Not sure who needs to hear this but spaceboi’s thesis does not not make the argument “bitcoin is violence”

He’s also a known government agent aka not a spook.

I am not going to discuss this any further 😮‍💨

*pretends to disable replies*

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

*just one “not”

Unintentional double negative there. It really doesn’t say that

ha loser

I’m going to ignore this comment and agree with your original post 😂

I mostly agree, but he even said it himself that he's a spook

#[0]

not not

seems about right 😛

Most annoying typo ever goddamnit, failid here

ha loser

No offense but you just saying “he does not make the argument” doesn’t give anyone any value without saying why.

I listened to a podcast interview with him on TFTC and, if I understood correctly, he was using the phrase “bitcoin is violence” to mean that bitcoin replaces violence as a means to settle disputes, which would mean bitcoin is leading the world to be less violent, and to encourage militaries to buy more bitcoin.

Nailed it. Early bitcoin tech adopters are failing horribly to understand the axiom here.

None taken 🤙 I haven’t read the softwar thing and might never, but my point is he basically shifted his diction from “violence” to “power projection” after people got way too hung up on the word violence iirc. And that includes the deterrence of attacks by means of being beefy af. Like would a 5’ tall teenage girl try to attack kimbo slice (rest his soul)? Noh

Bitcoin be hashin like crazy. To attack it is to fail. This makes sense to me and seeing people continue to hammer home the wrong point about violence is just getting annoying.

https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM

Yeah he mentioned that in the podcast too - I think misunderstood the intent of your note in hindsight, thanks for taking the time to elaborate

He's just a Bitcoiner that happens to work for the government. I'm sure thousands exist. In fact, I know many do. Some are even Stackchainers 🤙

Bitcoin is for everyone. Working a government job doesn’t mean you can’t have your own political views.

But yes some views are pretty dumb.

That’s like saying tsunami waves or hurricanes or avalanches aren’t violent.

Check your axioms and principles.

I respectfully and potentially retardedly disagree

I would never describe nature as violent either.

That’s not what i was trying to say 🤣

*pretending not to discuss further intensifies*

Don’t wear a jacket during winter. Don’t use a spear or shotgun when walking through a Wolf ridden Forrest. Don’t go on the open seas during a storm. Don’t watch a lion devouring baby lions after killing their father and raping their mothers.

Don’t worry, nature isn’t violent. Just appeal to asceticism and recency bias from fiat statist laws a little harder!

Semantics. That’s nature.

And I don’t always wear a jacket.

You bore me

To me the word “violent” implies intent.

Because you’re a sapien with ascetic ideals and abstract value derived languages of good and evil. Go beyond good and evil my dear subscriber of asceticism.

No, I’m probably just regarded.