This!!! Not only did this make me a ton of money in high school but man, this and fruity loops always put a smile on my face

Hey cable nerds. I wired PoE camera with CAT5e cable through the existent electricity wire channels and getting a hell of a lot of interference. So much that the cameras are practically unusable.

Will changing the cable to CAT6 solve this. Or should I find new route away from the house electricity to wire the PoE cameras but this will involve drilling which I really like to avoid.

Maybe nostr:nprofile1qqsqa6p85dhghvx0cjpu7xrj0qgc939pd3v2ew36uttmz40qxu8f8wqpz4mhxue69uhkg6t5w3hjuur4vghhyetvv9us8tczsp knows

#askNostr #cableGuy #cableGirl

Now the bank's app knows what other apps you have and demands that you delete them 😂.

But it's the system we deserve; we've allowed it.

Trade 🌽 at your own risk

In case the image doesn't load, I am posting its contents for posterity.

The image depicts a Twitter/X post with an image and a single reply. The original post is from "Susan Benali" (@susanbenali) on November 18, 2020 saying "Call me stupid but I just exchanged 1 #bitcoin ₿ for 1000 #silver coins." An image in the same post shows two maroon-colored monster boxes of Austrian Silver Philharmonics and a close-up of one of the labels with text "Wiener Philharmoniker

1 Ounce Silver

Year: 2020 500 pcs.

Gross weight: 16,8000 kg

02.07.2019 09:54:20" and a 1D barcode (EIN-13) decoding to the value 9120042103864. The post had 1K comments, 465 reposts, and 3K hearts. A reply to the post from "Unit of a Count" (@CountBitcoin) on November 18, 2020 at 9:56 AM says "That Silver Dealer made a Deal of a Lifetime 😂🤣"

Trade 🌽 at your own risk

In 1912, a merchant in Ceylon could sell tea to a buyer in London without either party touching gold or waiting months for payment. The seller drew a bill of exchange on the buyer, payable in ninety days. A local bank purchased the bill at a small discount, giving the seller immediate funds. The bill then traveled to London, where it traded in liquid markets until maturity, when it settled in gold. No government coordinated this. No central bank managed it. The system had evolved over centuries, financing the majority of world trade through private commercial paper backed by real goods.

Two years later, it was dead.

Understanding what was lost requires understanding what a bill of exchange actually was and how it moved through the world.

### The Instrument

A bill of exchange is fundamentally a peer-to-peer instrument. Two merchants, a buyer and a seller, can create, transfer, and settle a bill without any bank, broker, or financial intermediary touching it. Banks eventually emerged to provide convenience, but they were never necessary. The mechanism predates modern banking by centuries and operated between merchants long before anyone formalized the role of discount house or acceptance house. Every intermediary that later grew up around bills existed to make the system faster or more liquid, not to make it possible.

With that understood, here is the anatomy of the instrument.

A bill of exchange is a written, unconditional order from one party commanding another to pay a specified sum on a specified future date. It is not a promise to pay, like a promissory note. It is an order, a command, drawn by a creditor upon a debtor. Three parties appear on its face: the drawer who creates and signs it, the drawee who is ordered to pay, and the payee who will receive payment. In most commercial transactions, the drawer and payee were the same person: the seller, who drew the bill on his buyer and made it payable to himself.

No bank is required to create a bill. No financial institution must bless the transaction. A seller with paper and ink draws on a buyer who accepts, and a negotiable instrument exists. The bill is a creature of contract between merchants, not a product dispensed by financial intermediaries. Banks entered this system as service providers competing for the merchant's business, not as gatekeepers controlling access to credit.

The bill states its face value, its usance (the term until payment, typically thirty, sixty, or ninety days), and the name and location of the drawee. A wool merchant in Sydney selling one thousand pounds of fleece to a Manchester textile manufacturer would write something like: "At ninety days sight, pay to my order the sum of One Thousand Pounds Sterling," addressed to the manufacturer, signed by himself. This piece of paper, until accepted, was merely a claim that the Sydney merchant asserted against the Manchester buyer.

### Acceptance

The bill travels to the drawee, who may accept or refuse it. Acceptance transforms the bill from an assertion into an obligation. The drawee writes "Accepted" across the face, signs, and dates it. From that moment, he is the acceptor, primarily liable for payment at maturity. The bill becomes negotiable, tradeable, almost as liquid as money itself.

