stackchain/troupe-standup
2
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
f5180bf585fb71e4215a9cfb47601badc088d589
troupe-standup/recoveries/summary-fidelity-nonmagazine.md
T

22 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.

Reference in new issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink