Frequently asked questions
One piece of content, no dodging. These are the questions we already answer, in full, inside each methodology article -- here they are together, in two sentences each. For the complete why, the link on each answer takes you to the source article.
Why does the custody bias matter so much here?
Because a node sees addresses, not owners. A cold wallet held by an exchange, or an ETF's custody wallet backing thousands of separate holders, reads identically to a single convinced whale. On-chain data alone can't tell them apart, and treating them as the same thing produces a false story about who is actually accumulating.
More in: 89 Addresses Hold 15% of All Bitcoin. Here's the Catch Before You Read Too Much Into That.
How many addresses are in the whale cohort right now?
89 addresses holding more than 10,000 BTC each, together accounting for roughly 15% of all counted supply in the latest snapshot. The exact figure shifts with every weekly snapshot; the live number lives on the chart.
More in: 89 Addresses Hold 15% of All Bitcoin. Here's the Catch Before You Read Too Much Into That.
How are the cohorts computed?
By grouping every UTXO by its destination script from a full snapshot of the unspent coin set (dumptxoutset), no address resolution required. Each group's total balance determines its cohort, from dust (under 0.001 BTC) to whales (over 10,000 BTC).
More in: 89 Addresses Hold 15% of All Bitcoin. Here's the Catch Before You Read Too Much Into That.
Is this a continuous historical series?
Not yet. These are point-in-time snapshots, taken roughly weekly since late June 2026, nine of them as of this piece. Each one is a real composition at a specific moment, not an average or an interpolation between points.
More in: 89 Addresses Hold 15% of All Bitcoin. Here's the Catch Before You Read Too Much Into That.
Is BIP-360 live on the Bitcoin network?
No. It was merged into the official BIPs repository on February 11, 2026, which means the document meets the standard for formal discussion — not that the network uses it, or that it's been approved for activation.
More in: Bitcoin's Quantum Problem: What BIP-360 Fixes, and What BIP-361 Wants to Do About the Rest
Which Bitcoin addresses are actually vulnerable to a quantum computer?
Mainly the ones that have already spent at least once. Signing a transaction publishes the public key on-chain. An address that has only ever received funds hasn't exposed its public key yet.
More in: Bitcoin's Quantum Problem: What BIP-360 Fixes, and What BIP-361 Wants to Do About the Rest
How much Bitcoin sits in exposed addresses today?
Roughly 34% of circulating supply, per estimates cited by several researchers in the space — a mix of Satoshi-era P2PK coins and ordinary addresses that have spent at least once.
More in: Bitcoin's Quantum Problem: What BIP-360 Fixes, and What BIP-361 Wants to Do About the Rest
What is BIP-361 and why is it controversial?
A separate proposal from BIP-360: a multi-year, phased plan to eventually stop new deposits to legacy address types and, later, freeze whatever quantum-vulnerable coins never migrated. It's controversial because it touches Bitcoin's core promise that no one can unilaterally freeze someone else's coins.
More in: Bitcoin's Quantum Problem: What BIP-360 Fixes, and What BIP-361 Wants to Do About the Rest
Are BLAKE2b and eCash the same fork?
No. BLAKE2b is what's left of BIP-110's minority chain after it switched mining algorithms on August 30, 2026. eCash (ECX) is a separate hard fork from Paul Sztorc (LayerTwo Labs) that activates drivechains and keeps SHA-256. Different developers, different timelines, different rationale.
More in: BLAKE2b and eCash Aren't the Same Fork: A Node Operator's Action Checklist
Do I need to do anything with my Bitcoin because of these forks?
No, unless you actively choose to interact with one of the two new chains. Your real Bitcoin sits unchanged on the chain holding over 99% of hashpower. No node, wallet, or exchange setup you already run needs any change to keep working normally.
More in: BLAKE2b and eCash Aren't the Same Fork: A Node Operator's Action Checklist
Do I have a balance on both new chains even if I do nothing?
Technically yes: both chains copied Bitcoin's full ledger up to their respective split blocks, so any BTC you held then exists as a mirrored balance on BLAKE2b and, after eCash's permanent conversion phase, on ECX too. That's not a prize to rush toward, it's just a fact. The order-of-operations section below covers how to touch it safely.
More in: BLAKE2b and eCash Aren't the Same Fork: A Node Operator's Action Checklist
What's the actual risk here?
Not losing your Bitcoin because the fork exists. It's chain confusion: BLAKE2b and eCash share Bitcoin's genesis block and address format, so a misconfigured wallet can connect to the wrong chain with zero error message and show you a balance you didn't choose.
More in: BLAKE2b and eCash Aren't the Same Fork: A Node Operator's Action Checklist
Is it safe to move fork-chain funds with my existing Bitcoin keys?
Only in the right order: move your real Bitcoin to a fresh seed first, and only afterward touch the fork chain with the old, now-empty keys. Reversing that order risks a replayed transaction hitting the chain you didn't intend.
More in: BLAKE2b and eCash Aren't the Same Fork: A Node Operator's Action Checklist
What does SOPR above or below 1 mean?
Above 1, the coins spent that day realized a net profit relative to when they were created. Below 1, a net loss. Near 1, neither side dominates, often a sign of market indecision.
More in: Most SOPR Charts Average the Ratios. Here's Why That's the Wrong Math.
Why value-weighted instead of a simple average?
A single 50 BTC output represents 500 times more real money than a 0.1 BTC one. Averaging their ratios as if they carried equal weight treats a trivial move and a massive one identically, which distorts the day's actual reading.
More in: Most SOPR Charts Average the Ratios. Here's Why That's the Wrong Math.
How do you compute this without a full transaction index?
By walking each block with our own node and reading, for every spent input, the height at which that coin was created versus the height at which it's being spent now. Bitcoin Core already keeps that data to support undoing blocks, no full txindex required.
More in: Most SOPR Charts Average the Ratios. Here's Why That's the Wrong Math.
Does this cover Bitcoin's entire history yet?
Not yet. As of this piece, the walk reaches mid-2015 and keeps advancing. We say so plainly rather than let the chart imply more coverage than exists.
More in: Most SOPR Charts Average the Ratios. Here's Why That's the Wrong Math.
Isn't this the same thing as MVRV?
No. MVRV compares the entire supply's market value against its cost basis at one instant. SOPR only looks at coins that actually moved on a given day, a behavioral signal about recent activity, not a snapshot of the whole supply.
More in: Most SOPR Charts Average the Ratios. Here's Why That's the Wrong Math.
Which Bitcoin on-chain indicators can you check for free today?
MVRV, Puell Multiple, NUPL, HODL waves, holder distribution, the hash ribbon, funding rate, BTC dominance and the fear and greed index — all calculated or aggregated from free sources with no sign-up on NodeWitness.
More in: Free Bitcoin On-Chain Data, Mapped: MVRV, HODL Waves, and What Still Costs Money
What's the difference between a genuinely free indicator and the free tier of a paid platform?
A genuinely free indicator doesn't require sign-up and doesn't cap how many times a day you can check it just to push you toward a paid plan later. Plenty of platforms market themselves as 'free' but only unlock the first chart — everything past that sits behind a paywall.
More in: Free Bitcoin On-Chain Data, Mapped: MVRV, HODL Waves, and What Still Costs Money
Which on-chain indicators are usually paid-only?
Detailed breakdowns by specific exchange, entity-adjustment (grouping addresses belonging to the same real entity) and very large catalogs of thousands of metrics — that's where platforms like Glassnode charge, for depth and volume, not because the underlying data is impossible to get for free.
More in: Free Bitcoin On-Chain Data, Mapped: MVRV, HODL Waves, and What Still Costs Money
Why can NodeWitness offer this for free?
Because it combines free public sources (Coin Metrics, Binance, alternative.me) with data calculated directly from our own Bitcoin node — without relying on licensing paid third-party data.
More in: Free Bitcoin On-Chain Data, Mapped: MVRV, HODL Waves, and What Still Costs Money
How much did Bitcoin rise in August 2026?
From the August 16 close (~$62,900) to the August 28 intraday high (~$81,478), that's roughly +29%. Counting through the August 31 close (~$77,700), the net move is close to +24% in two weeks, and about +39% from the June 30 local low (~$58,625).
More in: Bitcoin Just Jumped 24% in Two Weeks. Our Own Indicators Don't Look Like a Bottom.
What actually caused the rally?
A cluster of catalysts landing within days of each other: a White House meeting where Trump backed the Clarity Act, a 402-page SEC proposed rulemaking published August 18, a Treasury buyback of long-end bonds, $517 million in single-day spot ETF inflows on August 19, and roughly $1.5 billion in short liquidations as the price moved.
