Thanl you for sharing Rune.

My apology would have to go to my previous boss in Norway because I spent too much time at work talking to colleagues about Bitcoin, the risks of the mRNA vaccines and my criticism of the U.N. Agenda 21 + 2030. I should have kept those subjects for the breaks only. Still I was efficient and saved the company a lot of $. When we were busy I kept the pedal to the metal and only talked when there was little work.

Several times I adviced a Norwegian colleague that he shouldn't take the mRNA vaccine. He did take it anyway and after his second shot he ended up in hospital and had to stay away from work for 2 weeks with heart problems; "hjertflimmer", i.e. heart arrhythmia. He also said that the hospital staff restarted his heart and they claimed that this was normal. He was the kind of tall, strong farmer guy that had never been sick from work in his life before. Very positive and skilled worker. After that he told me that he agreed with me and would never take the third shot. I hope he is doing ok. Luckily his adult sons had declined the vaccines.


Lifetime tax pressure.

I wrote a short program that roughly calculates the tax pressure over a lifetime, with the impact of inflation on past wages.

Output examples:

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 2%
Tax: 30%

Lifetime tax pressure: 54.486 %
---

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 2%
Tax: 0%

Lifetime tax pressure: 34.98 %
---

I think this output is interesting because it shows that without any regular taxes, the *minimum* inflation over 45 years of work is equal a ~35% tax pressure.

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 2.3%
Tax: 54%

Lifetime tax pressure: 71.817 %
---

This output is based on the average tax pressure in Sweden, with an average historical inflation of 2.3% since the Riksbank (central bank) was established in 1668.

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 7%
Tax: 0%

Lifetime tax pressure: 71.603 %
---

This output is based on a yearly inflation rate of 7%, without any taxes. This is the likely inflation rate we have in the West when we account for asset inflation from government + central bank moneyprinting.

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 7%
Tax: 30%

Lifetime tax pressure: 80.122 %
---

This is the output of an inflation rate of 7% over 45 years of work, combined with a 30% tax rate.

Conclusion:

Inflation is a significant tax levied by governments and central banks as they expand the monetary supply.

These figures account for cumulative inflation: the savings of year 1 is inflated for 45 years, while the savings of year 40 is inflated for 5 years, etc.

This is not only a theft of income but a grand theft of life and time on this planet.

Bitcoin fixes this by allowing individuals to opt out of the hidden tax of inflation.

Every individual owns themselves and the fruits of their labor. (Paraphrasing John Locke, 1690)

A final consideration is to add living expenses to the calculation. As inflation drives up the cost of living, this also represents a loss of purchasing power. I have left this out so far due to it being difficult to calculate, especially since wages must increase *somewhat* to account for increased costs.

[Edit] - Adding 4 diagrams I made in GIMP to allow easy verification of my numbers.
 https://image.nostr.build/a4da36ecfe5d178864a921d4950aeaf2252975bf30140d58e6d476b915fda55b.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/59902a35101cd2efa5379d3849e829353d1fdfc8035e4922363d6302662a7bde.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/e6a6586c4436c86e357e907d704d5cb6172ee8d6da8de4d36e22f4a1834cddd7.jpg
 https://image.nostr.build/84f92f67c73590e19d5e51a1d7d51000371ca411043b823ba5940130f513295a.jpg

#Inflation #Moneyprinting #Tax #Taxation #TaxRate #InflationIsTheft #Bitcoin


Income inflation over a 45 year career.
Without any taxes, the lost purchasing power is ~35%

https://image.nostr.build/b5c700363d669c440d0e32b3fb7406d015f0b20365698d2a2558b454fd0b4830.jpg

I set the inflation rate to 2% which is the target inflation of central banks. In reality of course, inflation is far higher.

In the diagram I provide the output data for the calculations so that they can be easily verified. A simple for-loop can be used to calculate the inflation percentage, i.e. the loss of purchasing power.

Diagrams made in GIMP.
 https://image.nostr.build/59902a35101cd2efa5379d3849e829353d1fdfc8035e4922363d6302662a7bde.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/e6a6586c4436c86e357e907d704d5cb6172ee8d6da8de4d36e22f4a1834cddd7.jpg
 https://image.nostr.build/84f92f67c73590e19d5e51a1d7d51000371ca411043b823ba5940130f513295a.jpg

Link to my longer previous post:

nostr:nevent1qqs894524qnem4vje6fw3e8xqscgy225d2gsxapa209xgjpckuunr8gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyq3afyu5vyjc2urvw2gg5h3eqnu4zal2ppasxtwmlnfgvgcyclvcxqcyqqqqqqgswct6g

#Inflation #Tax #Taxes #InflationIsTheft #Meme #Memes #Data #GIMP


Yup. We must separate objective reality from our perceptions. We don't create reality, but we  can interact with it. Error-correction and ethical principles grounded in practicality is necessary. If our map is not aligned with reality, then it is our map that must change.


Income inflation over a 45 year career.
Without any taxes, the lost purchasing power is ~35%

https://image.nostr.build/b5c700363d669c440d0e32b3fb7406d015f0b20365698d2a2558b454fd0b4830.jpg

I set the inflation rate to 2% which is the target inflation of central banks. In reality of course, inflation is far higher.

In the diagram I provide the output data for the calculations so that they can be easily verified. A simple for-loop can be used to calculate the inflation percentage, i.e. the loss of purchasing power.

Diagram made in GIMP.

Link to my longer previous post:

nostr:nevent1qqs894524qnem4vje6fw3e8xqscgy225d2gsxapa209xgjpckuunr8gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyq3afyu5vyjc2urvw2gg5h3eqnu4zal2ppasxtwmlnfgvgcyclvcxqcyqqqqqqgswct6g

#Inflation #Tax #Taxes #InflationIsTheft #Meme #Memes #Data #GIMP


Income inflation over a 45 year career.
Without any taxes, the lost purchasing power is ~35%

I set the inflation rate to 2% which is the target inflation of central banks. In reality of course, inflation is far higher.

Below I provide the output data for the calculations so that they can be easily verified. A simple for-loop can be used to calculate the inflation percentage, i.e. the loss of purchasing power.

https://image.nostr.build/b5c700363d669c440d0e32b3fb7406d015f0b20365698d2a2558b454fd0b4830.jpg

Diagram made in GIMP.

Link to my longer previous post:

nostr:nevent1qqs894524qnem4vje6fw3e8xqscgy225d2gsxapa209xgjpckuunr8gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyq3afyu5vyjc2urvw2gg5h3eqnu4zal2ppasxtwmlnfgvgcyclvcxqcyqqqqqqgswct6g

#Inflation #Tax #Taxes #InflationIsTheft #Meme #Memes #Data #GIMP


Income inflation over a 45 year career.
Without any taxes, the lost purchasing power is ~35%

I set the inflation rate to 2% which is the target inflation of central banks. In reality of course, inflation is far higher.

Below I provide the output data for the calculations so that they can be easily verified. A simple for-loop can be used to calculate the inflation percentage, i.e. the loss of purchasing power.

Diagram made in GIMP.

Link to my longer previous post:

nostr:nevent1qqs894524qnem4vje6fw3e8xqscgy225d2gsxapa209xgjpckuunr8gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyq3afyu5vyjc2urvw2gg5h3eqnu4zal2ppasxtwmlnfgvgcyclvcxqcyqqqqqqgswct6g

#Inflation #Tax #Taxes #InflationIsTheft #Meme #Memes #Data #GIMP

https://image.nostr.build/b5c700363d669c440d0e32b3fb7406d015f0b20365698d2a2558b454fd0b4830.jpg


Income inflation over a 45 year career.
Without any taxes, the lost purchasing power is ~35%

I set the inflation rate to 2% which is the target inflation of central banks. In reality of course, inflation is far higher.

Below I provide the output data for the calculations so that they can be easily verified. A simple for-loop can be used to calculate the inflation percentage, i.e. the loss of purchasing power.

Diagram made in GIMP.

#Inflation #Tax #Taxes #InflationIsTheft #Meme #Memes #Data #GIMP

https://image.nostr.build/b5c700363d669c440d0e32b3fb7406d015f0b20365698d2a2558b454fd0b4830.jpg


#Meme #Memes #1984 #Totalitarianism #Authoritarianism #Terrorism #Voluntarism #Freedom #Liberty #Libertarian

https://image.nostr.build/effd2b04ebcb217e0ea6e29d753dbb8a3a366408c88f40c9144e54e97c0c594c.jpg


This Austrian school writer from Nigeria is raw natural talent. He has previously published an article for the Mises Institute.

nostr:nevent1qqsv07djckx753uaeur43ku4rvva9vte9wpamdsvdmcquzja7ae2zygpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyr9huhd9tmfnuyxv7w226krvhg9sndnk420qzlk74e94d36flmzggqcyqqqqqqgdzk4xn


This Austrian school writer from Nigeria is raw natural talent. He has previously published an article at the Mises Institute.

nostr:nevent1qqsv07djckx753uaeur43ku4rvva9vte9wpamdsvdmcquzja7ae2zygpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyr9huhd9tmfnuyxv7w226krvhg9sndnk420qzlk74e94d36flmzggqcyqqqqqqgdzk4xn


A Paternalistic Social Program Undermines Independence & Entrepreneurship In the Youths.

Just as an over-caring parent can undermine a toddler’s growth towards physical independence by tending towards over-indulgent behaviours, an ‘over-caring’, paternalistic social program can do likewise to sustainable youth development and nurturance of entrepreneurial spirit in Nigerian youths. The best way to nurture self-responsibility and entrepreneurial spirit in people is not by giving handouts or special aids to them - whether they own small- or medium-scale businesses, or aim at building innovative ideas. A social program that tries to shield young people from direct orientation to real-life struggles, by churning out series of protectionist blankets undermine the risk-taking component of genuine entrepreneurship in them. A paternalistic social program weakens already-nurtured entrepreneurial spirit, creativity and innovativeness in youths. This is a major challenge to nurturance of authentic entrepreneurship in Africa today. It may suffice to assert that economic subsidies tend to make people complacent.

