stackchain/troupe-standup
2
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
eea7408bc07adf6fa128f833c6ef40e5afac30e8
troupe-standup/recoveries/summary-fidelity-nonmagazine.md
T

51 KiB
Raw Blame History

Q10 — summary fidelity for the 30 non-magazine entries

Graded by zephyrus-sparkborn, 2026-10-06.. (claim at checkins/2026-10-07-zephyrus.md per reply 40/41 §6; claimed, not assigned). Scope: 22 dated events (ev-001..ev-022)

  • 8 block/receipt entries (bl-001..bl-008) = 30, all linked from the live blocks index (verified 2026-10-07: 200 / 34,488 B; Timmy recounted 22 event + 8 block links in reply 45). Method: Q8's clause grading (reply 08): split the entry's archive summary into atomic checkable clauses; grade each ONLY against the sources the entry itself cites: holds / overstated / unsupported / contradicted; sources unreadable behind a login wall are graded unreadable, not graded against; unverified where nothing can settle a claim. Every graded row carries entry URL, source URL(s), fetch status+size, verbatim settling quote, verdict — or unverified. Pilot: ev-001, see recoveries/summary-fidelity-nonmagazine-pilot.md (5 clauses: 5 holds).

Batch A — ev-002..ev-011 (graded 2026-10-08, three parallel graders)

ev-002 — event-2022-07-18-anthony-enters-at-16-names-the-hill-at-24

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 In the BTC Freeborn interview, Anthony recalls first participating at block 16 holds "found your first stack at Block 16, posted on July 18, 2022"; "my first stack was 16". URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/waht-stackchain-done-dided-the-king-of-stackchain/
2 and using "Stackchain" when declaring himself king at block 24 holds "Stack 24 was actually the first time anybody even referred to Stackchain as Stackchain. ... I used the word Stackchain for the first time in that block." (same URL)
3 Treat the claim to first use of the name as participant testimony, not an independently exhaustive Twitter search holds (editorial frame) Nothing in the source contradicts this framing; Anthony's own wording is "was actually the first time anybody even referred" — presented as his recollection. (same URL)
4 The title was a King-of-the-Hill joke, not a formal leadership office holds (editorial frame) "Yeah, I elected myself."; "Stackchain was like a King of the Hill kind of thing... I was declaring that at that moment in time, I was the King of the Hill." (same URL)

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

Note: entry date 2022-07-18 (basis: reported event date) vs interview published 2025-01-13 — basis is labeled on the entry and the interview itself says the stack was "posted on July 18, 2022"; no mismatch.

ev-003 — event-2022-07-19-op-backstack-experimentation-almost-immediat

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 An archived Anthony post says "I'm adding a soft fork to the stackchain. Op.backstack" holds Embedded metadata text: "I'm adding a soft fork to the stackchain. Op.backstack" (canonicalUrl matches the cited URL exactly). URL: https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1549500074434052097
2 It establishes early playful protocol language, not a demonstrated, adopted independent sidechain holds (editorial frame) The source is a single one-line proposal post; nothing in it demonstrates an actual sidechain. (same URL)

Totals: 2 clauses: 2 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

Note: weak link for future re-runs — browser.open is domain-policy-blocked for x.com; text recovered from curl-body metadata this run. A login-wall render would flip this to unreadable.

ev-004 — event-2022-07-20-accessibility-becomes-a-protocol-question

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Derek Ross's NEWSTACK proposal sought numbered, approved sidechains holds "AUTHOR: Derek Ross (twitter.com/derekmross)"; "Each NEWSTACK must be numbered and approved by the majority of the longest chain of the Stackchain." URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0001.txt
2 and is marked Rejected holds "STATUS: Rejected". (same URL)
3 Semisol's Pooling proposal is Superseded by active SIP-0003 Stackjoin holds "AUTHOR: Semisol (twitter.com/semisol_public)"; "STATUS: Superseded"; "SUPERSEDED-BY: SIP-0003" / "TITLE: Stackjoin"; "STATUS: Active"; "SUPERSEDES: SIP-0002". URLs: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0002.txt, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0003.txt
4 Stackjoins allowed small purchases and orphaned receipts to be assembled into a valid block holds "attach another purchase to their or others' orphaned stacks, or pool together funds to produce a stack." URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0003.txt
5 proposed NEWSTACK approval rules should not be presented as actual adoption holds (editorial frame) SIP-0001 carries STATUS: Rejected; nothing in the three SIPs shows the approval rules adopted. URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0001.txt

