FlashFeed

Full text

Bitcoin Magazine

The Bitcoin Softfork That Tried to Police “Junk Data” — And Why It’s Already Failing

This is a guest post by Brandon Black . Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Within the tiny internet bubble of Bitcoin X (formerly Bitcoin Twitter or Crypto Twitter), there has been a lot of noise in the past year about @dathon_ohm’s proposal for a Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, otherwise known as BIP110 . Underlying this proposal is the idea that certain Bitcoin transactions have been violating the principles of the network by including in their locking or unlocking scripts data that can be interpreted in one or more additional ways besides their plain Bitcoin script interpretation. According to BIP110’s supporters, reducing the use of these transactions is sufficient justification for the most confiscatory Bitcoin softfork to date, on a deployment timeline that is dramatically faster than the two most recent softforks, and with a lower activation readiness threshold.

Bitcoin is an open-access, censorship-resistant ledger to which anyone can write entries if they are willing to pay fees sufficient to convince block template creators and miners to include their transaction. The fundamental value of Bitcoin vs. all other ledger systems is the aforementioned open access. Without it, Bitcoin’s ledger has no more value than the bowling alley scoreboard. Because of this fundamentally open access, we all know that Bitcoin will be used by those we hate. Much like the principle of free speech, which is meaningless unless it applies to speech that we don’t like, Bitcoin’s open access would be meaningless if it only applied to transactions of which you or I approve. I will therefore assume that we do not want to be in the business of inspecting how other people structure their ledger entries any more than we want them inspecting our entries.

BIP110 proponents might say, “Sure, but that only applies to monetary entries! What about these non-monetary entries?”, but the reality is that there simply is no such distinction. Every transaction made on Bitcoin is made by satisfying the conditions of some locking script to make an entry in the ledger, which consumes input coins and creates output coins. The fact that one transaction’s scripts are larger or smaller than another is of no relevance to me as a Bitcoin node operator or user. First, I simply do not look at other people’s transactions. They’re no more my business than other people’s orders at the local café. Second, my node makes no such distinction. Transactions are either valid or invalid, and they are either costly to validate (like a large multisig) or cheap to validate (like one of these Ordinals or OP_RETURNs).

One could argue that Bitcoin, like gold, would be a superior monetary asset if it could not also be looked at in other ways. Imagine if gold could not be used in industry or jewelry! It might be true that that would make it better as money. But of course, the very same properties that make gold good money also make it desirable in jewelry and industry. The same applies to Bitcoin. The very fact that Bitcoin allows anyone to make an entry if they are willing to pay the fees means that we must give up the idea that we can control how they will look at that entry. No matter what restrictions we put on the structure of the entries, it will always be possible to make entries that can be interpreted in other ways by non-Bitcoin software. So, both with Bitcoin and with gold, we accept that other use is inevitable. In gold, this leads to distortions in the market when non-monetary demand increases or decreases. In Bitcoin, this can lead to periods of higher transaction fees when there’s greater demand for its limited blockspace.

In Bitcoin, we have two advantages that gold does not have. First, making Bitcoin transactions that can be viewed in alternative ways does not affect the market for Bitcoin itself. Unlike gold, very little Bitcoin is allocated to these uses. Second, in Bitcoin, we have a protocol that is already designed to minimize cost to the validation network from such other interpretations. Bitcoin limits both the size of blocks and the number of signatures that can be used in transactions. These are the greatest costs to validating nodes, and the protocol limits on them have been in place since the very early days of Bitcoin, precisely to prevent abuse by any high-frequency or high-volume use of the ledger. These limits have already spurred innovations such as the Lightning Network, Ark, Spark, Cashu, and many more. Even the boom in demand for blockspace caused by these “non-monetary” ledger entries (yes, that does sound ridiculous) has increased the use of these scaling solutions, which require fewer entries on the main ledger.