More in: Bitcoin Just Jumped 24% in Two Weeks. Our Own Indicators Don't Look Like a Bottom.
Do our own indicators say the bear market is over?
Not by the bottom pattern we've already documented and verified with real data. That pattern requires MVRV at or below 1, Puell Multiple under 0.5, and sustained extreme panic. Right now MVRV sits at 1.46-1.51, Puell is near its baseline around 1, and sentiment reads Greed, not fear. The rally is real; the on-chain picture doesn't match our verified bottoms.
More in: Bitcoin Just Jumped 24% in Two Weeks. Our Own Indicators Don't Look Like a Bottom.
So is Bitcoin going to keep rising?
We don't know, and any source that claims to is worth being skeptical of. The market analysts we cite in this piece are themselves split three ways on the same move. We're documenting today's verifiable readings, not tomorrow's price.
More in: Bitcoin Just Jumped 24% in Two Weeks. Our Own Indicators Don't Look Like a Bottom.
Why doesn't NodeWitness publish a price target?
Because we have no way to check it later against the same kind of verifiable data we use for everything else, and because doing so is exactly the kind of promise our own page on where the Score has failed exists to correct. We document historical patterns and today's readings, never a price forecast.
More in: Bitcoin Just Jumped 24% in Two Weeks. Our Own Indicators Don't Look Like a Bottom.
Why isn't the tournament's test partition enough to keep investigating?
Because a test set can only be used once without invalidating its statistical guarantees. Train, validation and test are already consumed. Any re-evaluation on that same data would be retrospective overfitting, even done with the best intentions. The only dataset still untouched is the future.
More in: Sealed Prospective Validation: The Future Is the Only Clean Test Set Left
What stops the log from being edited after the fact?
A SHA-256 hash chain (each entry references the previous entry's hash, so altering one breaks every entry after it), plus periodic OpenTimestamps sealing, which anchors the log's hash to the Bitcoin chain itself: independent, public proof that a given entry already existed on a specific date.
More in: Sealed Prospective Validation: The Future Is the Only Clean Test Set Left
What happened the first time the log actually ran?
The system's own shadow-test (which re-derives every already-logged signal and compares it to what's stored) caught a divergence in the inaugural batch: it had been computed on a Bitcoin candle that hadn't actually closed yet. The system halted without touching the log, exactly as designed. The affected lines stay exactly as they were, unedited, as proof the verification mechanism actually works.
More in: Sealed Prospective Validation: The Future Is the Only Clean Test Set Left
What are the success criteria for this experiment?
A minimum of 3 continuous months of daily logging, a 100% match between the live signal and its re-derivation from the backtest, and zero edits, verifiable independently through the hash chain, git history, and the OpenTimestamps seals. P&L is not a success criterion: what's being validated is whether the system behaves as advertised, not whether it makes money.
More in: Sealed Prospective Validation: The Future Is the Only Clean Test Set Left
Does this turn the tournament into a trading tool?
No. The logged strategy remains, formally, documentation only. It cleared the robustness gate but never the decisive statistical bar or the out-of-sample consistency test. This experiment doesn't redeem it. It only observes, publicly and verifiably, whether its out-of-sample behavior matches what the backtest predicted.
More in: Sealed Prospective Validation: The Future Is the Only Clean Test Set Left
What are long-term holders in Bitcoin?
Addresses that have kept their coins unmoved for a long time (the usual threshold is 155 days or more). HODL waves measure what percentage of total supply has stayed unmoved for that long or longer.
More in: Bitcoin Long-Term Holder Supply: Conviction, Not a Price Call
Does long-term holder supply rising mean the price will go up?
It's no guarantee. It's a conviction signal: someone who held through a long decline probably won't sell over a small additional dip, but it doesn't forecast price. Holders can keep not selling while price keeps falling; they can also start selling while price keeps rising.
More in: Bitcoin Long-Term Holder Supply: Conviction, Not a Price Call
Is this the same as the Value Days Destroyed (VDD) Multiple?
No, though they're related. VDD tracks how much old, dormant supply is moving right now (a spend-weighted signal). HODL waves track how much supply hasn't moved yet (a stock, not a flow). Different math, same underlying idea about coin age.
More in: Bitcoin Long-Term Holder Supply: Conviction, Not a Price Call
How does NodeWitness measure this without relying on third parties?
With full UTXO set snapshots taken directly from our own Bitcoin node, not a third-party API. See the Supply and Holders section for the full detail on HODL waves and holder distribution by wallet size.
More in: Bitcoin Long-Term Holder Supply: Conviction, Not a Price Call
Why does testing 2,255 variants make it harder to prove one works, not easier?
Because the more combinations you test, the more likely it is that one looks good by pure luck, the same way buying more lottery tickets makes a win more likely without saying anything about any single ticket's quality. The deflated Sharpe ratio raises the bar precisely to strip out that unfair edge from the search itself.
More in: The Multiple-Testing Lottery: What the Deflated Sharpe Ratio Actually Tells You
What bar did the tournament's best strategy have to clear, and by how much did it miss?
0.9718 mean cross-asset Sharpe, computed over 2,250 individual variants. The lone survivor of the robustness gate arrived with a Sharpe of 0.4467, a margin of -0.525, not even half of what was required.
More in: The Multiple-Testing Lottery: What the Deflated Sharpe Ratio Actually Tells You
What was the most decisive proof the result wasn't real?
That the same strategy beating buy-and-hold in 3 of 4 assets during validation dropped to 0 of 4 in test, the one partition that had never been touched before. That's exactly the pattern predicted by a result indistinguishable from the best ticket in a wide, purely random search.
More in: The Multiple-Testing Lottery: What the Deflated Sharpe Ratio Actually Tells You
What did the Monte Carlo test show?
That none of the 6 champions cleared the 95th percentile of their own null distribution (what pure chance would produce with the same strategy). The closest came in at 0.614 against a 0.821 threshold, still short, like all the rest.
More in: The Multiple-Testing Lottery: What the Deflated Sharpe Ratio Actually Tells You
Does this mean the surviving strategy had no merit at all?
No, it doesn't say that. It says that, with the data available, its result can't be distinguished from what pure chance would produce after 2,255 attempts. That's a claim about the available evidence, not a certainty about whether a real edge exists.
More in: The Multiple-Testing Lottery: What the Deflated Sharpe Ratio Actually Tells You
What's the most common mistake when reading the fear and greed index?
Treating it as a direct signal (fear = bad, greed = good) instead of a contrarian one. Historically, extreme fear has coincided more with bottoms than tops, and extreme greed more with tops than bottoms — the opposite of the immediate intuition.
More in: The Fear and Greed Index Reacts to Price — It Doesn't Predict It
Does the fear and greed index predict Bitcoin's price?
Not directly. Some of its own inputs, like recent volatility and volume, already react to a decline or rally that has already happened — so an extreme fear reading in the middle of a drop is, in part, an echo of that same drop, not an independent signal confirming something separate.
More in: The Fear and Greed Index Reacts to Price — It Doesn't Predict It
Does the fear and greed index work alone, without combining it with anything else?
Not reliably. It can stay in an extreme fear or greed zone for weeks without the price changing trend. That's why the NodeWitness Score combines it with nine other signals, requiring several to agree.
More in: The Fear and Greed Index Reacts to Price — It Doesn't Predict It
Where does NodeWitness get the fear and greed index data from?
From alternative.me's public API, free and requiring no access key, with history going back to February 2018.
More in: The Fear and Greed Index Reacts to Price — It Doesn't Predict It
How can a strategy lose more to taxes than it made in total?
Because a rotating strategy is taxed every year on that year's realized gains, while losses from later years carry forward (up to 4 years, oldest first) but may not fully offset them within the simulated window. The gold case: +1.1% and +1.0% gross, -0.6% and -0.7% net.
More in: Taxes as a Strategy Cost: Why Deferral Is a Structural Edge, Not a Footnote
What tax model did the tournament use?
Spanish progressive savings-income brackets (19% up to €6,000, 21% up to €50,000, 23% up to €200,000, 27% up to €300,000, 28% above that), a calendar tax year, annual netting of gains and losses, and a 4-year loss carryforward. Buy-and-hold and DCA are hypothetically liquidated in full at the end of the period, to compare on equal footing with strategies that do rotate.
More in: Taxes as a Strategy Cost: Why Deferral Is a Structural Edge, Not a Footnote
Why does buy-and-hold pay less tax than a rotating strategy if it also gets taxed eventually?