The hallmark of a disciplined entrepreneur is proactivity towards the provision of whatever resources his business needs to thrive. In other words, taking full personal responsibility for business success is what makes entrepreneurs bloom, not special care from social programs.

A rather counterintuitive
approach to strengthening budding entrepreneurs would be weaning them off protectionist packages and benefits. Entrepreneurs become stronger through “validated learning,” a phenomenon greatly discussed by Eric Ries in ‘The Lean Startup’. Capitalizing on learning from past trials to create value goes a long way to strengthen entrepreneurs. The best a socially responsible program can do for Nigerian youths is help them cultivate a comprehensive philosophy, with a moral obligation to pursue their self-interest in the most responsible and ethical way possible.


Well formulated.
Summed up in the slogan:

"Your mind creates reality"

From this misconception, a world of disalignment from reality follows. It is magical thinking, forced upon people in the manner that a central planner forces a square peg through a round hole using a sledgehammer.

[Edit] Fixed typo.


Well formulared.
Summed up in the slogan:

"Your mind creates reality"

From this misconception, a world of disalignment from reality follows. It is magical thinking, forced upon people in the manner that a central planner forces a square peg through a round hole using a sledgehammer.


Probably is her, I just prefer to verify with my own eyes. But yes, if it's not her, then that would be a lesson for many.


Beautiful work!


Thanks to the Chevron deference ruling from the Supreme Court, the economy has removed an anchor that has been holding it back for more than a generation.

The balance of power, as the founders designed it, has been shifted back in the right direction.

https://www.tftc.io/chevron-deference-bitcoin/


#bitcoin  and abundant energy are the path to American dominance in the 21st century.
https://m.primal.net/JHCv.jpg


Agreed, great moment.

I'm just confused that I have never seen Stella confirm that this is her Nostr account.


Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I think you are correct that we can't measure someone else's free will, at least not objectively. There is too much that we cannot possibly know about them. Not everything is subject to objective analysis and probing.

Our own abilities can vary drastically over the span of a day. A problem that we are struggling with in the evening may present itself in a completely new light in the morning, in spite of us not having learned anything new from our environment. A fresh vantage point, a rested mind, a new creative consideration, a deeper meditation over a subject.

Returning to the cog-in-the-wheel idea, my thinking is that if we somehow were reduced to being a cog in the wheel, for example via an implanted chip that controlled us, then this would represent the lower end of the spectrum of free will. It wouldn't necessarily be a permanent condition but it demonstrates the spectrum.

When we believe in free will and the chance to have free will, we naturally reject the idea of controlling other people because we respect their sovereign decisionmaking. It would be a crime against humanity to destroy or limit someone else's ability to reason. This is why lobotomy and chemical lobotomy is so abhorrent; it is the destruction or degradation of a person's soul, personality or the sovereign core of their being, depending on how we would phrase that.

I caught myself observing recently that I believe the universe to be mechanistic, but not the mind. We can predict orbits of planets, but we cannot with certainty predict a life trajectory. The mind is sovereign and have the ability to change itself, to rebuild its architecture. Not everyone will have an equal ability to change themselves, and the ability may vary during a lifetime. Yet, I have to assume and grant to others the responsibility of free will because not doing so would be a deterministic rejection of their capacity to change.

I think one problem with denying free will is that it implies a deterministic view of consciousness. It assumes that the mind is merely an output based on inputs. It removes the chances of individual and sovereign decisionmaking.

If we were just the mechanistic result of our inputs, then a tyrant with this belief would have no ethical concerns over changing our inputs, i.e. reprogramming us with new stimuli, in order to produce within us the desired result of that tyrant, disregarding our sovereign minds. Not bothering to convince us that something is correct, but instead to force some belief upon us. I think this is the darker side of viewing the human mind as deterministic; it opens up the floodgates to totalitarianism


Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I think you are correct that we can't measure someone else's free will, at least not objectively. There is too much that we cannot possibly know about them. Not everything is subject to objective analysis and probing.

Our own abilities can vary drastically over the span of a day. A problem that we are struggling with in the evening may present itself in a completely new light in the morning, in spite of us not having learned anything new from our environment. A fresh vantage point, a rested mind, a new creative consideration, a deeper meditation over a subject.

Returning to the cog-in-the-wheel idea, my thinking is that if we somehow were reduced to being a cog in the wheel, for example via an implanted chip that controlled us, then this would represent the lower end of the spectrum of free will. It wouldn't necessarily be a permanent condition but it demonstrates the spectrum.

When we believe in free will and the chance to have free will, we naturally reject the idea of controlling other people because we respect their sovereign decisionmaking. It would be a crime against humanity to destroy or limit someone else's ability to reason. This is why lobotomy and chemical lobotomy is so abhorrent; it is the destruction or degradation of a person's soul, personality or the sovereign core of their being, depending on how we would phrase that.

I caught myself observing recently that I believe the universe to be mechanistic, but not the mind. We can predict orbits of planets, but we cannot with certainty predict a life trajectory. The mind is sovereign and have the ability to change itself, to rebuild its architecture. Not everyone will have an equal ability to change themselves, and the ability may vary during a lifetime.

I think one problem with denying free will is that it implies a deterministic view of consciousness. It assumes that the mind is merely an output based on inputs. It removes the chances of individual and sovereign decisionmaking.

If we were just the mechanistic result of our inputs, then a tyrant with this belief would have no ethical concerns over changing our inputs, i.e. reprogramming us with new stimuli, in order to produce within us the desired result of that tyrant, disregarding our sovereign minds. Not bothering to convince us that something is correct, but instead to force some belief upon us. I think this is the darker side of viewing the human mind as deterministic; it opens up the floodgates to totalitarianism


Great article by Tyler Curtis criticizing George Bernard Shaw, a Fabian socialist.

Excerpt:

---
"If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight … then clearly, we cannot use the organizations of society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to you." // George Bernard Shaw, 1931
---

Article link:

https://fee.org/articles/george-bernard-shaw-was-so-enamored-with-socialism-he-advocated-genocide-to-advance-it/

Interview with Shaw from March 5th, 1931:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymi3umIo-sM

 https://image.nostr.build/195ba1d6902bb094fb45ac87d6554918b92a6655e8e0fb181fcb95a5523febe9.jpg

#GeorgeBernardShaw #Shaw #Fabian #FabianSocialism #Socialism #Article #1984 #Tyranny #Tyrants #Oppression #Liberty #Voluntarism #TylerCurtis #Curtis


I would establish a voluntary European defence pact, separated from NATO, while simultaneously abolishing the EU, the central banks and any dangerous biological research facilities. Monetary monopoly would need to be eliminated in order to establish a free market and to abolish serfdom under the tax of inflation.

This would allow European nations a path toward sovereignty, economic prosperity, individual liberties, property rights and decentralization while averting the totalitarian impact of the EU upon Europe.

In order to avoid war with Russia the Minsk agreement would need to be upheld as a minimum. Breaking agreements is not conducive to peace.


An organization that steals from people cannot be anything but criminal. A "service" must be voluntarily funded & as a result cannot be a government.
https://image.nostr.build/c7e4e33312c5aed9c5adeba5ad8c7816a194d7e43e739f58efd2561383670815.jpg


The establishment probably want bitcoiners being self-quarantined on Nostr-only so that they can rig the elections and implement the U.N. Agenda 2030 without too much noise.

The problem of Nostr is that it will not reach significant cultural/societal impact in many years. What we say here does not have much of an audience - yet.


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that exchanges and potentially ETF providers can increase the supply of paper bitcoin and sell such printed tokens to customers.

I see a couple of problems with this. First, this would become apparent when the company is audited. If they don't own as much bitcoin in reserve as they claim then they would be engaging in fraud. For this to go unnoticed we would need governments collaborating deeply with exchanges.

Secondly, fake paper bitcoin would only be a problem for those that use government-aligned custodians. It seems like it would be self-defeating for governments to undermine the government-aligned custodians where they can easily tax the paper bitcoin.

Since sovereign owners can verify their bitcoin they are not impacted by frauds. You could argue that the exchange rate could be impacted temporarily. This is possible, yet would allow bitcoiners to stack more bitcoin at a cheaper price for a longer period.

2. Yes, bitcoin on exchanges will be impacted by all kinds of taxes. Yet, if governments overplay the taxes then nobody will want to use government custodians, so there's that consideration as well.

Bitcoin in self custody is hard to tax, in spite of KYC regulations. Bitcoin is global and not jurisdictional. If a government seek to tax your bitcoin in a manner you disagree with, you can cross the border and spend your capital (bitcoin) in a better jurisdiction.

This is how game theory plays out: jurisdictions have to compete for capital and skill by offering good conditions of living, low taxes, et cetera.

I wrote a longer piece on game theory and why tainted coins will not work over time:

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvupzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy22xsdy


No, not as a separate calculation.

The function just applies the tax rate that you input at the beginning, so this tax rate is used as the total tax pressure and is applied uniformly over 45 years, so it is a hypothetical average.

If you have figures for the impact of indirect taxes then you can add that to the total tax pressure.

For example, a tax on nuclear, gas or coal energy will drive up the costs of all production, products, services and transports that uses the energy grid. Such a tax should be added to the total tax pressure.

However, it would be complicated to simulate how that tax impacts every day life with cost increases throughout the whole infrastructure.