For international trade, a complication arose: the seller in Sydney might not know whether the buyer in Manchester was creditworthy, and no one in Sydney might know either. This problem generated one of the bill market's key institutions: the acceptance house. These were merchant banks, often founded by families with trading connections across multiple countries, who would accept bills on behalf of buyers for a small fee. When Baring Brothers or Rothschild or Kleinwort or Schröder or Hambro accepted a bill, they added their name and guarantee to the instrument. The original buyer remained obligated to reimburse the acceptance house, but the world could now trade the bill based on the acceptor's reputation rather than the unknown buyer's.

But acceptance houses were optional. A seller who knew his buyer's reputation, or who could verify it through his own network, needed no intermediary. The buyer accepted the bill himself, and the seller either held it to maturity or found someone willing to discount it based on the buyer's name alone. Acceptance houses served merchants who lacked direct knowledge of distant counterparties. They competed fiercely for this business, and any merchant bank with sufficient capital and reputation could enter the trade. No charter, no license, no government permission. The barrier to entry was having the knowledge to judge creditworthiness and the capital to back that judgment. An acceptance house's willingness to put its name on a bill was itself a judgment of creditworthiness, made by people with strong incentives to judge correctly and priced by a market that punished errors ruthlessly.

### Discounting

The Sydney merchant now holds an accepted bill payable in ninety days. He wants money now. He has options.

He might hold the bill himself and present it at maturity. He might pay his own suppliers by endorsing the bill over to them, who accept it because they know his reputation and can verify the acceptor's. He might sell it to a wealthy neighbor with idle capital seeking safe short-term returns. The bill circulates as a negotiable instrument in its own right, passing from hand to hand among merchants, investors, and speculators who trade claims on future gold the way others trade commodities. No bank need be involved at all.

But banks and discount houses competed aggressively for this business, because bills were among the safest and most liquid assets available. In London alone, a dozen major discount houses and scores of smaller bill brokers bid against each other for paper. Overend, Gurney and Company. The National Discount Company. The Union Discount Company. Alexander and Company. Samuel Montagu. Countless smaller operators. Each maintained relationships with merchants across the empire, each sought to offer better rates or faster service, each knew that a merchant dissatisfied with the terms could walk across the street to a competitor.

The merchant takes his bill to one of these houses, which purchases it at a discount from face value. If the discount rate is four percent annually, a ninety-day bill for one thousand pounds sells for approximately nine hundred ninety pounds. The merchant receives immediate payment. The discounter will collect the full face value at maturity, earning roughly ten pounds for ninety days of waiting and risk-bearing.

Competition kept discount rates low. A house that charged too much lost business to rivals. A house that accepted too much bad paper suffered losses and lost its own access to credit. The market disciplined both greed and recklessness simultaneously. Provincial merchants could discount locally or send bills to London for the keenest rates. London discount houses could rediscount with each other or, in extremity, with the Bank of England. At every level, alternatives existed.

The discount rate is distinct from the interest rate, though modern economists often conflate them. The interest rate reflects the time preference for money: the premium required to postpone consumption. The discount rate reflects the scarcity of clearing: how urgently holders of bills need to convert them to cash. When trade expands and bills multiply, the discount rate rises. When trade contracts, it falls. This price signal coordinates the entire system without central direction.

When the merchant sells the bill, he endorses it: signs his name on the back. This endorsement is not merely a transfer of ownership. It is a guarantee.

### The Guarantee Chain

Every endorser of a bill guarantees its payment. This is the mechanism that made the system self-regulating. As the bill circulates from hand to hand, each new holder endorses it to the next, and each endorsement adds another guarantor to the chain.

Consider a bill that passes through six hands before maturity: from the original drawer in Sydney to a local bank, to a London correspondent bank, to a bill broker, to a discount house, and finally to an investor who holds it to maturity. Each of these parties has endorsed the bill. Each has guaranteed payment.

At maturity, the investor presents the bill to the acceptor for payment. If the acceptor pays, the transaction completes and all parties are released from their guarantees. The bill is marked paid and ceases to exist.

But suppose the acceptor cannot pay. Perhaps the Manchester manufacturer has gone bankrupt. The investor holds a dishonored bill. He has it "protested," a formal notarization recording the refusal to pay. Now the guarantee chain activates.