Because it defers the entire tax event to the final trade. A rotating strategy generates a taxable event every time it closes a position, year after year, and each one, if it's a winner, gets taxed immediately, without waiting to see whether next year offsets it.
More in: Taxes as a Strategy Cost: Why Deferral Is a Structural Edge, Not a Footnote
How much did the tournament's strategies lose to tax drag on average?
The median across champion strategies ran roughly 19-22% of gross return. Gold is the extreme case, not the norm, but even in the typical case, taxes take a real bite out of the gain before a strategy has rotated one time too many.
More in: Taxes as a Strategy Cost: Why Deferral Is a Structural Edge, Not a Footnote
Does this result hold outside Spain?
The specific model (brackets, tax year, 4-year carryforward) is Spanish, but the mechanism producing the effect, taxing on realization while deferring under buy-and-hold, exists in any tax regime that taxes gains on sale, not on holding. The exact numbers would shift; the structural edge of deferral wouldn't.
More in: Taxes as a Strategy Cost: Why Deferral Is a Structural Edge, Not a Footnote
What signals have coincided at Bitcoin cycle tops?
In past cycles, tops coincided with MVRV above 3, Puell Multiple above 4, sentiment in extreme euphoria, and price well above its 200-day moving average: several overvaluation signals at once, not just one.
What signals have coincided at Bitcoin cycle bottoms?
The opposite: MVRV at or below 1, Puell Multiple below 0.5 (miner capitulation), sustained extreme panic in sentiment, and price well below its moving average. The November 2022 case, after FTX's collapse, is an already-verified example.
Do these patterns guarantee a repeat next cycle?
No. There are only 3-4 complete Bitcoin cycles, too small a sample to claim statistical certainty a pattern will repeat exactly. The thresholds themselves have also been shrinking cycle after cycle, so they're documented as verified historical coincidences, not a guaranteed law.
Did short positions lose money in the strategy tournament?
That's not the comparison being made. The question was whether adding short positions improved on the same strategy's own long-only version, and it only did in 2 of 8 cases in validation and 3 of 8 in test. In most cases the short version lagged its own long-only counterpart.
Who actually pays funding on a perpetual?
It follows the perpetual's price premium over the spot index, not who's in the market's minority or majority. With positive funding, the historical norm, longs pay and shorts collect — the opposite of the intuition that betting against the trend is what costs money.
How much did this experiment's shorts actually pay or collect?
Measured conditioned on the real position in validation: on their short days, the two strategies that reached a real short version COLLECTED between 0.006% and 0.012% daily (roughly 2-4% annualized). On their long days, the perpetual-financed trading track PAID between 0.060% and 0.089% daily (roughly 22-32% annualized), the period's real financing cost, carried by the long/short package itself, not by the shorts.
Did the equity and gold shorts follow the same mechanism as the crypto ones?
Not exactly. The S&P 500 short was simulated on the total-return index, so it pays dividends by construction, which is its dominant real cost. The gold short uses a futures contract, where that cost is already embedded in the price. Neither carries an explicit daily funding rate the way crypto perpetuals do.
Does this mean no strategy with short positions can ever work?
No — it means that in this specific experiment, with the real funding mechanism applied to both legs, none managed it consistently. If this research ever became a product, it would be long/cash, never long/short, precisely because of this result.
Did BIP-110 actually cause a real chain split?
Yes. On August 8, 2026, at block 961,632, the minority of miners running the activation client rejected the first non-signaling block and split off from the main network. It's exactly the isolation mechanism we'd already described as possible, at minimal scale.
More in: BIP-110's Fork Was Real. Here's the Replay-Attack Risk Self-Custody Users Actually Face
Is there a new coin now?
Not yet, functionally. A contingency plan to change the mining algorithm and effectively spin off a separate coin exists, with September 1, 2026 floated as a target in press coverage, but nothing has shipped in any client. No exchange lists the BIP-110 chain; it has no market and no ticker.
More in: BIP-110's Fork Was Real. Here's the Replay-Attack Risk Self-Custody Users Actually Face
Do I now have 'double' the bitcoin I had before?
Technically, any bitcoin you held before August 8 exists as an identical balance on the minority BIP-110 chain too, same history up to the split. That isn't a bonus. That second chain has no market and carries a real technical risk if you try to move it, which is what this piece is actually about.
More in: BIP-110's Fork Was Real. Here's the Replay-Attack Risk Self-Custody Users Actually Face
What exactly is the replay-attack risk?
Until BIP-110's data restrictions actually activate (block 965,664, which that chain won't reach at its current pace), a signed transaction is valid on both chains simultaneously. Move the 'forked' coins and the same signed transaction can be rebroadcast on the real chain too, moving your real bitcoin without separate authorization.
More in: BIP-110's Fork Was Real. Here's the Replay-Attack Risk Self-Custody Users Actually Face
What should I actually do?
If you don't know how to isolate your coins between the two chains at the UTXO level, the safe move is to not move anything at all. No signed transaction means nothing to replay. This doesn't apply to exchange or ETF holders, and it doesn't require any urgency for most self-custody users either.
More in: BIP-110's Fork Was Real. Here's the Replay-Attack Risk Self-Custody Users Actually Face
What is capitulation in Bitcoin?
The moment when sellers who had been holding through a decline stop resisting and sell at a loss, usually after a prolonged drop. It shows up in concrete on-chain signals: miners selling below cost, long-term holders breaking their usual pattern of not selling, and sentiment in sustained extreme panic.
More in: Bitcoin Capitulation Signals Don't Say 'Buy Now' — No Matter What the Headlines Claim
Does capitulation always mark the market bottom?
Not always, but it has coincided with several historical Bitcoin bottoms. It's no guarantee — there can be capitulation and the price can keep falling afterward, though historically that has been less frequent than the opposite.
More in: Bitcoin Capitulation Signals Don't Say 'Buy Now' — No Matter What the Headlines Claim
Why do headlines keep calling capitulation a buy signal?
Because a hash ribbon reversal or a low Puell Multiple reading is a real, verifiable data point, and 'generational buying opportunity' is a much better headline than 'selling pressure from one group has eased.' The data confirms that a specific kind of seller has been exhausted — it doesn't set a date for price to recover, no matter how the headline frames it.
More in: Bitcoin Capitulation Signals Don't Say 'Buy Now' — No Matter What the Headlines Claim
Did these bugs change the tournament's final result?
No. All 5 were fixed before the winner selection ran on the validation partition, so the numbers already reported in the previous article — no strategy clearly effective — already reflect the fixes. That's the entire point of auditing before, not after.
More in: Why Backtests Lie: 5 Real Bugs an External Audit Found Before We Touched the Test Set
Why does it matter so much to catch a bug before touching the test set, rather than after?
Because the test set can only be touched once — that's the central rule of the whole experiment. A real bug found after that single shot would have burned the only clean partition left, with no way to re-run the evaluation on the corrected engine.
More in: Why Backtests Lie: 5 Real Bugs an External Audit Found Before We Touched the Test Set
Were all 5 findings fixed by changing code?
No. Only 3 of the 5 changed code: two in the candidate-selection logic (data loading and ranking) and one in the simulation engine itself. The other 2 were resolved by documenting precisely what the code already did, without touching it — sometimes the bug is that the text promised something different from what the code actually delivered, not the other way around.
More in: Why Backtests Lie: 5 Real Bugs an External Audit Found Before We Touched the Test Set
Has the NodeWitness Cycle Score's backtest gone through an audit like this?
Not this kind: an external, line-by-line review hunting for look-ahead errors. What it does have is a mechanism that freezes input data so an external source can't silently rewrite the past, plus several internal attempts at improving the formula, none adopted without checking against known real cases first.
More in: Why Backtests Lie: 5 Real Bugs an External Audit Found Before We Touched the Test Set
Was the audit itself verified more than once?
Yes, two independent passes: the original report with all 5 findings, and a second review by the same auditor over the already-fixed code, reproducing the most serious finding's original attack against the corrected version to confirm it fails exactly the way it should.
More in: Why Backtests Lie: 5 Real Bugs an External Audit Found Before We Touched the Test Set
Does running Knots instead of Core put me on a different chain?
No. Both follow identical consensus rules — what makes a block valid — so there's no chain split between them. The difference is which unconfirmed transactions each one relays by default, not which blocks it accepts.
More in: Bitcoin Core vs. Knots: Should You Actually Switch, and Does It Matter?
