Computational approach to reality. When studying computer science ("informatics" in central european curriculum), I did not get the vast usability of this approach to many other fields. We have learned about what is decidable, how (asymptotically) complex a computation is, the universality of computation and many topics, hidden in theorems and lemmas. In computer networks, artificial intelligence, cognitive sciences and multiagent systems, we have touched upon complex systems and the fascinating phenomenon of emergent behavior.

Lately I have enjoyed using this knowledge to understand many more complex systems. Wolfram's approach to physics is computational, it builds physics theory from the ground up based on computation paradigms. Economy, society, and even our thinking are all examples for complex systems with emergent behavior.

Yes, I can be very bitchy about people not understanding what is going on. I often laugh at "centrally planned forests", when I walk to one, before enjoying the forest, I usually give some remarks about what is wrong with "scientific forestry".

I often criticize current centrally planned financial system, yet I do not have a degree in economy, finance or whatever political fields these people study. Yet I can criticize and discount their ideas solely on the basis of theory of complex systems and computation. These people think they control something, but that is very naive view of the world. No number of academic titles or experience can turn a complex system into something that can be centrally managed, but in order to do understand why the model is wrong, you need to understand how things emerge in complex systems. (for those of you who do not know what complex system is - it is not merely something "complicated").

I am often criticized for absence of humility - smarter people have studied something and know what they are talking about, I have studied something else and I don't know.

The problem is this - it is easier to know that something is unknowable or that something does not work than to prove that it does. Things often seem to work and then break down. I believe there's more humility in understanding why you can't centrally plan a complex system. It's humility in relation to reality, not to academic rank though.

If someone came to your house and said “Hi, so this is awkward, but three thousand years ago my ancestors lived where this house is, so…do you need help packing? We’re demolishing in 4 hours. Thanks for your time!” Would you take this seriously?

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.

The reason both mercury and aluminum were added into vaccines was specifically because they didn’t work without them.

When these were added (which was originally a mistake because it was a cleaning agent that they failed to remove from a horse antibody vaccine), it would create a HUGE immune response. Something like 100x or more immune reaction in the body. And it would treat everything with it as an intruder, and learned to fight it all off. This is why such a small, weakened amount of some virus can be added, but your body will build antibodies for it.

The crazy thing is, they were so happy with the success, that they just ignored any possible damage that these additions would cause. They excused it away, defended it with bad science, used studies of *ingested* aluminum to defend it being directly injected to the bloodstream (hilariously not the same thing), and have done everything they can to cover it up, while also ensuring that they aren’t liable for **any** of the horrible consequences of aggressive over vaccination.

The simple, and common sense question should be, WHY does the body have such a vicious immune reaction to these metals? The simple answer: they are horrible for the human body. They cause neurological damage and are carried through the lymph nodes all over the body. And the immune response is so aggressive that it causes the body to overreact to other, innocuous things. It’s not a coincidence that the very concept of food allergies were literally nonexistent, until mess vaccination became a thing. Vaccines work against their claimed disease, but they have a long, horrible list of chronic, neurological, and immune diseases that should be obvious if we weren’t so blind with “normality.”

Normal and accepted means neither safe, nor truthful. The very creation of vaccines and what made them work suggest the very side effects that are now rather thoroughly proven. I mean shit mother’s with autistic children have literally been paid damages in court in multiple cases. It’s only that people are too afraid of looking like a fool (understandably), because they know others will react poorly, or they are too afraid to let themselves believe something so widespread could be so wrong.

Time will reveal the truth, it’s just sad how many, and specifically how many children, will pay and have already paid for such a horrible lie to be uncovered.

In bitcoin, the miners and startups, if sufficiently short term motivated, can be tempted to fork the system at the detriment of pleb hodlers. Sovereign node running is an immune function that prevents that.

In politics, the government, if sufficiently short term motivated, can be tempted to fork the system at the detriment of productive citizens. Sovereign individuals owning firearms is an immune function that helps prevent that.

There are literally zero freedoms that can be meaningfully protected if you are forced to use a money that someone else can alter, freeze, print, or surveil at their discretion and without your consent.

It's the total and complete revocation of anything even resembling free market forces & property rights.

CBDCs will be the nail in the coffin of the free world... whatever still remains of it.

been trying to tell someone close to me for like 2 years to just buy bitcoin, he told me today he put 5k into hex a while back and got rekt

my honest to god reaction:

No pressure

My man just got his lightning setup - send ⚡️zaps⚡️ nostr:note1yls55q4s6f5v0lp2pcpjmhsfmj2yhrte4q2vkw5n3f8p9xge6c5qc6uvlu

Nice 🤙

I’d have zapped you for that but you don’t appear to have a wallet in your profile..

Bitcoin knowledge distributes over time, but not that quickly. It certainly does not distribute as quickly as the price moves. Very little of the price appreciation is driven by a material increase in the understanding of bitcoin more broadly. When we begin to see an actual step change in broader appreciation of what bitcoin is, that’s when we’ll start to see multiple God candles (collectively, the Big One). Before then, there will be lots of speculative driven bulls which may seem like the Big One, but the Big One will come later, and it will be prolific. Until then, we continue to educate, build, contribute, invest, provide Proof of Work to bitcoin in our own unique ways, and stay humble and stack sats.

Austrian Economics vs MMT

I watched a debate between Bob Murphy and Warren Mosler recently.

Mosler (an MMTer) opens with a list of economic policy positions of what he would direct Government to do.

Murphy begins with first principles and explains how the Austrian perspective derives positions through logical deductions.

Immediately one is struck by the different approaches because they’re basically on 2 entirely different talk-tracks, barely even debating really, like an engineer debating a philosopher.

As it goes on it becomes clear the tension is that Mosler has no doubt whatsoever that the Government has every right to its monopoly on the money supply. It’s not even a question for him to take back to first principles in his mind, “it simply is” ergo that’s the only consideration.

To me this is basically a distillation of Bitcoiners vs Normies.

Bitcoiners for whatever reason don’t accept that government and government alone has the right to a monopoly on money - Normies have never even thought to challenge the idea that they do.

Little wonder it’s so difficult for them to grasp, at a fundamental level they’re accepting manmade institutions (ie government, money, inflation etc) as though they are natural phenomena which they simply are not.

It's very likely that in the not-too-distant future there will be entire multi-thousand user communities online that are all just a giant group of fake personas, arguments, ideas, conversations et al - all generated by Ai. There will be debate videos, selfies, deep thoughts, statuses, porn, all of it artificial.

A complete social hierarchy that is entirely fake.

All designed to entice users to enter and explore, think they are talking to, agreeing and disagreeing with, a group of real people, until they are scammed or maybe just endlessly trapped in a fake world.

A honeypot as an entire ecosystem.

Catfishing not as a fake person, but an entire fake world.

I have two friends who spent like 95% of their spare time chasing capital for their mid startup idea in the past year. They are like a parody of the "hustle and grind" millenials, wasting their youth and energy on some useless "x but on y" mobile distraction. It is like church for them. A ritual. This is how you get rich, they say.

I sat that one out. I stacked sats. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a better way to keep my sanity and build wealth than to just fiat grind and stack sats. It has rocketed my net worth past my family, peers, and friends. I am not saying I am more productive or that dreams are dumb. I'm just saying I cant think of a better way.

Here's to the dreamers, I guess. GLHF.

$10,000,000