The investor may claim the full amount from any endorser or from the original drawer. He might pursue the discount house that sold him the bill, which then pursues the bill broker, which pursues the London bank, which pursues the Sydney bank, which pursues the original drawer. Alternatively, the investor might skip intermediaries and claim directly from the drawer. Each party who pays can then recover from those earlier in the chain.

This structure created powerful, self-enforcing incentives. Every participant in the bill market staked their own money and reputation on every bill they touched. A merchant who endorsed a bill that later dishonored was liable for its full value. A bank that discounted bad paper absorbed the loss. An acceptance house that guaranteed a deadbeat was ruined. No one needed a regulator to tell them to evaluate counterparties carefully. Their own fortunes depended on it.

The result was a dense network of mutual surveillance and reputation. Merchants knew which buyers paid reliably and which did not. Banks knew which merchants could be trusted. Acceptance houses maintained intelligence networks spanning continents, tracking the creditworthiness of firms they might be asked to guarantee. A single dishonored bill could end a merchant's career, because no one would endorse his paper again. This was regulation through liability, not bureaucracy.

### Gold Settlement

At maturity, the bill must be paid. Under the classical gold standard, this meant settlement in gold, either directly or through instruments convertible to gold on demand.

For domestic transactions within a single country, settlement was straightforward. The holder presented the bill to the acceptor, who paid in gold coin, gold-backed banknotes, or a bank transfer representing a gold-convertible deposit. The holder could, if he wished, demand physical gold from the bank. Large settlements typically moved as ledger entries between banks rather than as physical metal, but the convertibility was always there, always enforceable.

International settlement was more elegant. Shipping gold across oceans was expensive: insurance, transport, interest lost during the voyage, and the risk of loss together cost roughly half a percent of the gold's value. Bills of exchange allowed trade to clear without moving metal.

When an English textile firm bought wool from Sydney, the Sydney merchant drew a bill on the English buyer, payable in London in pounds sterling. The merchant sold this bill to a Sydney bank at a discount, receiving Australian pounds immediately. The Sydney bank sent the bill to its London correspondent, who collected payment at maturity and credited the Sydney bank's London account. The Sydney bank now held a pound sterling balance in London.

But the Sydney bank operated in Australian pounds. It did not want to hold sterling indefinitely. Here the system's elegance emerged. English merchants were simultaneously buying Australian wheat, meat, and minerals. Australian importers were buying English manufactures. In each direction, exporters drew bills on importers. The Sydney bank could use its London sterling balance to purchase bills drawn on Australian buyers, payable in Sydney in Australian pounds. When those bills matured, the bank collected in its home currency.

In equilibrium, bills flowing in each direction roughly offset. Australian exports to England generated sterling claims in London. English exports to Australia generated Australian pound claims in Sydney. Banks in both cities exchanged these claims, and the trade balanced without gold ever crossing the ocean.

When trade persistently imbalanced, gold did flow, but the mere possibility of gold shipment kept exchange rates stable. If sterling weakened against Australian pounds beyond the cost of shipping gold (about half a percent), arbitrageurs would ship gold from London to Sydney, profiting from the exchange rate difference. This set boundaries, called gold points, within which exchange rates fluctuated. The threat of arbitrage kept rates stable without anyone needing to manage them.

The London bill market sat at the center of this global web. Sterling bills drawn on London financed trade between parties who never touched England: American cotton to German mills, Argentine beef to French tables, Indian tea to Russian samovars. London's position came not from empire but from the depth and reliability of its bill market, the concentration of acceptance houses and discount houses, and the confidence that a bill payable in London would be paid in gold.

### The Self-Liquidating Quality

A bill of exchange drawn on goods in transit possesses a quality that distinguishes it from other credit instruments: it liquidates itself. The wool shipped from Sydney will arrive in Manchester, be manufactured into textiles, sold to consumers, and generate the revenue to pay the bill. The bill's maturity matches the time required for this process. When the bill comes due, the goods have been sold, the money exists, and the payment happens.

This is why Adam Smith's Real Bills Doctrine held that banks discounting genuine commercial bills could not over-expand credit. A mortgage depends on the borrower's income for thirty years; if income falters, the loan sours. A government bond depends on future taxation; if the political will to tax wavers, the bond defaults. A bill drawn on wool already purchased by eager buyers depends only on the completion of a transaction already in progress. The credit creates itself when the goods ship and extinguishes itself when the goods sell. The total volume of bills in circulation expands and contracts automatically with the volume of goods moving to consumers.