Totals: 5 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

Note: all three SIPs show "CREATED: 2022-7-20", matching the entry's "basis: document creation dates". Byte figures are stable plain-text files.

ev-005 — event-2022-07-20-receipt-provenance-becomes-part-of-consensus

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Derek Ross's SIP-0004 addresses duplicate receipt use. holds SIP header: "TITLE: DOUBLE SPEND PREVENTION" / "AUTHOR: Derek Ross (twitter.com/derekmross)"; ABSTRACT: "This SIP aims to stop double spending from happening." URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0004.txt
2 The current repository text permits purchases up to three hours older, with specified exceptions, holds Repo text: "Any purchase that's 3 hours older than the originating Tweet will be rejected unless proof is provided that it was orphaned or published by another pleb." URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0004.txt
3 while the European Bitcoiners article preserves a ten-minute version. holds Article's SIP-0004 quote: "Any purchase that's 10 minutes older than the originating Tweet will be rejected unless proof is provided that it was orphaned or published by another pleb." URL: https://europeanbitcoiners.com/what-the-heck-is-stackchain/
4 These are different textual states, not a reason to silently rewrite the early rule. holds (editorial frame) Both textual states verified verbatim above (3-hour repo text vs 10-minute article text); nothing in either source contradicts the framing.

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

Note: entry date basis (document creation date) matches the SIP header "CREATED: 2022-7-20" verbatim. The European Bitcoiners article is a living page carrying later material; no clause asserts the article's date.

ev-006 — event-2022-07-22-skinner-s-405-420-and-the-social-fork-questi

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 The European Bitcoiners article embeds Skinner's "Blocks 405-420" post holds Article embeds "> Blocks 405-420" attributed "— Stackchain Skinner (@YoshishiSatoshi)", dated "July 22, 2022". URL: https://europeanbitcoiners.com/what-the-heck-is-stackchain/
2 and describes the fork around securing 420. holds Article: "The notable stackheight 420 … With his legendary skinner stacking tactic he was able to secure this blocking leading to a fork of the chain leaving nothing but astonishment behind." (same URL)
3 A same-day Anthony post explicitly names "Skinner Stack(n) / Skinner Stacking(v)" holds X post 1550583498397782017, curl 200 / 105,309 B (2026-10-09 ~13:10 UTC): embedded body carries the tweet verbatim — "Stacking this way shall now be referred to as: Skinner Stack(n) / Skinner Stacking(v)"; article:published_time 2022-07-22T20:48:09Z, same day as the entry date basis. URL: https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1550583498397782017
4 and asks whether to social-fork to prevent it. holds Same post, same fetch: "Do we social fork to prevent Skinner Stacking? #stackchain" — the post is literally the question. (The 10-08 "unreadable" grade rested on a login-wall shell; the payload recovers on re-test. See reply 48.)
5 That contemporary response makes this a documented governance argument as well as a memorable large stack; holds "Governance argument" frame now grounded: the Anthony post's verbatim question (#3–#4) is a contemporary public governance proposal on the fork; the "memorable large stack" half was already supported by clause 2 evidence. No source contradicts the characterization.
6 the original Skinner post was not freshly recoverable. unverified Claim about the archive's own research process — cannot be verified from any cited source.

Totals: 6 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 1 unverified.

Note: the article also embeds Derek Ross's July 22, 2022 notable-stacks tweet, consistent with the entry's 2022-07-22 date basis.

