You can call it anything you want, but it’s not illogical.

The UTXO set exists on every node that stores the blockchain. Surely you don’t think everyone running a node owns all the UTXOs. Anyone running a node owns the history of the blockchain that is on their hard drive.

Again, no one can own the specific arrangement of words (seed phrase). We can own our piece of paper or steel with those words on it, but not the words or their arrangement on someone else’s property. So if someone sees these words without violating your actual property (house, car, backpack, etc.) then they have not stolen from you. To “own” bitcoin truly is to be the only person that knows how to move UTXOs.

You can call it anything you want, but it’s not illogical.

The UTXO set exists on every node that stores the blockchain. Surely you don’t think everyone running a node owns all the UTXOs. Anyone running a node owns the history of the blockchain that is on their hard drive.

Again, no one can own the specific arrangement of words (seed phrase). We can own our piece of paper or steel with those words on it, but not the words or their arrangement on someone else’s property. So if someone sees these words without violating your actual property (house, car, backpack, etc.) then they have not stolen from you. To “own” bitcoin truly is to be the only person that knows how to move UTXOs.

What is being stolen?

If I see something and write it down on my piece of paper, what have I taken from you? You still have your piece of paper with your peanut drawing.

Are you claiming ownership on the specific arrangement of graphite on a piece of paper?

Claiming ownership of ideas is ridiculous. You can claim to be the person who came up with an idea, but not the idea itself. Well unless you use the force of the state to make it so

To put it more clearly.

Your piece of paper or steel with a secret/private key written on it is your property.

One does not and cannot claim property on the specific arrangement of words in someone else’s property (paper/steel).

If someone simply sees your seed phrase and writes it down without committing any crime such as breaking into your home, then they did not steal your property. After all you would still have your piece of paper/steel which is what you own.

IP is a ridiculous proposition. How can one claim property of an idea? What is even an idea tangibly? If you think about it, it makes no sense.

A physical book can be someone’s property. But claiming ownership of the specific arrangement of words on someone else’s piece of paper is just wrong. Just because the state uses coercion and violence to make this the case does not change the fact that it’s nonsensical. If you want a comprehensive argument against IP, see the book “against intellectual monopoly”.

Property does not cease being a property if you fail to defend it... The British didn't lose control of their colonies and then say, " Don't worry it's not a property anymore... it's just nature now"

Property must have a boundary defined and defended. Without a boundary, it’s just nature.

Information, to be property, must also have a boundary. A secret has this property. This is what makes Bitcoin intellectual property—only the keys, which are secret, can move coin.

Other forms of information (books, etc.) have no boundary once shared. Without a boundary, they’ve reverted to a state of nature. Like a glass of water poured into the ocean.

You know... books, movies, branding, trademarks...

You live in a world where these things don't exist?

Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect.

Intellectual property does not exist. Bitcoin is digital but not intellectual.

#Bitcoin #meme

"Crisis is the perpetual cry of the tyrant."

The problem of fear-mongering and psychological conditioning, and the psyop that is "gun free zones" to be clear.

What would it look like, if an emergent money was being monetized?

Often when I talk with academics or other high-IQ critics of bitcoin, it’s the volatility and seemingly speculative aspect of it that turns them off. It’s almost distasteful to them. They can get behind the idea of global open-source payments and so forth, “but that’s not why people buy it” they’ll say. “They buy it because they’re speculating. It’s too volatile for its own good.” Some aspect of them dislikes it in principle, almost *because* one can make money from it.

But a new decentralized money, including its own unit of account and liquidity, doesn’t just emerge as a multi-trillion dollar-equivalent network out of the box. In order to go from zero to trillions in market capitalization and liquidity, it needs upside volatility. And with upside volatility comes speculation, leverage, and downside volatility. Cycle after cycle, it’s priced like an option. At first it’s like a 0.1% chance that it succeeds in the long run. And then in the next cycle it’s like 1%. And then in the next cycle it’s like 5%, and so forth. So, early capital allocators that have seen a thing or two and know the high failure rate of new ideas will say, “This’ll probably fail, but if it doesn’t, both the investment gains and the macro implications will be enormous.” And then 15 years into it with a few more cycles under its belt, the probability of success looks less like a distant moonshot and more like a real possibility, and then eventually starts to look like the base case. In the beginning the question is, “how will this succeed?” and at later stages the question becomes, “what risks could prevent this from continuing to succeed?”

The process of buying bitcoin is often a speculative process at first, but then as people learn more, they often view it differently. Those that really want speculation will then continue down the pipeline of altcoins- there’s always some shiny new object to try to speculate on. On the other hand, those who begin viewing bitcoin as money, start to view it as a defensive or risk-off act to hold a piece of this liquid and globally decentralized network of value. One would feel too financially exposed not to.

It's like you didn't read my first post.

Respect to your lifelong commitment, bro!

You were wrong on every one of those points just now.

And Western governments were wrong on every one of those points then, and are wrong on AI now.

Ignorance doesn't just happen, especially not today. It requires a disciplined, lifelong commitment to avoiding learning.

We need to stop delegating power, especially to the ignorant.

The main user of electricity is industry.

Before industry used electricity, they used power transmission in the form of spinning leather belts, high pressure steam, or direct use of coal / coalgas flame.

Millions of Westerners were killed or maimed in the 1800s. China is only phasing out coal-fired boilers since 1990s.

Sue your highschool, for failure to educate.

What? Leather belt power transmission? What are you on about?

So your argument is: you're absolutely correct but but but whale blubber candles killed people in the past!!!! Haters sooo Madd lulz