Nostr Web Client

My thoughts on Saylor's inconsistencies:

nostr:nevent1qqs245kepquff27e5hkn8cpxcvyy4wu3erpds0er9whsjhan894c5qgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygpamfzspzsrj8tex0s6ulxrhpztlkgujtw7l584tnn2l5p9wahjmvpsgqqqqqqsgkns83

https://timechainindex.com/index.html?resource=mstrpor

Saylor has been great for orange pilling companies all over. The thing is that he is playing a Machiavellian game, and it's hard to know what he really believes and what he is just saying to stay on the good side of normies and gain their favor. For someone who reads Murray Rothbard, he is either deceiving himself that governments will always rule everywhere, or he is saying that to keep them appeased while he purchases power.

twofish 7mo ago

I received an off by one error 😂.

No really, "You want to ban lending?". In question form, I can't tell what side he is on with your statement.

My prior knowledge about Mr Saylor is that he does want to recreate the capture of gold, as bitcoin, in a ft Knox strategy using a strategy of selling the idea of yield on bitcoin which is a standard monkey tree trap. Yeild on bitcoin is an oxymoron, but the growth of custodial bitcoin is growing faster than non custodial bitcoin which is a signal that we are losing this battle. That needs to be accepted.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

✅ EtherFi Airdrop Is Live!.

👉 https://telegra.ph/EtherFi-05-03 Claim your free $ETHFI.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Oh when he said that, he was asserting it, not just asking. He was very taken aback by Saif in that podcast episode, it was on the Bitcoin Standard Podcast I believe.

Bitcoin yield is just him finding funding to purchase more bitcoin per share, primarily by providing financial products in the money markets. It works, until it stops working. At some point it will be so hard to accumulate more money that Strategy will approach an asymptote beyond which others will always have the rest of the bitcoin. That's when the yield stops. It can keep going for a long time until then, and even when it stops, they will probably find ways to provide services to earn their keep, like more financial services, like protection against property damage, like insurance.

twofish 7mo ago

Isn't that just gold with extra steps?

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Lol! I think it would be gold with fewer steps. I thought that was the point of Bitcoin: sound money that's easily verifiable and portable. Strategy is a money holding and financial market services provider. It seems to me that Saylor's entire mission revolves around that. He literally calls it the Bitcoin gold rush, so yeah pretty much.

twofish 7mo ago

Thanks for providing his perspective. I love it.

Can you do me a favor and see if this is a different vision for bitcoin?

nostr:nevent1qqsgwr9mrjw0ugunfh49542hq3z8ts86zcaxsvf9yj08ujulaz96nccpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg8ap08ce5dwaql7whnvpl0u2suytedu8agdymfdtewx60a9y8uccqpsgqqqqqqs5scafu

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

I say that ownership is granted by the possession of information necessary and sufficient to exclusively control a resource (the thing owned) in absence of a conflict. When conflict occurs, possession may become divorced from ownership temporarily, as the aggression causes a divergence from the libertarian counterfactual. In a free society, such divergences tend to be made whole after some time and tend to not happen extremely often in the first place.

The thread you shared here has a very different concept of property than I have, believing instead in the law of the jungle, might makes right.

Bitcoin is not designed as a complete libertarian solution. It cannot enforce the property rights that I talk about on its own, except in that it is one of the most basic tools for that job: having clearly defined rules and the power to enforce continued possession (which is useful in a free society as it makes property rights less complicated to enforce). We cannot use Bitcoin as our only tool to free the world. We need private defense firms, speech, guns, philosophy, ethical people, curious people, and a thriving culture of personal responsibility.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

So yes, if you don't hold it, you (likely) don't own it. But that's assuming that the reason you don't hood it is not on account of fraud or other coercion.

twofish 7mo ago

Awesome. Now imagine an archetype with god like power that has mastered the strategy in the meme below. They are burning an intense amount of human watts on the two attack vectors you have allowed for: fraud, coercion upon your line of reasoning. Feel free to use the line of reasoning I provided when I asked: "How can one define ownership as a physical construct?"

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Ah, you're saying imagine a mass manipulator who deceives the people into believing that fraud has taken place when it hasn't? Yeah that could weaponize much of the system against the very purpose of it, and against prosperity. That's basically what government is except it's not really godlike, being so dysfunctional of a corporation, and it doesn't have to work that hard to deceive people because most people willingly blind themselves.

Angga Kusumadinata 7mo ago

thanks

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

This is another case of "there will always be spam." Yes of course there will. That doesn't mean that it's not true that spam is bad and that we should fight against spam. Apply that same line of thought to aggression.

twofish 7mo ago

I read a double negative perceived as: That means that spam is bad and we should fight against it. Is that your intend statement?

If that was your intended statement, and you find the original argument equivalent then do see my perspective, and that understand my intention. I am fighting against it, through the mind (non-agression) by refuting the two exceptions you proposed: fraud, coercion.

If you feel that we should not fight spam then I fail to see that perspective, and would like to hear it. Otherwise, I consider it noise.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Yes I think spam is bad and should be fought, we're on the same page there. But I am not allowing any exceptions to the rule. The rule is conflict resolution. What you are calling exceptions are THE ethical rule. People can spam the system claiming to be a victim, but they become aggressors themselves when and where that is egregious, and the rule implies that they need to be fought too. The rule prescribes a system that is self-healing.

twofish 7mo ago

Doh. You responded to fast. I was still ranting 😂

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

I know the feeling lol! I'll read the rest now...

twofish 7mo ago

It could be that our misunderstanding is of a Positive (my perspective) and yours (Normative).