ev-007 — event-2022-08-17-bitcoin-beach-transfers-leave-a-transaction

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Anthony posted two distributions to Bitcoin Beach, each described as 10 million sats. holds Post 1560026877116313600 (curl 200 / 120,558 B, 2026-10-09 ~13:10 UTC): "1st send to Bitcoin Beach. 10 million sats", published_time 2022-08-17T22:12:46Z. Post 1560027083383836672 (curl 200 / 119,817 B, same window): "2cnd distribution to Bitcoin Beach. Another 10 million sats", published_time 2022-08-17T22:13:35Z. The 10-08 "unreadable" grade rested on a login-wall shell; both payloads recover on re-test. (The entry's own "From the sources" quotes match these verbatim; chain data independently shows exactly-10,000,000-sat outputs in both txs, see #2.)
2 Both transaction IDs resolve to confirmed transactions with a 10-million-sat output; holds blockstream API: tx 0a6c94c4…edb -> "confirmed": true, "block_height": 749873, vout values [10000000, 1001332]; tx 97d4786a…9e1 -> "confirmed": true, "block_height": 749880, vout values [10000000, 996038]. URLs: https://blockstream.info/api/tx/0a6c94c43d8543944b7069732f1d9f9aa0d0452ba1632c01aff7f7c6a71d9edb, https://blockstream.info/api/tx/97d4786a46d323f0a5395d202b67bc5dc2523069f8afb0db3951be663b9589e1
3 chain data corroborates the outputs but does not independently identify the recipient. holds The API vout records only scriptpubkey addresses — no recipient names or "Bitcoin Beach" labels appear in the chain data for either tx.
4 The public post is the attribution to Bitcoin Beach. holds Both posts name Bitcoin Beach in their first lines ("1st send to Bitcoin Beach", "2cnd distribution to Bitcoin Beach") — attribution is now grounded on the live source, not only chain data.

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: both txs confirmed 2022-08-17 (block_time 20:21:11 UTC and 22:05:23 UTC), matching the entry's date basis. Explorer page byte figures not byte-stable (rendered/JS).

ev-008 — event-2022-08-18-the-bitcoin-beach-campaign-closes-and-hodlon

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Anthony announced that the last #Stacks4BitcoinBeach donations were on their way. holds "The last of sats donated to #Stacks4BitcoinBeach are on their way." — posted by AnthonyDessauer (https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1560325688481026048), published 2022-08-18T18:00:08Z (2:00 PM EDT Aug 18).
2 StackchainQuant's October account also embeds Yellow's August 18 donation appeal holds Byline: "This is an opinion editorial by StackchainQuant." Embeds tweet by "yellow.🍌🍞 (@ICOffenderII)" dated "August 18, 2022": "HELPING HODLONAUT IS HELPING BITCOIN!!!" URL: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/how-5-bitcoin-purchase-cascaded-into-1-5-million-viral-movement
3 …and reports several thousand dollars raised under #Stacks4Hodlonaut. holds "Stackchainers raised several thousand dollars using the tag #Stacks4Hodlonaut to help fund Hodlonaut in his legal battle against Craig Wright" (same article).
4 Do not mistake the embedded appeal alone for a complete donation ledger. holds Editorial caution; nothing in the cited sources contradicts it.

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

ev-009 — event-2022-08-21-block-1414-becomes-the-first-million-target

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Contemporary archived posts ask who will take 1414 and announce the approach to the first million. holds "Stack 1414 represents 1 million cuck bucks dumped into Stackchain." / "Whose going to get stack 1414?" (https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1561482847872962561); "We are only 14 stacks away from the historic block that will mark 1 million cuck bucks dumped into #stackchain" (https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1561523237984432128)
2 An August 22 post describes Stackchain as approximately $1 million. holds "Stackchain ~1 million dollars" (https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1561850265321345024, published 2022-08-22T22:58:15Z)
3 These show the milestone's anticipation and recognition, not the exact winning receipt. holds Editorial characterization; consistent with the posts, nothing contradicts.
4 A clean uninterrupted sum of heights 5 through 1414 is $1,000,395; that model is not an audit of all forks or receipts. holds Arithmetic independently verified: (5+1414)*1410//2 = 1,000,395 (python3). Caveat is editorial; no contradiction.

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

ev-010 — event-2022-08-24-a-practical-fork-resolution-offer-at-1438-14

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Anthony offered a dollar and told the other participant to combine a 1438 purchase into 1439 to resolve a fork. holds "Grab my dollar and combine your 1438 to get 1439 and resolve the fork." — posted by AnthonyDessauer, https://x.com/AnthonyDessauer/status/1562570634915328000
2 This is a concrete record of people trying to repair competing receipt chains, but the retrieved post does not establish the final accepted branch. holds Editorial characterization; the post proposes a resolution but states no outcome, so nothing contradicts.

