Bitcoin has only been around ~15 years. This is all still an experiment. You can't technically guarantee Store of Value. Controlling supply alone isn't enough. SoV is also also a function of demand (which is subjective so can't be controlled) and larger players can always manipulate price like they do with traditional finance especially when large CEXes are involved.
>A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.
"Bitcoin is therefore inherently a black market money. Its security architecture necessarily assumes it is operating without state permission."
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Permissionless-Principle
Absolutely.
If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin.
And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV.
It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.
He's right, at least on this matter.
The reason I say this with confidence is because the Bitcoin protocol that everyone have invested in is precisely what we have, not what someone wants it to become.
Bitcoin's fundamental function is store of value. Privacy tools are added over the base layer on an opt-in basis.
A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.
If we consider the tradeoffs that Monero makes, we can understand why Monero is not aiming for a store of value. As a result, Monero cannot leverage a pressure against jurisdictions in any comparable way.
Those who want Bitcoin to become more like Monero, while the privacy side benefits are tempting, such a move would undermine Bitcoin's function as store of value and several of its game theory benefits.
On a related subject, I wrote recently about why tainted bitcoin/sats is a losing strategy by the jurisdiction implementing it. If Bitcoin became more Monero-like, then the game theory involved will have different outcomes. The assumptions are based on Bitcoin being a superior store of value and therefore desirable by nation states, which gives it powers to pressure jurisdictions.
Why tainted coins is a losing strategy:
Yes.
Being centered in your own sovereign judgement is a defense against those who want to re-shape your personality to mirror theirs.
What lesson did you learn from this? https://t.co/1gI8RWQP65 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1794016488589783040/pu/vid/avc1/360x640/7XTr2d--4vwRnxi6.mp4?tag=12
The lion is looking for a vulnerability in the defense. If none is found his energies are better spent elsewhere.
The greater the risk of (serious) harm for the attacker, the less likely the attack is to happen.
A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.
TLDR; taint cannot work over time.
Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.
A few expected outcomes:
1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected to follow.
These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.
2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction - which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.
3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.
If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an in increasing amount of valuable trade.
Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.
Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.
Don't be a Laggarde!
#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian
"It is therefore central to totalitarian ideology that it convert questions of fact into questions of motive.
Facts are a threat because they are independent of the ideology, and questioning the motives of whoever reports discordant facts is a low-cost way of disposing of them."
/ Thomas Sowell
#Quote #Quotes #ThomasSowell #Philosophy #PoliticalPhilosophy #Totalitarianism
Signer apps is a threat to security in the same way that a key-chain is a device that allows you to lose all your keys at once.
Sounds like Craig Wright.
He seems have all qualifications to be a government crook.😄
Commerce will require the L2's.
The layers above the base layer forms a free market of options secured by competition. Every form of money have a payment layer and a settlement layer. It's the base/settlement layer that must be neutral and decentralized. That's the beating heart.
The L2's represent the only realistic scaling solution for any money (scaling = allowing 8 billion people to use Bitcoin daily) since no secure blockchain can scale to 8B via the base layer. (Nobody would be able to run nodes)
It's the base layer that cannot be a company or centralized. The base layer is for transferring larger amounts while the additional layers are for smaller sums and daily spending. They all involve tradeoffs.
I'm very positive for the future of the serious Bitcoin L2's.
Besides, if we want sound money on Mars at some point it will require either the Lightning Network, Liquid Network (or similar) or a local Bitcoin fork, due to the center of hash and the distances involved.
This is why we have to develop a sovereign mind early in life and dislodge from to the expectations of the herd.
💯
AML and KYC was always about mandating digital ID verification everywhere so that governments can implement social credit scores and via them treat dissenters as third-class citizens. The old carrot and the stick via a score system.
I am at zen on Nostr and zen on Twitter.
Unwanted content I either mute or block.
Yup.
In a world where we are at liberty to help others for free, it doesn't make any sense to ban voluntary wage agreements.
This is basically saying that working for free is fine, but charging some amount that the market is willing to pay must be illegal.
There is a void then between free labor and the paid labor that the government is *allowing* over a certain threshold.
