A Bitcoin or doggie coin name service can compete with DNS without any changes to the network. A Monero fork can probably compete with estate planning services.

These undertakings would be disastrous for the American military industrial complex and its associated global deep state.

## Taking on DNS

The BTC / doge name service could be based on a burn address, or maybe the wallet address of a charity selected by the community.

This is probably not a new idea. It feels like either I've read about it before, or at least someone else would have thought of it before.

You would register a name by encrypting the name registration data, converting it into a numeric format, making a throwaway wallet with the total plus transaction fees, and sending the data as transactions to the designated address, followed by doing the same with the private key to prevent duplication bots.

For example, if the format ends up being `"name=URI"` then you could encrypt the string `"fiatjaf=nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6"` using a throwaway wallet's key, and convert the encrypted binary to a number sequence, then send a series of transactions in amounts matching the encrypted number sequence, in order to link fiatjaf's name to his npub.

You would have to send the private key in the next block(s) after the encrypted data is confirmed, so that nobody can intentionally generate conflicting claims by copying data from mempools before it can reach a block, but everyone can decrypt the data once it's confirmed, to see the name registry. Using the throwaway wallet's own key also helps ensure the use of throwaway wallets is standardized, so we don't promote address reuse outside of these temporary wallets.

Finding an npub by its name would require scanning all the transactions sent to the designated address and finding the first instance of that name being registered. Reject duplicates: first-come first-serve, like DNS-backed username selection systems. If there are two attempts to register a name in the same block, reject both, with no refunds. Anyone who keeps fighting for a contested name will keep losing money until they either give up, or have the luck and determination to win. If a name is constantly fought over by many people, it might never actually become available - so be it.

The standard could optionally also include a way for an npub to sign a transfer of its name to another npub. Leaving this out would discourage hoarding names to sell later. Note: I'm pretty sure using Bitcoin (instead of doggie coin) would also just make name registry insanely expensive.

By my understanding, this name service should not use Monero because it doesn't need privacy, and would only undermine the Monero network's privacy mechanisms.

### Why this matters

It doesn't have to be this design, we just need a way to allow decentralized registry of non-conflicting names with character lengths dependent on how many names are already taken, on a first-come first-serve basis. This is important because so many users prefer that kind of system over a long randomly-generated address, and in some contexts, like QR codes, a longer address has a direct disadvantage over a shorter string. Meanwhile, this method still relies on decentralized, randomized address spaces with character count determined by the needed address space size (npubs / wallet addresses).

## Securing your estate

The more tricky thing to approach is the estate.

If Monero works, inheritance could be made permissionless and decentralized using scheduled transactions, or transaction timers. You would enter a wallet address, and a time; until then, you can still cancel the transaction, if you have the key. Certainly not a new idea - very simple.

For it to work at all, Monero's privacy tech is needed to prevent the global deep state from simply cutting off lines of succession before funds can be transferred. Unfortunately, Monero and its community might each have fatal flaws - it's unclear.

### The possible problem with Monero itself

If Monero has an inflation exploit that can't be mitigated, then it would fail when this is revealed. It remains to be seen whether this flaw exists at all, but if so, unfixable inflation would be a fatal flaw.

The more years go by without such a bug being identified, the less likely it seems that one exists. I say it's already worth a try with how long we've made it so far.

### The possible problem with the community

Many Monero proponents pretend it already offers immediate privacy, and this fantasy undermines Monero's ability to help provide actual privacy in the future. We know the percentage of Monero's anonymity set that can be de-anonymized by deep state surveillance tech is far above 0, but we don't know if it is or will ever be below 100.

If Monero never lives up to its promise of providing privacy, it can fail because it can be stopped by force. It remains to be seen whether false hype will be a fatal flaw or not.

This is the universe testing whether Monero is a sufficiently strong idea to undermine today's brainwashing. If Monero helps people realize they can and should shut down the global deep state surveillance network and start mass-producing electronics without backdoors, people probably can and will do that, and then transactions could really have some assured anonymity.

### Why this matters

Most people are cowards, easily driven to work themselves to death by how dangerous it is to stand against the global deep state.

