Nostr Web Client

Having loosely followed your journey, my conclusion is basically that you have let yourself be convinced that Bitcoin is a bad idea by AI. While a lot of what you write makes sense, what is missing is a sense of agency and possibility. It's all very boxed in, and gives a fatal and nihilistic impression. It may be due to the inherent limitations of AI, but also a result of only looking at the money - without considering yourself as an active agent. From the top of my head, I'd recommend you read David Greaber's The dawn of everything - or bring it to recollection. For me, that book really underlined that, yes - most of the times your "Controllers" will screw you over - but sometimes, if the circumstances are right, you get to sever their heads from their bodies and things develop in a different direction for a while.

Control-Plane Capital 1mo ago 💬 1

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.

The entire note is about the Coordination tax which is less about S₀ Bitcoin (the protocol) and more about S₁ Policy (relay/mempool defaults, mining templates, wallet behaviors), and S₂ Perimeter (banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR).

I've explained how Security: S₀ is math; S₁/S₂ are sociotechnical.

Tax: recurring human + legal + distribution cost to keep S₁/S₂ aligned with S₀’s ideals.

Attacker asymmetry: One cheap perimeter tweak (Acceptable Use Policy line, bank heuristic, pool template) can shift millions. Defenders must hold all fronts, all the time.

> missing is a sense of agency and possibility. It's all very boxed in, and gives a fatal and nihilistic impression.

This is literally a quote from the note: "Ultimately, as you said, there is no perfect solution, which is why I am more inclined to focus more on the things I can control (being more self-sufficient, trying to stay outside the system) and less on competing with adversaries with infinite resources."

So how is being more self-sufficient and focusing on what you can control nihilistic?

You say that I've "let myself be convinced that Bitcoin is a bad idea by AI", basically implying I'm stupid and my research is flawed without having addressed a single argument.

Maybe you're just too mentally weak to be objective. Maybe you just can't handle the truth. If your whole identity relies on Bitcoin becoming what you want it to be, maybe you should reflect.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Rekit Nakkor 1mo ago

I was referring to the entire line of "research". And, I wasn't really implying that you are stupid. Not having considered everything, or not having assumed all perspectives, does not qualify for stupidity.

Sure, I want Bitcoin to succeed as an MoE. Not sure if my whole identity relies on it. Maybe some does. Perhaps that was my point. I see myself as an agent set on its success - because it'd be interesting. And, success often depends on your ability to bind yourself.

When it comes to progress, objectivity does not exist, ever - not even after a fact - because it's the winners that get to look back.

I'm happy your research have worked out for you. You posting it on social media made me think you wanted some counter- and/or perpendicular arguments. I'll admit though that giving feedback without pissing people off is quite challenging.