### The Austrian Debate

The Austrian school remains divided on whether this system constituted sound money. Murray Rothbard, advocating one hundred percent gold reserves, argued that any credit not backed coin-for-coin by gold expanded the money supply and enabled the boom-bust cycle. When a bank discounts a bill, paying out gold or deposits for paper, it creates claims on gold exceeding the gold it holds. This, in Rothbard's view, was fractional reserve banking regardless of what backed the paper.

The opposing view, articulated most thoroughly by Antal Fekete, holds that Rothbard conflated clearing with money creation. A bill is not money. It is a credit instrument that matures into money and then ceases to exist. Money circulates indefinitely, but bills extinguish themselves. When a bank discounts a bill, it exchanges present gold for a claim on future gold. The bank's gold reserves fall, but they will be replenished in ninety days when the bill matures. This is not inflation but time preference made tradeable.

Fekete points to Carl Menger's 1909 encyclopedia entry on money, which states that commercial bank assets properly consist mostly of bills maturing daily, with only a minor fraction in gold coin. If the founder of Austrian economics accepted real bills as legitimate bank assets, perhaps Rothbard's one hundred percent standard represents a departure from, not a return to, sound money principles.

We cannot definitively resolve this debate because the system was never permitted to operate without government interference after the early twentieth century. What we can observe is that the bill system functioned for seven centuries, financed the Industrial Revolution, and collapsed only when governments intervened to monopolize money creation. The argument concerns what would happen under a pure gold standard with free banking. That experiment was never run.

### The Destruction

In August 1914, the bill market seized within days. War between the great powers meant debtors across Europe could not ship gold or draw new bills. Acceptance houses demanded payment from buyers who could not pay. The London Stock Exchange closed for five months. The British government suspended gold convertibility, issued paper currency without gold backing, and never fully restored the pre-war system. After the war, governments attempted to reconstruct a gold standard without the bill market that had made it elastic. The result was the deflation, instability, and eventual collapse of the 1930s.

The Federal Reserve, created in 1913, was explicitly designed to discount real bills for member banks. Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act authorized discounting "notes, drafts, and bills of exchange arising out of actual commercial transactions." But the Fed corrupted the doctrine, discounting government securities and speculative paper alongside genuine commercial bills. What Adam Smith described as a natural limit on credit expansion became, in government hands, a justification for unlimited expansion.

Today, bills of exchange survive in niche applications, overshadowed by letters of credit and bank-intermediated finance. The elasticity once provided by self-liquidating commercial paper is now provided by central bank money creation, with all the distortions that implies. We have replaced a decentralized system backed by goods, enforced by mutual liability, and settled in gold, with a centralized system backed by government promises, enforced by legal tender laws, and settled in whatever the central bank decides money is this week.

The market had already solved the problem of commercial credit. Governments unsolved it.

No, most people don't know.

And some believe they can avoid it.

I'm somewhere in the middle: I know we're constantly being spied on, and I know we can only avoid some issues, not everything.

It's very difficult to be completely anonymous and private. We mustn't be naive.

Sixteen years ago the second bitcoin block was mined, creating the first peer-to-peer electronic cash blockchain. For eight years an increasing number of people used bitcoin as such, as a medium of exchange, and they did so in an increasing number of exchanges. The hope that bitcoin could become the people's money against government wishes increased as well. Then a block limit was reached before a solution, whether temporary or lasting, was created. Transaction fees higher than legacy payment system fees prevailed. The people who used and promoted bitcoin split into many factions. Altcoin season began eight years ago and bitcoin has not recovered. Ironically, the flight to altcoins eight years ago relieved the pain for people who still use bitcoin for its original purpose. In a sense altcoins rescued bitcoin while privacy and scaling solutions are explored. Happy sixteenth anniversary, bitcoin blockchain.

Why are random dm showing up in my inbox from npubs I don’t follow on nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955 and not in the requests section

What Aristotle and Aquinas are saying here is that money is sterile and that lending at interest is theft. You said nobody ever thought that. That's actually what everyone always knew.

What you are doing is repeating the trite rationalizations that we grew up with in a time of perversion, under a system built in fraud and theft.

