Calling self-custody "crypto-anarchism" oversimplifies what Bitcoin accomplishes.
It's about freedom—freedom of speech, property rights, and protecting your right to own what's yours.
We must not dismiss it because freedom isn't promised—it must be fought for and protected.
As I said at the end of the clip, I love Saylor. He's a friend. This is the only free market in the world being free.
In any free market, especially something as revolutionary as Bitcoin, people are going to have different views. That's not just normal, it's necessary.
It's all love from me. My goal is simply to defend the principles that I believe make Bitcoin powerful: freedom and the ability for anyone to engage with it however they see fit.
https://m.primal.net/Ldqf.mov
Did you listen to the podcast and the context in which he brought up crypto anarchists?
yes
We must have listened to different podcasts because, during his conversation with Madison, he never equated self-custody to unregulated crypto anarchists who don't recognize governments or taxes, nor did he try to persuade the audience away from self custody.
He basically wants the companies and large entities holding bitcoin to be like Strike. When he said crypto anarchists he was not talking about people like you (self custody users and promoters)
It's trendy to be offended. Context doesn't matter.
Gotta signal to the ops that you’re on their side
I think he needed to articulate examples of the extremes in order to effectively answer the question being asked. I also think he did a great job of that and has no problem with anyone choosing where on the spectrum of extremes they wish to stand. The beauty of the industry at this point is we already have options to make whatever nuanced choice we want: self-custody, multi-sig, lending, exposure via MSTR, whatever. It’s available for people to get involved however they feel most aligned and comfortable 🤷🏼♀️
He clearly described what he meant. Everyone in bitcoin knows the real life examples of what he was talking about. He wants Bitcoin to win as soon as possible, which means not having the government fight us because we have shady unregulated entities running the show.
Exactly, but orange pillers are not rational people. They are too caught up with “the community” and repeating mantras. But either way it doesn’t matter, the free market will do its thing and the people with the capital are the ones that will decide things like Saylor said
Awesome view .. absolutely right representation of #bitcoin node ..
> Bitcoin Custody is NOT crypto anarchism ..
In fact #bitcoin is not a anarchist tool either .. every thing on Bitcoin is public and immutable and open to scrutiny.. from code to transactions ..
Anarchism means covert efforts to undermine Govs .. how a public messaging system could be seen as anarchism ?
Nothing before bitcoin gave humanity the possibility to custody its time, wealth and labour and protect it without the need of a third party.
I am responsible, don't need custodians. 🫡
Circular economies always existed. Historically, what some give freely another will seek to exploit. Predators and prey exist in all timelines. We see it already in #bitcoin with the current scams.
People should prepare their minds & bodies for infiltration. This includes humans & sentient beings. #AI bots 🤖 are getting better at targeting #humans for narrative #warfare.
You explained why I have very few friends. Thanks. 🙏
I don't understand the aversion to the word anarchists. People without a ruler is not something simple, that is literally the base state of the world before conmen convince people to hand over their liberty.
The aversion is simply that all governments define the word anarchy to mean Chaos...
For reasons.
Yeah, the same way Banks say Bitcoin is chaos for the banking industry. They know it makes them irrelevant.
I thought the same thing last week when listening to @saylor.
I understand the point about older people, luddites, etc.
But for those of us that can, we should.
Did Saylor say “crypto anarchists” or “Bitcoin anarchists?” I’m sure that he knows the difference.
I can’t wait until someone talks to him and he says “you are missing the point. Anyone (anarchist or not) if they don’t pay taxes to the government, they will come to take what they feel is theirs.”
Including your bitcoin. So pay your taxes and don’t give them a reason to come and look for you.
KC you might have hit the head of the nail with a hammer, 1st try I might add.
Great job!
Thanks Chief, but it is just an observation. I could be wrong right now, but I’m right. Lol
Thank you for the zap. Much appreciated!
👏
nostr:nevent1qqsfpf04d3l746q2dtv6zj3ht09khu97ghj2rgsuqdpx7rgjcyq67wgpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyrzw4whphc70v4aurp27up0xnh5lqkwt0gzeyfck3wqt39mpe0zwqqcyqqqqqqg67jnqp
I tried to listen to your last podcast, but the sound was too low, FYI. Even at full volume, I couldn't hear with the traffic noise outside.
Yup, I can't hear it in the gym at all. Like he isn't even talking.
I also found the volume was quite low on the last pod.
Saylor is adding #entropy.
Plebs don’t get it; they will.
It’s just to complicated to think exponentially in a linear world…
In essence:
• more regulation = more #freedom
At the end of the day, for the topic of #selfcustody, #IYKYK .
Your friend Saylor has a huge following that look up to him and he is giving a misleading advice.
No one in that following is obligated to listen to him.
Individual rights must be exercised or you lose them.
Saylor making bitcoin more palatable to suits is a good thing. Freedom money, for those who treat it as such, can’t be stopped now.
I will die on this hill 🫡
The great thing about Bitcoin is that it gives you the freedom to use it however you want.
Now, someone might argue: "If someone else uses Bitcoin differently than I prefer, it affects me."
But the simple response to that is: 1 BTC = 1 BTC, regardless of how someone else uses it.
This is the best argument for self-custody.
Any argument against self custody are weak-sauce compared to this argument made by the guy who solved the double spending problem.
"Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible."
-Satoshi Nakamoto
nostr:note1jzjl2mrlat5q56ke599rwk7td0ctu30y5x3pcq6zdux39sgp4uusxnu6ly
“Trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish.”
its a hard lesson for the government to learn it doesn't control all humans ....
Everyone should listen very closely to the whole interview then you may here or understand the Trojan horse of freedom, Saylor is still in it 🧡✌️
Saylor adapts to his audience and the historical period, and his MIT thesis suggests that he knows both history and politics.
You defend self custody with a custodial lightning wallet?
You describe crypto-anarchism and then say “crypto-anarchism is a simplification”. Freedom from other people is anarchism. True ownership, free speech, free assembly and exchange… thats anarchism.
Anarchism achieved through cryptography isn’t just bitcoin, its all forms of information transfer. The cryptography is exactly what keeps it free of governments.
Usually i like when you speak, you may not like to have bitcoin associated with anarchism in order to help attain adoption, but you literally stepped on your tongue here.
If you take away self custody we will have taken satoshis gift and turned it into gold. It will be bastardized and counterfeit just like gold and we will be back to square one. Self-custody is essential if you learned any-fuckn-thing from history.
Dear Jack, Yettel Bank in Serbia is not processing card payments via Strike anymore, citing risks. They want their clients to HFSP while promoting betting sites, casinos and crypto trading projects. That is apparently not risky to them.
Oddbean new post about login | logout 