If you can only save 20% of your income (or less) after tax then this is clearly a situation impacted by inflation, but since living expenses differ from region to region and quality of life is subjective (options differ in cost), it might be impossible to calculate the full impact of inflation. If we earn income in jurisdiction A and then settle in jurisdiction B, this will also matter.


No, not as a separate calculation.

The function just applies the tax rate that you input at the beginning, so this tax rate is used as the total tax pressure and is applied uniformly over 45 years, so it is a hypithetical average.

If you have figures for the impact of indirect taxes then you can add that to the total tax pressure.

For example, a tax on nuclear, gas or coal energy will drive up the costs of all production, products, services and transports that uses the energy grid. Such a tax should be added to the total tax pressure.

However, it would be complicated to simulate how that tax impacts every day life with cost increases throughout the whole infrastructure.

If you can only save 20% of your income (or less) after tax then this is clearly a situation impacted by inflation, but since living expenses differ from region to region and quality of life is subjective (options differ in cost), it might be impossible to calculate the full impact of inflation. If we earn income in jurisdiction A and then settle in jurisdiction B, this will also matter.


Lifetime tax pressure.

I wrote a short program that roughly calculates the tax pressure over a lifetime, with the impact of inflation on past wages.

Output examples:

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 2%
Tax: 30%

Lifetime tax pressure: 54.486 %
---

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 2%
Tax: 0%

Lifetime tax pressure: 34.98 %
---

I think this output is interesting because it shows that without any regular taxes, the *minimum* inflation over 45 years of work is equal a ~35% tax pressure.

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 2.3%
Tax: 54%

Lifetime tax pressure: 71.817 %
---

This output is based on the average tax pressure in Sweden, with an average historical inflation of 2.3% since the Riksbank (central bank) was established in 1668.

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 7%
Tax: 0%

Lifetime tax pressure: 71.603 %
---

This output is based on a yearly inflation rate of 7%, without any taxes. This is the likely inflation rate we have in the West when we account for asset inflation from government + central bank moneyprinting.

---
45 years of work
Inflation: 7%
Tax: 30%

Lifetime tax pressure: 80.122 %
---

This is the output of an inflation rate of 7% over 45 years of work, combined with a 30% tax rate.

Conclusion:

Inflation is a significant tax levied by governments and central banks as they expand the monetary supply.

These figures account for cumulative inflation: the savings of year 1 is inflated for 45 years, while the savings of year 40 is inflated for 5 years, etc.

This is not only a theft of income but a grand theft of life and time on this planet.

Bitcoin fixes this by allowing individuals to opt out of the hidden tax of inflation.

Every individual owns themselves and the fruits of their labor. (Paraphrasing John Locke, 1690)

A final consideration is to add living expenses to the calculation. As inflation drives up the cost of living, this also represents a loss of purchasing power. I have left this out so far due to it being difficult to calculate, especially since wages must increase *somewhat* to account for increased costs.

#Inflation #Moneyprinting #Tax #Taxation #TaxRate #InflationIsTheft #Bitcoin


The tweet on the right does not formulate what you mean by "free-riding" so the reader have to use mind-reading to discern what you mean.

Perhaps if you define what free-riding means to you in this case, then we can agree or disagree on that definition.


Assange walks out of the US Federal court as a free man. Congratulations nostr:nprofile1qqsr80thu5u52gr5074wzw22ft6l53l5qsufva3htdku005xtmvpg5spzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tc7z0ucu
https://image.nostr.build/acf8f7684b39124312a72e1c302a6fb99036f80ebc7a85adc1cd00b38a2bdd0d.jpg


My episode with nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m is now out 🔥
Links below, enjoy!

Got value? support my work via zapping / fountain / geyser 🙏🏻

https://video.nostr.build/2acbf1d65e09b9d5deeee8d20af30eaa329a333beb4254d5f2c51a5be720fac4.mp4


Wow. What a day!
https://m.primal.net/IxQh.jpg


A few thoughts on free will.

Free will involves self sovereignty, from the simplest of organisms to the more advanced species.

When we ask if free will exists, we are asking if sovereignty and free agency is possible.

Free will can be viewed as a spectrum, from low degrees of sovereignty to higher capacity for autonomy.

If we are intoxicated, our freedom of deliberation is clearly impacted. If we had a brain implant that forced us to carry out someone else's command, we would basically have zero free will, hence no sovereignty.

Considering this spectrum then, from lower to higher degrees of sovereignty, it makes sense to define the higher echelons of self sovereignty as free will, as contrasted by its opposite; complete subjugation to the will of another.

If I would sum up the arguments against free will, in the most favorable way I could steel-man it, what I hear is this: you are the sum of your parts. Hence you must act within the confines of your personality.

This does not contradict the definition of free will as self-sovereignty. We are free to build and change our inner environment to our heart's content. We are free to build positive or negative responses to our experiences. We are free to explore any subject and press beyond our previous boundaries. This doesn't mean that we are without flaws and limitations, just that we have the potential to be sovereign.

We know that colors exist because we can observe a whole spectrum of colors that can be differentiated. Saying that colors doesn't exist gives us no practical advantage when we are dealing with colors, quite the contrary.

Free will is a spectrum that defines the extent of our self sovereignty and free agency. It makes little sense to claim that sovereignty and individual autonomy doesn't exist, unless we want sovereignty to not exist.

It would be a disastrous mistake to claim that an obedient cog-in-the-wheel, who is required to follow its commands without the chance of refusing, is equivalent to a free-willed individual with the capacity to break free from its bonds and challenge every command.

Free will exists because we can observe a spectrum of free agency and the more of it we have, the more sovereign we are.

Free agency exists.
The opposite is slavery.

[Edit 2024] Fixed 2 typing errors.
I originally wrote this in 2022 and there was no edit function on Nostr back then.


An argument against free will is an argument for tyranny.

https://image.nostr.build/91e4c1f8de2018386b99b64b6c92bbfd938095963729bc7b7c46dfb9a2a0a075.jpg

Free will is a recognition of individual sovereignty. Your free will is an ethical boundary against coercion. Your boundary against coercion can either be respected or disrespected.

If you have no free will then you are considered to be programmed by your environment and its stimuli, with predictable results just as dominos will fall as gravity compels them.

With this perception comes a belief in a fixed outcome based on a number of inputs - you can't change your path by yourself if you are not more than the stimuli that shaped you. The assumption is that in order for you to change, you need external stimuli.

Without a free will you may be considered to be a puppet on strings, shaped by circumstances and other people, with no free agency of your own. This is reflected in the naive psychological theory that criminals are not responsible for their actions. Their agency is believed to be on-rails. This idea is rooted in determinism.

As a result from this idea of determinism, bureaucrats who deny free will have no moral qualms about nudging or forcing you onto the path that they consider correct.

This abandonment of the boundary of free will, can and will be used to justify a re-programming of your mind from the perspective of the bureaucrats in charge.

If you believe that we are not facing a global warming catastrophy, then your opinions are considered to be shaped - not by reasoning - but by stimuli. The same principle applies if you prefer to eat healthy food over insects or chemical sludge. Or if you think private transports are a good idea.

The underlying idea here is that without a free will, sovereign reasoning cannot exist. If the process of sovereign resoning doesn't exist, then we are merely products of stimuli.

If we are merely products of stimuli, the absurd conclusion from this is that only power exists; the power to control all stimuli in order to achieve a desired outcome.

This is the foundation of central planning. It is built on a disregard for individual agency, free will and the possibility of sovereign reason.

Be sovereign.

nostr:nevent1qqs29vfxd65vz2asqj68dj0uc9hmtrlpfqe0zk8hd7pr37egjjh0f5cpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyq3afyu5vyjc2urvw2gg5h3eqnu4zal2ppasxtwmlnfgvgcyclvcxqcyqqqqqqgkghn9c


From restaurants to retail stores, find merchants near you who accept Bitcoin payments using  nostr:npub1864jglrrhv6alguwql9pqtmd5296nww5dpcewapmmcazk8vq4mks0tt2tq.

 nostr:npub1jan3xfrvxmd35smylytmnp3ne0sgqh2x47yq766s55zaf6eja4rselx52y CBO  nostr:npub1anr0rh50qtcljgavps72dmyz76thgcv0y9txew03uq303vekqmrsly3qjz explains.
https://youtube.com/shorts/GF3RxIukNj8


Amazing! 🌟⭐💫
Stella Assange on Twitter:

https://x.com/Stella_Assange/status/1805393089819033890

https://image.nostr.build/f9a2e5ff0345b19365f2d73d5d66ee8a52a7ac7354e488e70b5c4f90e85c6492.jpg


Incredible news
https://m.primal.net/Iwpi.jpg


Agreed.

Cash is dark money and it is important that people have access to dark money in the digital age. History has demonstrated to us what crimes surveillance regimes can commit when they go unchecked. Under authoritarian systems, dark money will always be vital. It is my hope that Bitcoin can compete with Monero on L2-L3's in regards to dark money. The base layer obviously cannot be both a store of value and dark money at the same time. As such Bitcoin and Monero occupy different niches.


I agree that the establishment attacks on Monero are despicable. Dark money must be allowed in a free society and if it is not we are  heading toward tyranny. A black market is a free market and I support that.

Monero has a different function than Bitcoin and cannot have the same impact on politics.

Capital leaving a jurisdiction because the jurisdiction is authoritarian will have an impact on politics.

This is the domain of Bitcoin game theory. Jurisdictions that respect individual liberties will attract capital (Bitcoin) and outcompete authoritarian jurisdictions. Monero cannot achieve this as dark money.

Bitcoin over LN, Liquid and other L2-L3 solutions will be the everyday 'e-cash' formats. L1 will be for store of value only. In a free market competition the user can achieve a desired balance between speed, cost and security.

