About this episode
Hey-Hey Sovereign Wealth Builders,
Tonight we’re going LIVE with a Simon Dixon Hard Talk that connects the dots between the Blocksize War, the Epstein-era infiltration narratives, and the current Knots vs Core governance battle — through a macro, geopolitical, and Proof-of-Weapons-Network lens.
My answer is simple: there have been multiple hijack attempts — and they continue today.
But Bitcoin’s structure (developers, miners, nodes) makes it uniquely resilient.
We’ll cover this in three parts:
Part 1: Was Bitcoin Hijacked? The Infiltration Operations Explained
I lay the foundation and map the four major infiltration vectors I see at play:
? Intelligence / Epstein (early reconnaissance + attempted influence)
? Silicon Valley (corporate capture, custodians, narrative steering)
? Wall Street (ETFs, derivatives, public-company treasuries, custody centralization)
? Central Banks / Regulators (Operation Chokepoint 2.0, stablecoins, CBDCs)
Part 2: Hijacking Bitcoin? Simon Dixon vs Steve Patterson – BTC vs BCH Infiltration Debate
This is not “BTC vs BCH” — it’s BTC infiltration vs BCH infiltration.
Steve Patterson (co-author of Hijacking Bitcoin with Roger Ver) and I debate whether either side — or both — were targeted by divide-and-conquer operations, and what that means for Bitcoin’s future.
Part 3: Knots vs Core: Bitcoin’s Next Governance War (Core v30 & BIP 110)
We bring it right up to today:
? Core v30 vs BIP 110
? Miner activation vs user activation dynamics
? Ordinals / spam / OP_RETURN policy wars
? What happens if an “intolerant minority” tries to soft fork?
? Why competing implementations may increase decentralisation — or trigger a new fracture
Read blog
Watch on YouTube