The legal system is anything but pure, and on the side of corruption.

Your lack of sovereignty is...

disturbing... ❤

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

I'm a moral realist. My ethics can be proven, it's just damn hard to convince people and would take forever. Regardless you may take note that the positive tends toward my normative system. Maybe I just know something you don't.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Also I have not said that our state-perverted institutions would, as they are now, do what I prescribe with this normative system. Nor do I linger in a vacuum only ever imagining a society that does not at present exist where the institutions overwhelmingly function this way. Your view of me would seem extremely simplistic from your assertion that I have a lack of sovereignty just from having a moral system. That's incredibly naïve.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Ok that last part is again going into information as a class vs individual copies of the information. I said property is denoted by ownership of all the information sufficient to exclusively control the resource (resource could be a bitcoin UTXO).

If someone gets a copy of that information via coercion, like breaking into your house and finding your private key, you have now lost exclusive control of that UTXO. You hold your keys, but you no longer exclusively hold your keys. Further, the thief spins up a hot wallet with your key and initiates a transaction of all the bitcoin from that UTXO into a wallet that they exclusively possess. Now it is in someone else's exclusive possession.

In both of these scenarios after the coercion has taken place, the information sufficient to exclusively control the UTXO is no longer in your possession (because holding the keys doesn't grant you the ability to stop the thief after that point, unless you manage to kick his ass and stop him in the act, to initiate an emergency vault transaction, to enlist really competent police on your side who can guarantee recovery, or some such stuff, and even then, you are inconvenienced). This is the case because aggression has taken place (aggression is coercion, I use these words interchangeably; I also consider fraud a form of aggression). This is exactly what force is good for, resolving conflicts in favor of the person not aggressing. This is the proper use of legal force.

twofish 7mo ago

Funny. In my fucked up sovereign brain I see the term coercion as playing the victim. No different than this meme, which is IMHO yet again, a self referencing logical fallacy.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

I wish I could understand what you mean by this. Your brain definitely does think in a funny way, we frequently miss each other's meaning.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

But I can gather that you (probably) think aggression does not exist, is just a weak person's claim of victimhood and refusal to take responsibility.

twofish 7mo ago

I see aggression as a bear, and play the strategy that I simply can't outrun it.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

So what do you do instead if run? I shoot it.

twofish 7mo ago

No

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Why not shoot it?

twofish 7mo ago

The context of the bear is hypothetical. So if the bear is math, then guns don't work. If the bear is (which is assuming worst case scenario) an entity more powerful than me, then aggression is a failure strategy.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Is the bear chasing you, or is it just minding its business? I thought it was chasing you for some reason lol

twofish 7mo ago

As a software developer, we tend to only consider worst case scenarios.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

So the bear is already eating at you and you just don't do anything because you pretend it's inevitable? Weak.

twofish 7mo ago

If you want to keep guessing that's fine. 20 questions is fun, but there is something you are not considering in my strategy.

twofish 7mo ago

I also want to point out that it is not my intent to keep the strategy a secret. I apologize, but you never asked.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

I would be interested to hear it. I was just too busy trying to understand your strategy amongst all your incoherent misuse of the term "aggression" to know what to ask.

twofish 7mo ago

After we defined the hypothetical bear as an aggressor in a worst scenario using a non aggressive strategy, I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

Ok, and if you try to hurt me in so doing, I shoot you and I shoot the bear after he eats you, and you can go fuck yourself.

If instead you don't try to hurt me but merely keep running, I keep running fast enough to stay away from the bear while I gather my strength/better positioning, and then I shoot the fucking bear, with math. I'm not gonna let this thing get me without a fight. That's not aggression. That's defense. Anything else is pathetic.

Your strategy might be a good temporary strategy while you gain enough strength to even do anything, a form of self defense. To just assume it cannot be any other way though, that is not logically justified. A government bitcoin treasury and mining operation is not an all powerful god. And Natural Law is not some excuse to avoid reality. Your assumptions are.

twofish 7mo ago

The context of the bear is hypothetical. So if the bear is math, then guns don't work. If the bear is (which is assuming worst case scenario) an entity more powerful than me, then aggression is a failure strategy.

Kevin's Bacon 7mo ago

The bear need not remain stronger than me and those with whom I contract for defense, as the situation progresses. I win that game. And I am working to create that game, a set of institutions and social layer that supports such resolution of conflicts in favor of the firstcomer to the item owned (this is equivalent to resolving conflicts against the aggressor). I find your lack of sovereignty disturbing so I'm done with this conversation for now. GN.

twofish 7mo ago

GN

twofish 7mo ago

Before I forget, let me commit a pull request in that game you are working on. It's in a form of a checklist. I got it from a book upon request.

1. Are we solidly in our own open hearts? Do we feel unconditional love for the person with whom we are communicating?

2. Are we being completely honest?

3. Are we sure this is what we think and what we want to say?

4. Are we sure we are responding to what the other actually thinks and what he/she has actually said?

5. Are we clear of any hint of wanting to make an impression or to control or persuade the other person?

6. Are we truly listening to the other person?

7. Are we clear of energies such as accusation or complaint?

8. Is the other person completely safe with us?

9. Have we aimed our communication directly at the heart of where the other person is coming from? Does our communication show total respect?

10. Are we remaining in our hearts, even when catalyst strikes in the midst of conversation?