As crude oil continues to run out, anyone with any wealth is increasingly faced with 4 choices:

1. Work for the global deep state until they discard you so they'll let you use banking and stuff until then.

2. Work against the global deep state, but manage your own money alone so if they can't take it for themselves, at least you're the only person they have to kill to get rid of it.

3. Work against the global deep state, but entrust close associates to help you manage your money so they'll be targeted too.

4. Work against the global deep state, but entrust the banking system with your money so they can just take it with or without killing you.

I live under option 2, and it's one of the reasons I live with a highly elevated risk of being murdered.

If I am murdered, my loved ones get very little, because most of my wealth is in wallets they can't recover. My mom's chance at retirement would be pretty much gone with me. But at least, since she can't recover the wallets, she's not another target to go after over the money, as it grows in value.

Likewise, I perhaps get some tiny bit of security from the possibility that it might be more useful to have me alive to get money from later, than to kill me with wallets maybe nobody can recover after I'm dead.

It's not very effective. The global deep state can just print money freely, as long as people like me don't make it too far in waking up people who are brainwashed enough to use freely-printed money. I tell people they should raise their kids not to file taxes. The deep state wouldn't really care if they can't get my money because I'm dead - they might just do whatever it takes to get rid of me, and make sure my money stops being in the hands of anyone who would use it the way I do.

It sucks that I don't have a better choice for my personal security than this.

The more wealth you have, the scarier it is to stand against the deep state. The wealthier I get, the scarier it gets.

You remember when Warren Buffett called Bitcoin "rat poison" - you know, back when 1 Bitcoin traded for around 150 Uncle Sam Dinobux, up about 150,000% from past lows of 10 cents?

You think maybe he's retarded?

You think maybe he's a demonic lizard person who just wants you to be poor?

He had reason to be upset. The poor old man's brain doesn't want to admit even with all his money, he's a slave. He doesn't quite understand the problem, but he knows Bitcoin promises to solve it for him, and fails. That's instinct.

It's dangerous to think it through. It's dangerous to follow that instinct. He could be killed if he follows that instinct. The rat that leaves at the "it's rat poison" instinct lives longer than the rat that investigates further.

We Bitcoiners are simply tougher rats. That's not a mockery of Warren Buffett's statement - it's a true extension of what he was saying. Now do you understand him?

How much of your money would you have put in Bitcoin at that time if you were Warren Buffett?

None?

Just a secret little bit, so maybe if the secret gets out there will be huge news headlines and Berkshire Hathaway shareholders arguing about whether it's legal or ethical for you to secretly own this stuff?

Just a publicly-announced little bit, announced before buying, so you get worse prices? Or announced after buying, so you're accused of price manipulation, especially if you sell at the higher prices you create, and that effectively means the money is locked?

How much actually though? Pick a number.

If you picked 10 cents worth of Bitcoin, congratulations. You've just triggered a massive wave of news headlines about the Oracle of Omaha investing in Bitcoin. This will accelerate Bitcoin awareness, and thus accelerate the collapse of the financial empire most of your wealth is in - but you're way ahead of the game because you already have 10 cents worth of Bitcoin. Soon, that 10 cents worth of Bitcoin will be worth more than all the other wealth you have.

Not very soon though, if ever, actually, come to think of it. So do you want more?

You could go with a whole Bitcoin. That's about $150 - not far from 10 cents for someone as rich as you, but the growth will be significant far sooner. You can still have your friends in the media spin it as a joke, just as easily as you could with a 10 cent purchase, to suppress the Bitcoin-awareness-boosting effect.

Is it worth it? Just a bit faster collapse of your multibillion dollar empire, so you can be early with your 1 Bitcoin?

Probably not worth it. How about more?

10 Bitcoin? Now it's getting difficult to spin as a joke, but still probably not worth it.

100 Bitcoin? Definitely not a joke. Now you're guaranteeing this is going to be the biggest story on CNBC that day. Did you remember to bribe all 3 branches a big enough amount to convince them to let you collapse their whole system? Too bad, they're laughing at you for thinking you actually had enough money for your bribes to have such a big impact. Some guy is probably on TV talking about how the SEC is investigating you now. They are big mad you didn't give them time to run various crypto scams and think about how to handle various court decisions before triggering an unexpected change in the public narrative.