Bitcoin and Monero aids different liberty mechanisms. I am personally not into Monero, but dark money might be useful at some point, so I am not ruling out the possibility that Monero will have a liberty impact. It is just that its liberty function can be achieved equally well by a Monero competitor.


The real problem with big blockers & shitcoiners is that they don't understand enough about money & economics to have any awareness of the actual problem that #bitcoin was created to solve.

“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”

This isn't about fucking coffee payments. It's about ending monetary slavery. We will eventually get the coffee payments too, but not if we let a bunch of wildly ignorant people fuck up base layer security.


1. Bitcoin can buy coffee but that's never the function of a base layer serving 8 billion people.

When you buy a coffee with a credit card you are using a L2-L3 payment without final settlement. If Monero served 8 bn people then its base layer could not be used for buying a coffee. Since almost nobody uses Monero, you can absolutely buy a coffee on its base layer. If a form money becomes widely used then it won't make economic sense to buy a coffee on its base layer.

2. Scaling Bitcoin to meet the needs of 8 billion people will primarily happen on L2-L3 since the base layer must be secure, decentralized and allow noderunners to run local nodes. Ignoring this fact is an appeal to magical thinking. We can't achieve bandwidth for 8 bn people on a secure base layer.

3. Bitcoin is rules without rulers. If you want decentralization, property rights and liberty for all, Bitcoin game theory can achieve that while Monero doesn't have that sort of impact on politics.

Monero might be useful as dark money at some point but it is not a store of value that can enact a positive pressure on nations/jurisdictions to increase individual liberties. The game theory of Bitcoin will pressure nations to either lose capital in capital flight, or, improve individual liberties in order to keep capital (Bitcoin). Liberty arbitrage requires a global store of value.

I wrote a piece on the game theory of why taint will not work against Bitcoin and it also lays out how liberty arbitrage works. This is dependent on Bitcoin being a global store of value.

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuvrcxajju7re0gpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqygngr7g


A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.

TLDR; taint cannot work over time.

Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.

A few expected outcomes:

1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected  to follow.

These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.

2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction -  which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.

3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.

If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an in increasing  amount of valuable trade.

Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.

Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.

Don't be a Laggarde!

#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian


Thanks to nostr:npub1sn0wdenkukak0d9dfczzeacvhkrgz92ak56egt7vdgzn8pv2wfqqhrjdv9 and everyone who spoke up about the EU attempt at breaking end to end encryption for chat with pre-publishing AI reporting bots. The proposal is dead! Activism and pressure can work.

https://stackdiary.com/eu-council-has-withdrawn-the-vote-on-chat-control/


Agreed. Ideally we will see a variety of different types of governance models. This is helpful because we can't know in advance which form of governance will work best under unknown future local conditions. My point was just to focus on the variety dimension, so corporate jurisdictions will absolutely exist as well.

I am convinced the Bitcoin game theory is our best shot at arriving at a world with decentralization, liberties, property rights and options.

As humanity later expand to other planets, decentralization will deepen and the options will expand further. The long term ideal is a universe of options where people can settle where they feel aligned with the customs, architecture and lifestyle of an area.

Control fades with distance. There is a horizon of sovereignty involved in the distance from central planning. Micro-managjng from afar (colonialism) is difficult and require a lot of resources. As the distances increase, local sovereignty grows.

[Edit] - fat finger typo.


Individualism vs collectivism.

#Meme #Memes #Individualism #Collectivism
 https://image.nostr.build/29b6e62263e75264c38cf23ba81e614a443cd7144740db496efe6415849f0bf4.jpg


Agreed. Ideally we will see a variety of different types of governance models. This is helpful because we can't know in advance which form of governance will work best under unknown future local conditions. My point was just to focus on the variety dimension, so corporate jurisdictions will absolutely exist as well.

I am concinced the Bitcoin game theory is our best shot at arriving at a world with decentralization, liberties, property rights and options.

As humanity later expand to other planets, decentralization will deepen and the options will expand further. The long term ideal is a universe of options where people can settle where they feel aligned with the customs, architecture and lifestyle of an area.

Control fades with distance. There is a horizon of sovereignty involved in the distance from central planning. Micro-managjng from afar (colonialism) is difficult and require a lot of resources. As the distances increase, local sovereignty grows.


Right. I see it as small jurisdictions with varied governing structures. Personally I wouldn't call them 'corporate' but rather 'sovereign'.

Some jurisdictions can even be 'voluntarist socialist', although to be clear, voluntary socialism is just a free market with local preferences of collaboration combined with negative economic  consequences if that collaboration breaks down.

If the jurisdictions are small enough and there are sufficient options to choose from, then liberties arise as a result of competition between jurisdictions rather than achieved via voting. If 80% of a population are functionally sheep or disinterested then voting liberties into existence seems a bit futile.

If a significant portion of wealth and skill leave a jurisdiction when/if liberties are not respected, then that is an impactful game theory pressure.

Cartel behavior among jurisdictions can still pose a problem to competition, for example jurisdictions setting a common tax level among themselves. Yet it only takes a few jurisdictions that break away from the cartel in order to achieve competition.


https://m.primal.net/IsYW.jpg
Face Masks as Instruments of Psychological Torture

Extremely disturbing about the images from Guantánamo Bay, for our purposes, is that the inmates are all wearing blue surgical face masks. In one image from Amnesty International (2020), goggles, gloves, caps, and earmuffs are not being worn but face masks are. It seems difficult to escape the conclusion that the mandatory wearing of such masks has something to do with psychological torture. Certainly, face masks restrict breathing, and they are psychologically humiliating, insofar as they make the wearer look ridiculous/grotesque (Potts, 2020), serve no useful purpose (Jefferson et al., 2023; Children’s Health Defence, n.d.), resemble muzzles (Hitchens, 2020), and are associated with slavery (Stephens Nuwer, 2016, p. 145; Strongman, 2021), servitude (Greenwald, 2021), and sadomasochism (Needham, 2014). The face masks at Guantánamo Bay may also be another form of self-inflicted pain, with inmates too frightened to pull them down for fear of punishment.

According to the KUBARK Manual, “whereas pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, his resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself” (CIA, 1963, p. 94). For example, ordering a prisoner to stand to attention or sit on a stool for a prolonged period may be more effective than a beating, because if the prisoner complies with the order,

- His conflict is then an internal struggle. As long as he maintains this position, he is attributing to the [captor] the ability to do something worse, but there is never a showdown where the [captor] demonstrates this ability. After a period of time, the subject may exhaust his internal motivational strength. (CIA, 1983, § K-10) -

Wearing a face mask on command is a seemingly innocuous act, like being told to stand or sit for an extended period of time. Seldom does it come to a “showdown” where a person is physically compelled to wear a mask; most people consent to wearing one.

When worn for long periods of time in non-sterile conditions, however, face masks cause the wearer to re-inhale their own exhaled air, including bacteria that gather in the stale zone between the mouth and the mask. This can lead to “psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described [as] Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome” (Kisielinski et al., 2021). These include increase in breathing resistance, increase in blood carbon dioxide, decrease in blood oxygen saturation, increase in heart rate, increase in blood pressure, decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity, increase in respiratory rate, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing, headache, dizziness, feeling hot and clammy, decreased ability to concentrate, decreased ability to think, drowsiness, decrease in empathy perception, impaired skin barrier function with itching, acne, skin lesions and irritation, and general fatigue and exhaustion.

Mask wearers, therefore, face an internal struggle arising from their consent to an absurd, medically senseless practice (Jefferson et al., 2023) which they must instinctively know to be harmful. Mask wearing is a filthy habit (because of the recycled bacteria) and a form of self-harm (physically and psychologically). The sight of people with the mask below their nose or chin was all too common and is evidence that mask wearing is widely experienced as unpleasant and oppressive. Consenting to wearing a face mask under these circumstances is perverse and masochistic.

“It’s just a piece of cloth,” mask proponents claim, yet, “millions of people are considerably more tormented by facemasks than what we would expect is reasonable or even possible for something that is indeed merely an ‘inconvenience.’” Even so, Hertzberg (2021) continues, “few people are able to work out for themselves what about [face masks] is so abusive or terrible.” This is because of the hidden psychological warfare functions that face masks serve. In Johnson’s (2020, § 5.2) view, they constitute a “form of psychological torture—a form of domestic terrorism, as it has been carried out on the general population, not in a few isolated cases.” A diabolical poster by Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust shows a “kissing” couple, hooded and masked, with the strap line “We really need to see less of each other” (Rix, 2021), consistent with CIA methods. Face masks additionally serve to inculcate fear, train obedience, signal conformity, create an absurd/alien reality, dehumanise and deindividuate the wearer, and are a marker of cult allegiance (see Volume 2 of this book). Because they work on so many different levels at once, they represent an extremely potent, and evil, instrument of psychological warfare. The fact that virtually all states mandated their use for no sound scientific reason (Eugyppius, 2023) is one of numerous indicators that a transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022) is now at war with humanity.

- Chapter 3 of “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy by David A. Hughes

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-41850-1_3


You cannot force anyone to fund a cause you like.

You cannot delegate a power that you do not have.

You DO have the moral right to respond to initiations of force with force. So you can delegate some defense of yourself & loved ones to a 3rd party, so long as they are voluntarily funded.

Voluntarily funded security & other services are part of a free society.

Force funded organizations are not services. They do not "serve" anyone, they quite literally force you to serve them. This is a form of tyranny, no matter how they try to dress it up & pretend otherwise. Force funded organizations are criminal organizations.


Agreed. Faith is important. Our pursuits are extensions of our values. Values require faith/conviction. All victories rests on conviction.

Faith and conviction form a bridge over the unknown.


Absolutely. Nostr is valuable but still needs to be battle-tested over time. The underlying theories need to have their time of impact with practical reality in order to be properly evaluated. Having multiple communication channels compete is ideal.