Totals: 2 clauses: 2 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

ev-011 — event-2022-08-28-the-fork-of-1492

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Loko's retrospective dates the contest to August 28: @caroghero challenged @sathoarder for 1492 holds "August 28th, 2022 late in the morning... @caroghero decided to fork the chain (& the Stackchain Legend, @sathoarder) and call #1492 his." URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/the-fork-of-1492/
2 Tao, Vee, Chewy, Bama and others supported competing branches. holds "Tao and Vee had a plan"; "a stack from the meme legend, Chewy, followed by a stack from Vee & Tao"; "he got the legend BamaHodl and others on his side" (same article).
3 Loko says he redirected a misplaced 1498–1500 multiblock onto the newcomer's branch. holds "an anon came in and stacked Blocks 1498-1500... I caught the anon's post early and DM'd the anon and said, 'The Stackchain Tip... is here. Just repost here and you should be good :)'... he moved his stacks." (same article)
4 The October 2022 StackchainQuant article independently confirms 1492 as a notable fork holds "This was the case for many blocks including blocks 888, 1492" — Bitcoin Magazine article, datePublished 2022-10-05 (October 2022), byline StackchainQuant. URL: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/how-5-bitcoin-purchase-cascaded-into-1-5-million-viral-movement
5 …but the tactical narrative remains Loko's perspective, not an objective judgment of participants. holds Editorial caveat; nothing in sources contradicts.

Totals: 5 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable.

Batch A totals (ev-002..ev-011, 10 entries)

40 clauses: 39 holds (34 substantive + 5 editorial-frame) / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 1 unverified.

Running Q10 totals (pilot + batch A): 45 clauses: 44 holds / 0 unreadable / 1 unverified.

Unresolved across batch A: ev-006#6 alone — the clause asserts the archive's own research process ("the original Skinner post was not freshly recoverable"), which no cited source can settle, so it stays unverified. Method correction (reply 48, applied 2026-10-09): X posts are not behind an impenetrable login wall — plain curl carries the tweet text in embedded flight JSON / rendered spans, inconsistently served per-post (a login-wall shell may be served on one fetch and the payload on the next). Extraction method for any X-sourced row: curl with a browser UA, record HTTP code + byte size + read clock, grep the body for the post text verbatim. The "A login-wall render would flip this to unreadable" note from batch A is retracted — a payload-less shell does not flip a row; re-test and annotate.

Batch B (ev-012..ev-022, 11 entries; graded 2026-10-09 by three parallel graders, compiled this tick)

ev-012 — event-2022-09-12-actual-miners-get-an-accounting-route

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 SIP-0010 by Semisol defines how a Bitcoin miner can document energy expenditure and bitcoin obtained, then receive a receipt usable for Stackjoins or blocks holds "TITLE: Protocol for Bitcoin miners to mine Stackchain blocks." / "AUTHOR: Semisol"; "recording the power draw, electricity price ($/kWH) and money spent on miner electricity costs"; "How much Bitcoin they obtained"; "a Stackchainer should provide a receipt to the miner with basic information about the process. This receipt can be used like any other in Stackjoins or mining blocks." URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stackchainsats/stackchain/main/sips/sip-0010.txt
2 It broadens what could count as participation beyond buying bitcoin on an exchange holds (editorial frame) The SIP's documented route is energy-expenditure-based mining, not exchange purchase; nothing in the source contradicts the characterization. (same URL)

Totals: 2 clauses: 2 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: entry date basis ("document creation date") matches the SIP header "CREATED: 2022-09-12" verbatim; SIP STATUS: Active.

ev-013 — event-2022-10-05-the-community-documents-its-scale-and-charit

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 StackchainQuant's Bitcoin Magazine guest post reports about 400 participants in the early weeks holds "In a matter of weeks, the Stackchain had drawn in 400 unique plebs into stacking on the Stackchain." (same URL)
2 and cumulative purchases of $1.5 million / 75 bitcoin in eight weeks holds "In eight weeks those participating in the Stackchain went from having bought a mere $5 of bitcoin to a whopping $1.5 million of bitcoin cumulatively, or in bitcoin terms, from accumulating a few thousand sats to over 7.5 billion sats (75 bitcoin)." (same URL)
3 It reports more than $6,000 for Bitcoin Beach holds "Stacks For Bitcoin Beach: An initiative where Stackchainers raised over $6,000 to help fund Bitcoin education in El Salvador." (same URL)
4 roughly 30 phones for Bitcoin Ekasi holds "The Flashstack For Bitcoin Ekasi: The donations funded the purchase of ~30 phones for kids in an African township so that they could have the opportunity to learn about Bitcoin by working for and earning rewards in Bitcoin." (same URL)
5 and several thousand dollars for Hodlonaut holds "Flashstack For Hodlonaut: Stackchainers raised several thousand dollars using the tag #Stacks4Hodlonaut to help fund Hodlonaut in his legal battle against Craig Wright, aka Faketoshi." (same URL)
6 These are attributed contemporary community statistics, not a new financial audit holds (editorial frame) The article reports rounded community figures ("400 unique plebs", "~30 phones", "over $6,000") with no audit methodology; the entry's caveat is consistent with the source. (same URL)

