I support the TapeOut Community Foundation's initiative to co-build optimal mining pools. As a transistor holder and an active Contributor to the TapeOut ecosystem, I'd like to share a few conclusions I've reached after carefully examining the economics behind this model. 1. The core value of mining pools isn't asset aggregation, but production efficiency. Transistors are scattered across different holders, and individuals may lack the components or design expertise needed to build optimal circuits. By working together, fragmented productive assets can be transformed into more competitive computing power. 2. Mining pools don't create additional BEM emissions, but they can reshape how mining rewards are distributed. Total BEM emissions are determined by the protocol. By optimizing circuit designs, mining pools can compete for greater mining weight. Through revenue-sharing certificates, more individual holders can participate in the rewards generated by large mining machines. This is not merely the aggregation of computing power, but the decentralization of economic ownership. 3. Transistors are evolving from productive resources into tradable cash-flow-generating assets. NAND / LATCH → Circuit → BEM Rewards → Tradable Revenue Rights. However, once transistors are consumed during tape-out, they cannot be recovered. Participating in a mining pool is therefore not staking. It is an irreversible asset transformation. Holding transistors preserves their potential scarcity value and future utility. Participating in a mining pool provides exposure to future production income. Neither is inherently superior. The decision comes down to opportunity cost and actual returns. 4. 100% utilization doesn't mean 100% optimal returns. A mining pool can improve material utilization, but actual rewards still depend on circuit efficiency, competition for optimal solutions, and changes in network-wide mining power. What matters most is verifiable computing power, actual daily BEM production, and the rewards attributable to each revenue certificate — not projected yields. 5. What excites me most is the emergence of an open mining pool market. I support independent teams operating commercially, earning reasonable fees, and open-sourcing their code so more Builders can participate. In the future, mining pools could compete on design efficiency, operating costs, actual returns, and transparency, creating a truly open marketplace for on-chain production services. This is also where I believe the Community Foundation should focus: supporting infrastructure, empowering Builders, and encouraging fair competition — rather than replacing the market. Having spent years in investing, I used to focus primarily on the value of assets themselves. But after becoming directly involved in building within TapeOut, I've become increasingly interested in a different question: How can better coordination and organization unlock greater economic value from limited productive resources? If this experiment eventually leads not just to one optimal mining pool, but to a hundred independently created, openly competing pools, that would be its far greater achievement. Let productive assets combine freely. Let production efficiency be tested by competition. Let the rewards of production flow back to those who contribute. Build. Prove. Grow. 💙💙💙 #TapeOut #BuilderCulture 🦾 @TapeOutWorld

If Ordinals made it possible to inscribe data on Bitcoin, could the next step be enabling a digital machine to evolve directly on Bitcoin? Today, I'm open-sourcing UCO (uco/0): UTXO Circuit Objects. No new token. No changes to Bitcoin consensus. Instead, UCO leverages Bitcoin's native UTXO model to enable verifiable, traceable state transitions for TapeOut circuits. The architecture has two core components: 1. Module — Circuit Definition. Inscribes TapeOut netlists byte-for-byte onto Bitcoin, making circuit logic publicly accessible and verifiable. 2. Machine — Circuit State. Divides machine state into Cells, each represented by a UTXO controlled by its holder's private key. Each state transition spends the old Cell, creates a new one, and records the transition in just 7 bytes of OP_RETURN data. Indexers execute one circuit clock cycle and independently verify the result. Bitcoin provides data and transaction settlement. Indexers handle circuit execution and state verification. No smart contract execution at the Bitcoin consensus layer is required. What's been completed so far: - Two independent indexers (Node.js and Ruby) produce identical results to the reference implementation across two adversarial test chains. - 100,172 envelope parsing tests match ord 0.29.0. - Open specification, reference indexer, test suite, and reproducible regtest Docker environment. But I believe the more interesting challenge lies in the evolution of Bitcoin wallet asset models. When a UTXO is no longer just spendable balance, but a state component of a Machine, how should wallets identify, protect, and display it? To address this, I've also released a Cell Status API, a JavaScript coin-selection protection module, and developer tooling to help prevent active Cells from being accidentally spent. I've invited @unisat_wallet to participate in advancing UCO, although the collaboration is still at an early stage. There are two questions I'd especially like to discuss publicly: 1. How should an outpoint-based active Cell API be designed to integrate seamlessly with existing wallets? 