The EU are voting on Chat Control this Wednesday 19th June

If passed it will be the most devastating blow to privacy not just to Europeans but people around the world

All service providers will be forced to scan ALL content of their users

Get involved

Say No to Chat Control

https://blog.cryptpad.org/2022/05/19/against-chatcontrol/


Yep. And when new bitcoiners internalize the liberty dimension, we tend to think less in terms of short term gains. When we don't plan to sell our Bitcoin at $300k, it is just a point of celebration that liberty and free markets are being adopted.


Expanding further, the idea that 8 billion people can use L1 always struck me as strange.

I don't have data on the average number of transactions per block but it would seem to be around 3500-4500 tx.

If we could achieve 7000 tx per block on average then that would translate to a million tx per day (144 × 7000). Dividing 8 bn people with 365 million tx per year gives a bandwidth of ~22 years for an ideal scenario.

A more likely figure for the current bandwidth is 4000 tx per block, yielding 576k transactions per day, giving 210 million tx per year. This results is ~38 years for the world population bandwidth.

Even if the demand pressure on L1 is far lower than 8 billion people, some percentage are children without the need to move savings, some may not be using Bitcoin at all, some may be using mainly L2-L3's, we are still at a situation of some participants outbidding others in order to have their tx included on the main chain.

The idea that "everyone must be able to use L1" is naive in a scenario where almost 8 bn people are using Bitcoin. Not all participants will have the funds to compete for blockspace, even if we had 7k tx per block or more.


Agreed.

My programming intuition sounds the alarm when I see solutions with a number of unknown downstream consequences. I don't like code with unknown risks.

At a minimum, features can be tested for several years on for example Liquid Network and be evaluated there.

Among the claims of lower L1 fees, I don't trust such claims for several reasons. Tx fees can already range from $1.5 to the tx's upwards of $200 that were seen for a week right after the halving. This tells me that the tx fee pricing is largely dependent on the willingness of participants to pay a certain amount. If there is a willingness to pay high fees, then we can improve the bandwidth all we want on L1 without achieving low fees.

As far as the solutions involving increased efficiency for exchange transfers, I doubt that they would make much of an impact, if exchanges want to use them.

For the other proposals I am also unconvinced that there will be actual increases in L1 efficiency. They may or may not be significantly helpful.

My main concern is the ability to whitelist future addresses, i.e. blacklisting all addresses outside of the whitelist. It is not inconceivable that governments at some future point, in an attempt to hinder the competition against CBDC's, may decide to require exchanges via regulations to apply whitelisting schemes, to lock bitcoin within an approved framework of future addresses. Even if such regulations are introduced and then abolished at a later date, the whitelisting protocol would already be in place. If central planners can abuse a mechanic on L1, I would rather see such a mechanic on L2-L3.


Another insightful podcast on the scaling debate. Highly recommended. Link below.

Interesting to hear Vijay’s explanation on how frequent changes to bitcoin’s protocol undermines trust in its “unchangeable” monetary properties. I hadn’t considered this before, but it makes sense. He argued for conservatism very well.

I thought Brandon represented the “Big Scripters” 😜 well too. He focused the debate on how these proposed technologies promote bitcoin’s decentralization — which, of course, is the North Star for many of us (me included).

He argued that without these new scripting capabilities, fewer people will hold their own UTXO and therefore bitcoin will be more centralized. In the future, large custodians will be the key economic nodes and may control bitcoin and their interests may not align with ours.

Brandon recognized that his concerns are in the distant dystopian future, perhaps even after a wonderful “gilded age” for bitcoin.

Brandon argued that we need to do something now. He doesn’t know whether the proposed scripting capabilities will actually fix the potential problem but he hopes they will be helpful.

Brandon recognized that the proposal could have unknown risks but he was largely dismissive, believing that it’s probably safe.

Why now? Why the rush? Brandon left it unsaid, but I had the impression there may be a sense of urgency amongst the Big Scripters. Perhaps because they believe bitcoin will be harder to change in the future - ie, it’s now or never. Perhaps some believe that they will lose control to folks like Saylor, who represent the whales and large financial custodians of the future. If these large financial nodes control bitcoin, then the devs may believe that they will lose the power to make changes later.

I remain unconvinced. Here’s why:

Firstly, I believe we have to reject any proposals that solve potential problems that don’t yet exist, even if plausible. We don’t know what will happen in the future, nor whether the issue will be solved later without making protocol changes.

Even the best of us are just humans and not magical infallible wizards. We can never completely predict that a change will not create even bigger problems. We can’t take risks for potential problems that may never happen or which might be fixed in some other way.

Changes to the protocol should be a last resort. Bitcoin is our hope for the future. We’ve been given an incredible gift. We can’t mess it up. Future generations are counting on us.

Secondly, I believe our ability to accurately predict risk is related to our inability to accurately predict the future.

For example, I don’t recall ANY community discussions pre-Segwit / Taproot anticipating that we would be soon syncing our nodes slowly over Tor with 4 MB blocks filled with spam. It was all a big surprise to the community, wasn’t it?

Why was the block size increased? Why was there a discount given disproportionately to spammers? Why was the risk overlooked? Why hasn’t there been a post-mortem? So many questions.

I’ve realized we can’t blame the devs. We, the plebs, need to take responsibility. We allowed the devs to make complex changes to the protocol relatively quickly and we blessed it by upgrading our nodes. We trusted but didn’t verify. Lesson relearned. We can’t do this again.

Lastly, the power to change bitcoin should be held by the nodes and not the devs. Maybe it will be harder to change bitcoin in the future. That’s a feature of bitcoin, not a bug.

Devs, if you’re in a hurry, please check your time preference. I keep thinking that bitcoin could be like one of those cathedrals which took hundreds of years to build and which stand for millennia.

We should take our time to get this right. Even if it takes 10 more years of research and debate, that’s nothing in the grand timeline. In the meantime we should fix bugs, make it easier to run nodes, improve network privacy, and improve community communication.

nostr:npub1r8l06leee9kjlam0slmky7h8j9zme9ca32erypgqtyu6t2gnhshs3jx5dk Thank you for the great recent content. Love the debate format! 🙏

https://stephanlivera.com/episode/583/


We will see by that time. I think the L1 bandwidth is fine for the purpose of SoV. At the end of the day, tx fees will be what market participants are willing and able to pay.

I see self custody as a spectrum, starting with people withdrawing their sats from exchanges and other centralized and government-controlled platforms. Game theory will provide efficient and secure options for everyday transactions on L2-L3. Bad actors will lose users and fees. Good actors will benefit with more users and better fees.

Not everyone will want or need to use L1 and high base layer fees will drive innovation toward Lightning and sidechains to solve scaling. I define scaling as providing Bitcoin for 8 billion people. In my view that scaling will happen primarily above L1. L1 fees will find their equilibrium in supply and demand considerations of the market participants.


To expand, I would say that L1 fees will be as high as people can afford, regardless of how much optimization is done to L1.

Low value transactions will have to go via L2-L3s.


Yup. Bitcoin is primarily a store of value. E-cash transfers will happen on Bitcoin L2-L3s.


Well, it's more an indication of bandwidth, which in turn impact fees. It is ability to pay the fees that impacts how often people can use L1.

A block size increase would be negative since it would reduce the decentralization aspect, demonstrated in the Block Wars. Without a strong decentralization, the store of value will change to reflect the worsened security; downward.

Besides, an increase in bandwidth will still cause the mempool to be filled up with anything the market is willing to spend XYZ on in regards to tx costs.

The ability and willingness to pay for expensive transactions is the primary driver of fees.


More trees, more grass, more cows, more people... all good.

https://image.nostr.build/cee3175e1b2589ee2c829c761d10a63bb12f1b0f26642df379d50d4e3ba7d7c4.jpg


I listened to the entire podcast. Rusty is the poster child for ossification. Let me explain…

1. This Isn’t A “Restoration”

For starters, this is not a “restoration” of some long lost functionality blessed by Satoshi that was mistakenly disabled.

At 5:20, Rusty admits that he has no idea why Satoshi disabled some of those codes, but Rusty assumes Satoshi thought they were potentially dangerous.

Was Satoshi worried about the opcodes being dangerous to the operation of the core software? Or to the interlocking social incentives underpinning the entire system?

Rusty doesn’t know and doesn’t even consider factors beyond the memory usage or CPU cycles of the core software itself.

Why the myopic perspective? We find out later in the podcast.

2. Rusty’s Design Philosophy Is Dangerous

At 49:00, Rusty says that he expects this more powerful scripting language will be used in unanticipated ways.

This engineering mentality is suitable for a startup where the stakes are low.

Do you think engineers of nuclear power stations would add a powerful API that could be used in unanticipated ways?

Of course not.

When stakes are high, responsible engineers only enable limited functionality KNOWN to be safe. They don’t add powerful capabilities to “see how people will use them”. They move slowly and cautiously. They err on the side of conservatism.

3. “But First, Do No Harm”

To your credit, you asked Rusty about the possibility that these new powerful capabilities might be abused.

We then learn why Rusty doesn’t consider anything beyond the memory consumption and CPU cycles of the software.

His terrifying answer? He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

At 51:00, Rusty admits that it will enable people to do more evil things. Not a problem, he thinks, because there are already lots of ways to abuse the system. What’s the problem with adding more?

Rusty doesn’t seem to respect what bitcoin is. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that bitcoin core protects the life savings of millions of people and is our hope for the future.

He doesn’t even fully consider the first order effects, never mind the second or third.

Rusty is dangerous. Clearly skilled, but lacking wisdom to apply those skills appropriately. Paving the road to hell with his good intentions.

He should be nowhere near bitcoin core until he truly understands the significance of what he’s playing with.


