mmmmmmm.... pretty sure the State is your enemy, unless you voluntarily pay your taxes, and I bet you do it begrudgingly. That's theft. That's an assault on liberty. That's what makes an enemy.
Death by some crazy person is 1000% preventable if the medical industry actually helped people instead of bankrupted them. If there was actual care instead of farming for co-pays and fighting denied claims.
Your local government would rather tax your Bitcoin at 18% than see you die with it, and get nothing. Or worse, to see you flee with it and pay another country's taxes with it.
They're not going to kill you for it. The criminals will kill you for it. Protect yourself from the criminals.
Privacy is only one means of protecting yourself. Be hard to attack in all ways. Be dangerous, not just hidden (be hidden too). Be physically secure, keys divided and distributed, be unassailable. Privacy is security theater. You exist, it will be known if you keep doing it.
I will admit though, that you can't go backwards and un-leak your identity and so you should protect it now, when it's not something that is a threat to you.
It's just alot of work and the threats are so very fuzzy and hypothetical.
Use all the tools you can to protect your privacy, but really, that goes for everything. Use every tool you can to protect yourself from an uncertain future. Guns, Farms, Solar/Off-grid, non-kYC Bitcoin, Bitcoin in general, encrypt everything.
As for your idea that they could just kill all Bitcoiners...
That very much depends on where you are and who it is that might be coming for you. I think most of us already know if we live in a place where a gang might roll through and round us all up.
If they're not rounding up whole neighborhoods, if they're actually trying to identify Bitcoin wealth and bury it, prevent it from being used, they will have a very hard time.
A Bitcoin wallet can be accessed by multiple people across the globe from one another. Kill one, there's a backup key and person too. It doesn't work as game-theory to fix Bitcoin undermining the fiat printer. Its is very difficult to prevent Bitcoin slipping through your fingers if you squeeze it. This lack of friction is why it's better than gold shipments as payments, even though gold is more private and just as scarce for now.
China banned Bitcoin and they're not shy about forcing their citizens to behave a certain way. They would like to ban holding Bitcoin, I'm sure. It's not feasible to enforce it, and doing so without enforcement would betray their weakness in this regard.
If your local government is just performing a genocide, then Bitcoin and privacy is irrelevant.
You're not wrong, but that's not for Bitcoin to solve. Different tools for different threats. You don't resist the government with a pistol. But you can protect yourself from specific and real immediate threats. Bitcoin protects you from real and immediate monetary fuckery.
But if your community is at war with you, if you're at odds with the political reality of your tribe or local mafia, you need much more than Bitcoin or private communication. You need to leave. You need to find allies. Private communication is a very important tool for resistance fighters and refugees and such.
I was mostly arguing with Monero bots who think privacy is important enough to sacrifice some of Bitcoin's monetary foundations, auditability and scarcity, so we can bundle privacy ideology and sound money ideology at once. They're trying to get their private money on our sound money so they blend in better, and their privacy is improved. That use case is not the general one and it would make Bitcoin worse to bundle it with Bitcoin.
I've learned as a long time software architect, you should not try to do 2 things at once, you'll do them both poorly and introduce many issues and ultimately you'll have to start over and do both things separately.
Signal is PGP over texts and now its simply a good UI on end to end encryption with PGP basically.
We still have to build privacy tools, yes, but there's no friction to using Signal vs Messages. It's just people don't really care.
That's the thing.... people don't care about privacy. They care about sound money. They care about having the power to decide, even if you know I have Bitcoin, try and get it from me. You won't be able to. Even the strongest government in the world will have to convince me to help them acquire that.
Privacy is useful and some people want it. Sound money is essential and one is a slave if you don't have it. Priorities.
Trump's election was 4chan escaping containment.
Nick Fuentez is 4chan attending your dinner party.
Liquid is a consortium and so there are some small number of corruptible or capturable individuals out there that are very closely related in business and could collude or be forced to betray you.
Coinjoins are obvious and flag you as sus, many times requiring you to prove you're not doing illegal shit, in some jurisdictions, before those coins are accepted. Bitcoins are tracable so they aren't totally fungible.