With the justification for BIP110 thus explored, and hopefully shown to be woefully lacking, let’s look at the proposed change itself. BIP110 restricts the size of locking scripts, restricts the number of alternative scripts in taproot, makes the taproot annex invalid, removes all upgradable witness and tapscript versions, removes all tapscript upgradable opcodes, and makes OP_IF and OP_NOTIF invalid in tapscript. All of these restrictions apply to UTXOs created during the 52414 blocks (approximately 1 year) after its activation. BIP110 also proposes a miner readiness signaling threshold of 55% instead of the threshold used in prior miner signaled softforks of 90% or more. If 55% of blocks do not signal readiness before block 961632, nodes enforcing BIP110 will treat blocks not signaling readiness as invalid to force the change to lock in by block 963648 and activate by block 965664.

BIP110 would be the most sweeping restriction of Bitcoin script since Satoshi’s well-known deactivation of many opcodes in response to a critical vulnerability ( CVE-2010-5137 ) back in 2010. It proposes miner signaled activation with an unprecedentedly low threshold and node-forced activation after less than 9 months from the date the BIP was assigned a number. It does all of this because (as discussed above) other people are viewing certain ledger entries in ways which the BIP110 supporters do not approve of. Worse yet, the folks who use such disapproved ledger entries have already updated their software to continue making such entries even if BIP110 were to become Bitcoin’s consensus rule set. This was, of course, a predictable outcome (many of us explicitly predicted it) because it is fundamentally impossible to restrict how other people use external software to analyze entries on an open-access public ledger.

In summary, BIP110 is a proposal to do something impossible (limit how users of an open access ledger use that ledger) in response to a problem that is already fully addressed through Bitcoin’s existing protocol limits. It proposes to do this impossible thing on an irresponsibly short activation timeline, with incredibly limited code review, and regardless of whether the change reaches any type of ecosystem consensus. Fortunately, Bitcoin is not such a delicate flower of a system that such a foolhardy attempt at modifying it will succeed. Not only have miners soundly rejected BIP110, but other voices throughout the developer, investor, influencer, and corporate landscape have spoken out against the changes. In August, this particular attack against Bitcoin’s consensus rules will have made Bitcoin stronger through its failure, and the network will continue its steady rhythm of tick-tock, next block.

This post The Bitcoin Softfork That Tried to Police “Junk Data” — And Why It’s Already Failing first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Brandon Black .

Full text

The inability of a munitions plant in Mesquite, Texas, to build a key part set back the U.S. Army’s plans for ramping up production of 155mm shells to 100,000 rounds per month, according to a scathing new report by the War Department’s Office of Inspector General (DOWIG). Despite receiving close to $500 million from the U.S. Army funded through supplemental spending bills from Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS), failed to make a single subcomponent needed to produce the badly needed shells as of last March.

“Without the 30,000 additional projectile metal parts anticipated from the Mesquite facility, the Army will be unable to reach its monthly capability goal of 100,000 155-mm artillery rounds,” the report concluded. “As of March 2026, the CPE A&E [ Capability Program Executive Ammunition & Energetics ] officials have not developed a plan to produce the additional rounds that are supposed to be produced at the Mesquite facility.”

At present, the Army is only producing 36,000 rounds per month, inspectors revealed.

NEW REPORT While the DoW increased its capability and capacity to produce 155-millimeter (mm) artillery, it did not reach its own modernization plan goal of 100,000 155-mm rounds per month. Find out what this could mean for military readiness : https://t.co/7GgfXQqa7H

— DoW Office of Inspector General (@DoW_IG) July 13, 2026

Through modernization efforts and two new facilities, the Army expects to exceed the 100,000-round-per-month goal significantly by the end of next year. The initial goal was established by Congress in the wake of the U.S. providing millions of rounds to Ukraine .

Still, the report highlights the challenges U.S. arms makers face in trying to meet tighter timelines to produce more weapons. This all comes as the U.S. is increasingly concerned about stockpiles of a wide array of munitions after heavy usage in past and current conflicts and donations to partners like Ukraine, as well as foreign military sales. These are issues that we raised long before and during the current war with Iran , but they have become major headlines in the aftermath of the initial stages of that conflict.