What actually changed in Bitcoin Core v30?
Version 30 (October 2025) relaxed the default relay policy for OP_RETURN outputs, raising the default limit from 83 bytes to 100,000 bytes. Bitcoin Knots, maintained by Luke Dashjr, keeps a much stricter default filter against that same kind of data.
More in: Bitcoin Core vs. Knots: Should You Actually Switch, and Does It Matter?
What share of nodes run Knots?
It moves fast and there's no fixed number: roughly 2% in January 2025, over 20% by September that year, with at least one report citing a peak near 25%. Any specific figure should be read as a snapshot, not a stable stat.
More in: Bitcoin Core vs. Knots: Should You Actually Switch, and Does It Matter?
Should I switch from Core to Knots, or the other way around?
If you don't run your own node, this doesn't touch your funds' security either way. If you do, it's a preference about which relay policy you want to support, not a security decision — both validate the chain identically.
More in: Bitcoin Core vs. Knots: Should You Actually Switch, and Does It Matter?
Is BIP-110 dead now?
No. The VOLUNTARY signaling period failed to reach lock-in; the proposal itself did not get cancelled. The mandatory window (blocks 961,632 to 963,647) is a separate mechanism with its own count, and it's already open. Activation itself, if it ever came, would fall later still, at block 965,664.
More in: BIP-110's Voluntary Window Closed Without Lock-In: What Changes, What Doesn't
Could 2.53% miner support trigger a fork?
Not a hard fork: BIP-110 is a soft fork, so a block valid under its rules is also valid under unmodified Bitcoin Core. What could happen, and did, is the minority running the activation client isolating itself by rejecting an ordinary non-signaling block: that happened on August 8 at block 961,632, and the resulting chain has been stuck at 2 blocks ever since. Full update below.
More in: BIP-110's Voluntary Window Closed Without Lock-In: What Changes, What Doesn't
Does this have anything to do with the Bitcoin Core vs. Knots debate?
No, they're unrelated. Core and Knots share the exact same consensus rules and differ only in which unconfirmed transactions they relay by default, zero fork risk there. BIP-110 does introduce a new (temporary) consensus rule, and its activation client happens to be a Knots fork, but that doesn't make Knots itself part of this risk.
More in: BIP-110's Voluntary Window Closed Without Lock-In: What Changes, What Doesn't
What happens now?
On August 8, at block 961,632, the minority running the activation client rejected the first non-signaling block and split off from the main network. That minority chain has been stuck at just 2 blocks ever since. Full story, including what matters if you self-custody, in a dedicated follow-up.
More in: BIP-110's Voluntary Window Closed Without Lock-In: What Changes, What Doesn't
How do I know if it's a good time to buy Bitcoin?
There's no way to know for certain — not us, not anyone else. What can be done is comparing the current moment against indicators that have historically coincided with lower relative risk (low MVRV, miner capitulation, extreme fear in the fear and greed index), knowing that this lowers relative risk, it does not eliminate it.
More in: Bitcoin Buy Signals: What They Actually Measure, and What They Don't
Does the NodeWitness Score tell you when to buy?
No. The Score classifies the current moment into one of five phases (from Strong Distribution to Strong Accumulation) based on ten combined signals. It's one more data point for you to decide with, using your own financial situation and time horizon — never a buy order or personalized advice.
More in: Bitcoin Buy Signals: What They Actually Measure, and What They Don't
Does an accumulation reading guarantee a profit?
No, no classification guarantees anything. The Score's own public track record includes real misses, not only hits — see the specific cases, with their numbers, in 'Where the Score Has Failed'. A favorable reading lowers relative risk compared to other points in the cycle, but it's no guarantee of any kind.
More in: Bitcoin Buy Signals: What They Actually Measure, and What They Don't
What does the "under 1 BTC" transfer figure actually measure?
Total on-chain volume of transfers smaller than 1 BTC in a single day — a rough proxy for retail activity, not whale or institutional flow. On July 31, 2026, CryptoQuant's Julio Moreno put it at 39,600 BTC, the highest since November 2022 and just 300 BTC short of the all-time record set on November 16, 2022, days after FTX filed for bankruptcy.
More in: The Coldcard Panic Moved as Much Bitcoin as FTX Did — In the Opposite Direction
Where is that money actually going — into safer self-custody, or somewhere else?
Both, and the aggregate number doesn't separate them. The same day, deposits under 10 BTC into exchanges rose to 7,300 BTC, the highest since February 6. Some of the sub-1 BTC volume is people correctly migrating to a fresh seed; some of it is people handing custody to a third party out of panic.
More in: The Coldcard Panic Moved as Much Bitcoin as FTX Did — In the Opposite Direction
What should Coldcard owners actually do?
Update the firmware first, generate a fully new seed (never reuse the old one, even on different hardware), send a small test transaction, then move everything else. Order matters — migrating before updating, or onto the wrong seed, fixes nothing.
More in: The Coldcard Panic Moved as Much Bitcoin as FTX Did — In the Opposite Direction
Are "check if your wallet is affected" sites safe to use?
No. Don't enter your recovery phrase anywhere that claims to check it for you — on this site or any other. That hands control of your funds to whoever runs the page, and scams exploiting exactly this incident are already circulating.
More in: The Coldcard Panic Moved as Much Bitcoin as FTX Did — In the Opposite Direction
Does this undercut the case for self-custody?
The opposite — it's an argument for being able to verify it yourself. The flaw belongs to one manufacturer (Coinkite's Coldcard line), not to the idea of holding your own keys. Other signing devices from the same maker are unaffected, and dice-generated seeds or a strong passphrase were never exposed to begin with.
More in: The Coldcard Panic Moved as Much Bitcoin as FTX Did — In the Opposite Direction
Did any of the 2,255 strategies beat dollar-cost averaging?
Not in a statistically defensible way. The single candidate that survived the robustness gate (a breakout strategy, long-only) missed the deflated Sharpe threshold by -0.525, and went from beating buy-and-hold in 3 of 4 assets in validation to 0 of 4 in the untouched test set.
More in: 2,255 Strategies, Zero Survivors: A Pre-Registered Backtest Against Dollar-Cost Averaging
Why test 2,255 variants at once if the result is negative?
Because searching that wide, and requiring a bar that rises with the size of the search, is exactly what stops a lucky-by-chance result from being mistaken for a real edge. It's the step most public backtests skip entirely.
More in: 2,255 Strategies, Zero Survivors: A Pre-Registered Backtest Against Dollar-Cost Averaging
Did short positions pay for their own cost?
Mostly no. With real funding applied to both legs of the position, the short version of each strategy beat its own long-only version in only 2 of 8 cases in validation and 3 of 8 in test.
More in: 2,255 Strategies, Zero Survivors: A Pre-Registered Backtest Against Dollar-Cost Averaging
How does this relate to the NodeWitness Cycle Score?
No strategy in this experiment uses the Score. It's a fully independent research project. But it arrives, through a completely separate path, at the same conclusion we'd already found while auditing our own Score DCA simulator: no demonstrated edge over plain DCA either.
More in: 2,255 Strategies, Zero Survivors: A Pre-Registered Backtest Against Dollar-Cost Averaging
Can a negative result like this be trusted?
More than most positive trading results circulating online: success criteria were fixed in writing before any results were computed, the test partition was touched exactly once, and the bar itself (the deflated Sharpe ratio) rises specifically so it can't be fooled by the best result of a wide search.
More in: 2,255 Strategies, Zero Survivors: A Pre-Registered Backtest Against Dollar-Cost Averaging
What does 'mathematically out of reach' actually mean here?
That even if every remaining block in the period signaled in favour, the total would still fall short of the threshold. On August 1, 2026 the voluntary period's ceiling dropped to 50.2%, below the 55% required. As of August 5 the ceiling is 27.3%.
More in: BIP-110's voluntary period was already decided on August 1. We measured it block by block.
So BIP-110 can no longer activate?
No. It means the VOLUNTARY period cannot reach lock-in. The mandatory signaling window (blocks 961,632 to 963,647) is a separate period with its own count. Conflating the two is the most common error in the coverage.
More in: BIP-110's voluntary period was already decided on August 1. We measured it block by block.
Where does your signaling figure come from?
From reading each block's version field directly off our own Bitcoin node, using getblockhash and getblockheader. We depend on no third-party monitor. Our 2.66% matches the ~2.6% reported elsewhere, which is a useful cross-check for both.
More in: BIP-110's voluntary period was already decided on August 1. We measured it block by block.
Why does a signaling percentage matter at all?
