I’m this old nostr:note1wv2mr4vv4mkahc0wkk2zuay3duzwpyuh95xdls3809psynmdmhgqt5kphw

Which racing?

Laser eyes because we're laser focused on our principles.

I think most BTC people have blocked me, but just in case:

What are your hobbies outside of BTC?

Remember, remember the fifth of November. The gunpowder treason and plot. I can think of no reason that the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.

#civildisobedience

I'm open to suggestions.

I can imagine a "mode" of interaction called "debate mode". Two or more users agree to enter this mode. The messages sent in the debate mode are public, but each costs the sender N sats. That N is distributed amongst all the other debaters and is a function of the length of each message.

So, let's say that A, B, and C agree to debate mode. A public message is sent announcing the debate. From that point on messages that are replies in the thread of that message will be tagged with the debate agreement. When A replies with a message of 250 characters, 250 sats will be distributed to B and C.

It costs to be a loudmouth, and it pays to sit and listen. On the other hand if you think you have something worth saying, then you pay to say it, and others are paid to listen to it.

That would be fun to implement. I doubt anyone would actually agree to use it. ;-)

From: mikedilger at 11/03 17:37

> I've always found the anger to be reactionary, temporary, if we keep talking it works itself out and the love and respect is long term. I usually aspire to come to some common ground before quitting, even if it is emotionally taxing for me. Sometimes I have a lot of background opinion to aire first so it may take a while.

>

> But these client ideas are interesting. Maybe different techniques could be trial run to see how they affect the discourse.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

If you've ever had to deal with probate on a deceased relative's estate, even with a clear last will and testament and durable power of attorney, you'll appreciate that, once again, #Bitcoin fixes this. The state tries to put its grubby hands on everything. Not on a Bitcoin standard.

Mine is #Nostr

If Bitcoin maintains its supply cap, value per unit will increase.

If Bitcoin doesn’t maintain its supply cap, it’s perpetual hell on Earth.

Bitcoin or death

Keeping savings in anything other than Bitcoin seems sacrilegious to me at this point.

The nice thing about being 100% allocated to #Bitcoin is you are immune to FOMO.

Sit back and relax. You did all that you could. You are on The Way.

Every time yall say #pv all I see is "penis vagina"

As developed nations continue to enter sovereign debt crises akin to the 1940s, there are a few main outcomes.

Option 1) In a world without bitcoin, or if bitcoin fails, central banks and their governments recapitalize themselves with gold, devalue the people, and do another cycle of this inflationary policy for the next few generations. The Treasury/Fed handbook literally has a written option for this, although it is stated more opaquely. It can be done in the US (and probably many other countries) based on current laws if shit hits the fan. Denmark's central bank and China's economic ministers have also written similar things regarding extreme outcomes. It's pretty straightforward based on the past.

Option 2) We go into a centralized technocratic future. Centralized AI and CBDCs win. People have cuck money that the AI+government control. It's like Brave New World, 1984, take your pick. Hard to say, but not free.

Option 3) Open source money wins. Bitcoin and its ecosystem win. Governments get defunded from their fiat printers, and have to be more honest with their ledgers or default and get reconstructed since they can't print what their people hold as savings, or in the hegemon's case, can't print what the world holds. Probably a world of chaos for a time during the transition, but also an opportunity for peace and building the next era. Keeping track of the nukes would probably be a big deal, like when the Soviet Union fell. It's actually kind of remarkable that they collapsed economically and politically but in an orderly enough way to keep track of and secure most of the nukes.

I don't know which one will win, but I consider Option 3 to be the honorable method; the path of transparency. That's the one I am rooting for and building for.

If I fail, I would like it written that it's the method I tried for, but realistically the AI+government will probably delete most of the records of all of the failures anyway, since that is how history works, without any sort of objective truth keeper. Our best hope is to hide records in a distributed way and hope they can remain undisturbed for a while. At least bitcoiners have a tendency to write stuff in steel and make low time preference things. Some psychopath will hopefully carve a life work in steel in a cave or something, but who knows, lol.

And ironically, if Option 3 wins, any of the losing factions could still insert their ideas and paths into the Bitcoin blockchain, now or in the future. It's the most immutable database that we know how to build, and would preserve their ideas as it does our ideas. Like, you know what? I *want* the Communist Manifesto to be in the immutable Bitcoin blockchain, because I want people in the future to know how *bad* it is. It might already be in there; I don't know. I wouldn't want people centuries from now to think about those ideas and believe they came up with something new; I want to preserve my enemies' texts because I believe I can win through markets, force, virtue, and truth.

I think that's almost always what determines the winning side. Losers want to burn their enemies' texts to ensure that their good ideas don't spread too much. Winners want to preserve their enemies' texts to ensure that their bad ideas are never repeated.

Wait until those degens at Direxxion Shares get in on this Bitcoin ETF game with 3x leveraged long and short funds.