I haven’t dug into this discussion but it strikes me that if we’re having it then bitcoin core is too centralized and powerful.

If the software were sufficiently decentralized then it wouldn’t matter what 3 devs did, would it? nostr:note153rgcd2zksl2t78mj9ev9jqvy57nl825zhzzp94ptenhhh5pzywqd8ckgv

"A Marxist system is recognized by the fact that it spares the criminals and criminalizes political opponents."

// Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#Memes #Meme #Communism #Marxism #Solzhenitsyn #Aleksandr #Quote #Criminal

Lightning is the only layer?

Umm…

1) Liquid

2) Fediment

3) Ark, and all the other R&D underway.

As an engineer, do you think it’s a good idea to enable powerful technology IN THE BASE CHAIN that has few known limits so essentially nobody knows how it could be abused?

Sure. That is fine. As long as I'm not forced to deal with the results of that mess. I am now, therefore, it is immoral. IMO.

While a agree that voting is less harmful when government is restrained in the confines of a hard money system, we are well past that point and it all needs to be gotten rid of. Voting will not achieve that.

A few thoughts on the postmodern criticism of John Locke.

John Locke was born in Somerset, England in 1632. He lived most of his life in England, with some time abroad in exile in France and the Netherlands.

The ideas of Locke would after his death in 1704 come to have significant impact on the abolition of slavery and in contributing to the liberty ideals of the American revolution of 1776 and the Declaration of Independence.

In order to understand Locke's position on slavery it is necessary to return to his opening salvo of Two Treatises Of Government, published in 1690:

--------

"Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hardly to be conceived that an "Englishman" much less a "gentleman" should plead for it." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 1, chapter 1.1)

---------

There is no doubt regarding Locke's adamant stance on slavery here, unless we assume that we possess a mindreading capacity and insert words and meanings into his statements based on our own twisting of his words.

However, this book was published in 1690, at which time he would have been 58 years old, a mere 14 years before his death in 1704. It is possible that he gradually developed this firm position over the course of his life and it is not self evident that he always held these values.

One allegation against John Locke was that he owned stocks in an English trading company called The Royal African Company, that was involved in the African slave trade. Let us look closer at this involvement. I don't have access to the documents regarding his shares ownership so I have to rely on the information available, which may or may not be accurate.

Holly Brewer writes that Locke worked as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations between 1672 - 1674, and that he was paid during these years in the form of stocks from the company Royal African Company.

While the original purpose of the RAC was to trade for gold in Gambia, it later became involved in slave trade. In 1675 Locke sold his shares in the RAC, after 3-4 years of share ownership.

Together with Shaftesbury, Locke wrote a tract in 1675 condemning king Charles II for absolutism and the enslavement of subjects. Locke fled to France that same year, while his co-author Shaftesbury, ended up imprisoned.

A few years later, in1679, Locke returned to England but had to escape his native soil yet again, this time together with Shaftesbury, to the Netherlands where he would work on his Two Treatises of Government. Several years would pass until he was able to return to England.

Locke's publication of his book Two Treatises in 1690 reflected his opposition to slavery and abusive power, a theory which he had developed over the years.

In the past, slavery had been a part of the concept of property rights. Locke, with his groundbreaking book Two Treatises of Government, turned this notion on its head.

The new concept of property that Locke formulated was founded on the premise that all humans are born free, without masters, and that every man owns himself and the fruits of his labor.

This was a revolutionary concept of property rights: suddenly, according to this new doctrine, slavery had been turned into a violation of property rights. You can't own a person who owns himself - this is impossible.

To respect property rights in the new Lockean sense now involved respecting every individual as a sovereign person who owns himself and his labor.

It is hard to imagine a stronger and more convincing foundation for rejecting slavery:

---------

"Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Part 2, Chapter 5.27, page 130, Two Treatises of Government)

--------

The brilliance of Locke's reasoning was that respecting this new idea of property rights, it cannot simultaneously be combined with the idea of slavery, it is a logical inconceiveability.

Locke also cemented a strong case against authoritarianism, colonization and oppression:

--------

"And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Section 2, chapter 3.17, page 125)

--------

--------

"So he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (Chapter 3.17)

-------

------

"It being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" (Chapter 3.16)

-----

In summary, the philosophy of John Locke has been instrumental in the ideological rejection of slavery and for the advancement of a civilized approach to property rights and free markets, with respect for individual rights.

Those in power that may seek to establish a 1984 society in the future will always be at war with John Locke's theory of liberty, property and human rights. And to be more precise: any manifestation of a tyrannical state is a declaration of war against the citizens of such a state. No wonder that future and contemporary tyrants will be lining up to discredit John Locke.

From a bitcoin perspective, John Locke was a rehabilitated shitcoiner that sold his lousy stonks and wrote an instrumental treatise that changed the future in favor of liberty.

I don't know about that last bit, but otherwise agree unreservedly.

Growing up in the '90s I remember being told a few things about migration, which was just getting started in large numbers:

1. We only let in as many as we can assimilate and will stop if it gets out of hand.

2. We only let in people whose life is in real danger in their home countries.

3. They will need to adapt to our customs, not the other way around.

4. Second generation migrants are very well integrated, third generation are basically Lutheran liberals.

5. Migrants want to be like us and if they don't it's because we're still a bit racist.

This all seemed very reasonable. Voters bought it too, because they kept voting in favor of these policies. Only the truly far right warned that it wouldn't work out that way, but they were literal Nazis (that word used to mean something). Besides, the outcome was anyway future us' problem.