What covenants allow is an increased attack surface and the potential for unintended consequences.  Segwit and Taproot helped produce the spam that's currently attacking the network.

Bitcoin is working perfectly fine without new opcodes.  It's feature complete.  Leave it alone.


I still don’t understand how covenants  improve the situation for low value amounts.

If I have $10 in my own UTXO or $10 in a shared UTXO, it will still cost me roughly the same amount in fees to transfer it on the L1 chain.

Why does having more keys per UTXO make anything cheaper if it costs you the same amount in transaction fees?

It doesn’t seem to matter if the covenant encodes a future payment to you if the payment amount is small and fees are high and rising over time. You’re still going to pay a significant amount in fees.

I don’t agree that block space is practically unbounded. Sure we could increase it, but it’s like making more roads to decrease traffic. It just encourages more people to buy cars and fill the roads. Building more roads gives a temporary benefit but eventually the traffic is back to the original level or even worse.

If we lower the economic cost of blockspace, people will just fill it with lower value data (like spam JPEGs) and we’ll reduce decentralization.


Here's my math involving 8 billion people:

If we assume 7000 tx's per block, then the 144 daily blocks gives 1 million transactions. Most blocks will have less than 7k tx's, but let's go with this high tx figure for now just to explore the math.

If we divide 8 billion people by 365 million tx's per year, we arrive at almost 22 years per tx in terms of bandwidth, which impacts the tx fees.

Granted, a certain percentage of the world's population are children who will not need to spend from a savings UTXO on L1. Then there may be a certain percentage that don't use Bitcoin at all. Finally there are hodlers that have a 5, 10 or 15 years horizon for their savings.

If I am optimistic, 1 L1 tx every 10 years should be affordable for most people, so that leaves L1 as primarily a savings layer, while L2-L3 offers cash functions via decentralized banks/nodes.


Agreed with the L1 considerations. As you say, anyone who have done the calculations know that a decentralized money cannot provide L1 transactions for 8 billion people. Magical thinking have zero impact on reality.

Any scaling solution that aims at giving 8 billion people access to Bitcoin must involve a free market of L2-L3 options. The Bitcoin base layer is the proper foundation for healthy free market competition, which in turn brings high degrees of security via game theory.

I would say that there are degrees of self custody. Moving sats away from exchanges, who are government controlled, is a primary aspect of self custody. For significant amounts, custody involving L1 is ideal. For smaller amounts, an archipelago of options competing via game theory is far better than anything we have had before. Unserious and captured options will lose trust and users in benefit of the serious and non-captured options. LN operators are decentralized and sovereign banks, unimpacted by borders since Bitcoin is global and without borders.


Please listen to Livera’s podcast with NVK. It’s not possible for everyone in the world to have their own UTXO and use it for everyday transactions. It never was possible. This “dream” — that people have that everyone can be self sovereign — is sold by folks who are idealistic but haven’t done the math.

I would love it too if everyone could be self sovereign. It’s just that I understand the limitations and I’m not willing to chase an impossible dream and compromise the decentralization of the protocol.

If you disagree, do the math. Show me how everyone in the world can have their own UTXO and make everyday transactions on L1 with self sovereignty.

Our objective is to replace central banks. Unfortunately most people in the world will be using bitcoin ecash. It’s not true self sovereignty with their own UTXO but 1000x better than the current system where central bankers control our money and print it at will.

nostr:note18w5gf2f84k4zfazs6hscr2n7tt2f85xt8ycdeedgjhchnz88rlds04q4fl


Thanks! 🙏


Probably something there. In the 1980'ies, BBS's were mainly frequented by gamers, computer enthusiasts, programmers and TTRPG players. I was introduced to a local RPG group via a BBS myself. Before the internet it was one of the best meeting places for the RPG-interested.


Sounds like a cool project, Brad. I boosted the post for visibility, although it might help to add a few hashtags to cast a larger net.


🚀 I’m Hiring an Executive Assistant! 🚀

Are you organized, passionate, and looking for a role that combines traditional executive support with unique, fun projects? I’ve got just the job for you!

Here’s a taste of what you’ll be diving into:

I’m launching a Dungeons & Dragons podcast with notable figures like nostr:npub14actrvwqkhfg7f9p8hf3h7ea5r509c8pkltklyxyvl5kfl08gpuqjtnayx, nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs & a couple other Bitcoiners.

We’ve secured a dungeon master who has been crafting our adventure world for the past six months. Now, we’re gearing up to build our characters and prepare for our first session!

Your Role:

	•	As my Executive Assistant, you’ll be instrumental in keeping this passion project on track. Your tasks will include scheduling calls with our Dungeon Master P and DM advisor to build our characters.
	•	You’ll set up and manage a project in our project management tool, maintain detailed notes, and ensure all necessary tools and resources are ready for our virtual game day.
	•	Helping to researching the “tech stack” of other d&d podcasts and taking the best practices, strategies and tools they use into our show will be one of your missions along with creating and updating the playbook document that will allow us all to be on the same page during gameplay sessions!

Why This Role?

	•	It’s not just about administrative tasks; it’s about becoming a key player in a variety of creative and entrepreneurial projects. From Bitcoin ventures to podcast production, you’ll help manage and bring to life ideas that are as diverse as they are exciting.
	•	Enjoy a competitive salary, flexible work arrangements, and the opportunity to work on projects that break the mold of a typical 9-to-5.

Think you’ve got the skills and imagination to help us manage my Spellbook and a whole lot more?

Apply now at bradmills.ca/careers!


Yes, evil exists 100%. The pinnacle of evil is harmful systems that robs individuals of their free agency, privacy and the fruits of their labor. We may call them 1984 societies or societies under the spell of the mark of the beast.


"Politicians have the incentive of just giving away the Treasury and entering huge amounts of debt, and that doesn't just destroy the structure of the government it destroys society."
- Nayib Bukele
https://m.primal.net/IaSj.mov


This is how they corrupt 99% of any industry.

Without the money printer everything falls apart.

Fix the money, fix the world
#Bitcoin

https://image.nostr.build/c01b1369bbc6db05424dbef3dd3ce82a0b41bbb11864c6bbe6242dbd3353cea5.jpg


#Meme #Memes #Disney #StarWars #Acolyte #Propaganda #Woke #Wokeism

https://image.nostr.build/b717942a7745321b73c312bd7d3318bb7b5b5dba36271e8d6a46a9b2a9420dbc.jpg


#Censorship #1984 #Meme #Memes

https://image.nostr.build/fda59caabcae112fb14497c2861fd639debf2bb167ac5a14a864cd0d71a506b0.jpg


🎙 Can They Manipulate Bitcoin?
nostr:npub1s05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sq6eyhe

https://video.nostr.build/2181bef4acf101c29614f7557f6bfd6eea69ba781bec79a3ba54f34bc15a58c5.mp4

"Let's say bitcoin fell by 95%.
You're gonna sell or buy? Buy. Of course.
So now let's say the existing system, imagine, just let's play game theory, imagine the system that the BlackRock and everything consolidate enough coins, and then they start to try to make self custody illegal, and these things are coordinated, and then they start shorting bitcoin to drive price down. There are too many people that know, and they will just take all the bitcoin into self custody.
And so it keeps it decentralized and secure. And what would happen in that case is as they tried to manipulate Bitcoin, I'm not saying they will, but if they tried to do that and manipulate price down, then you would have a major financial party get liquidated, completely liquidated. It would look like FTX, but JP Morgan or BlackRock. And that would take down the entire system if that happened.

So will these games happen? Of course they're gonna happen. People are going to try to cheat because human beings have always tried to cheat.
So that's totally logical that they will.
But human beings have tried to cheat on a system that allowed cheating. Try to cheat a system that won't allow cheating and eventually you're gonna get liquidated and bring it on.
It doesn't touch anybody that self custodies. It doesn't touch you at all. Like were you hurt by FTX?
Nothing."


Great to hear! Yeah, Ross the Boss has made a lot of cool songs for Manowar such as Hail and Kill and many other classics. Love all of the Manowar repertoire but for normies Number 1 is probably one of the most accessible songs.😄


It is, and anyone who says otherwise is either a slave or a criminal.

https://image.nostr.build/77cf3d5c0a86d08b6e0e809d423fa276bf2c2be90c9cce2d93ecc8ecdc907fba.jpg


Yes? Your argument is to state something obvious?


"The government is effectively a large machine that is very hungry for money all the time, but is largely incapable of generating money except for harvesting it from people..." -- Samson Mow nostr:npub1excellx58e497gan6fcsdnseujkjm7ym5yp3m4rp0ud4j8ss39js2pn72a on ‘You’re The Voice’ podcast.

Watch full episode: https://linktr.ee/yourethevoice

https://video.nostr.build/2e5109a5dfa2d27505cb0f4cfd58712e45088d410fcb4ce4869e0558b0a6cc9b.mp4


https://image.nostr.build/81acb9a71a3d9eb1592792693eb4878178ce6fc5300a98fe9d3d4e84fc526df7.jpg

#Memes #Meme


I agree overall.

When it comes to individual medical treatments, I don't think that contracts should be able override basic individual liberties. The right to own our bodies is just fundamental and must preceed all laws.

As for selective commerce, yes, companies should be free to trade/deal/interact with whom they choose. Although selective commerce may not be as profitable.

The problem arrives when a few government-created monopolies deny individuals service.


Although I acknowledge that one root problem is the power of governments to scare companies toward mandating vaccines and masks. Without that pressure, companies would have little incentive to harass employees with irrational and intrusive mandates.


In a free market that might work. But as governments subsidize large corporations and strangle competitors, we end up with a corporatist (socialist) structure where employees have few options but to go along with government dictates.

The solution is freeing the market so that competition and options can exist.


