The label of "terrorist" is increasingly being used by politicians,media, and government.
How much longer before anyone that holds their own keys to their stack is labeled a "terrorist"?
Discussion
before longer of "terrorist" holds keys "terrorist"? government.
How The that to politicians,media, a increasingly label is own stack their much by and used their labeled being anyone is
Need to get circular economy humming.
Working as fast as I can brother 🫡😂
You are correct. We need a parallel system that we can rely on if/when SHTF.
I think this was always the US deep state plan. Slowly amp up the language until ultimately any criticism of the government identifies you as a terrorist. Orwell would be proud.
Yes 🤙
Combine that with US military now supporting bitcoin because US is in trade war with China. They will try to weaponize bitcoin and make it a matter of national security
Good point 👍
is this the Softwar hypothesis?
Not sure. Haven't read that yet.
me neither.
seemed like it was about this stuff...
I believe it was, and watched a few podcast on it, but never did a deep dive into it.
I asked Perplexity to produce a summary:
Jason Lowery's "Softwar" thesis argues that Bitcoin is not just a monetary technology, but a new form of power projection in cyberspace. He claims that, unlike traditional cybersecurity which relies on logical constraints like passwords or firewalls, Bitcoin’s Proof of Work (PoW) mechanism imposes real-world, physically prohibitive costs on attackers, making it possible to defend digital resources using physical energy instead of just code.
Lowery suggests this approach could transform national security and cybersecurity by enabling a decentralized, non-lethal form of digital warfare—what he calls "Softwar"—where control over data and digital assets is defended by energy expenditure rather than violence or central authority. He envisions Bitcoin’s PoW as a new base layer for internet security, projecting physical power into the digital realm and urging its adoption as a strategic national priority.
Also from Perplexity:
Jameson Lopp acknowledges that Lowery accurately explains how Bitcoin’s proof of work (PoW) mechanism protects the Bitcoin network. However, Lopp argues that Lowery overstates the broader applicability of PoW. He points out that Lowery conflates logical security (rules enforced by software) with physical security, when in reality, PoW is still ultimately governed by code. Lopp also notes that while Lowery suggests PoW could secure all types of digital information, this model does not scale to protect large amounts of non-Bitcoin data.
Additionally, Lopp critiques Lowery’s portrayal of software as mere "belief systems" vulnerable to manipulation, arguing that open-source and decentralized systems are more resilient than Lowery suggests. He also believes that Lowery’s focus on PoW overlooks the complexity and variety of cybersecurity mechanisms in use today.
Overall, Lopp appreciates the fresh perspective but feels that Lowery’s thesis relies too much on philosophical arguments and does not offer practical solutions for broader cybersecurity challenges.
I think so. But I didn't read the book.
sooner than later
It’s just a way to justify doing whatever they want to people.
When most people use custodians to hold the coins.