For Free Subscribers: Education Debasement, Crowdfund for Fiat Ruins Everything, the talk from BBB and more!
For Paid Subscribers: Another Covenants Proposal, Fake Channel Attack, Real Estate Market Analysis and more!
#Bitcoin Tech Talk #359
Nihilism vs. Reality
-------------------
The crux of today's political divide isn't necessarily policy; it's fundamentally about how we perceive reality. On one side, we have a post-modern outlook that argues everything is relative, and absolute truth doesn't exist. On the other side, there's a belief in an objective reality governed by fixed truths and constraints. This division is metaphysical in nature, and it's not something easily bridged or reconciled.
This divide manifests significantly in how each viewpoint interprets narrative, history, and events. In a post-modern framework, power dictates reality; winners set the rules. Reality, in this context, is a creation of those who hold power. Contrastingly, a reality-based perspective recognizes natural laws and constraints that guide outcomes. While these outcomes aren't inevitable, they operate within a set framework that has its own rules and limitations.
One striking difference between these perspectives is the role of morality. The post-modern view lacks a moral dimension, suggesting that any group could dominate if they had sufficient power, thereby creating a different set of rules. The reality-based viewpoint, however, introduces a moral dimension. It proposes that those who align better with natural laws are more likely to succeed.
The post-modern approach is unsettling because it negates the concept of progress. In a world where no objective standards exist, every outcome is morally equivalent to any other. This outlook renders terms like 'better' or 'worse' meaningless since there's no objective measure for comparison.
Much of today's event analysis operates under this nihilistic framework. The underlying assumption is that current reality is arbitrary, a result of a series of coincidences favoring the existing power structures. While this viewpoint may seem politically correct, it is inherently flawed. Objective realities do exist, as do limits on what those realities could be. Just because we can imagine flying pigs doesn't make that a feasible reality.
Effective analysis must start with established truths or first principles. Without them, we descend into a realm of meaningless power struggles and propaganda, devoid of useful understanding. In summary, our approach to understanding the world around us should be grounded in an acknowledgment of certain non-negotiable truths and moral standards.
I'm waiting for the day when Bitcoiners dressing really nicely becomes the norm.
Fiat ruins everything.
Christ redeems the broken.
You're not oppressed, you're weak.
What devilish product is this? The yolks are the best part! And powdered, why would you ruin such a great food by powdering it?
We've normalized entrusting our money to third parties. This occurs because people have to outpace inflation, and to do that, they have to put the money with a trustworthy entity. Authorities benefit from this, as they can seize these assets in emergencies.
Our lack of ability to handle our own assets, or self-custodying, is a direct consequence of this money-printing approach.
We need to learn personal responsibility for our assets. That's the big lesson most people don't want to learn. But they will, when a sufficient emergency comes.
GM. There is no human dignity without God.
Hey everyone, my new book is out, and I've launched a special crowdfund with exclusive rewards like signed copies, hardcover editions, e-books, and audiobooks. Join the crowdfund! https://fiatruinseverything.com
And check out this book trailer made by @CypherpunkCine.
I am doing an AMA on Stacker News:
Hey everyone, my new book is out, and I've launched a special crowdfund with exclusive rewards like signed copies, hardcover editions, e-books, and audiobooks. Join the crowdfund! https://fiatruinseverything.com
And check out this book trailer made by @CypherpunkCine.
They're virtue signaling, not actually concerned about danger.
For free subscribers: Crowdfund for the new book is almost here! Plus cancelled priests, mystery and the metaphysical.
For paid subscribers: Back and forth on Bitcoin scaling, Payjoin, resumable channels, deflation myths and more!
Bitcoin Tech Talk #358
On Work
----------
Work is a necessary inconvenience. In contemporary society, however, people are working harder than ever before, prioritizing their careers over aspects of life that were traditionally valued. These include family, the pursuit of knowledge, artistic creation, and other enriching activities. The emphasis on career advancement has become so pervasive that it has overshadowed other fulfilling pursuits, leading to an obsession with societal approval as measured by financial success.
Under this perspective, true wealth implies the freedom not to work, a metric by which many are impoverished in our current economy. This notion of poverty is particularly evident in countries like China, Japan, and Korea, where the work ethic is exceptionally intense. In these cultures, not working has become stigmatized to the point that it is viewed as a failure. This shift in societal values has been especially pronounced for women, many of whom now prioritize their careers over starting a family or cultivating a nurturing home environment.
Such a shift in priorities since 1971 is declared by the people in power as a sign of progress or empowerment. From a strictly economic perspective, this paints a rather bleak picture, suggesting that we are more enslaved to our work than we might wish to acknowledge. The zeal with which we throw ourselves into our careers is often celebrated as a positive attribute, a reflection of personal ambition and dedication. But this view raises the question: What are we truly working toward?