Because it is the mechanism by which miners express readiness for a soft fork. Low signaling combined with an activation schedule is precisely what makes critics warn about a minority chain — nodes running the new rules following a different chain from the rest of the network.
More in: BIP-110's voluntary period was already decided on August 1. We measured it block by block.
What was the voluntary period's final result?
51 of 2,016 blocks signaled in favour: 2.53%, against the 1,109 blocks (55%) lock-in required. The period closed on August 8, 2026 at block 961,631, handing off to the mandatory window (961,632-963,647). Measured block by block off our own node.
More in: BIP-110's voluntary period was already decided on August 1. We measured it block by block.
What does 'postponed indefinitely' actually mean here?
No new activation date has been set. The mandatory signaling window (block 961,632) is still in the activation client's code, but anyone running it is instructed to revert to unmodified Bitcoin Core before that height. There's no announced timeline for when, or whether, activation gets retried.
More in: BIP-110 Is Delayed Indefinitely. The Signaling Math Killed It First.
Did the Coldcard incident actually cause the delay?
That's the reason given publicly. What this piece adds is a separate, independently verifiable fact: miner signaling already made the 55% lock-in threshold unreachable before the delay was announced. Both can be true without contradiction — a real security incident triggering a pause, and a deployment that was already mathematically dead.
More in: BIP-110 Is Delayed Indefinitely. The Signaling Math Killed It First.
What exactly is the 55% signaling threshold?
The share of blocks in a 2,016-block period (roughly two weeks) that need a specific bit set in their header for the soft fork to lock in: 1,109 out of 2,016. Below that, the period ends without lock-in and the count resets.
More in: BIP-110 Is Delayed Indefinitely. The Signaling Math Killed It First.
Will BIP-110 activation be attempted again?
Unknown. The postponement has no calendar attached. If a new window gets announced, we'll cover it the same way: the signaling numbers, not just the headline.
More in: BIP-110 Is Delayed Indefinitely. The Signaling Math Killed It First.
Does this affect my funds or my node?
Not if you're running unmodified Bitcoin Core — it never did. The only real operational change is for anyone who installed the activation client: revert to unmodified Core before block 961,632. Full detail on who's affected and why is in our original playbook.
More in: BIP-110 Is Delayed Indefinitely. The Signaling Math Killed It First.
How much has been stolen in the Coldcard hack in total?
As of August 4, 2026, Galaxy Research confirms 1,596 BTC (over $100 million) from roughly 7,300 addresses; including the suspected Wave 4, the figure rises to about 2,055 BTC (~$130 million) across more than 7,700 addresses. Galaxy keeps Wave 4 out of its headline number because no victim has confirmed it yet, and so do we. This figure may keep changing — we verify it when we update, we don't track it in real time.
Why don't the total-stolen figures agree across sources?
Because they measure slightly different things with different methods: Galaxy Research requires per-victim confirmation or case-by-case on-chain analysis (1,596 BTC), while TRM Labs counts a somewhat larger total (1,816 BTC, ~$116 million) using its own pattern-based identification method. Neither is "wrong" — they apply different bars for what counts as confirmed. We always cite a figure with its exact source, never as if there were one agreed-upon number.
Is this one attacker or several?
Per Galaxy Research, likely several distinct groups operating in parallel, not one person. The firm explicitly warns against assuming Wave 3 shares an operator with Waves 1 and 2 — transaction structure differs.
Did you verify the laundering offer yourselves, or just report on it?
We verified it directly against mempool.space: confirmed in block 960,549 on August 1, 2026, with an OP_RETURN message offering to launder funds and bypass KYC for a 10% fee, with a Telegram contact. We don't know who sent it — it could be a real service, or a law enforcement trap.
Does a public attacker address mean they can be stopped?
Not necessarily. The address is visible to anyone, but that doesn't identify the real person behind it unless those funds eventually touch a service with real KYC. Same principle we cover in our guide on whether your own wallet is traceable.
Does BIP69 improve privacy?
Only if enough wallets adopt it. BIP69 defines a deterministic ordering of transaction inputs and outputs so that ordering stops leaking which software built the transaction. Because adoption was partial, following it became a distinguishing signal in itself.
More in: BIP69 Was Meant to Hide Your Wallet. It Became a Fingerprint.
Does address hygiene protect against wallet fingerprinting?
No. Address hygiene prevents linkage through a repeated identifier. Fingerprinting works on transaction structure, which persists even when every address is fresh. They are separate layers requiring separate answers.
More in: BIP69 Was Meant to Hide Your Wallet. It Became a Fingerprint.
Can I change my wallet's fingerprint?
Barely. Most of these parameters are not user-configurable. What you control is whether you mix outputs from different wallets in the same spending chain, which turns a single fingerprint into a traceable sequence.
More in: BIP69 Was Meant to Hide Your Wallet. It Became a Fingerprint.
Does NodeWitness detect which wallet signed a transaction?
No, and it isn't planned. Our privacy audit looks for exchange linkage, address reuse and toxic consolidation. Wallet identification is a layer we don't cover, and we'd rather say so than let you assume otherwise.
More in: BIP69 Was Meant to Hide Your Wallet. It Became a Fingerprint.
How do you know if Bitcoin is cheap or expensive right now?
There's no binary answer, but there are indicators that compare the current price to Bitcoin's own history: MVRV (market price vs. the average price each coin last moved at), the Puell Multiple (miner revenue vs. its own yearly average), and the distance of price from its 200-day moving average. All three are relative to Bitcoin's own past, not predictions of what comes next.
More in: Bitcoin Valuation Without the Hype: MVRV, Puell Multiple, and the 200-Day Average
Does a cheap reading mean it's a good time to buy?
Not on its own. A historically cheap zone lowers the relative risk of that decision compared to buying in a historically expensive zone, but it guarantees nothing — Bitcoin has kept falling after hitting historical lows on these same indicators, more than once.
More in: Bitcoin Valuation Without the Hype: MVRV, Puell Multiple, and the 200-Day Average
Do MVRV, Puell Multiple, or the 200-day average predict Bitcoin's future price?
No. They measure where the price sits today relative to its own past, not where it's headed. They're a snapshot of the present compared to history, never a forecast.
More in: Bitcoin Valuation Without the Hype: MVRV, Puell Multiple, and the 200-Day Average
Which Coldcard devices are affected by the entropy flaw?
Mk3 and Mk2 v4 on firmware 4.0.1 through 5.0.3, Mk4 and Mk5 on anything before 5.6.0, and Q on anything before 1.5.0Q. What matters is the firmware version running when the seed was created, not the version installed today.
More in: Coldcard's Random Number Generator Was Reading the Clock, Not the Chip
Can I test whether my seed phrase is weak?
No. A seed born with 40 bits of entropy looks exactly like one born with 128, and no statistical test separates them. The only evidence is provenance: which device, which firmware, and which method you used to generate it.
More in: Coldcard's Random Number Generator Was Reading the Clock, Not the Chip
Does updating the firmware fix an affected seed?
No. The update fixes how future seeds are generated. A seed that already exists keeps whatever entropy it was born with, so an affected wallet needs a new seed and a move of funds.
More in: Coldcard's Random Number Generator Was Reading the Clock, Not the Chip
Were dice-generated seeds affected?
Published analysis says no, because that feature hashes your physical rolls directly instead of calling the device generator. Confirm it against Coinkite's official advisory for your exact firmware version before relying on it.
More in: Coldcard's Random Number Generator Was Reading the Clock, Not the Chip
Is 594 BTC the total amount stolen?
No — that figure was only the first wave, from July 30. The case kept growing through additional waves, with investigators pointing to more than one group of attackers exploiting the same flaw in parallel. The updated figure and ongoing developments are in our separate coverage.
More in: Coldcard's Random Number Generator Was Reading the Clock, Not the Chip
Can I actually verify if my Bitcoin wallet is traceable, not just read about it?
Yes. We built a free audit tool that runs against our own Bitcoin node and checks your addresses (or an xpub) for known exchange links, reuse patterns, and toxic consolidations — with the exact scoring formula shown, not a black-box result.
More in: How to Check If Your Bitcoin Wallet Is Traceable (For Free)
Does this require my private key?
No, and it never will. A public address is already visible on-chain, so checking it reveals nothing new. An xpub only derives addresses — it can't move funds — but it's still sensitive, and the tool tells you that upfront before you paste anything.
More in: How to Check If Your Bitcoin Wallet Is Traceable (For Free)
What exactly makes a wallet traceable?