L2 things, the mints and such - those are the way to go for privacy. They're not totally private but it is pretty hard to imagine having enough data from enough nodes to put together the trace.
Privacy is everything you do. Your phone/device from the raw chip up to the OS. Privacy is a spectrum from Ted Kaczynski up to Samsung Google phone.
If you never interact with anything or anyone, ever, you have perfect digital privacy.
You'll notice quickly that you don't care about privacy when you have Trust. You only want privacy from those entities you don't trust. Those who run the networks or build the phones or who monitor your financial records and who threaten you for tax income or to enforce other laws.
I don't know if I recommend going through all the trouble for non-KYC Bitcoin, especially meet-ups with strangers. I don't trust them. non-KYC Bitcoin still has privacy leaks if your ISP knows your name or if you're using the non-KYC bitcoin to pay someone, that someone likely knows your name and if they get spied on or captured or corrupted, you're still boned.
If you want privacy from the tax authority trying to implement a wealth-tax, a confiscation of your Bitcoin, non-KYC Bitcoin helps tremendously.
If your local government or criminal affiliates are likely to literally steal from you or kidnap you and disappear you, then non-KYC Bitcoin is important for you.
However, If you want to THEN spend your Bitcoin without leaking your identity to a 3rd party, that's still almost impossible. Any spending to anyone betrays your identity and links it to this Bitcoin, unless its paying for a VPN service or some online only or digital service or product. You'll likely be giving them an address at least, if its not digital/online only.
The best privacy you can have in Bitcoin is both non-KYC Bitcoin and good UTXO management in order keep differently sourced Bitcoin in separate outputs so anytime you link yourself to these UTXO, by spending and receiving real physical goods or services at your actual location in real life, you're only linking a small amount of Bitcoin to your identity.
However, its really not possible to spend Bitcoin and remain anonymous. Even if the exchanges didn't need KYC. Someone would still know something and good ol' fashioned police work and parsing through logs and testimonies, would reveal you in some chain of transactions.
Privacy is your job. Bitcoin can be used privately.
Bitcoin needs to be transparently and auditable non-fiat.
It can't do that privately. We need to see how many sats are there, in all UTXOs, at any time.
Lightning is quite private or could be very private without this problem impacting the base layer.
We can't ossify the client when everyone needs to upgrade to the post-quantum soft fork in a few years.
Stop making mountains of molehills. Nothing Core is doing is changing what is possible, only what is by default permitted and acceptable if you run their software.
Nothing Core is doing threatens anyone. If national regulators are going to give you any trouble, then your problem is with those regulators and your personal OPSEC practices, not Bitcoin or Core.
Core isn't the government of Bitcoin. Nothing they do speaks for Bitcoin nor does anything they do bring any additional risks to users of Bitcoin.
Run what you want, but lets stop calling people names and hyping up conspiracy. There's no gain to 'controlling' Core. These people have different ideas and we should accept that.
You're acting like the cancel culture woke assholes who think they know best and anyone who disagrees is a racist and a secret nazi or some shit.
Give it a fucking rest.
Perhaps not 100 years ago, but during the post-Roman Empire times in Europe, there was a lot of decentralization and many people were left to live their lives without large and funded authorities to bother them, to a large degree 'authority' was just a local ethnic chief or a general or noble/land-owner.
Evaluating our freedom from the perspective of how many and how powerful of authorities exist to force your compliance. How much choice do you have in compliance? In purely technical terms, there were many fewer authorities enforcing anything upon people's of the past just because governments had fewer resources in the past because the GDP of the people was smaller and less effective.
I recommend staying away from Passion/Love until you're willing to take huge risks and own your success or failure.
Love for your craft is often times abused by those who would get the rewards instead of you. Doing what you love is not enough. You must do it for yourself, not for others who would be satisfied with AI slop instead probably.
disagree.
as time goes on, the world proves us correct.
There is also the pretty serious risk that enough money bet against something assures it happens by way of incentives.
UO Outlands - Is the best UO that has ever existed.
Free to Play
uooutlands.com
Anarchy is not the absence of Order. You're thinking of Chaos. Chaos is not Anarchy. Chaos is war, disruption, disorder, death and violence.
