical essence is to look at their interaction with Bitcoin\u0026rsquo;s first layer, more specifically, the construction of UTXO inputs and outputs. Subsequent articles will be written to analyze ecosystem protocols from a Bitcoin transaction perspective.\nAbout SigWeb3 Organization A special interest group focused on Web3, we pay attention to the forefront of Web3 technology and go down to build.\nStudents with theoretical foundation and engineering capabilities are welcome to join!\nAdd telegram group: https://t.me/sigweb3\nReferences https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mastering-bitcoin-3rd/9781098150082/ https://bitvm.org/bitvm.pdf https://rgb.tech/\nhttps://www.drivechain.info/ https://www.dlc.link/ https://domo-2.gitbook.io/brc-20-experiment/ https://research.web3caff.com/zh/archives/6501\n","date":"2023-12-11T11:18:16Z","image":"/bitcoin-ecosystem-overviews/cover.png","permalink":"/en/bitcoin-ecosystem-overviews/","title":"Bitcoin Ecosystem Analysis - Establishing a Framework"}]