You can't expect to shape the world while your sats remain in custody.

Only those who sign the transaction will claim what’s theirs.

What are you all reading? #bookstr

Good evening friends.

ICYMI

nostr:note1427e9z7awedrqzp2lrpfv3gtkmkzkjq6wu506ywnml3knvc64cvqq3s7vx

It makes sense for something like that but I was running a node on Alby and I just didn't have enough movement to justify it.

The triggering of A BOOK, "Softwar" is a bullseye in the midwit bell curve.

It's a book. Good books progress a debate. They don't validate something you already knew - they make you think about something differently for the first time or introduce new concepts to you that you might not agree with.

It's ok to disagree with or agree with a book as a reminder. It's ok to disagree and go on with your life with an improved position having come from anticipating many people expressing the idea of this book. You are now more prepared and a better conversationalist if you have read the book of your opponent.

The best, and most benevolent reason to write a book is that you have an original thought that benefits from a public debate to improve it or disprove it. If you read a book and you want to disprove the hypothesis of it, then you are actually solution oriented with data and it means you actually read the book.

That's not what's happening here with this book. Midwits are so triggered and even proudly saying that they haven't read the book when no one is stopping them from reading it and just outworking the author on a disproving the hypothesis.

The author's writing style is like Taleb's especially in something like Antifragile. I don't think people are used to reading original and bold hypotheses and what it takes to defend them. Like Taleb does in Antifragile, an original hypothesis is made and then spend many many examples trying to prove it. That's what has to happen when you make a bold claim that is simple to understand but original.

In Antifragile the point is simple. Things die or gain from disorder. Then the entire book is examples of this eg Hormesis, Lung Convexity, Teaching Birds to Fly etc etc. If you disagree with Antifragile's hypothesis then great, show examples of where it's disproved and be grateful that it was an expansive exercise inspired by an author's original thought. They did in fact spend a significant amount of time thinking about a topic and then having the gumption and bravery to put it out into the World.

Out of respect to how we progress conversations and promote original thinking, the least you could do is remember what it takes to get an original thought to the masses.

Softwar is an original thought from an author that is incredibly interesting. I'm not the best person to explain Softwar but I will give my version of it below. The point of this post is that it seems like the people that are so mad about it, haven't read it and fumble mightily on counterpoints with some anger behind the inadequacy of their positions. It is a little ironic that they're not actually doing the work but signaling their intelligence by being angry at the concept. So even before we get into the nuance of the position, I discount whoever has a passionate point on why it's dumb and proudly announces it's not worth their time. There are people that have read this book, disagreed and moved on which is representative of the non-midwits.

As a reminder it's ok to disagree, keep it to yourself and move on. It's also ok to respectfully disagree from reading the book and making counterpoints. It's not ok to represent a behavior that discourages original thinking and chastising people with the bravery to put their original thinking into the World especially if it's progressing the understanding of Bitcoin. Understanding of Bitcoin is the reason why 1% of the population owns it and not 90+%.

That's why this is hate of Softwar is a midwit marker. You're actively moving backwards the attempt to frame understanding for more people with anger instead of work and better counterpoints.

I enjoyed Softwar and not because I agree or disagree with it but it introduced me to new concepts like power projection and defensing property with blood and lives. I had never thought about it that way and was able to communicate this point to friends in military and some family members that I was not able to before and I saw them get to the lightbulb moment. I can even communicate that I don't agree or disagree with it but I like talking about it because it's interesting.

If Softwar enables this type of conversation that was not available to me before then it is not a bad book. Quite the opposite in fact. What Softwar helped me to understand came from the original diagram the author drew up that was the basis for the book. The majority of the book is defending the point of the diagram that shows how property is traditionally. I don't even need to get into the details of the book but this is how I explain what it helped me to realize:

Bitcoin is digital property. Bitcoin is similar to a website domain that a website domain is digital property. In a digital world, you defend your rights to a website with annual subscriptions or you lose your digital property. Digital property before Bitcoin was never immutably your property because you have to do something to keep defending it like paying annually for it or you lose it.

Bitcoin is unlike pre-existing digital property such as website domains because you now have something you can immutably claim as yours (insofar that you can prove you can move it). This is possible because it is provable, verifiable digital scarcity that you and only you can move to show that you and only you have the rights and ability to move it. You are able to move it because of how your ability to do so is defended.

Physical property and commodities are used to being defended by bullets and human lives. Think oil and the petrodollar and your house if someone more powerful wants it by threat of prison from annual tax evasion or threats of power that threaten your life if you don't leave it.

Bitcoin's version of power projection to defend the ability to finally own something immutably is making sure you own as much hash rate as possible which requires no violence to defend.

That's how I understand it and that might even be incorrect but it's kinda shitty that there's much more anger than work and better communication around a concept of this gravity.

Some people finally understand Bitcoin when they finally get what it is that applies to their life the most. If you're angry about this book, haven't read it or have any military background, then yes you must do more work than you're doing now and prove it from better arguments that come from actually reading it.

So in conclusion, I'm not sure what's behind the vitriol with the book when you can just read it, disagree and improve your personal understanding of Bitcoin which will inevitably be improved if you have a cogent counterpoint to Softwar. It just seems like midwit vibes are strong with the ones so angry about book that introduces a new way of thinking about Bitcoin that clearly appeals to an important domain and group of people that talk, speak and think about things in this way.

To save us all some time from the comments, I will be replying with, "did you read the book?". I'm not interested in progressing conversations with people that have a strong reaction to a title of a book without reading it. It's sad this disclaimer has to be made for Bitcoiners honestly.

I will never understand the appeal of influencers with medical and teaching creds like Andrew Huberman especially when they take his advice as some sort of gospel.

I don't get it.

He's still trying to sell something. Himself. He is the brand and a product who happen to have a diploma to show for it.

My mother has never watched The Matrix.

I provided various contexts about themes since it is a 25-year old movie, but then suggested that she actually do so. Like, really. Out of a thousand action movies, watch that one.

It’s a classic now, imo. On the list of movies that proper movie enthusiasts can’t not have watched.