The plant at the center of this new report is the Universal Artillery Projectile Line owned and operated by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems. It opened in May 2024 to great fanfare and high hopes.

Then-Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth toured the Universal Artillery Projectile Line (UAPL) during the opening ceremony in Mesquite, Texas, on May 29, 2024. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Mejia)

According to the IG report , more than three million 155mm shells were donated to Ukraine, more than 111,000 rounds were used over the past four years on training and testing, and nearly 218,000 rounds were sold to foreign customers. Combined, U.S. stocks were depleted by more than 3.6 million rounds since the start of the war in Ukraine.

A soldier from an artillery unit of the 152nd Symon Petliura Jaeger Brigade of the Ukrainian Land Forces installs fuzes during a combat mission in the Pokrovsk direction in Donetsk region, Ukraine, on December 11, 2025. (Photo by Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images) NurPhoto

The Mesquite plant was opened to help replenish the supply. However, according to DOWIG, it failed to live up to expectations.

“The DoW increased its capability and capacity to produce 155-mm artillery ammunition but did not reach the 2025 National Defense Industrialization Strategy Implementation Plan goal of 100,000 rounds per month by October 2025,” the DOWIG report pointed out.

As of March 2026, “the Army had increased its monthly production from 14,000 to 36,000 rounds because of expansion and modernization efforts at both the projectile metal parts and the load, assemble, and pack facilities,” the IG report noted. “However, at a contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility in Mesquite, Texas, the contractor has been unable to produce any projectile metal parts that meet contract specifications.”

According to an Army news release about the plant opening, it was built to “feature high-volume production capabilities for large-caliber metal parts and is equipped with long-stroke, high-tonnage forging capabilities.”

“The facility’s 155mm metal parts production lines also meet Army modernization goals by incorporating high levels of automation, modern manufacturing practices, and digital-data-capture ability. It will offer the flexibility to produce a variety of metal parts ranging from 60mm to 155mm, with minimal changeover requirements,” the Army added.

Machinery inside the Mesquite, Texas, plant designed to produce larger-caliber metal parts, equipped with long-stroke, high-tonnage forging capabilities. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Mejia)

The Army “planned for the Mesquite Texas facility to produce 30,000 rounds per month,” the report added. “With only three facilities producing the required projectile metal parts, the DoW will reach only 71,000 rounds per month, or 71 percent of its monthly production capacity goal for 155-mm artillery rounds.”

We’ve reached out to General Dynamics and the Army for comment and will update this story should the company respond.

The main issue inspectors found was that the plant adapted equipment used to make parts for M107 155mm shells to produce parts for M795 155‑mm shells. The latter is an upgraded version of the munition that is slightly heavier and longer, and has an extended range.

M107 155mm high explosive cartridge. (Army)

Army

As a result of this adaptation, several factors came into play, according to DOWIG. Army officials knew that the concept of trying to produce the more advanced 155mm shells using equipment not designed for that was risky. However, officials felt that would pay off because that machinery was already available. In addition, the report stated that the existing Scranton plant’s past work with GD-OTS on ammunition production was a factor in deciding to take a chance on what turned out to be a flawed assumption.

The report states, in part:

According to the Army’s CPE A&E, “ACC issued the contract and CPE A&E accepted the risk associated with the contractor’s plan to purchase and adapt M107 metal part production equipment to produce a newer variant of the 155-mm projectile metal parts at different specifications.”

“According to CPE A&E officials, the Mesquite facility was a high-risk, high-reward opportunity, and CPE A&E is realizing some of that risk now because the facility has been unable to produce acceptable rounds.”

“CPE A&E accepted the contractor’s proposal to acquire and adapt unique production equipment and an unproven production process because equipment was already available. According to the CPE A&E official, obtaining and adapting the available production line equipment was expected to be faster than obtaining new M795 production line equipment.”