Anarchy is not an ideal to strive towards. It's a rejection of imposed order like a Religion or a State. It is a recognition of the Truth. That the natural world is Anarchistic and we do best when we work with it, not against it. ie: Capitalism not Communism. Protocols not Services, etc.
It depends on who you plan to leave it to, and their capabilities. If you have kids and they're too young, or your spouse is not confident and so not comfortable, you want some UX solution, some corporate assistance.
This isn't for everyone but it is a tradeoff that is acceptable for alot of types of people and it's not a bad tradeoff, not really. We're not all the freedom fighters and underground anarchists we like to think we are.
The loss or privacy is the most significant issue. It doesn't feel like holding your own keys, it feels like custodial Bitcoin. That's weird if you've been using hardware wallets before now, but it's not inherently bad.
If you don't want to buy another of the same hardware, when you've lost it, you shouldn't make that hardware part of your cold storage operation?
The scenario that would be covered by this is when you have a phone key and the bitkey cloud key, without the hardware. You can spend down within limits, or you can restore things with new entropy generated by some new hardware, which right now only one device exists with all the required features.
Losing the hardware does make you dependent on a specific vendor, yes.
That is the design choice made early on, that you involve a vendor to hold your cloud key and make sure you can recover from the loss of the hardware or phone key, or both, Involving a 3rd party is literally the point.
It's more about the default. Defaults matter. You can roll your own node software with a small change to the main repo, in your own repository, no one is even trying to stop you.
What people are trying to stop is the DEFAULT being relaxed because defaults matter and make up a large amount of the market.
Pressuring Core who are also free and independent and not working for you or your specific interests, to maintain a default because you like it, even when there are externalities and costs and long term downsides for Bitcoin because you disapprove of the content that would be permitted once the defaults are relaxed is kind of censorship isn't it?
Wanting a governing body to maintain a definition of what is spam and what isn't is exactly the type of thing Bitcoiners should be digusted by and fight against.
It's a bug fix. It's not a big change. We have created two different mem-pools. This is a bad outcome and needs a bug fix. It forces developers to hack around and find private and privileged access to the mem-pools they need.
Users will have to go through centralized companies to get this access for themselves, to use these apps. Instead of these apps being decentralized and serving the politics of Bitcoin they will be centralized and serve standard politics.
You've stopped nothing, you've only made things harder for everyone. Present and future node operators and developers and users.
Why is discrimination necessary? If it was necessary I would presume we need a fork to make this consensus. This is the same type of thing you would have heard from the State if we gave them an option to help design the new system. "We need to have the authority to stop bad TX."
However, here, you're just putting bad TX on a more exploitable and longer-term more costly location, UTXO set. Costly for yourself, as a node operator.
There is no option on the table to make Bitcoin purely monetary, you get that right? That's gone. We already added features, changed consensus.
My values are simply to keep your promises. We have two different definitions of marriage, and that's fine, but we don't have to hate each other over it, like you're trying to.
Charlie Kirk wasn't trying to enslave 50% of the population to their male guardians, you nob. You know it. He simply considered marriage to be a different thing than your secular government certificate. He is saying the joining of two families and two individuals, before God and on God's terms, as defined in the Bible; well it has these terms. Take them or leave them.
You don't get to define marriage from your perspective and ignore other people's culture and what they mean when they speak the word. Just like the woke mob don't get to tell me what to call a biological female when I refer to them.
You purposefully reject other people's points of view and then accuse them of hate! You're in the same camp as the murderer of Charlie Kirk. There's no way to have a discussion about anything if you define it so that you get to hate Charlie Kirk for 'wanting to enslave 50% of everyone'. It's so absurd that I shouldn't even give you the time of day but since you seem to be a legit person and not a bot, maybe you can hear this and learn.
Doesn't he hold you to your vows? Or does he let you act like a child and betray your promises?
That's what we're talking about, not a King making the rules. Vows, before god.
Don't get married if you're not into it.
yah i start by asking it to build the prompt that will build the content. have it prompt engineer it and also write in the end.
also, chatgpt seems to give me 1000 words no matter what its always 1200 words or less