It becomes a troubling issue when we realize that much of the work done today is not aimed at creating tangible value. Rather, it is often influenced by political considerations and rent-seeking behavior, where individuals or entities seek to increase their share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. This focus on extracting value rather than creating it leads to a hollow sense of achievement and a society that prioritizes the superficial markers of success over genuine fulfillment. At least the slaves of the past knew their predicament. The propaganda today is especially deceitful because most people can't even identify what's so unsatisfactory about their work and why they burn out.
In the end, this obsession with work and the pursuit of financial success is a presenting symptom of fiat money. We work harder than ever because it lets the rent-seekers continue in their rent-seeking. We work hard because our savings are continuously drained.
The current emphasis on work, driven by propaganda, calls for reflection on what we value. Yet that reflection is nearly impossible without some resources, and sadly, we don't have the savings to be able to reflect on what we really want. So we trudge on, running on the fiat treadmill.
Bank runs were the public's way of punishing bad actors. Taking this very necessary correction mechanism is what's led to the rampant theft through rent seeking that we have now.
As governments rely more on inflation to fund their coffers, they pay less attention to direct taxation. I suspect the next round of QE will make rent-seekers even more parasitic.
Economics cannot be separated from morals.
The Misconception of Weakening Altcoins Through Drivechains
----------------
Recently, I penned an essay on why drivechains won't eradicate altcoins, and it appears to have sparked some heated reactions. Several drivechain advocates have come forward with different responses, prompting me to write this follow-up piece to clarify my stance and address the critiques.
Firstly, some argue that drivechain proponents are not actually claiming that altcoins will be eradicated. However, this is manifestly untrue. For instance, Paul Sztorc has openly stated that drivechains will eliminate 99.9% of altcoins. While the claim has been made, there is little evidence to support it.
David Bailey further summarized the argument, stating that if you eliminate an altcoin's claim to technological novelty, you reduce its value to that of meme coins like Doge or Pepe. He believes this would prevent significant malinvestment. But this assertion also lacks supporting evidence, and here's why:
1. **Unaware Investors:** Most altcoin investors are barely aware of the technology and rarely examine arguments against their chosen altcoins. They are often oblivious to factors like serial scamming or the open source nature of the code, which would deter investment in a rational world. This lack of knowledge is usually only rectified after investment, by which point bias clouds their judgment.
2. **Persistence of Altcoins:** History has shown that events that should have killed off altcoins (e.g., the DAO incident, exploits, chain reorgs) haven't done so. Decisions surrounding altcoins are rarely made rationally, and the behavior of investors does not align with the homo economicus model of economic rationality.
3. **Unpopularity of Non-Premine Protocols:** We already have sidechains that allow building features using Bitcoin as the native asset, without premines or native tokens. Generally, these do not get nearly as much attention as an altcoin with its large marketing budgets and gambling potential. Without a get-rich-quick scheme to fuel the frenzy, technological advancement alone fails to garner much interest.
Considering these factors, the assertion that drivechains will eliminate or even significantly weaken altcoins is unfounded.
What is the purpose of drivechains if they won't diminish the popularity of altcoins? Drivechains may foster experimentation with various technical features or serve as a platform for token launches, akin to Ethereum. But this objective has been chased by nearly every altcoin since Ethereum came into existence, with few managing to dent Ethereum's popularity among altcoin investors, even in the face of its evident technical failures. This means drivechains' value is as a technical playground, which undoubtedly has value but prompts the question: Is it worth implementing through a soft fork in Bitcoin? For many Bitcoiners, the primary feature of Bitcoin is its secure value storage. Anything perceived as a distraction to this capability is likely to be met with resistance and in a consensus driven network, this means doom for the proposal. The lack of sufficient support for drivechains over the past six years illustrates this sentiment.
In conclusion, the belief that drivechains will reduce or halt the proliferation of altcoins is rooted more in wishful thinking than in tangible evidence. While drivechains represent an interesting technological aspect, their impact on the altcoin space is overstated. Far from ending or even significantly curtailing the diverse altcoin gambling market, drivechains simply adds another competitor to an already saturated landscape. The real challenge remains in educating and guiding investors to make informed and rational decisions, rather than hoping for a technical silver bullet that suddenly curbs the altcoiners' desire to gamble.
For Free Subscribers: Silicon Valley and Money, Whig History, Conferences, Drivechain commentary and more!
For Paid Subscribers: libbitcoin vulnerability, Payjoin over Nostr, Civkit, Nostr Password Manager and more!
#Bitcoin Tech Talk #357
Moral hazards combine really terribly with narcissism.
We are in an era with lots of both and they have a common cause: fiat money.