“The contractor has been working since the original contract task order was issued in November 2022 to produce the contracted 155-mm projectile metal parts. However, according to CPE A&E officials, acquiring the equipment and adapting it to produce M795 155-mm projectile metal parts resulted in significant challenges.” The report redacted specific examples.

“In addition, according to CPE A&E officials, CPE A&E recommended the contractor for the Mesquite facility because the contractor has 20 years of experience producing 155-mm projectile metal parts at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant.”

“Scranton Army Ammunition Plant officials stated that despite the contractor’s years of experience, the Scranton facility encountered separate ongoing problems with the contractor in terms of responsiveness, equipment maintenance, and timeliness.”

“Those officials expressed concern to the evaluation team that ACC did not open the contract for the Mesquite facility to competition from other contractors.”

“In addition, according to ACC officials, the contract for the Mesquite facility was issued as a task order under the property management contract for the Scranton Ammunition facility and not as a separate contract.”

An employee handles 155 mm caliber shells after the manufacturing process at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant (SCAAP) in Scranton, Pennsylvania on April 16, 2024. (Photo by Charly TRIBALLEAU / AFP) CHARLY TRIBALLEAU

The Army did not dispute that the Mesquite factory was not producing the needed parts.

“The Capability Program Executive Ammunition & Energetics will correct issues identified in this report, and develop and implement a corrective action plan,” CPE A&E responded.

The “United States Army concurs with the report as written,” the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics and Technology stated.

Army Contracting Command (ACC), however, took issue with how the relationship between the Scranton and Mesquite plants was characterized. In its response, ACC stated that no one reached out to them to question GD-OTS’s plan and that it had received sign off from higher authorities to execute the contract without Congressional approval. Moreover, ACC added that it did not need to open up competition for the new plant.

The report says:

“It is unclear what parties or organization are being referred to by ‘SCAAP officials,’ so it cannot confirm the accuracy of this information, however, ACC-RI would like to clarify that at no point did anyone question or raise concerns to ACC in terms of the acquisition strategy to award this effort to the contractor under the existing Scranton facility effort. Further, ACC-RI did document the contract file with a Determination of Contractor Responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104 prior to award of these task orders.”

“ACC-RI received concurrence and approval on the acquisition strategy to execute these efforts on a sole source basis under W52P1J-19-D-0075 from the requiring activity, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army-Procurement, and the Office of General Counsel, with notification provided to Congress prior to execution.”

“ACC-RI would like to clarify that while some might refer to W52P1J-19-D-0075 as the ‘Property Management contract for the Scranton Ammunition facility,’ the scope of the contract states that it covers operation, maintenance, and modernization; includes Production Based Support projects; and doesn’t require active operation at Scranton.”

“The contract states that ‘The Property Management of SCAAP can be accomplished either through active operation of the Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated facility or layaway maintenance’ and allows the contractor to operate the contract at a privately-owned facility. As such, ACC-RI already determined it in scope to execute the Universal Artillery Projectile Line requirement as separate task orders under W52P1J-19-D-0075 and documented such in-scope determinations in memorandums within the contract file.”

Then-Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth on a tour of the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Mesquite, Texas, facility during its grand opening. (Photo Credit: Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Mejia)

Problems with the plant were emerging even before the DOWIG released its report.

In February, Brent Ingraham, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, complained to lawmakers about the inability of the plant to produce needed parts.

“First, let me start by saying I’m not happy with where we are at Mesquite either, right?” he testified. “So I’m in the same boat you are.”

The Army was considering scrapping GD-OTS’s contract to manage the production lines in Mesquite, but Ingraham said the service ultimately did not go through with it, according to Breaking Defense . The Army is still in negotiations with the company, he said at the time.

“I anticipate you will see an investment from the company themselves, from the industry partner themselves, to ensure they can continue to build out that facility that would make rounds that would primarily be supported by the [foreign military sales],” Ingraham said. “But we are currently in negotiation [on] what that looks like, both from a line perspective, a quantity perspective, and hopefully we’ll have that wrapped up soon.”