Three things, mainly: a direct label match (an address already identified, e.g. from an exchange), a behavior pattern typical of careless wallet hygiene (address reuse, moving funds with zero delay), or the counterparty's transaction history being too large to be a personal wallet.
More in: How to Check If Your Bitcoin Wallet Is Traceable (For Free)
Is the tool free?
Yes, no signup, and it runs against our own infrastructure — not a paid third-party chain-analysis API.
More in: How to Check If Your Bitcoin Wallet Is Traceable (For Free)
What is toxic UTXO consolidation?
Spending, in a single transaction, UTXOs that came from separate and already-distinguishable origins — for example, withdrawals from two different exchanges. Combining them publicly reveals that both origins belong to the same wallet.
More in: Your Wallet's 'Consolidate UTXOs' Button Can Undo Your Privacy in One Click
Why can't this be undone?
Because a confirmed Bitcoin transaction is permanent. Even if you stop using the addresses involved afterward, the link the transaction created between the two origins stays on the ledger forever.
More in: Your Wallet's 'Consolidate UTXOs' Button Can Undo Your Privacy in One Click
How do I avoid it?
With coin control, the feature in privacy-focused wallets (Sparrow, Electrum, and others) that lets you manually pick which UTXOs go into each transaction, instead of letting the wallet auto-select without regard for where each one came from.
More in: Your Wallet's 'Consolidate UTXOs' Button Can Undo Your Privacy in One Click
Is any consolidation risky?
No. Combining UTXOs that already share a known origin — change from your own past transactions, for instance — adds no new information. The risk is specifically mixing origins that weren't provably connected before.
More in: Your Wallet's 'Consolidate UTXOs' Button Can Undo Your Privacy in One Click
Why is Bitcoin address reuse a privacy risk?
The blockchain is public: anyone can see that every payment sent to the same address is linked. If one of those payments identifies you (an exchange withdrawal with KYC, for example), the rest inherit that identity by association.
More in: Bitcoin Address Reuse: The Privacy Mistake Exchanges Make For You
Does my wallet reuse addresses without me knowing?
Most modern HD wallets (BIP32/BIP44) generate a fresh address per receipt by default. Older wallets, or a fixed address you shared publicly, are the real exceptions worth checking.
More in: Bitcoin Address Reuse: The Privacy Mistake Exchanges Make For You
Is it only my fault if my addresses get reused?
No. If an exchange assigns you a single fixed deposit address, every deposit you make reinforces the same link regardless of what your own wallet does afterward — the exchange's design choice, not yours, drives the reuse.
More in: Bitcoin Address Reuse: The Privacy Mistake Exchanges Make For You
Is there a protocol-level fix, not just good habits?
Yes, in progress: Silent Payments, a proposal that lets someone pay you without coordinating a fresh address each time, fixing the root cause instead of relying on every user remembering to do the right thing.
More in: Bitcoin Address Reuse: The Privacy Mistake Exchanges Make For You
What is BIP-110?
A temporary soft fork ('Reduced Data Temporary Softfork') that tightens how much arbitrary data can go into the chain, with a mandatory signaling window projected for the second week of August 2026. Its rules expire automatically about 52,416 blocks after activation, roughly a year.
More in: BIP-110: The Node Operator's Decision Tree for August 2026
Do I need to do anything if I stay on unmodified Bitcoin Core?
No. BIP-110 is a soft fork: a block valid under its rules is also valid under Core, so your node keeps validating and following the chain exactly as it does today, with zero action required.
More in: BIP-110: The Node Operator's Decision Tree for August 2026
Can BIP-110 affect my self-custodied funds?
Only in one specific case: a P2TR UTXO inside a pre-signed transaction, spent during the deployment year through a Tapleaf path that violates the new limits, with no alternative spending path available. Outside that exact combination, your keys and funds aren't affected.
More in: BIP-110: The Node Operator's Decision Tree for August 2026
What happens if I run the activation client?
From block height 961,632, your node starts rejecting any block that doesn't signal, even one that's perfectly valid under Core consensus. With miner support sitting under 3% as of late July 2026, against a 55% lock-in threshold, that means accepting upfront the risk of ending up on a minority chain.
More in: BIP-110: The Node Operator's Decision Tree for August 2026
Is BIP-110 activation still on track?
Not on the original timeline. On August 2-3, 2026, activation was postponed indefinitely, with no new date set. Anyone running the activation client should revert to unmodified Bitcoin Core before block 961,632. See the update at the top of this piece and the signaling-math writeup that anticipated this outcome.
More in: BIP-110: The Node Operator's Decision Tree for August 2026
Does Bitcoin replace a public pension?
No, and this article doesn't frame it that way. It's a way of thinking about a long-term savings complement, not a replacement for the public system — how much to allocate to each is a personal decision that depends on your own situation.
More in: Bitcoin as a Retirement Plan in Spain: What the Public System Can't Promise You
How much do you lose by retiring early in Spain?
Between 2.81% and 21% permanently under voluntary early retirement, and up to 30% under involuntary early retirement, depending on years contributed and months of advance — these are official Social Security reduction coefficients, not an estimate.
More in: Bitcoin as a Retirement Plan in Spain: What the Public System Can't Promise You
Is Spain's pension system sustainable?
Today it pays one of the most generous pensions in the OECD relative to final salary. Spain's own official fiscal watchdog (AIReF) warns that this generosity is compatible with growing public debt as demographics adjust — it's not that the system is bad now, it's that the adjustment hasn't arrived yet.
More in: Bitcoin as a Retirement Plan in Spain: What the Public System Can't Promise You
Is self-custodied Bitcoin really unconfiscatable?
No one can unilaterally change the protocol's rules or move funds without the private key — not a government, not a bank. The counterweight is that this same property shifts all the responsibility for not losing the key onto you: there's no rescue if you lose it.
More in: Bitcoin as a Retirement Plan in Spain: What the Public System Can't Promise You
Is this investment advice?
No. It's a framework for thinking about a system whose rules are already changing, not personalized financial or tax advice, nor a promise about Bitcoin's future returns.
More in: Bitcoin as a Retirement Plan in Spain: What the Public System Can't Promise You
Is this legal or tax advice?
No. It's a map of the problem and the options that exist, not a resolution of your specific case. Acting on any of these decisions requires a real notary, lawyer, or tax advisor.
More in: Managing Your Bitcoin in Practice: Custody, Inheritance and Taxes in Spain
Why is this separate from the Score methodology?
Because they answer two different questions. The Score and the rest of the market analysis answer 'when'; this section answers 'how you keep, protect, and declare what you already have' — something that doesn't depend on any cycle phase.
More in: Managing Your Bitcoin in Practice: Custody, Inheritance and Taxes in Spain
What happens to my Bitcoin if I lose access to my keys?
It's lost permanently. Unlike a bank account, there is no account-recovery process in Bitcoin — without the private key (or the seed phrase that generates it), no one, not even you, can ever access those funds again.
More in: Managing Your Bitcoin in Practice: Custody, Inheritance and Taxes in Spain
Do I have to file Modelo 721 if I keep my Bitcoin on a hardware wallet?
No. Modelo 721 only applies to crypto held by a third party outside Spain (a foreign exchange, for example). If you control your own private keys, you're not required to file it, regardless of the amount.
More in: Bitcoin Taxes in Spain: Self-Custody, Modelo 721, and What You Actually Owe
From what amount does Modelo 721 become mandatory?
From €50,000 in total value of crypto held by third parties abroad, as of December 31. In later years, you only need to file it again if the balance grows by more than €20,000 compared to the year you last filed.
More in: Bitcoin Taxes in Spain: Self-Custody, Modelo 721, and What You Actually Owe
Does swapping Bitcoin for another cryptocurrency get taxed the same as selling it for euros?
Yes. Any crypto-to-crypto swap is a taxable event just like a sale — you don't need to pass through euros to trigger a taxable gain or loss.
More in: Bitcoin Taxes in Spain: Self-Custody, Modelo 721, and What You Actually Owe
What method determines which units count as sold first?
FIFO (First In, First Out): the first units you bought are treated as the first ones sold, not whichever you'd choose — important if you bought at very different prices at different times.
More in: Bitcoin Taxes in Spain: Self-Custody, Modelo 721, and What You Actually Owe
Can I offset one year's losses against gains from other years?
Yes, against capital gains from the four years following the year the losses were generated.
More in: Bitcoin Taxes in Spain: Self-Custody, Modelo 721, and What You Actually Owe
What if I use an exchange outside the EU? Does it report too?