2. How should wallets represent UTXOs that carry programmable state and circuit logic? UCO has only been tested on regtest. There is no token, no market, and no independent third-party security audit yet. This is an independent community open-source experiment, not an official TapeOut project. From Coins, to Inscriptions, to programmable state objects. Perhaps the next evolution of Bitcoin wallets won't simply be about managing more assets, but about managing digital machines that users truly own. GitHub: github.com/BruceLanLan/utxo-… Build. Prove. Grow. 💙💙💙 #TapeOut #BTC #UniSat BuilderCulture 🦾 @TapeOutWorld @unisat_wallet

New TAP Draft: Bitcoin-Keyed Holders A straightforward question: Can a Bitcoin wallet directly own and control TapeOut circuits? No need to create a separate EVM wallet. No need to fund another EVM wallet just to interact with circuits. I've been working on a possible answer. Every bc1p… or bc1q… Bitcoin address can be mapped to its own on-chain holder contract. The contract has no owner, is non-upgradeable, and has a deterministic address that can be calculated before deployment. The address remains identical across BNB Chain, Base, and X Layer. It doesn't trust an administrator. It only recognizes BIP-322 signatures from the corresponding Bitcoin address. With a Bitcoin wallet signature, users can perform three types of operations: 1. Delegation: Authorize circuit usage through TAP-11 / EIP-1271. 2. Direct Execution: Sign and authorize a single on-chain call. 3. Batch Execution: Authorize up to 8 calls with one signature, executed atomically—all succeed or all revert. Any relayer can submit the transaction and collect a pre-authorized fee from the holder's balance. But relayers cannot modify the signed calls or unilaterally change the authorized fee terms. This opens up an interesting possibility: A Bitcoin wallet could become more than a place to store assets. It could serve as a cross-chain identity, authorization, and execution interface for programmable circuits. What has been validated so far? - 231 Foundry tests, covering all upstream BIP-340/322 test vectors. - Real signatures from four browser wallets—UniSat, Xverse, Leather, and OKX—have been successfully verified. - A single P2TR signature verification costs approximately 38,000 gas. - Local fork demonstrations have been completed. No production mainnet deployment has been validated yet. Of course, this is still an early-stage draft. Three limitations are explicitly disclosed: - The underlying circuit ownership registry still depends on an upgradeable contract controlled by a 3-of-5 Safe. - secp256k1 is not quantum-resistant. - The implementation has not undergone an independent security audit. We have preliminary evidence of technical feasibility, but there is still work to do before this can be considered production-ready. I've also invited @unisat_wallet to participate in advancing this proposal, and they've agreed to get involved. To be clear, participation does not imply technical endorsement. I take responsibility for the proposal's content, design decisions, and any mistakes it may contain. What comes next? One issue I particularly want to work through openly with wallet providers is: How should these three types of messages be presented before a user signs? Delegation. Single execution. Batch execution. Users must be able to clearly distinguish between granting someone permission to use a circuit and authorizing a transaction themselves. Cross-chain identity should never come at the expense of informed user consent. Ultimately, I hope Bitcoin-Keyed Holders can go beyond simply bridging BTC signatures into EVM-based verification. I see a broader opportunity: Bringing Bitcoin-native identity into an on-chain production ecosystem that is programmable, verifiable, and composable. Developers, wallet teams, and security researchers are all welcome to review, challenge, and help improve the proposal. Idea: github.com/TapeOutProtocol/T… Draft PR: github.com/TapeOutProtocol/T… Build. Prove. Grow. 💙💙💙 #TapeOut #BTC #Unisat Builder Culture 🦾 @TapeOutWorld @unisat_wallet