Fiat is not just evil because they can print more. It's evil because it is usury. What you are repeating is fiat's justification. The very premise. The magical belief that lending creates value, when it does not.

Christ flipped tables over it. Muslims revile it. Jews even know it is evil which is why they are forbidden from doing it to each other. (For some reason they are ok with doing to gentiles.) The Buddha denounced it. Etc. etc.

Money is an information system to coordinate work. To charge rent on money is to cheat the game and take it hostage, to trade someone else's labor for none of your own by taking advantage of their need. It is predatory and evil.

The best moral minds that the human race have ever produced all agree and have explained it at length. What you are saying is just a perverse rationalization. It's mental gymnastics that we were all indoctrinated with, but it is an evil and predatory view that justifies theft and slavery.

Bitcoin was built to destroy this evil. When money is honest, it will be obvious to everyone again.

😂 I don't know anyone who died from Covid.

No disrespect to Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas but they are incorrect on this point. I already gave some reasons.

The money does not breed more money. The money already exists. Inequality is natural, and no inequality necessarily emerges from a loan. Todays borrower may be tomorrows lender and vice versa.

I love em dashes—and I'll use them as much as I want.

You're arguing with the truth.

“The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.”

— Aristotle (Politics, Book I, Chapter 10)

“To receive usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice.”

— Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 78, a. 1)

I love em dashes—and I'll use them as much as I want.

You're arguing with the truth.

“The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.”

— Aristotle (Politics, Book I, Chapter 10)

“To receive usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice.”

— Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 78, a. 1)

ɪᴛ ɪꜱ ɴᴏᴛ ᴅɪꜰꜰᴇʀᴇɴᴛ ꜰᴏɴᴛꜱ, ɪᴛ'ꜱ ᴜɴɪᴄᴏᴅᴇ. ꜱᴛᴀɴᴅᴀʀᴅ ɴᴏꜱᴛʀ ᴇᴠᴇɴᴛꜱ ᴀʀᴇ UTF-8 ᴡʜɪᴄʜ ɪꜱ ᴀ ᴠᴀʀɪᴀʙʟᴇ ʟᴇɴɢᴛʜ ᴇɴᴄᴏᴅɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴀᴛ Rᴏʙ Pɪᴋᴇ ᴀɴᴅ Kᴇɴ Tʜᴏᴍᴘꜱᴏɴ ʙᴜɪʟᴛ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ʙᴇᴄᴀᴍᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ꜱᴛᴀɴᴅᴀʀᴅ. ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ᴡᴀꜱ ᴀɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ɢʀᴏᴜᴘ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ ʙᴜᴛ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏ Aᴜᴛʜᴏʀꜱ (ᴛᴡᴏ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ᴛʜʀᴇᴇ) ᴡᴇʀᴇ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ᴏɴ Pʟᴀɴ 9 ᴏᴘᴇʀᴀᴛɪɴɢ ꜱʏꜱᴛᴇᴍ ᴘʀᴏᴊᴇᴄᴛ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ꜱᴀᴍᴇ ᴛɪᴍᴇ, ᴜɴɪᴄᴏᴅᴇ ʜᴀᴅ ᴊᴜꜱᴛ ʙᴇᴇɴ ʀᴇʟᴇᴀꜱᴇᴅ, ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴇɴᴀʙʟᴇᴅ ᴄʀᴇᴀᴛɪɴɢ ᴀ ᴛᴇxᴛ ᴇɴᴄᴏᴅɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴏᴜʟᴅ ᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴡɪꜱᴇ ᴍᴏꜱᴛʟʏ ʀᴇꜱᴇᴍʙʟᴇ ASCII ʙᴜᴛ ᴀʟʟᴏᴡ ꜰᴜʟʟ 32 ʙɪᴛ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴀᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ ꜱʏᴍʙᴏʟꜱ.