Depends on the jurisdiction and the timeline. Outside the EU, CARF (the OECD's equivalent framework) applies, rolling out in waves: 46 jurisdictions (Spain included) already have a first exchange in 2027, another 29 — including Switzerland, the UAE, Singapore, and Hong Kong — a year later in 2028, and the US alone in 2029. The reporting date doesn't change your obligation to declare today, only when the tax authority can receive independent confirmation.
More in: Bitcoin Taxes in Spain: Self-Custody, Modelo 721, and What You Actually Owe
Can I put my seed phrase in my will?
You shouldn't. Exactly how and when a will becomes accessible after death depends on your jurisdiction — in many places, probate filings turn into public court records once probate opens — but wherever you are, it's the wrong place for a private key. Record that the Bitcoin exists, not how to access it.
More in: How to Leave Your Bitcoin as Inheritance Without Putting Your Seed in a Will
What is a multisig scheme for inheritance?
A setup where several keys are required (for example, 2 of 3) to move the funds. You can split those keys between you, an heir, and a trusted third party, so no one can act alone, but any two together can if needed.
More in: How to Leave Your Bitcoin as Inheritance Without Putting Your Seed in a Will
What happens if I leave no succession plan?
The Bitcoin keeps existing on the blockchain, intact, but no one can claim it from any institution — unlike a bank account, there's no recovery process. It's lost forever.
More in: How to Leave Your Bitcoin as Inheritance Without Putting Your Seed in a Will
Do I have to declare my Bitcoin in my will?
Yes. It's part of your estate like any other asset, and your heirs need to be able to identify that it exists. What shouldn't go there is the private key or the seed phrase that generates it.
More in: How to Leave Your Bitcoin as Inheritance Without Putting Your Seed in a Will
Are crypto exchanges operating in Spain regulated?
Yes, and the framework changed recently. Until July 1, 2026, providers had to register with the Bank of Spain. Since that date, the competent authority is the CNMV, and any provider needs a CASP (Crypto-Asset Service Provider) authorization under the EU's MiCA regulation. Neither regime is a guarantee of solvency, but MiCA's mandate is broader — it also covers client fund protection, not just anti-money-laundering checks.
More in: Bitcoin Custody in Spain: The Rules That Apply If You Live There or Hold Funds There
Does Spain's MiCA rule apply to me if I'm not a Spanish citizen but I live there?
Yes. MiCA authorization requirements are tied to where the customer is located when using the service, not their nationality — if you're resident in Spain, the same rules apply to any provider serving you, whether you're Spanish, American, British, or anything else.
More in: Bitcoin Custody in Spain: The Rules That Apply If You Live There or Hold Funds There
What's the safest way to hold Bitcoin?
It depends what 'safe' means to you. Self-custody removes the risk of a third party failing, but shifts all the technical responsibility onto you. A regulated exchange or custodian reduces that responsibility, but adds counterparty risk. There's no universal answer.
More in: Bitcoin Custody in Spain: The Rules That Apply If You Live There or Hold Funds There
What does 'not your keys, not your coins' mean?
That if you don't control the private key, your Bitcoin is, in practice, a claim against whoever does control it — it works as long as that entity keeps working and lets you withdraw.
More in: Bitcoin Custody in Spain: The Rules That Apply If You Live There or Hold Funds There
Is institutional custody only for companies?
Not exclusively, but it's built for large holdings that prioritize a formal contractual and audit framework over the simplicity of a retail exchange or the full control of self-custody.
More in: Bitcoin Custody in Spain: The Rules That Apply If You Live There or Hold Funds There
What does NUPL mean in Bitcoin?
Net Unrealized Profit/Loss: the fraction of Bitcoin's market cap that is paper profit (or loss). Calculated as (market value − realized value) / market value: above 0 the market as a whole is in profit; below 0, in loss.
More in: Bitcoin NUPL: Why It Duplicates MVRV, and When to Read It Anyway
Which NUPL zones mark cycle bottoms and tops?
A negative NUPL (capitulation: the market as a whole in loss) has historically coincided with cycle bottoms, and values above roughly 0.75 (euphoria) with tops. Like any fixed threshold, these have compressed cycle after cycle.
More in: Bitcoin NUPL: Why It Duplicates MVRV, and When to Read It Anyway
How is NUPL different from MVRV?
They measure the same thing from different angles and are mathematically convertible (NUPL = 1 − 1/MVRV). MVRV is a ratio (market/cost); NUPL expresses that same information as a percentage of unrealized profit, which is more intuitive to read.
More in: Bitcoin NUPL: Why It Duplicates MVRV, and When to Read It Anyway
Is there a free Glassnode alternative?
Yes. NodeWitness offers, for free, the core Bitcoin cycle metrics (MVRV, HODL waves, holder distribution, exchange flows, a cycle Score with a public backtest) calculated from public sources and our own Bitcoin node. It doesn't cover altcoins or offer thousands of metrics: it covers the Bitcoin cycle.
More in: Bitcoin On-Chain Data Without Paying for Glassnode: What's Free and What Isn't
How much does Glassnode cost?
The Advanced plan costs $49/month (billed annually) with around 300 metrics at daily resolution, 4 years of history, and no API access. The Professional plan, with 1,500+ metrics and up to 15 years of history, is custom-priced; its Vector product starts at $749/month.
More in: Bitcoin On-Chain Data Without Paying for Glassnode: What's Free and What Isn't
What does Glassnode offer that no free alternative does?
Depth and breadth: hundreds of metrics for altcoins too, resolution down to 10 minutes, entity-adjusted metrics, per-exchange data, and a commercial API. If your work depends on that, no free tool replaces it today.
More in: Bitcoin On-Chain Data Without Paying for Glassnode: What's Free and What Isn't
Are HODL waves free anywhere?
Almost no free API or website offers them with proprietary data: they require walking the entire Bitcoin UTXO set. At NodeWitness we calculate them from our own node and publish them for free, explaining the method.
More in: Bitcoin On-Chain Data Without Paying for Glassnode: What's Free and What Isn't
Did the Score predict Bitcoin's 2025 top?
No. The historical reconstruction places the Score in the Neutral zone (-14.6) on the day of the October 2025 top ($124,777). Its 72 days in the Distribution zone that year had started in January, nine months before the actual top.
More in: Auditing the NodeWitness Cycle Score: Where It Failed
Why do you publish where your own Score fails?
Because the Score's legitimacy depends on being able to check its track record, not on blind trust. Hiding where it fails would break the exact principle the whole project is built on: show the why, don't ask for faith.
More in: Auditing the NodeWitness Cycle Score: Where It Failed
Does the Score work for short-term market timing?
No. The distribution signal only shows a real hint at a multi-year horizon (24 months or more); at 3-12 months, the subsequent return has, on average, beaten a random entry.
More in: Auditing the NodeWitness Cycle Score: Where It Failed
Are these failures from the Score running live on the site today?
Not exactly. They're a reconstruction using 7 of the live Score's 10 indicators (without our own node, which weighs more than any other). The Score has been live since July 1, 2026, and since July 8 we store, every day, the values of the indicators that feed it exactly as they're known that day, so it can be recalculated later from frozen data that can't be edited afterward.
More in: Auditing the NodeWitness Cycle Score: Where It Failed
Has anything been fixed after finding these failures?
The Score's formula hasn't been touched: it's been evaluated several times under an internal protocol and no variant has met the bar for robust improvement. What did get fixed was the Score DCA simulator: its "best result" badge used a metric that excluded the pending reserve and systematically favored Score DCA — it was switched to an honest metric on July 11, 2026.
More in: Auditing the NodeWitness Cycle Score: Where It Failed
Does Score DCA beat traditional DCA?
Not in any demonstrated way. Audited with walk-forward validation (calibrate on 2018-2021, validate on 2022-2026), Score DCA lags traditional DCA in both halves of the history. It behaves like a lower-exposure strategy: it wins when the period ends in a depressed market, loses when it ends in a rally — there's no proven average advantage.
More in: Auditing the NodeWitness Cycle Score: Where It Failed
Has the Score's formula changed since launch?
No. The live formula has been the same since July 1, 2026. Since then, close to 10 improvement variants have been evaluated across 3 separate rounds of experiments, and none has met the internal bar for adoption.
How do I know you don't adjust the Score after seeing the results?
Because the process runs the other way around: each variant is calibrated on one stretch of history and validated on a completely different one, never the same one, and it's only adopted if it improves things robustly in both at once. The record of what was tested and when is dated, and this page commits to reflecting any future change.