For freelancers this is an obvious absurdity. Often you are paid by finishing a commission within a deadline. Your hourly pay depends on how fast the work can be done and the client's budget for the project. This process can never be centrally planned; the parameters will differ from person to person and from year to year.
Under a system of government moneyprinting there is no "livable wage". That's the whole point of a 1984-society: that people are dependent on an authoritarian state that redistributes resources based on its ideological preferences, be it classical fascism or fascism with a rainbow theme, where the pig is dressed up with makeup and lipstick.
At the end of the day, a market exchange is the point where two parties agree to a transaction, as Aristotle observed.
Only in a totalitarian society where the government want to regulate and have the power to ban certain exchanges is voluntary exchange a problem.
Add the obvious loss of work for millions of people to automation where the government centrally plans a minimum wage.
Just the surveillance implications alone from minimum wage policies is enough to freighten any person with an inclination to consider the domino effects.
The population on Nostr is small and have niche interests so it can be hard to get responses some weeks.
Adding a few hashtags can help visibility sometimes, so that people that vibe with a post have better chances of seeing it.
"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy — quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody’s rights.
You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can’t tell the water where to go."
// Thomas Sowell
#ThomasSowell #Quote #Quotes #IndividualRights #Individual #Rights #Liberty #IndividualLiberty #Philosophy #PoliticalPhilosophy #FreeMarkets #ShrinkGovernment #Voluntarism #AynRand
Sweden's leadership has been deeply corrupt as long as I can remember.
Ideology is the code that runs the Swedish establishment. We called it political correctness in the 1990'ies, now we call it Woke. It overlaps significantly with the U.N. Agenda 21. The U.N. comprehensive central planning goals for the 21st century can be expected to be at the heart of anything Sweden does or doesn't.
A peak into the corruption:
The U.N. Agenda 2030 was incorporated into the Swedish constitution in December 17th, 2020. Covid was used as a pretext to rig the vote in the Riksdag (parliament):
Due to Covid restrictions, only 55 (out of 349) members of parliament (Riksdag) were allowed into the voting chamber on December 17th.
22 members of parliament voted yes to Agenda 2030. 22 abstained their vote and 11 voted no. Screenshot below from the government webpage of the final vote count, with 3 added red rings for easier reading. For clarification - it is not my screenshot but I verified 2+ years ago that the information was obtained correctly from the Swedish government webpage.
The question remains - who singled out 55 out of 349 members of parliament to vote? One can expect that the choice was not random; the process was clearly rigged. Selecting less than 16% of the parliament members is not how a representative democratic vote is cast.
When a journalist later attempted to speak with the 22 members of parliament that had voted yes, he was met with silence and was unable to reach most of them. None of them have accounted for why they voted yes. Silence.
#Sweden #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #Politics #Covid #Corruption #Democracy #Demokratur #Sverige #Demokrati #Riksdag #Korruption #1984
The U.K. is ramping up the attacks on property rights.
Article by Syed Rahman:
"An April change to United Kingdom law will allow authorities to treat crypto like other assets by seizing it without accusing suspects of wrongdoing."
How far the British have fallen since the 1690 achievement of John Locke and his defence of individual liberties in Two Treatises of Government. The new standard is assumed guilt without a trial or even an arrest. This must be overturned. Besides, the idea of "destroying crypto" is ludicrous. No government can destroy someone's memory of 12 - 24 words.
Source:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/welcome-united-kingdom-please-hand-over-your-crypto
#UK #UnitedKingdom #England #Bitcoin #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #IndividualLiberties #JohnLocke #1984 #Totalitarianism
I love Poland. One thing that annoys me though, is that for bottled water there are just a few brands that don't contain flouride and chloride. I never understood why people choose to drink water with these harmful additives.
I have heard many observations that vaccines are increasing the ADHD and autism rates.
Another aspect that bothers me is that the definition of autism has changed dramatically.
In the 1980'ies, autism and introversion had very different meaning and there wasn't much overlap.
Nowadays, if you answer on an autism test that you are not very interested in going to parties - which is a typical introvert position - you are automatically placed on the autism spectrum.
When the definition is diluted, everyone is classified within the definition.
What most governments mean when they talk about democracy:
"When our agenda is implemented top-down without hindrance."