But at least you have 100 Bitcoin. Soon, that will be worth more than all the other wealth you're collapsing to get it this early. Still want more?

Want to start filing the paperwork you need to file to resign from Berkshire Hathaway as soon as possible and liquidate every stock you can liquidate for Bitcoin while moving to a country unfriendly with the US military industrial complex?

Want to skip the paperwork and just film a Vine saying you're going renegade, then withdraw what you can from bank accounts until they get frozen? Vine is big at this time.

That would be epic, but Dairy Queen would still be selling ice cream for dollars in the US, and Charlie Munger would be writing you letters like "why have you foresaken everything we built together, Warren? Remember how we used to roll around in piles of money? What happened to that?"

Would it have been better to stay at Berkshire Hathaway, taking the company and its shareholders to war against the central banking cartel? OK. Great. That's what I'd have done, too. We are tougher rats.

Don't forget to buy Predator drones while you're buying Bitcoin, because the feds have them, so your army of shareholders will need them. Consider nuclear deterrents as well - maybe that's what it will take, in order to be a serious contender.

How does a nuclear deterrent actually work though? It doesn't. If you're going to bring the war criminals running the American military industrial complex to justice, they might as well do a nuclear apocalypse. They don't give a fuck.

So what actual deterrent can you rely on against people who have almost enough firepower (and more than enough retardation) to glass the planet?

We went over that earlier.

You can manage the money yourself, so the deep state can either kill you to get rid of any wallets that can't be recovered without you, or keep you alive and negotiate with you based on your wealth.

You can involve others, spreading the pool of possible targets. If you don't have a network of trusted people in very strong positions to resist deep state targeting, that's not a very strong play either.

In the bigger picture, they're the ones with the network of trusted people in very strong positions. That's the problem. That's what the global deep state is.

So maybe it's just a suicide mission. Maybe, if you're with the wimpy rats who have nukes, you can't just betray them and bring your forces to join the "tougher rats." Maybe the transition isn't going to happen without a better strategy.

So it might seem like Bitcoin is just designed to make poor people label themselves as targets for the deep state, in a fake and hopeless conflict over liberty, while wealthy elites are smart enough to instinctively avoid the so-called "rat poison."

Instead of buying Bitcoin, maybe Warren Buffett should have started working on analyzing the design and making improvements that would increase Bitcoin's potential usefulness for wealthy people like him. Maybe he should have found a way Bitcoin could have a better chance at defeating the deep state.

But you don't have to be Warren Buffett to do that.

For example, you could be Nicolas van Saberhagen, thinking about ways a private version of Bitcoin might work someday - Monero.

You could be someone like me, a proponent of the simple idea of scheduled Monero transactions, or transaction timers.

When Monero becomes private, this would enable someone like Warren Buffett to hold cryptocurrency with self-sovereignty, using the ancient traditional deterrent of the line of succession. The concept is simple: kill me to get rid of my wealth and you clearly have no idea what you're doing, because the wealth is just going to someone else who thinks like me. With a private blockchain, there will sometimes be no way of knowing who.

Even without the assurance of privacy, there's already another deterrent: if you kill me and use secret surveillance tools to identify every heir for further targeting, you run the risk of being noticed and inspiring the development of more privacy tech, especially backdoor-free open-source hardware, which could drastically increase the number of Monero users you are unable to de-anonymize in the future.

Paragraph crossed out, see comment section for explanation:

~~Ideally, timed or scheduled transactions could be added to a whole new fork launched after some publicity, with no pre-mine (obviously), with a user-friendly Android mining app available on day one. This would serve partly to help drive decentralization, and partly to help enable significant holdings for low-income late adopters of other cryptocurrencies, making the space less discouraging for late adopters to join in overall, and thus potentially eating away much faster at deep state dollar dominance.~~