We can read a book and not become the content of the book.

Liberty principles bring a directional compass and action provides acceleration.

Socialism is a spectrum.

My family are largely social democrats, i.e. socialists. They would either vote for social democrats or the communist party in Sweden (VpK). The communist party changed name to V in the early 1990'ies but kept the ideology and their main principles remain - the government should run everything in society. That's what communism ultimately is about and which explains why it is adjacent to fascism.

Communism is simply principles, which in turn leads to policies and practices.

The principle of equal outcomes *is* a communist principle and it necessitates a totalitarian regime for it to be implemented. It requires all wealth to be redistributed, via taxes, moneyprinting, regulations, subsidies and so on.

There is no way to achieve equal outcomes except through tyranny. We can expect the use of CBDCs and social credit score systems as standard solutions to reach such utopian goals.

Of course, equal outcomes can never truly be achieved, which leaves us with a worsening totalitarianism as it is attempted.

Kamala Harris is on board with the UN Agenda 21 climate and anti-energy policies, so there is every reason to assume that she supports the emergence of a global government under the UN.

That is communism, if we understand the neo-communism from 1978 where Deng Xiaoping absorbed corporatism into the communist framework.

Similarly Sweden adopted some light free market reforms in the 1990'ies, yet remains highly centrally planned, with a general socialist ideology that permeates the political landscape.

We can see socialist policies represented in state-owned media, government schools, restrictions on homeschooling, restrictions on firearms, high progressive taxation, KYC/AML regulations, hate speech laws, gender-bender ideology, mass-immigration policies, apartment queuing systems, redistribution of wealth in all sectors, often as bribes in favor of certain political beliefs.

Socialism, corporatism and neo-communism are hard to separate because they are a part of a central planning structure with expanding government power and erosion of individual liberties and private property rights.

Absolutely.

What solved my critique of the risk of whitelisting loops was when I considered that a court may force exchanges to return user-owned bitcoin - even if that means buying new bitcoin from the free market at a higher exchange rate. This makes the strategy of closed whitelisting loops completely toothless.

Agreed.

While I think that Bitcoin will survive the potential risks of CTV, I never liked the idea of increasing unknown factors.

Perhaps I am wrong in my opposition to CTV and perhaps CTV might be overall beneficial for Bitcoin. Still, we need to think adversially regarding potential risks that could be used to harm the network.

1. Expanding the scripting capabilities. We can expect pros and cons here and it is hard to foresee what these will be.

2. The possibility of creating closed whitelisting loops.

After thinking the second point through over the last few weeks, I am no longer concerned with this scenario. Yet I will share my general thinking process of why I have changed my mind.

As for point 2, if I were to steelman the pro-CTV position, we could argue that all functions that improve security for decentralized Bitcoin users, also can be used by governments to increase the security of government-owned bitcon.

What secures *our* bitcoin as liberty advicates also secures government owned bitcoin, and vice versa. This is an unavoidable and fair situation that benefit Bitcoin.

A hypthetical worst case scenario:

The US, Canada, EU and Australia joins together to prevent bitcoin withdrawals from all exchanges within their respective jurisdictions.

This would not impact the Bitcoin network and sovereign Bitcoin users, but a lot of customers at exchanges would suffer.

Let's say that in this tyrannical scenario, the users of exchanges are only allowed to withdraw their capital in the form of CBDCs, while the exchanges end up holding the exchange-stored bitcoin.

We could then formulate multiple strategies for this alliance of the US and its partners to keep the mentioned exchange-stored bitcoin from being returned to their rightful owners.

One strategy could be via multi-sigs, which of course already exists. If a multi-sig requires signatures from both the US, Canada and the EU, it could be hard to overturn this decision via changing the laws in a single jurisdiction such as the US or the EU.

Another strategy could be to lock in the exchange-stored bitcoin into an unbreakable whitelisting loop, where the US, Canada, EU and Australia all include each other's addresses in a closed whitelisting loop system. If the government of the US is sued and ordered by the supreme court to give back user's bitcoin, it may not be able to.

On the other hand, if this were the case, the US could be forced to buy new bitcoin from the market in order to satisfy customer demands. This would make the whole closed whitelisting loop pointless, apart from it being ineffective from a global trade perspective.

It seems to me that my previous concern over closed whitelisting loops is not valid since it cannot function as a strategy for governments to abolish private property rights of bitcoin users.

My conclusion therefore is that closed whitelisting loops cannot become a threat to Bitcoin.

I am still critical of CTV, but less so than before.

Yeah.

Inspiration is where the magic happens. Nagging things to death will always be unsuccessful. As it should be.

🙏

It's refreshing to hear normal and nuanced takes. There are so many people that have made it their signum to tell others what to do, which inevitably fails and causes a backlash.

Ironic.

#Meme #Memes #Starwars #Acolyte #Irony

This is the way.

An efficient message must aim at being realistic.

Dzień dobry!

Wspaniała pogoda dzisiaj.

Great summer weather today in Poland this early autumn.

GM folks.

Thanks!

It's an interesting language, albeit complex. Even names are impacted by inflection.

Nie gadaj bzdur.

This language rocks the valleys of Mordor. I'm two years in and it's a challenge.😄

They are ramping up to rig the US election via media control.

This tells me how much more the establishment prefers one candidate over the other.

Me: I will eat pizza.

My cat: we will.

#Meme #Polish #Learn #Language

Good morning.

We live in reality and we do not create the world around us - however we make our own contributions to the world with our individual impact. We can absolutely create our own corner in the world.

We have the capacity to achieve full control over our minds, albeit we have to work within the framework of what was given to us at birth.

I remember that Myspace added new visual designs and the community was unhappy with the changes, combined with a ton of bugs.

There was a couple of times when I would write to some person I knew on Myspace and it was unclear if they had received the message.

Before the updates, Myspace had worked good enough and after the updates the platform was a disaster so people stopped log in and there was an escalating migration.

From my experience Myspace bled users because of bugs and problems after some updates.

For example, someone sent you a message and you didn't get a notification, so you didn't know that you had a message to respond to.

The technical failures made Myspace completely useless for communication. I suspected that Myspace was sabotaged but it is possible that it was merely mismanagement and poorly tested updates.

One dimension to consider is that if liberty advocates leave a communications channel then there will be fewer voices there to speak up in favor of freedoms.

Group think never goes away completely. I sometimes think of group momentum as an acceleration that reaches a state of directional inertia. Since acceleration is necessary, some amount of group-think becomes a constant.

Only sovereign individuals, usually introverts, are willing to challenge group misconceptions. But since misconceptions are common within groups there is a bombardment of noise that would take enormous energy to combat, hence independents will pick their battles.

Absolutely.

The only problem is that while we consider these concepts with nuances, governments have vested interests in promoting an ideological case for why limited freedom is desirable. And they have in mind a very different set of restraints than we do.

One example of positive restraints are free market commissions. Most of the exceptional art in history was funded via commissions, where the commissioner was a kind of co-creator or producer in more modern terms, hiring artists and musicians for grand scale projects that would take years to finish.

That is the kind of boundary-breaking restraint and incentive structure that push creatives beyond their comfortability horizon.

A restraint that helps us to break boundaries and push through new grounds is possibly not a restraint technically but perhaps more of a voluntary calling, a journey challenging a mountain of our choice. We will forever need mountains to climb.

Code runs the world.

Governments run on policy, determined by ideology.

The UN Agenda 21 was signed by 179 nations in 1992 and is the deeper operative system that persist between old and new governments.

The deep state is the persistent state.