𝔞𝔪𝔬𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔰𝔢 𝔞𝔯𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔰𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔩 𝔠𝔞𝔭𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔞𝔟𝔬𝔳𝔢, 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 𝔬𝔫𝔢 𝔦𝔰 𝔞 𝔤𝔯𝔬𝔲𝔭 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔪𝔞𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔪𝔞𝔱𝔦𝔠𝔞𝔩 𝔰𝔶𝔪𝔟𝔬𝔩𝔰 𝔟𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨 𝔠𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔢𝔡 𝔉𝔯𝔞𝔨𝔱𝔲𝔯

ɪ ᴡᴀꜱ ʟᴏᴏᴋɪɴɢ ꜰᴏʀ ᴀʟꜱᴏ ᴛᴏ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ ᴜɴɪᴄɪᴀʟ ʙᴜᴛ ɪ ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅɴ'ᴛ ꜰɪɴᴅ TALL ʟᴇᴛᴛᴇʀꜱ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴀʀᴇ ʟᴏᴡᴇʀ ᴄᴀꜱᴇ. ᴀᴘᴘᴀʀᴇɴᴛʟʏ ᴄʜᴇʀᴏᴋᴇᴇ ɪꜱ ᴄʟᴏꜱᴇ ʙᴜᴛ ᴅᴏᴇꜱɴ'ᴛ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴇɴᴏᴜɢʜ ᴛᴏ ᴄᴏᴠᴇʀ ᴀʟʟ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ɴᴇᴄᴇꜱꜱᴀʀʏ ᴜᴘᴘᴇʀ ᴄᴀꜱᴇ ʟᴇᴛᴛᴇʀꜱ. ᴏʜ ᴡᴇʟʟ.

anything beyond these two would be a hodge-podge of mixed symbols from all over the place. likely sometime i will make a full cryptic script that is entirely composed of graphical symbols to make it even more confusing, while still being human readable.

ᴍᴀʏʙᴇ ɪ ꜱʜᴏᴜʟᴅ ᴄᴀʟʟ ɪᴛ ᴄᴀᴘᴛᴄʜᴀ-ᴛᴇxᴛ

ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴏʟ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀʙᴏᴜᴛ ɪᴛ ɪꜱ ɪᴛ ᴄᴏꜱᴛꜱ LLMꜱ ᴛᴡɪᴄᴇ ᴀꜱ ᴍᴜᴄʜ ᴛᴏᴋᴇɴꜱ ᴛᴏ ᴅᴇᴄɪᴘʜᴇʀ.

Classic rationalizations of fiat.

The core flaw in your argument is that you're treating money as if it's productive, like a cow that gives milk or a fruit tree that bears fruit. But money is sterile—it doesn't grow, reproduce, or produce anything by itself. When you lend 100 grams of gold and demand 150 back, that extra 50 grams doesn't come from any new wealth created by the money sitting in your pocket. It has to come from somewhere else in the economy—from the borrower's labor, from consumers, or from new money entering the system. You're demanding payment for literally nothing but the passage of time.

That's the theft: you're selling something that doesn't exist (the "fruit" of barren metal) and forcing the productive part of society to pay you tribute forever just for using what should be a neutral medium of exchange.

Your risk argument falls apart too. Real risk (like investing in a farm or a business) deserves profit because you're sharing in actual productive enterprise. But a full-recourse loan backed by collateral isn't true risk-sharing—you get your principal plus interest no matter what, and if the borrower defaults, you seize his assets. Heads you win, tails he loses twice. That's not "bird in the hand"—that's rigging the game.

Time preference doesn't create value out of thin air either. My preferring a house today over one in ten years doesn't entitle me to demand someone build me an extra half-house for free. Money is supposed to facilitate exchange, not be a perpetual claim on the future labor of others.

The entire fiat debt-slavery system exists because central banks and fractional-reserve banks can create infinite credit from nothing and charge compound interest on it forever—guaranteeing a perpetual transfer of wealth from producers to money-creators. Bitcoin's hard cap restores money's sterility: you can't lend out what doesn't exist, no endless debt spiral, no parasitic class living off interest on fake money.

Your "fair exchange" defense is exactly what defends the Cantillon racket Bitcoin was invented to destroy. Usury isn't freedom—it's the means by which everyone is enslaved.

Fair, I'm being a little loosy goosy with some details for simplicity. Silver etc. but what I am saying is essentially true.

Usury is evil because it is theft and a lie. Where does the extra come from?

Usury creates enslavement, tyranny, war, desperation, poverty and tears society apart.

Equity investment is good because you share in the risk of a productive endeavor that you understand and no one is enslaved or punished and it does not require war or tyranny. That's the right way to organize capital.

Starting to understand why podcasters think they have a real job

who knew making videos was so much work

Beg to differ .. the hardest part is closing the project ... Most great STARTERS leave the project around 75 % .. super great ones take it to 90 % .. then it is work of God :-)