also, get your "technological unemployment" nonsense off my lawn, along with the AI replacing humans narrative.

mechanised looms didn't lead to free rugs, yet these morons called luddites thought they had a right to smash up other people's property. since then dozens, actualy probably thousands, of jobs have vanished due to the efficiency of automation and technological efficiency gains, and those people found other ways to make a living. life's tough, get a helmet.

nobody needs usury, except for people who want to rob without being recognised as a robber.

taxation is extortion, and government statutes have no weight under common law or equity, except if you work for the government, no matter what the policeman says.

the fiat currency regime with endless debasement of the money is the reason why people who are displaced by innovation can't weather the retraining time to change their means of employment. you could try to ban some new innovation using political means, but 20 years later nobody is going to remember your name without laughing at how stupid you are.

go read Henry Hazlitt's essay on economics, or if you really want to understand how markets work and what Satoshi had in mind when he invented bitcoin, read Ludwig von Mises Human Action.

all of the narratives they push in the mainstream media about economics are lies. a large number of the fields of science are full of people writing fake papers to protect corporations from liability, for the people their products kill.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Totally with you on the Luddite angle. Literally proven that that isn’t true ie tech replaces human employment to a net negative

I don’t believe that a new Bitcoin-esque innovation is needed

I think we will create the future we actually want, so yes there will be a mission to co-opt and control, but the average person doesn’t benefit enough for that, and a “intransigent minority” will be enough to ensure it doesn’t happen

i think the emergent behaviours of bitcoin fans relates to the mexican standoff character of the conflict between miners, between miners and users, and between users and corporate/government adopters. but that latter group have figured out what keeps it looking like an inflation hedge, and are leveraging this to take control of it and turn it into a de facto but supposedly not fiat currency.

the game theory is very clear.

there is no real fundamentals to bitcoin, just high friction to cooption, that persistent action could overcome. bitcoin mining is pretty much a closed business, because of sha256, which i think is antithetical to the rest of the philosophy it was intended for.

bitcoin's role as a bridge to fiat kept the market dominance, but with BTCs and stablecoins the situation changes a lot. most shitcoiners just directly cash out to stables and then redeem them.

USG adoption will be bullish for NGU, but not for freedom tech. they don't adopt anything that isn't in their favor, or able to be slanted that way. none of the degens or suits believe in real economic laws, only the laws of power and violence and usury.

most shitcoins were not built to really solve the actual problems that make bitcoin vulnerable. maybe some legitimately believe that but most of them in the back of their mind it's NGU, and really, behind all the slogans, most bitcoiners are here for NGU. a smaller segment are here for mises monetary theory, but USG adoption means the end of that, no matter how good it is for NGU.

Thanks for sharing all of this

It’s very prudent to be concerned about many of the things you touch on

But I’m not so negative