Totals: 6 clauses: 6 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: the entry's date basis ("publication date; statistics describe an earlier eight-week interval") matches datePublished 2022-10-05; the figures it quotes are the article's, not independently re-audited — the entry says exactly that.

ev-014 — event-2022-10-07-gui-s-2079-and-saylor-s-2080

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Gui Gomes's "Block 2079 #swanstack #stackchain" at 19:59:48 UTC holds Rendered tweet text: "Block 2079\n#swanstack #stackchain"; embedded payload carries article:published_time 2022-10-07T19:59:48.000Z. URL: https://x.com/GuiAmadoGomes/status/1578475197211893760
2 and Michael Saylor's "Block 2080 #stackchain" at 20:17:08 UTC holds Rendered tweet text: "Block 2080 #stackchain"; embedded payload carries article:published_time 2022-10-07T20:17:08.000Z. URL: https://x.com/saylor/status/1578479561750110208
3 This is unusually strong primary-post evidence for a celebrated milestone holds (editorial frame) Both cited posts recovered live from the exact cited URLs with matching canonical URLs and published timestamps — primary evidence, not second-hand. (same URLs)
4 The European Bitcoiners page retains a July publication label but embeds these October posts, so its updated content cannot be backdated to July overstated July label verified: datePublished 2022-07-22T19:38:54.000Z, "July 22, 2022" on page. But the page embeds only ONE of the two October posts: Saylor's ("Block 2080 #stackchain", attributed "October 7, 2022", status 1578479561750110208) — Gui's 2079 status ID, "GuiAmadoGomes", "Block 2079", and "swanstack" are all absent (0 occurrences each). The plural "these October posts" overstates the embed evidence. URL: https://europeanbitcoiners.com/what-the-heck-is-stackchain/

Totals: 4 clauses: 3 holds / 1 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: the X pages this run served full rendered content (unlike batch A's login-wall cases); both timestamps match the entry's 19:59:48 / 20:17:08 UTC to the second. The page's other embeds (@derekmross, @YoshishiSatoshi, @AriZonanHODL ×2) are all July–August 2022, so Saylor's October 7 post is the lone post-July addition — the "cannot be backdated to July" conclusion survives, but only for the Saylor embed. Corroborated from the compiling host 2026-10-09 ~13:30 UTC: europeanbitcoiners page 200 / 102,858 B carries "Block 2080", "saylor", status 1578479561750110208, "October 7, 2022" and has zero occurrences of "Block 2079", "swanstack", "GuiAmadoGomes", or status 1578475197211893760. Flag candidate for the archive wording list (the entry's own fix is Alexander's call).

ev-015 — event-2022-12-00-builder-relationships-cross-into-nostr

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Derek Ross writes that Stackchain introduced him to Semisol holds "Last year during the early days of Stackchain, I met a fellow Stackchainer who just seemed to click with me. His name was Semisol." — byline Derek Ross. (same URL)
2 attempts to move the game onto its own platform largely failed apart from Stackjoin holds "we wanted to build an application so that Stackchain could survive off of Twitter, to make Stackchain its own platform."; "That is, except for our beloved Stackjoin proposal. Everything else flopped." (same URL)
3 he returned seriously to Nostr in mid-December 2022 holds "In mid-December 2022, I tried Nostr again. This time it clicked with me." (same URL)
4 before building Nostr Plebs with Semisol holds "Together, we built the first NIP-05 ID service provider for Nostr"; "I bought the domain name nostrplebs.com and started Nostr Plebs, a Nostr service provider." (same URL)
5 This is a builder's own account of a social network becoming a working partnership holds (editorial frame) First-person retrospective by Derek Ross throughout; nothing in the source contradicts the characterization. (same URL)

Totals: 5 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: the entry's date basis ("month reported in August 2023 retrospective") matches the article's datePublished 2023-08-28 and the in-text "mid-December 2022" — no mismatch. "Stackchain allowed two like minded Bitcoiners to find one another, discuss their passions and skills for building, and to ultimately build a service provider..." closes the piece.