What will Score v2 be?
The revision that arrives once our own Bitcoin node finishes syncing: the heaviest-weighted indicator will be able to run on complete data instead of partial, and everything will be re-evaluated under the same protocol. No date yet.
Why does a page dedicated only to Score versions exist?
So that the most reasonable suspicion about any indicator — 'surely they tweak the model after seeing what result they want' — can be checked against real dates, not our word.
Isn't this just in-sample overfitting with extra steps?
That's the right question to ask of any backtested model, which is why the protocol is built specifically against it: every variant is validated on a stretch of history it never touched during calibration, and the dated record of what failed (close to 10 variants, zero adopted) is public precisely so that claim can be checked instead of taken on faith.
What is DCA in Bitcoin?
Dollar Cost Averaging: investing a fixed amount at regular intervals (e.g., $50 every week) instead of all at once. This smooths out your average purchase price and removes the need to time the exact entry point.
More in: Bitcoin DCA Explained: What a Real Backtest Adds Beyond a Calculator
What is Score DCA?
A DCA variant that adjusts how much you invest each period based on the cycle phase marked by the NodeWitness Cycle Score: it contributes more when the market is in the accumulation zone and less (or pauses) when it's in the distribution zone.
More in: Bitcoin DCA Explained: What a Real Backtest Adds Beyond a Calculator
Does Score DCA invest my money automatically?
No. It's a simulator that shows, using real historical data, how that strategy would have performed against traditional DCA. It doesn't execute purchases or manage funds — it's an educational tool, not an investment service.
More in: Bitcoin DCA Explained: What a Real Backtest Adds Beyond a Calculator
Does DCA always beat investing everything at once?
No. In a market that rises steadily over time, investing everything upfront (lump sum) tends to beat DCA, because the earlier you're in, the longer your money is exposed to the rise. DCA doesn't maximize returns: it reduces the risk of entering right before a drop.
More in: Bitcoin DCA Explained: What a Real Backtest Adds Beyond a Calculator
What is the NodeWitness Cycle Score?
The NodeWitness Cycle Score is a number between -100 and +100 that summarizes which phase of the cycle the Bitcoin market is in (accumulation or distribution), calculated by combining several on-chain and market indicators with verifiable data, including our own Bitcoin node.
More in: The Bitcoin Cycle Score Built on a Verifiable Node, Not Borrowed APIs
Are the Score's weights public?
No, and that's deliberate. We publish which indicators make it up, what each one measures, and where the data comes from — but we withhold the exact weight of each one and the internal combination logic. The legitimacy of that reserve comes from the public backtest, not blind trust.
More in: The Bitcoin Cycle Score Built on a Verifiable Node, Not Borrowed APIs
Is the Score investment advice?
No. It's an informational heuristic about the market cycle, not financial advice. The historical backtest shows how it would have behaved, not a guarantee of future results.
More in: The Bitcoin Cycle Score Built on a Verifiable Node, Not Borrowed APIs
What does the Score NOT measure?
It's Bitcoin-only: it doesn't see capital rotation into altcoins or signals from other markets. It's also not a short-term timing indicator: it locates the cycle phase, it doesn't mark the exact day of a top or bottom.
More in: The Bitcoin Cycle Score Built on a Verifiable Node, Not Borrowed APIs
What are HODL waves?
A breakdown of all circulating Bitcoin supply by how long each coin has gone without moving on-chain, grouped into age bands (from less than a day to more than 5 years).
More in: Bitcoin HODL Waves: Calculated From Our Own Node, Not a Vendor
Why does calculating them require our own node?
Because it requires walking the entire UTXO set (all unspent transaction outputs) and calculating the age of each one — data no free API offers, and which is only possible with direct access to the blockchain.
More in: Bitcoin HODL Waves: Calculated From Our Own Node, Not a Vendor
What do growing older bands indicate?
That an ever larger share of supply has gone a long time without moving, a sign of long-term holder conviction. Historically, the older bands fatten during bear markets (accumulate and hold) and thin out near tops (veteran holders start selling).
More in: Bitcoin HODL Waves: Calculated From Our Own Node, Not a Vendor
What's the difference between HODL waves and holder distribution by wallet size?
HODL waves group supply by AGE (how long it's gone without moving); holder distribution by wallet size groups it by HOW MUCH BTC each address holds (from 'shrimp' to 'whales'). They're two different cuts of the same blockchain snapshot.
More in: Bitcoin HODL Waves: Calculated From Our Own Node, Not a Vendor
How is NodeWitness's HODL waves data different from Glassnode's?
Glassnode and CryptoQuant license similar UTXO-age data as part of their paid plans. We calculate ours independently, from our own Bitcoin node's weekly UTXO snapshot, and publish it for free with the method fully documented — nothing bought, nothing black-boxed.
More in: Bitcoin HODL Waves: Calculated From Our Own Node, Not a Vendor
What is the Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index?
An index from 0 to 100 that summarizes crypto market sentiment, combining factors like volatility, volume, social media, Bitcoin dominance, and search trends. Low values indicate extreme fear; high values, extreme greed.
More in: The Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index Works Backwards, on Purpose
Why is extreme fear read as an accumulation signal?
It's a contrarian reading: historically, extreme market panic (extreme fear) has coincided with price bottoms, while extreme euphoria (extreme greed) has coincided with tops — mass sentiment tends to lag the cycle, not lead it.
More in: The Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index Works Backwards, on Purpose
Where does NodeWitness get the Fear & Greed Index data from?
From alternative.me, a free public API, with complete history since February 2018.
More in: The Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index Works Backwards, on Purpose
Is the Fear & Greed Index Bitcoin-specific?
Not entirely. It measures crypto market sentiment as a whole, not just Bitcoin, and incorporates factors like Bitcoin's dominance over altcoins. That's one of its limits, and a reason not to use it in isolation.
More in: The Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index Works Backwards, on Purpose
What does the Puell Multiple measure?
The daily profitability of Bitcoin mining in dollars, compared against its own 365-day average. Very low values indicate miners are close to capitulation (barely profitable); very high values indicate mining euphoria.
More in: Puell Multiple in Bitcoin: Miner Profitability, the Hash Ribbon, and Cycle Bottoms
How is the Puell Multiple calculated?
Daily BTC issuance is multiplied by the day's price, then divided by the 365-day moving average of that same value.
More in: Puell Multiple in Bitcoin: Miner Profitability, the Hash Ribbon, and Cycle Bottoms
What Puell Multiple values are meaningful?
Below 0.5 has historically coincided with cycle bottoms (miner capitulation); above 4, with cycle tops (extreme profitability).
More in: Puell Multiple in Bitcoin: Miner Profitability, the Hash Ribbon, and Cycle Bottoms
What is the hash ribbon and how does it relate to the Puell Multiple?
It compares the 30- and 60-period moving averages of network hashrate. When hashrate turns upward after a drop, it confirms — from a different angle, network security rather than price — that the miner capitulation flagged by a low Puell Multiple is running its course. We calculate it directly from our own Bitcoin node rather than a third-party feed.
More in: Puell Multiple in Bitcoin: Miner Profitability, the Hash Ribbon, and Cycle Bottoms
What does MVRV mean in Bitcoin?
Market Value to Realized Value: the relationship between what the market says Bitcoin is worth today (market value) and what holders paid for it on average (realized value). A high MVRV points to large unrealized gains; below 1, the market as a whole is underwater.
More in: Bitcoin MVRV Ratio: Why Its Cycle Thresholds Keep Shrinking
What MVRV value marks a cycle bottom?
Historically, an MVRV at or below 1 (market price meeting or falling below holders' aggregate average cost) has coincided with cycle bottoms. Above 3, with tops — though that 3 is getting harder to reach each cycle, see below for why.
More in: Bitcoin MVRV Ratio: Why Its Cycle Thresholds Keep Shrinking
Why do MVRV thresholds shift between cycles?
Because as Bitcoin matures, its volatility compresses and each cycle's peaks run lower than the previous one's. Across the last five cycle tops we tracked, the peak MVRV went 7.74, then 5.25, 4.72, 2.85, and 2.29 — a sustained decline, not an isolated case.
More in: Bitcoin MVRV Ratio: Why Its Cycle Thresholds Keep Shrinking
Where does NodeWitness get its MVRV figure from?
From the Coin Metrics Community API, a free public source. That's different from HODL waves, which we calculate ourselves by walking the full UTXO set from our own Bitcoin node.
More in: Bitcoin MVRV Ratio: Why Its Cycle Thresholds Keep Shrinking