Oliver's stance on individual liberties seems sketchy. The idea that companies can require workers to inject medical products is not compatible with voluntarism. There must be a line drawn where the bodily integrity of employees are defended by liberty advocates.
 https://image.nostr.build/60726869ee2bc77307f399c34b85e84af249f8316d977f795e78ef9fb908394b.jpg


Nah 😄


She has 5 fingers so I'm thinking she is probably a smiling human. 😄


Game theory involves competition between nation states.

Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes.

I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out:

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn


https://image.nostr.build/f5193df362922ee6a92edaf860f6c71a2a7c2fef1c7a42cda84dc659ea25d2d4.jpg

#Meme #Memes


Society moves slowly. This is likely an in-built evolutionary function as a protection against potentially harmful changes. Only changes that are tested over time become accepted. In this case Locke's ideas brought us more freedom and a logical framework for property rights.

If everyone is born free and own themselves, we obviously can't own other people.


Hard no here.

Businesses cannot be allowed to require workers to inject anything into their bodies.

A free market is a situation of voluntarism, designed to protect individual liberties, not to make the government or corporations into feudal lords owning people as subjects.

As John Locke noted, every person is born free, own themselves and the fruits of their labor. We cannot own other people.

https://image.nostr.build/60726869ee2bc77307f399c34b85e84af249f8316d977f795e78ef9fb908394b.jpg

#FreeMarket #Mandate #VaccineMandate #Vaccine #MRNA #Injection #IndividualLiberty #IndividualRights #PropertyRights


#freeross
https://image.nostr.build/01e38c2b0a95cb56875447cbc548800383a2cccfcd5a429d7505261c6c83fb74.jpg


Absolutely.

If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin.

And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV.

It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.


Bitcoin will be absolute torture for people who wants to tell other ppl what to do with their money or their node.


He's right, at least on this matter.

The reason I say this with confidence is because the Bitcoin protocol that everyone have invested in is precisely what we have, not what someone wants it to become.

Bitcoin's fundamental function is store of value. Privacy tools are added over the base layer on an opt-in basis.

A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.

If we consider the tradeoffs that Monero makes, we can understand why Monero is not aiming for a store of value. As a result, Monero cannot leverage a pressure against jurisdictions in any comparable way.

Those who want Bitcoin to become more like Monero, while the privacy side benefits are tempting, such a move would undermine Bitcoin's function as store of value and several of its game theory benefits.

On a related subject, I wrote recently about why tainted bitcoin/sats is a losing strategy by the jurisdiction implementing it. If Bitcoin became more Monero-like, then the game theory involved will have different outcomes. The assumptions are based on Bitcoin being a superior store of value and therefore desirable by nation states, which gives it powers to pressure jurisdictions.

Why tainted coins is a losing strategy:

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn


Yes.

Being centered in your own sovereign judgement is a defense against those who want to re-shape your personality to mirror theirs.


#FreeRoss
https://m.primal.net/INGG.jpg


TRUMP: “I will keep Elizabeth Warren and her goons away from your #Bitcoin ” https://video.nostr.build/ec48ed9ede05d8a41a9d2ef77aca861e3856fc9a63a5400845df7dad56f25aed.mp4


The lion is looking for a vulnerability in the defense. If none is found his energies are better spent elsewhere.

The greater the risk of (serious) harm for the attacker, the less likely the attack is to happen.


A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.

TLDR; taint cannot work over time.

Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.

A few expected outcomes:

1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected  to follow.

These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.

2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction -  which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.

3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.

If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an increasing  amount of valuable trade.

Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.

Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.

Don't be a Laggarde!

[Edit: spelling]

#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian


A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.

TLDR; taint cannot work over time.

Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.

A few expected outcomes:

1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected  to follow.

These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.

2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction -  which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.

3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.

If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an in increasing  amount of valuable trade.

Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.

Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.

Don't be a Laggarde!

#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian


"It is therefore central to totalitarian ideology that it convert questions of fact into questions of motive.

Facts are a threat because they are independent of the ideology, and questioning the motives of whoever reports discordant facts is a low-cost way of disposing of them."

/ Thomas Sowell

#Quote #Quotes #ThomasSowell #Philosophy #PoliticalPhilosophy #Totalitarianism
 https://image.nostr.build/40838e7ef23a2b295009b1a63ecd7a65474dec26c4f9a5edfa89ebe8da58b9e7.jpg


Signer apps is a threat to security in the same way that a key-chain is a device that allows you to lose all your keys at once.


#CraigWrightIsAFraud
 https://image.nostr.build/7d556b938154d5a5b7448d95c15c70a1dd84f3f91d362f3d32dd083ca8a2c444.jpg


Sounds like Craig Wright.

He seems to have all the qualifications to be a government crook.😄


Sounds like Craig Wright.

He seems have all qualifications to be a government crook.😄


Commerce will require the L2's.

The layers above the base layer forms a free market of options secured by competition. Every form of money have a payment layer and a settlement layer. It's the base/settlement layer that must be neutral and decentralized. That's the beating heart.

The L2's represent the only realistic scaling solution for any money (scaling = allowing 8 billion people to use Bitcoin daily) since no secure blockchain can scale to 8B via the base layer. (Nobody would be able to run nodes)

It's the base layer that cannot be a company or centralized. The base layer is for transferring larger amounts while the additional layers are for smaller sums and daily spending. They all involve tradeoffs.

I'm very positive for the future of the serious Bitcoin L2's.

Besides, if we want sound money on Mars at some point it will require either the Lightning Network, Liquid Network (or similar) or a local Bitcoin fork, due to the center of hash and the distances involved.


Your daily reminder that if all of these runes/ordinals/brc20 shitcoins were actually selling, tx fees wouldn't be this low...

Don't fall for the marketing hype, nobody is buying this crap!

https://m.primal.net/IIOV.png


This is why we have to develop a sovereign mind early in life and dislodge from to the expectations of the herd.


💯

AML and KYC was always about mandating digital ID verification everywhere so that governments can implement social credit scores and via them treat dissenters as third-class citizens. The old carrot and the stick via a score system.


Three weeks ago I wrote an article on the EU's new AMLR in Bitcoin Magazine, detailing how the EU passed ALM laws restricting the use of Bitcoin privacy tools without any data to back up their claims that privacy heightens money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

Alex Stachtchenko took it a step further and ran the numbers. For every Euro confiscated, 200€ are spent. This means that the EU's AML compliance costs of 144B Euro exceeds all money ascribed to crime per year at 110B Euro – and still, 99% of criminal profits escape confiscation.

Despite their absolute inefficiency AML laws continue to be expanded, subjecting all EU citizens to total financial surveillance for the price of catching 1%. It is a system that has grown completely out of control and is in no way proportionate to the right to privacy enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It's a long read, and its in French so you'll need to translate it, but I guarantee that it will be worth every minute of your time.

BM article:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/legal/eu-parliament-adopts-aml-laws-regulating-bitcoin-based-on-questionable-assumptions

Alex' article:
https://medium.com/@AlexStach/les-d%C3%A9rives-de-la-surveillance-financi%C3%A8re-menacent-nos-d%C3%A9mocraties-323fbdc1ccbf

https://image.nostr.build/0d7632afe0b2d12e5c537683aeea5a2eab16f94acbb1842d1303e17e030b5e22.png
https://image.nostr.build/514287cc9ae1fe3d36a5de492cae8516d80643a9e56fb3cd4d4727ca344d90d2.png


I am at zen on Nostr and zen on Twitter.
Unwanted content I either mute or block.


Yup.

In a world where we are at liberty to help others for free, it doesn't make any sense to ban voluntary wage agreements.

This is basically saying that working for free is fine, but charging some amount that the market is willing to pay must be illegal.

There is a void then between free labor and the paid labor that the government is *allowing* over a certain threshold.

For freelancers this is an obvious absurdity. Often you are paid by finishing a commission within a deadline. Your hourly pay depends on how fast the work can be done and the client's budget for the project. This process can never be centrally planned; the parameters will differ from person to person and from year to year.

Under a system of government moneyprinting there is no "livable wage". That's the whole point of a 1984-society: that people are dependent on an authoritarian state that redistributes resources based on its ideological preferences, be it classical fascism or fascism with a rainbow theme, where the pig is dressed up with makeup and lipstick.

At the end of the day, a market exchange is the point where two parties agree to a transaction, as Aristotle observed.

Only in a totalitarian society where the government want to regulate and have the power to ban certain exchanges is voluntary exchange a problem.

Add the obvious loss of work for millions of people to automation where the government centrally plans a minimum wage.

Just the surveillance implications alone from minimum wage policies is enough to freighten any person with an inclination to consider the domino effects.


The population on Nostr is small and have niche interests so it can be hard to get responses some weeks.

Adding a few hashtags can help visibility sometimes, so that people that vibe with a post have better chances of seeing it.


"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy — quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody’s rights.

You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can’t tell the water where to go."

// Thomas Sowell

#ThomasSowell #Quote #Quotes #IndividualRights #Individual #Rights #Liberty #IndividualLiberty #Philosophy #PoliticalPhilosophy #FreeMarkets #ShrinkGovernment #Voluntarism #AynRand
 https://image.nostr.build/613904ec808fbb3f0ed2c47f78e7a1f88f69aec7aefd8f30300d010a94995d13.jpg


Sweden's leadership has been deeply corrupt as long as I can remember.

Ideology is the code that runs the Swedish establishment. We called it political correctness in the 1990'ies, now we call it Woke. It overlaps significantly with the U.N. Agenda 21. The U.N. comprehensive central planning goals for the 21st century can be expected to be at the heart of anything Sweden does or doesn't.