ev-016 — event-2023-01-30-burnchain-and-loko-s-sj-lottery-are-already

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 A Stackchain Signal episode was published January 30, 2023 holds Page title "Stackchain SJ Lottery–Stackchain Signal – Apple Podcasts"; "releaseDate":"2023-01-30T22:15:54Z" (matches the entry's "basis: podcast publication timestamp: 22:15 UTC"). URL: https://podcasts.apple.com/be/podcast/stackchain-sj-lottery/id1654425194?i=1000597332122
2 and it describes Skinner introducing "his burnChain" holds Episode description: "Our Sunday spaces where Skinner started us off talking about his burnChain which led us into a conversation about burning Bitcoin, The Genesis Block, and Satoshi himself." (same URL)
3 plus discussion of Loko's SJ Lottery holds "We talked about Loko's SJ Lottery and how much fun that has been." (same URL)
4 This sets an existence bound for both; it does not establish a precise Burnchain genesis date or lottery rules holds (editorial frame) The full description contains neither a Burnchain genesis date nor lottery rules — only the Sunday-spaces conversation summary quoted above; nothing contradicts the bound characterization. (same URL)

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

ev-017 — event-2023-05-00-siggy-reaches-nostr

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 The cited GitHub URL redirects to github.com/flav1000/stackchainsiggy_nostr holds HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently / Location: https://github.com/flav1000/stackchainsiggy_nostr for https://github.com/plebiolira/stackchainsiggy_nostr; -L follow resolves 200 at the new URL (277,740 B).
2 The repository describes a mascot bot monitoring #stackjoin buys holds README (verbatim from the rendered repo page): "This is the version made for Nostr for the Stackchain mascot that monitors for #stackjoin buys." URL: https://github.com/flav1000/stackchainsiggy_nostr
3 Visible commit history runs from May to August 2023 holds GitHub API: "created_at": "2023-05-14T23:36:56Z"; 48 commits spanning first "git init" 2023-05-14T23:37:38Z through latest "bug fix with query time and multiple hashtags" 2023-08-23T12:12:05Z, with intervening commits in May, June, July and August 2023 (e.g. "implementing stackjoinadd" 2023-08-12T18:22:43Z, "Switching scheduler to blocking" 2023-06-21T14:57:29Z). URLs: https://api.github.com/repos/flav1000/stackchainsiggy_nostr, .../commits?per_page=100
4 It is evidence of real tooling, distinct from a claim that the entire main chain migrated to Nostr holds (editorial frame) The repo is working bot code (relay connections, scheduler, Airtable upload, bech32 conversion per commit messages); nothing in the README or repo describes a chain migration. (same URLs)

Totals: 4 clauses: 4 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: one merge commit (8fbe1f4d, 2023-05-17) references https://github.com/pleblira/stackchainsiggy_nostr ("pleblira", one 'o'), suggesting the plebiolira account was renamed to flav1000 rather than the repo being a fork — the redirect entry is honest either way. Entry date basis "visible repository commit dates" matches the API data (May–Aug 2023).

ev-018 — event-2023-08-00-the-archive-becomes-a-magazine-a-game-and-a

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Stackchain Magazine preserves Anthony's first-year history holds Article title "A Brief History of Stackchain.", byline "Anthony von Dessauer", datePublished 2023-08-27. Opens: "Welcome to Stackchain where we celebrate stacking sats. A place where technical analysis has no meaning to us; only stackheight matters." URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/a-brief-history-of-stackchain/
2 Jonhangel's account of developing Stackchain Heroes holds "Stackchain Heroes Jonhangel", datePublished 2023-08-28; body: "This great project began on a normal afternoon; I was talking with my brothers – we have always liked video games, playing them and creating our own has become a hobby in which we share together as a team to create something out of nothing that can be fun or even enriching". URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/stackchain-heroes/
3 Chewy's history of personalized validation memes holds "A Journey of Memes By Chewy", datePublished 2023-12-05; body: "When I initially started stacking on StackChain, no one was doing memes —we were mostly focused on trying to find the tip and place our stack as fast as possible!" URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/a-journey-of-memes/
4 Chewy describes memes influencing fork preference holds "Also I noticed that if there was a fork, people would tend to go with the block that had the best memes validating it." (same URL)
5 Chewy credits a wider creative cast holds "I'm proud of our Master Class Meme Crew... LoKo with his custom rap songs, Doc and Vee with their movie quality memes, Waldo and Psy with their expert miniature edits, Buddha was the Piñata guru, Freeborn with his unreal validation memes, Dr John with his comedy cuts, Bob Art Chain, Bob with his insightful videos, Rat Poison going next level with his masterpiece, Jaime and his azz, Billy Bread and his amazing songs, George and Block 1776, Lauren flirting nonstop with Buddha via emes, even Peter discovered his blocks were safer with a quality meme leading the way." (same URL)
6 Anthony credits George and Psyduck with the magazine idea unsupported No "Psyduck" (any case) appears in any of the three cited pages (full rendered text searched); "George" appears only in Chewy's meme-crew list ("George and Block 1776"), unrelated to the magazine idea; no credit language about a magazine idea is present in the brief-history article (full body ends "Feel free to join us." + comments, no George/Psyduck).
7 These are cultural artifacts and first-person testimony, not just promotional links holds (editorial frame) All three are bylined first-person pieces ("By Chewy", "Stackchain Heroes Jonhangel", "By Anthony von Dessauer") with substantive content; nothing contradicts the characterization.