(DOWIG)

A month ago, General Dynamics announced it would “invest $200 million of its own money and unwind a partnership with Turkish defense contractor Repkon in a bid to finally start producing 155mm artillery shells at a Texas plant that’s been beset by delays,” Bloomberg News reported , citing people familiar with the matter.

The factory “has joined a long list of US defense programs that have failed to meet the lofty goals set out for them,” the publication added.

Munitions manufacturing equipment provided by Repkon “had failed to meet required standards and will be replaced by hardware and management from Deterrence Defense, a privately-held company based in Fremont, Calif.,” Bloomberg added. “General Dynamics and the US Army ‘have reached an agreement on a path forward, which includes additional investment,’ the company said in a statement without disclosing the amount.”

Bloomberg

General Dynamics, geciken mühimmat fabrikasını yeniden faaliyete geçirmek için 200 milyon dolar yatırım yapacak

General Dynamics, Teksas'taki 155 mm top mermisi fabrikasını yeniden işler hale getirmek amacıyla kendi kaynaklarından 200 milyon dolar yatırım yapacak.… pic.twitter.com/rZYpvDV7zn

— Yabancı Basın (@yabancibasin) June 2, 2026

As we noted earlier in this piece, despite the problems at the Mesquite plant, the Army projects that it will turn things around by next year.

“According to Army officials, the Army did not reach its goal for increased capability and capacity to load, assemble, and pack 155-mm artillery ammunition,” investigators found. “However, through the modernization of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and the addition of two new facilities in Kansas and Arkansas, the Army is on track to increase its capability and capacity to load, assemble, and pack 140,000 155-mm artillery rounds per month by December 2027. This exceeds the NDIS Implementation Plan goal by 40,000 rounds per month.”

Still, that’s more than a year away and, as we noted earlier in this story, about 14 months later than the Army was expecting to receive these shells. Whether it can meet these revised goals remains to be seen.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post New $500M Artillery Shell Plant Failed To Produce Any 155mm Parts appeared first on TWZ .

Full text

Silo began answering some big questions in Season 3, Episode 2, but it still found a moment to acknowledge one of its most minor changes from Hugh Howey 's books. Not only did this reassure fans that the writers know what they're doing, it served as a clever Easter egg drawing the audience's attention to something that could be significant depending on how you read it. The episode — titled "It's All Good" — took us back into the split timeline where we're following Congressman Daniel Keene ( Ashley Zukerman ) and his sister Charlotte ( Jessica Brown Findlay ). While recovering from her amnesia , Charlotte misremembers her brother's name and accidentally calls him Donald, which was actually his first name in the novels.

Full text

The lesser-known of just two Japanese Gardens in Ireland, the Lafcadio Hearn Japanese Gardens are an enchanting homage to a remarkable writer, traveler and man of the world, and a tranquil place of great curation and beauty.

His relative anonymity is reflected in the location of the garden, tucked away behind a high stone wall on a quiet side-street in Tramore. Lafcadio Hearn (1850-1904) was of Irish-Greek descent, spending his childhood summers in this seaside town, before making a name for himself as a journalist and travel writer in the States. He was lauded as both an engaging storyteller, and an astute chronicler of place and society. While he remains relatively unknown in Ireland, he is still widely celebrated in his adopted country of Japan.

Described as his 'living biography', the series of eleven small interconnected gardens are diverse and beautiful, each one representing a different aspect of his life, work and travels. The suggested route starts at the Victorian Garden, a nod to his happy childhood summers in Tramore.

A winding path takes visitors through his American Journey and onto the amphitheatre-shaped Greek Garden, commemorating his place of birth. A 100 year old olive tree stands at its heart. From this point on, visitors are firmly in Japanese territory, with burbling rockeries and water features, a traditional tea house and garden, and a wooden bridge across a stream, surrounded by woodland.

Moving to Japan had been the turning point in his life: a place where he remained for the rest of his days. As well as lecturing at the University of Tokyo, he received great acclaim for his collections of Japanese ghost stories and supernatural folk tales. He became loved and respected in his adopted country, and there's even a museum dedicated to him in the city of Matsue.