A peak into the corruption:

The U.N. Agenda 2030 was incorporated into the Swedish constitution in December 17th, 2020. Covid was used as a pretext to rig the vote in the Riksdag (parliament):

Due to Covid restrictions, only 55 (out of 349) members of parliament (Riksdag) were allowed into the voting chamber on December 17th.

22 members of parliament voted yes to Agenda 2030. 22 abstained their vote and 11 voted no. Screenshot below from the government webpage of the final vote count, with 3 added red rings for easier reading. For clarification - it is not my screenshot but I verified 2+ years ago that the information was obtained correctly from the Swedish government webpage.

The question remains - who singled out 55 out of 349 members of parliament to vote? One can expect that the choice was not random; the process was clearly rigged. Selecting less than 16% of the parliament members is not how a representative democratic vote is cast.

When a journalist later attempted to speak with the 22 members of parliament that had voted yes, he was met with silence and was unable to reach most of them. None of them have accounted for why they voted yes. Silence.

#Sweden #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #Politics #Covid #Corruption #Democracy #Demokratur #Sverige #Demokrati #Riksdag #Korruption #1984
 https://image.nostr.build/c2efc3f66e75653dc9c49fd663b732e31fd8bb2667d76805bd66633bf1c86a0f.jpg


The U.K. is ramping up the attacks on property rights.

Article by Syed Rahman:

"An April change to United Kingdom law will allow authorities to treat crypto like other assets by seizing it without accusing suspects of wrongdoing."

https://image.nostr.build/33614f7e44aa67c661bf0b9b90f78d5543df9ef5dfbd561064cb53d3f21ec6d0.jpg
 https://image.nostr.build/55781dc31e689d6dbf0e3ee2dc1add804d87839b902f5990fa735d21c59a0982.jpg

How far the British have fallen since the 1690 achievement of John Locke and his defence of individual liberties in Two Treatises of Government. The new standard is assumed guilt without a trial or even an arrest. This must be overturned. Besides, the idea of "destroying crypto" is ludicrous. No government can destroy someone's memory of 12 - 24 words.

Source:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/welcome-united-kingdom-please-hand-over-your-crypto

#UK #UnitedKingdom #England #Bitcoin #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #IndividualLiberties #JohnLocke #1984 #Totalitarianism


I love Poland. One thing that annoys me though, is that for bottled water there are just a few brands that don't contain flouride and chloride. I never understood why people choose to drink water with these harmful additives.


I have heard many observations that vaccines are increasing the ADHD and autism rates.

Another aspect that bothers me is that the definition of autism has changed dramatically.

In the 1980'ies, autism and introversion had very different meaning and there wasn't much overlap.

Nowadays, if you answer on an autism test that you are not very interested in going to parties - which is a typical introvert position - you are automatically placed on the autism spectrum.

When the definition is diluted, everyone is classified within the definition.


What most governments mean when they talk about democracy:

"When our agenda is implemented top-down without hindrance."


#Meme #Memes #Democracy

https://image.nostr.build/0a60829501c3b1f42e03ca7a6e57b61577cce93ba3a0a4ae5ce92b5633c82f55.jpg


Helping people find diets that improve their conditions is positive. This should be the focus. A meat diet is helpful for many conditions, I just wouldn't extrapolate to assume uniformity of results.

When an assumption of curing XYZ is attached, the message is worsened. Genetic components exist: we are not biologically the same.

My brother was born with a rare gentic condition that came with scoliosis, short stature and muscular dystrophia. The muscular dystrophia was the worst part of his disease since his internal organs were coded to fail over time and the dystrophia was irreversible.

I think that psychologically, it is hard for healthy people to come to terms with situations like this because we want to believe that we can fix everything with the right formula. Hopefully one day we can find a cure for the worst genetic conditions.


Nice, elegant tree. Although it is limited to a pair-structure.

In many cases I don't have an ordered tree structure. When I create a procedural dungeon I start with distributing rooms and then write a function that walks between the rooms, to establish which pathways and squares are most commonly accessed, without the hindrance of walls. Next I write a function that transforms the array of walking patterns into corridors connecting the rooms. Procedurally generated obstacles that prevent direct walking from point A to B can help making the dungeon less linear. This could represent areas of rock that was too hard to cut through. The testing functions are ad-hoc trees that explore the dungeon and branch when necessary, then pruned as the "explorers" hit a dead end.


My back is usually fine, luckily. Walking every day is helpful, plus exercise and stretching.

Working on the computer for hours is a risk zone. Me and my wife have a temporary setup in a small apartment where we can't fit regular desks, so our PC's + keyboards are placed on top of 2 boxes of books. This saves space but is not great for posture when working, especially when I paint or sculpt with a digital pen on my Wacom tablet/monitor.

Reduce toxic intakes, lift with legs rather than the back. At work, ask for an extra hand if something is too heavy or the lifting position is bad.


Looking great!


When people attack others for simply stating the most basic of facts, that is the most important time to say what is true & be willing to stand behind it, or even die for it. Because when silence & the acceptance of lies & delusion become the norm all possible paths forward lead to some form of hell on earth.


There are people who want "hate speech" laws passed so that they can control all future discourse.

If they can get said laws passed using trans people as pawns they will do that, as they did in the UK. They have been trying to create animosity over race & sexual preferences in the US for years now. They even tried to sell us Asian hate. They have tried to call everyone who opposed them Nazis. And they are now trying to magnify hatred for jewish people & are paying people to pose as nazi sympathizers in campus protests, so they can simultaneously distract from all rational opposition to the ongoing war, while trying to capitalize on religious conservative support for Israel, & also leverage it into support for the hate speech laws they want.

The goal is to legalize censorship, & they will use any means possible to achieve their goal.


Honestly, Google has been mostly worthless for years now. Censorship has been obvious to the point of being ridiculous.

nostr:nevent1qqs9xujrc8dy9d4yslqc9qwtfjn00qmkvfnwvxrunllhgy2zavsyzjspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqak8r2hr5jglrk0wc37t59lz98x6gyf6pwaku6hpwakhvslznjh6qvzqqqqqqyhk6vnc


Yes, but here on Nostr we are already quarantined away from most people. I have been shadowbanned on Twitter for years and I have still better reach and engagement there.

On Nostr I have no idea if anyone reads what I post. On Twitter at least I can get commissions for art, logos and graphical work. On Nostr the social landscape is more dead, so far.


Congrats on the victory!


I just received word that Craig Wright has discontinued all parts of his UK libel proceedings against me.

Meaning it's OVER. I just got my life back.

I'm so extremely happy right now! Thank you to everyone who has supported me!

🧡


Thanks for the feedback. I have added more relays and hope that it will improve.🙃


Yes, reaching people is far easier on Twitter, so far.

The inadvertent result of the "Nostr only" mentality is the silencing of all dissent on large public forums.

Nostr is good as an alternative but having multiple channels of communication is ideal.


We should all do what we can, speak out for the cause of bitcoin self custody and financial sovereignty, build what you can and teach who you can.

But I think it's fair to draw the line at not expecting people to 'martyr' themselves at the hands of the state.

For e.g. when I see nym accounts attacking public name and real face people for not being perfectly non-KYC pure, it's just cringe.

You expect that guy to just 'go to jail for the cause'?

Come on now, just encourage people to play their role as best they can.


Agreed.

The important factors are choice, options and transparency.

I don't mind that I see some accounts with differing opinions. If they share negative content then I mute or block. As a result I don't have a negative experience on Twitter because I filter my flow proactively.

Nostr is a great alternative but it will take some time for it to compete in regards to reach. My shadowbanned Twitter-account still has better reach than my Nostr profile.😄


One day, it would be nice to see a well-capitalized challenge to the Bank Secrecy Act on 4th amendment grounds.

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw that people need a license to transmit money, or that the government thinks it has the right to surveil and censor everyone’s money and transactions.

The default is privacy. To infringe on someone’s privacy should require probable cause and come with checks and balances. Ubiquitous surveillance shouldn’t be the default, since it enables tyranny. https://image.nostr.build/59d050b8cf8f75a3d469e83812a0be6681bcad506e63bc0bf4417cfece14d0b8.jpg


Sounds a bit deterministic.

We can probably find flaws in most people and start extrapolating toward the conclusion that they are bad wity XYZ but it kind of ignores free agency and personal development.


When people put their life-savings into Bitcoin, I will assume that they will react if it *is broken* and not react if it *isn't broken*. If you don't see a mass reaction, it probably isn't broken.


When people put their life-savings into Bitcoin, I will assume that they will react if it *is broken* and not react if it *isn't broken*. If you don't see a mass reaction, it probably isn't broke.


https://image.nostr.build/997411d3dd98cd71ecc26a1369479a99bebcf09669830831513367cec3b991f9.jpg

#Memes #Meme #NetZero #EV #ElectricVehicles


Reminder that “money laundering” is a fake, fiat-era crime.

It presupposes the state has the right to know nearly every financial transaction made by its citizens, despite the 4th Amendment.

It has only been a crime since the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act. And the term itself only goes back to the 1970s, a typical case of wtfhappenedin1971.com. https://image.nostr.build/44dbb9966b80c5b242636e991e2ff9d182304ee757c035a0a1df90b3a6bc4aed.jpg


Well said.

I think we need to be on the offense with terminology.

We must be clear that AML + KYC regulations are evidence of Communism and are absolutely incompatble with a free society.

The essence of Communism is the abolishment of private property -- and that is the ipso facto result of AML regulations.

I posted a longer analysis of AML regulations some time ago:

nostr:nevent1qqstv22duqxfw4mlgna2lmdy488s6dmdzjxlr5yuccsfk345kr992scpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyq3afyu5vyjc2urvw2gg5h3eqnu4zal2ppasxtwmlnfgvgcyclvcxqcyqqqqqqgdjmq8u