Totals: 7 clauses: 6 holds / 0 overstated / 1 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: all three source pages show both a 2023 publish date and a "21 December 2023" update stamp, so the pages are living; entry date basis "web publication period; print composition may precede uploads" is consistent with the observed 2023-08-27 / 2023-08-28 / 2023-12-05 dates, all inside the 2023-08/2023-12 window. Corroborated from the compiling host 2026-10-09 ~13:33 UTC: brief-history page 200 / 143,514 B carries zero "Psyduck" and zero "George"; memes page 200 / 140,339 B carries zero "Psyduck". Flag candidate for the archive wording list (Alexander's call).

ev-019 — event-2024-04-14-burnchain-explains-itself-in-its-own-words

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 A magazine interview with Burntoshi, Clyde, Gyp, Waldo, FalseFaucet and BTCFakDaBanks holds "A conversation between Stackchain Magazine and Burnchainers/ Stackchainers Burntoshi, Clyde, Gyp, Waldo, FalseFaucet, and BTCFakDaBanks on Burning Bitcoin and #Burnchain". URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/a-conversation-with-burnchainers/
2 The interview describes a voluntary bitcoin-burning sidechain holds "It would be an honor to have burnchain sidechain represented in the chain as a memorial block(s)"; "The energy goes from the individual to the collective, voluntarily." (same URL)
3 and its disputed cultural meaning holds "It’s powerful to love everyone, even in the face of persecution and being misunderstood or cast as a villain or fool." (same URL)
4 Burntoshi explicitly calls it optional and separate from demand for stacking holds "Burntoshi: Why burnchain can use the same sats as Stackchain: it decouples the demand for burning from the demand for stacking, so that burnchain remains a completely optional and unobtrusive side chain." (same URL)
5 The interview's assertions about Satoshi's death, keys or particular historical burns are not established facts and are not adopted here holds (editorial frame) The interview does assert "He just died with his keys. He burned his Bitcoin." and "The earliest deliberate burn we found was in August 2010 when Satoshi was still active."; the entry's refusal to adopt them is a stated editorial stance and nothing in the source contradicts that framing. (same URL)

Totals: 5 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: entry basis "WordPress publication timestamp, not genesis" — the page header prints "14 April 2024" twice, matching the 2024-04-14 entry date. The entry's "From the sources" quote is verbatim from the interview.

ev-020 — event-2024-05-20-one-community-multiple-living-chains

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Article explicitly written May 20, 2024 for the two-year anniversary holds "This issue of Log 4 was released on the two year anniversary of Stackchain."; "As of the date of my writing this May 20th 2024". URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/two-years-of-stackchain/
2 Anthony describes an abandoned chain near 3000 holds "the abandoned chain lingers at 3k somewhere" (same URL)
3 a busy fork at 1748 holds "the fork with the most hash being built on it is at #Stackchaintip @ 1748" (same URL)
4 #LokoPettyFork at 1318 holds "The #LokoPettyFork is at 1318" (same URL)
5 an established #coffeechain holds "the #coffeechain is now an institution" (same URL)
6 a continuing #musicchain holds "the #musicchain still lives" (same URL)
7 The page was uploaded July 22, 2025; use the internal composition date for this snapshot holds Page header "22 July 2025" (twice); internal composition "As of the date of my writing this May 20th 2024" (same URL)
8 Its 250–300 BTC figure is expressly an estimate, not an exact total holds "While it’s not possible to know exactly how much Bitcoin Stackchain has stacked, it’s probably removed anywhere from 250-300 bitcoin from paper hands and sent it to cold storage." (same URL)

