diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index d884ce2..07848a3 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ deploy_to_github_pages.sh
 # ============================================================
 # Private / local-only directories
 # ============================================================
+aaron-lab-instructions/
 notes/
 worklog/
 memo/
diff --git a/labs/week-01/README.md b/labs/week-01/README.md
index ecccc22..d396c2a 100644
--- a/labs/week-01/README.md
+++ b/labs/week-01/README.md
@@ -10,6 +10,21 @@ Demonstrate structural understanding of the UTXO model and transaction semantics
 
 ---
 
+## Reading
+
+- **Mastering Taproot**, Chapters 1–5
+- **Bitcoin whitepaper**, [Section 2 — Transactions](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) (for Q3)
+
+---
+
+## Do this week (from lab kickoff)
+
+- Read the chapters; **run the code examples** in `code/chapter01/` … `code/chapter05/`
+- Try interactive mode: [bitcoincoding.dev](https://bitcoincoding.dev/)
+- Cohort survey (see Discord / [aaron-lab-instructions](../../aaron-lab-instructions))
+
+---
+
 ## Questions
 
 1. **UTXO vs physical cash** — Where does the analogy break?
diff --git a/labs/week-01/submissions/bitcoineando.md b/labs/week-01/submissions/bitcoineando.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec56c10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/labs/week-01/submissions/bitcoineando.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Submission — Dani - Bitcoineando21
+---
+
+## 1. UTXO vs Physical Cash
+
+*Where does the analogy break?*
+
+The better analogy is checks and only the miners can break the checks. Really everytime you wanna pay something you gotta go to the "bank" to break the check, but if you used those words people would run for their lives. Since the miners can't sensor, (thoretically yet the cartels are well behaved but selfish mining threatens censorship resistance by encouragin centralization) then its not a big deal that the nuance of the bank and the check isn't more clearly discussed.
+
+---
+
+## 2. "Sending to an Address"
+
+*Why is this technically misleading?*
+
+Oh I love this reflection because I have been at war (internally) with how Bitcoin is taught mainstream. There are no wallets, there is no sending, I would go so far as to say that there isn't even any Bitcoin. LOL. There is an accounting book that has entries that says who has money. Thats it. The address is really only one of the data points inside the un/locking script to facilitate proving you have a secret without sharing the secret.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Whitepaper vs P2PKH
+
+*What changed structurally?*
+
+The payment model described in the whitepaper says that the owner signs the hash of the orevious transaction and the recipient's public key. However, the actual implementation of Pay-to-Pubkey-Hash was to the hash of the public key. This had two benefits. On one side it made the value shorter and on the other it gave a second degree of separation to the public keys. 
+
+---
+
+## 4. Balance as Query
+
+*Why is wallet balance a computed result, not a stored value?*
+
+The wallet balance is a computed result. The oversimplification annoys me because then wallet providers get away with not giving people tools for real identity and financial management. A real wallet should help you not mix identities and should help you organize your UTXOs. If people want a dumb wallet thats fine but I'm deeply dissapointed that a decade in we haven't lived up to the real thing. I will do my own version one day cos I'm into being a Swiss Banker and the Bitcoin Swiss Banker is someone who helps people set up their cryptographic architectures. The UI has not caught up to hierarchichal deterministic wallets. 
+
+---
+
+## Reflection
+
+What concept still feels unclear?
+
+Why we struggle to keep blockspace clean?
+Why nobody is as worried as I am about selfish mining?
+Why we still struggle with peer 2 peer exchanges?
+Why is "our" multisig services so precarious?
+Why people who build on bitcoin continue to have centralized models instead of distributing the systems? yes its less profitable, but more empowring. What I mean is intermediaries. Bitcoin companies positioning themselves as intermediaries. They could have a role as facilitators but not have central points of failure?
+I guess the real question underlying that is why there aren't more bitcoiners who are also Start9 users. I don't mean that specifically but in the sense of being sovereign about your digital infrastructure.
+