Towards the end of the gardens is the pièce de résistance, the aptly titled Garden of Peace and Harmony. A stone bench is strategically placed for full immersion in nature, overlooking a large garden pond surrounded by trees and plants in a great blaze of colour. Cocooned beneath the trees, visitors can enjoy the hypnotic sound of water trickling over rocks, while the air hums with birdsong.

Towards the end of the route is a dignified memorial: a bronze sculpture of Lafcadio Hearn, donated by the city of Matsue.

Full text

BRUSSELS — European policymakers criticized AI company Anthropic on Tuesday for failing to send a senior company official to address Brussels’ concerns about risks posed by advanced AI capabilities.

Anthropic appointed Donny Greenberg, a technical employee who joined the company in April, to address the European Parliament via video from New York, rather than its head of public policy, Sarah Heck, as lawmakers had requested.

“I’m a technical person, not a policy person,” Greenberg stressed in his opening remarks.

The testimony was the first of its kind in Brussels since the U.S.-based company’s early April decision to restrict its cyber-capable model, Mythos, to a set of trusted American firms. EU institutions have been desperately seeking access to Mythos and Fable, both capable of finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities, thereby putting critical infrastructure at risk.

“I guess you can expect a lot of policy-related questions that perhaps you won’t be able to answer as a technical guy,” said Dutch Greens European Parliament lawmaker Kim van Sparrentak. “And I think Anthropic could have known that.”

After the hearing, van Sparrentak told POLITICO: “It’s clear from this hearing Anthropic doesn’t care about Europe.”

Greenberg joined the AI leader when it acquired his company, Runhouse, earlier this year. He has since been working on Glasswing, the company’s effort to share Mythos with trusted cyber defenders.

“A lot of [lawmakers] would have liked to speak to the political level,” said the Greens’ Anna Cavazzini, the chair of the Parliament’s internal market committee. Meanwhile, Dutch Greens European Parliament lawmaker Reinier van Lanschot told Greenberg: “I find it a bit disappointing that in this exchange we cannot touch on the policy side.”

Cavazzini later warned Anthropic that it should brace for a “next exchange of views we’re definitely having.”

Other lawmakers, meanwhile, focused on Greenberg’s virtual appearance and an impression in the room that he was reading his answers from his screen.

“Are you answering our questions, or are you just following what your AI model is telling you to say?” asked Spanish conservative lawmaker Pablo Arias Echeverría.

Greenberg fired back: “I should take that as a compliment since we’re very proud of Claude.”

In his answers, Greenberg said the rise of cyber-capable models shows AI is a dual-use tool, and that now is the time for companies to boost their cyber resilience. He also said that Anthropic is working with the Commission’s AI Office and the EU’s cybersecurity agency, ENISA, to enable that.

The hearing ended as awkwardly as it had kicked off, with Greenberg no longer visible on screen when chair Cavazzini thanked him for his appearance.

The question of if, how and by whom new advanced artificial intelligence models are tested has become a delicate geopolitical and business question as the AI race heats up.

At another meeting earlier in the day, a representative of Open AI, one of Anthropic’s chief rivals, told lawmakers it was working to avoid staged rollouts of its new models. Meanwhile on Tuesday, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis called for the U.S. to create an industry-funded standards body to test frontier AI models and set standards.

Full text

Nadia Massih is pleased to welcome Dr Leon Moosavi, Sociologist of race and religion, and Reader in the Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology at the University of Liverpool. Racism directed at the French national football team is often framed as a problem of sport, yet Dr. Moosavi argues that football merely provides a highly visible stage upon which much deeper political and social conflicts play out. Rather than viewing racist abuse against players such as Kylian Mbappé as isolated incidents or the actions of a few extremists, our guest describes these attacks within wider debates over national identity, immigration, belonging, and the normalization of extremist rhetoric and exclusionary political discourse across many Western democracies.