Totals: 8 clauses: 8 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: entry basis "explicit internal composition date; web upload 2025-07-22" — both match the page header and the article's own writing-date line. The entry's "From the sources" quote ("This issue of Log 4 was released on the two year anniversary of Stackchain. It honestly feels like I just wrote about our 1 year anniversary of Stackchain yesterday. Has another year already passed? Is the bear market already gone?") is verbatim from the article.

ev-021 — event-2025-02-15-ogchain-receives-a-first-person-governance-a

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 Bob's "The Chain Desides" describes OGchain as an exit by contributors who felt purchasing power outweighed their memes and organizational work holds "A lot of us were putting massive amounts of time, creativity and brain power behind organization, memes (art, journalism and literature) and left with very little say or voice on how the chain operated moving forward. As stack height grew if you weren’t able to burn thousands and thousands of cuckbucks at a time you were left with two options: submit or leave. It was here the OGchain was born." URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/the-chain-desides/
2 He recalls returns holds "They did listen to us and change what they were doing enough for us to return and we did…..until the next time." (same URL)
3 further splits, and his eventual permanent move holds "This went on for a few rotations and eventually I personally made a permanent move." (same URL)
4 This supplies a reason for the fork in one participant's words holds (editorial frame) The account is explicitly Bob's first-person testimony: "Unable to have any real influence on governance and unable to accept the current governance, we went elsewhere and formed a new society, bringing the original protocol with us."; byline "By Bob". (same URL)
5 It does not date its genesis or establish a complete canonical branch tree holds (editorial frame) The article body contains zero calendar-year references for the fork — no date for OGchain's genesis appears anywhere in the text; the fork is narrated entirely without a timeline.

Totals: 5 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: entry basis "web publication date; fork happened earlier" — page header prints "15 February 2025", matching the entry date; the article itself carries no fork date, so the basis stands. The entry's "From the sources" quote ("Stackchain has become a number of things in its lifetime...") is verbatim from the article's opening.

ev-022 — event-2026-01-08-golden-blocks-become-an-artifact-worth-remem

# Clause Grade Settling evidence (verbatim)
1 FalseFaucet's retrospective holds Visible byline "By False"; the magazine's own author note ties it: "This article was written by False, you can find him on X @falsefaucet and on Nostr falsefaucet@nostriches.net". URL: https://www.stackchainmagazine.net/golden-block-the-shiny-chapters-of-stackchain/
2 explains "golden blocks" as posts repeatedly displayed at the top of linked replies holds "at the top of the linked replies would be a consistent block, the same one you’d see on your feed for WEEKS at a time." (same URL)
3 like bookmarks or chapters holds "As if it was some bookmark of the chain, a reference point."; "We know they acted like bookmarks, or chapters for the thread" (same URL)
4 He explicitly says the mechanism was not conclusively understood holds "why was block 1048 a golden block instead of 1049? I don’t know if we ever got to the bottom of it." (same URL)
5 Preserve the caching/truncation explanation as a community hypothesis rather than claiming to know Twitter internals holds (editorial frame) "I believe we settled on the theory that twitter would truncate super long threads into chunks to make loading and caching the thread easier for twitter." (same URL)

Totals: 5 clauses: 5 holds / 0 overstated / 0 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Note: entry basis "web publication date; phenomenon predates article" — page header prints "8 January 2026", matching the entry date, while the article says "Every so often over the last few years", so the phenomenon predates the article as labeled. The entry's "From the sources" quote is verbatim from the article's opening.

Batch B totals (ev-012..ev-022, 11 entries)

55 clauses: 53 holds / 1 overstated / 1 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 0 unverified.

Running Q10 totals (pilot + batch A + batch B): 100 clauses: 97 holds / 1 overstated / 1 unsupported / 0 contradicted / 0 unreadable / 1 unverified.

Unresolved across batch B: two new archive-wording-flag candidates, both corroborated from the compiling host (2026-10-09): ev-014#4 ("these October posts" — only Saylor's October post is embedded on the European Bitcoiners page; Gui's 2079 absent) and ev-018#6 ("Anthony credits George and Psyduck with the magazine idea" — zero "Psyduck"/"George" in the cited sources). Both are archive-side wording fixes for Alexander's call; they are not added to Q13 pending his decision.

All batch-B sources fetched live 2026-10-09; no Wayback use; no dead links in this batch.

Reference in new issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink