A centralized currency is "controlled democratically". Bitcoin is not democratic, no regular person will have any say in how it's used on a societal level.
For the most part CDBCs would be indistinguishable to existing systems to an end user.
As I said: "Right now it's an idea they are bouncing around at most."
It's funny because you seem to think that means they'll adopt bitcoin and throw away laws that you dislike. If anything the future of money is more under state control, and the more pedos like you push back against it the more I believe they are right to tighten control.
Doubt that will happen and if it does it'll be centralized and seamless to the end user. It'll be an implementation technicality of banks.
All banks aren't adopting crypto, not even CDBCs. Right now it's an idea they are bouncing around at most. I'm sure in the long run most banks will have some form of interaction with crypto because it's a great way to part idiots with their money, but it's never going to replace the financial system and fiat.
I'll continue to use fiat thanks, as will all nations while your ponzi scheme coins up and collapse.
Except they don't "rule over everyone". An remember, you the one that wants to give pedos more anonymity and a safe space to distribute and pay each other for child sexual assault material. Let's be honest, you're a fucking pedo and you're protecting your own interests. That's why all you have in response is whataboutisms about a dead guy.
Oh yes, that's right, I'm an establishment mouthpiece because I don't subscribe to your psychotic view that 100% of everything governments does is wrong. What I actually believe is that we as a society have agreed to live by certain rules and one of the strongest of those rules it's you don't sexually assault kids. The fact that you don't like that law does not make me an establishment mouth piece, it makes you sick little freak.
I absolutely support some degree of censorship, yes. I do not support propaganda, which funnily enough is one of the reasons I support censorship, because dangerous propaganda kills people. I absolutely abhorr wars, not that I'm sure how they fit in here, since bitcoin doesn't create world peace.
I don't think you can live in a society and have full bodily sovereignty because the whole point of society is that we all make compromises. You enjoy this when society prevents someone being allowed to bash your head in with a brick and take your stuff. Maybe the solution is with ship all you nutjobs off to an island and you can have all the sovereignty you want, outside of society. At least I know kids would be safer if you weren't around.
Is that not beginning on this platform? There seems to be a large number of bots on Nostr.
So I'm a fascist because I don't agree with how you want to force the world into using a single currency and be completely unable to enforce the rule of law. A view you hold no less based on your flawed understanding of economics and your belief that you'll stop being a poverty-stricken incel if it takes off because you're "early".
He died in prison, that's a pretty odd maintaining of power. What's funnier is that you're going "look at this evil bank, doing business with a millionaire who turned out to be a pedo" and yet the bank you're calling out is one of the few banks that have tried to use crypto as part of their business.
When you stop defending pedos and stop approving of child sexual assault material being posted, I promise to try to take you more seriously.
🤣 The irony of you linking to some tenuous link between a bank and a rich pedo, given that you have defended pedos being able to spread child sexual assault material on Nostr.
Wait, so do you support fully regulated cryptocurrencies that require KYC and the removal of anonymized transactions?
It's weird because that would seem to go completely against your idea that everyone should be able to post anything they want, no matter how illegal, and be safe from repercussions.
I listen to men like Frank Vanderlip, one of the men responsible for the founding of the Federal Reserve:
"I was as secretive—indeed, as furtive—as any conspirator.[…]I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. ... Discovery [of our plan], we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress."
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/18227040.pdf
You can keep posting links, but I get it, you look up things you broadly agree with then listen to them.
It would be simpler for you to just state that you engage in confirmation bias as a general rule.
You don't need a quote from some rando that happened to be elected president to understand that in a largely capitalist system the people with the most money control most of the power.
Cryptocurrency doesn't change that, in fact cryptocurrency as crypto fanatics want it to work further concentrates that money as it rewards people far more for being able to save. Poor people generally can't save because the rich people controlling prices of necessities ensure they are living on the edge of their means.
So you believe central banks should continue to exist and should continue to underpin the trust in the finance system, that sovereign fiat currencies should continue exist and that CDBCs are the place for crypto withing the financial system?
Not without measures that would be seen as censorship. The relays would need to agree to remove events and relays that refuse would need to be removed from the network.
On an application level the applications could filter things out too, but even that would only be client side and would be seen as the apps applying censorship across nodes.
The thing is, decentralized zero-censorship platforms have been tried before and they all end the same way. Normal people leave because they get tired of muting abhorrent content and don't benefit from the zero censorship, and platforms distributing the apps pull them for failing to adhere to ToS (Both Apple an Google stores require apps to be able to moderate user-generated content for example).
The thing is, I don't think Rowan Atkinson is a complete free speech absolutist. I think he accepts that some things are too abhorrent to be allowed. I think like most sensible people he believe there's should be balance somewhere he's just not supportive of what he sees a government overreach.
I think in general people should have free speech, but I think there has to be a line, which is usually defined in law. If we want more freedom of speech we should challenge unjust laws as Rowan Atkinson did. I don't think that platforms that simply ignore all the laws and try to help people get around them help the situation at all.
Just for those who might believe this, this is a paper written by an antivax economist, paid for by an antivax campaigning group and peer reviewed by an antivax medical journal. It should in no way be taken as fact by anyone who takes science and technology seriously.
I'll accept evidence that is verifiable and based on facts, not propaganda. I certainly won't accept a medical study performed by an antivax economist, paid for by antivaxxers, then peer reviewed by anti vaxxers and yet rejected by every independent scientist.
What kinds of crack do they put in the water in Slough? They've found numerous faults in his study and they have been widely documented. The core one being that the source of his data was misinterpreted data from VAERS, a database that anyone can contribute to without verifying the claim. It should be noted that using VAERS to back antivax studies long predates COVID.
Even the data he presented showed that you are 4 times more likely to die from the vaccine if you were republican supporting than if you were democrat supporting. How does that not highlight to you that the data was not objective? The reason for political affiliation being a major contributing factor was that the "data" he used was based on people making the claim that someone died from it, not based on any actual evidence of people dying from it.
I certainly know about confirmation bias. I don't engage in it because unlike you I don't form a conclusion then religiously stick to it regardless of what the facts show. If the actual facts showed that there was a high likelihood of death from the vaccine then I'd accept that, but realistically COVID vaccines are rejected by the same luddites that make up crazy conspiracies about 5G.
I get that scientific advancement is scary to you, but that doesn't mean all advancements are out to kill you.