But in the '00s, the story slowly began to change. It was no longer about assimilation but multiculturalism, and how great it is. And frankly, this also sounded quite reasonable to me:

1. Diversity is great, just look at the food options.

2. It doesn't matter how or why they came, they are here now.

3. If you don't like their customs you're just being islamophobic.

4. Some migrants are integrating really well, just look at this anecdote.

5. Everyone should be proud of their own culture, except us (lest you're racist)

In hindsight, there was some apathy in this change. Less than a conscious shift in narrative, we collectively rationalized what had already come to pass. So while voters showed increased concern, they stuck with the parties and policies that got them there.

Then some really bad things started to happen. Murders over caricatures. A wave of terrorist attacks. A dramatic rise in rapes. Regular bombings in peaceful places. Racially motivated grooming. Exploding social expenditures. Gangs and stabbings.

But most concerning it became taboo to suggest that any of this had any connection to migrants. And they kept coming in ever larger numbers. Many seeking family reunification, bringing even more. Past us miscalculated.

By the '10s, this last fact brought a true racial element to the situation, as the change became so visible on the streets that the echoes of the promises from the '90s seemed to some as a cruel trick.

Old conspiracy theories about some great replacement were thus granted subtle credence, making the unreasonable reasonable.

Tragically, this trapped large numbers of migrants who worked hard to integrate and build a better life here in a web of general suspicion. Increasing suspicion harmed integration exacerbating issues increasing suspicion.

And continuing in the '20s, new migrants kept coming much faster than we could break this vicious cycle, fertilizing the seed of conflict we see budding this summer.

So what now? Pray the seed never blooms and go in peace.

There is no way to return to the past without a fundamental break with the core of our own culture - rule of law, basic liberties, human rights. And then what would it all be for. Besides, the past had plenty of forgotten flaws. Careful what you wish for.

But it also seems unlikely we will be able to move into the future without challenging many of the same values. People are being arrested as you read this for speaking their mind in the UK. Many more are afraid to speak their mind. Perhaps for the best.

Because in the end we will have to live together. And remember that the vast majority of us still do so in harmony. So let's not harbor any fantasies about the past, even if we don't know what to do about the future (other than make babies and stack sats).

To quote the Bible: "Don't be afraid". There must be love.

I don't have any better answers, nor did I write this to offer any. I just wanted to share how I've truly experienced these changes as part of the "native" European generation that grew up with them. I don't know any other world.

At best it's valuable context, at worst I hope some can relate.

British physicist Mike McCulloch has a profound point here.

If his Quantised Inertia (QI) theory works out and can be utilized practically, the world will have access to unlimited energy without pollution.

Add that QI would power interstellar drives as well, allowing for practical expansion into space - a frontier that will create an unlimited number of jobs. Just at a time when AI will displace a large number of jobs.

QI theory gets rid of dark matter and explains previously mysterious anomalies that traditional physicists have tried to explain with inserting subjective amounts of dark matter here and there in order to make the observations match the data.

As the QI theory will become increasingly tested within coming years via practical experiments in space, an interesting lithmus test is forming:

How will the "environmental" movement react to Quantised Inertia if QI can provide humanity with abundant, pollutionless energy?

The cat is out of the box and ideas whose time has come cannot be returned to obscurity.

If Quantised Inertia works out, this will be the nail in the coffin for the UN Agenda 21 project and the climate doomsday preachers.

Quantized Inertia was inspired by Mike's insights from Oceanography. He was aware that boats close to the shore are pushed toward the shore because of the longer waves hitting the boat from one side, while the waves on the beach-side are shut off by a horizon that caused them to become shorter.

The principle follows from there: in theory we should be able to harness energy from quantum horizons and the acceleration that causes such horizons.

Applied to galaxies, QI can explain why galaxies hold together without inserting dark matter.

The principle behind this, as I understand it from Mike's talks, is that the Unruh quantum waves that exist outside of a galaxy are at maximum length, while accelerated matter shortens Unruh waves.

At the center of a galaxy is a black hole that accelerates matter towards it. The distance from the center of the galaxy thereby predicts the length of the Unruh radiation waves.

Close to the center of the galaxy the Unruh waves are shorter, due to the higher acceleration and the horizon formed by acceleration. The Unruh waves then gradually increase in length with further distance from the center until they reach the edge of the galaxy where the acceleration is lowest.

Since the longest Unruh waves push against the shorter waves, the galaxy is kept together without the need to insert dark matter.

The beauty of QI is that it is remarkably simple and can be tested practically, which can't be said about dark matter. Dark matter can be described as the establishment ethos - "believe this by decree and authority, not by proof of work".

QI can explain a variety of anomalies such as the orbits of binary stars where inserting dark matter doesn't even make sense.

We live in interesting times.

#QI #QuantisedInertia #MikeMcCulloch #McCulloch #Quantised #Inertia #Physics #Liberty #Science #DarkMatter #Dark #Matter #Energy #Environment #Environmentalism #Climate #ClimateAlarmism #Alarmism #ClimateScam #Agenda21 #Agenda2030

You will never be late to #Bitcoin because while the effort needed to accumulate a certain stack of sats increases, the sats you have accumulated prior will compensate your past efforts.

"90% of all tweets are made by 10% of the people. And those people are 100% retarded."

- Joe Rogan