I just told some buddies at work that the plan is simple: “stay humble, stack sats, stay solvent”. The two replies I got were

1) But you can’t buy anything with bitcoin.

2) I should have bought bitcoin when I was 20.

⚡️🇺🇸 NEW - The world’s largest #Bitcoin conference starts today!

WHY NOSTR MATTERS IN TEN MINUTES. 🫡

"You wouldn't zap a car crash."

⚡️🇺🇸🇷🇺 NEW - Trump: "I'm not happy with what Putin's doing. He's killing a lot of people. I don't know what the hell happened to him. I've known him a long time, always gotten along, but he's sending rockets into cities and killing people. I don't like it at all."

⚡️🇵🇸👨‍⚕️ WATCH - Dr Tom Potokar in Gaza after a day operating on what he calls ‘small, emaciated bodies’ - child victims of Israeli bombings - urges politicians to ‘use their power and bring an end to this’ and ‘stop being complicit in this ongoing slaughter and starvation’

Adding here for Nostr friends...

@giovacatallaxy

I am rarely impressed by logical reasoning, but this breathtaking logical deduction made me one with Nature - the best thing I've ever read on Twitter, besides "Running #Bitcoin". Do not miss it and please share profusely.

@

"

Since my dear friend Arman included me in this interesting exchange, let me bore you guys by sharing a logical chain of reasoning in 10 steps.

1) In what follows, the term "law" refers to a coercive rule—one whose violation legally permits the use of physical coercion in response. As such, a law is not necessarily created (nor necessarily enforced) by the state.

2) A law can be just or unjust.

3) Arbitrary law (i.e., law made by someone) is, by definition, unjust. This is because justice requires non-arbitrariness. If someone declares, "This is just because I say so," it is unnecessary to know what "this" is to conclude that it is unjust.

4) Non-arbitrary law is, by definition, just. Being non-arbitrary, it exists independently of people's ability to perceive, understand, enforce, or desire it. It exists like gravity.

5) Equality before the law is the principle that the same coercive rules (whether arbitrary or non-arbitrary) apply to everyone without exception.

6) It can be logically demonstrated that:

a) Respect for the principle of equality before the law is not only a necessary condition for a coercive rule to be non-arbitrary but also a sufficient one.

b) The non-aggression principle (where aggression is defined as the initial violation of private property) is the only coercive rule that does not violate the principle of equality before the law.

Therefore, the non-aggression principle (NAP) and the principle of equality before the law are not two distinct and independent principles on which libertarianism is based: the NAP logically derives from the principle of equality before the law. For practical purposes, they are the same.

The logical demonstration can be found here: giovannibirindelli.substack.com/p/the-ethics-o…

Grok's logical verification of this demonstration can be found here: x.com/giovacatallaxy…

7) The state, by definition, is an organization that can legally perform actions that, if done by anyone else, would be prosecuted as crimes. In other words, it inherently violates the principle of equality before the law.

8) The term "rule of law" (as opposed to "rule of men") logically implies non-arbitrary law and, therefore, the rule of the non-aggression principle (and thus the absence of the state). If it meant the rule of arbitrary law, it would, by definition, be the rule of men, rendering the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men meaningless.

9) Freedom, or justice, can therefore be defined as the rule of law (i.e., the rule of non-arbitrary law). As such, personally I would not call it "anarchy". I associate the term "anarchy" with a situation in which there is no rule, and everyone does as they please.

10) Libertarianism is a label. Some libertarians in the past (e.g., Nozick) have advocated for limited government. Others (from Rothbard onward, nearly all libertarians) have logically demonstrated that the state (whatever its dimensions and functions) is a criminal organization. What matters is not the label but logically derived truths. Given that justice requires non-arbitrariness, the only objectively just coercive rule is the non-aggression principle (which outlaws the state). All other coercive rules are objectively unjust.

I'm open to any objection as long as it is logically consistent.

"