Nostr Web Client

It is always a suspicious motive behind the suggestion that someone doesn't need financial privacy.

Well-known wealthy people get their homes broke into all the time by thieves. They are specifically targeted bc of what they are known to or even just perceived to maybe have.

You'd give up your 'unseizable' wealth the moment home invaders start hurting your family.

Sudden death of any wealthy bitcoiner has the fair potential to be a donation to the value of every remaining satoshi in circulation by decreasing the total available supply. This creates a new financial motive for the death of KNOWN wealthy people.

What do you call a person who is comfortable with a publicly searchable target on their back?

Chris Liss 2y ago

There are many well known wealthy people from famous actors to sports stars to CEOs to surgeons.

Normalize not making it a big deal and not living in fear.

But as I said you can hide if you want. My point was that having an unseizable asset was to make it unnecessary.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Nate 2y ago

But #Bitcoin is extortable from many. The likelihood of this being violently attempted (however unsuccessfully) goes up with the value.

It is not 'living in fear' to take a common sense measure to preserve your financial privacy.

Wanting financial privacy is legitimate, appropriate, expected and essential to making free decisions.

Chris Liss 2y ago

You should take whatever precautions you feel are necessary. I just think in a world of hyperbitcoinization, it’s going to be awfully obvious that if you’re rich you have some the way it is with fiat now.

The better bet IMO is to normalize people of disparate means living together harmoniously rather than the communist premise that it’s impossible which all the hiding buys into.

I think you should be allowed to hide it, but I think long term it’s the weaker ethos and the path of more rather than less robberies and extortions.