Midjourney is policing political satire. SAD!

My lawyers have just confirmed that Craig Wright has had his final appeal denied by the Supreme Court.

It is over, I won, welcome to law Motherfucker!

This week I've been thinking a lot about the 1990s version of Mortal Kombat that I played on Sega back in the early 1990s as like an eight year old.

Specifically the "Finish Him" aspect. I frankly never really liked that part; I was always a fan of mercy instead. I wanted to win but be kind after winning. I trained in martial arts a lot, so that was ingrained in me. Be kind to your opponents.

But admittedly, sometimes someone is *so fucking bad* that they need to be finished. Like totally and utterly rekt, so that they can't hurt other people anymore. Mercy needs to step aside for righteous devastation in that rare case.

Anyway, this thought has absolutely nothing to do with COPA and Craig Wright. Nothing at all. 😈

This is a CBS poll, and it includes sampling error. Expect different results from a different audience. These types of polls are pretty much worthless.

We don't know where the republicans lived, their ages, or ither demographics. How many republicans responded vs dems? What kinds of ppl were likely to respond to this survey? What are their biases? On and on....

What percentage of people that hold bitcoin will self-custody it 15 years from now, do you think?

FREEDOM TECH IS HOPE 🫡

MicroStrategy's bitcoin acquisition strategy has been really on-point.

I analyze a lot of stocks and see how they manage their shares. Most companies are rather pro-cyclical in this aspect. They buy back a lot of shares when times are good and shares are expensive, and then when there's a recession they reduce or eliminate their share repurchases, ironically when shares are cheap and it would be better to buy them.

A small percentage of companies have more forward-thinking executives that manage to do this more counter-cyclically. They buy back more shares then they are cheap, and they retain more cash or do other things with their cash when their shares are more expensive.

MicroStrategy has been doing this quite well, except it's about the strategy of issuing shares for bitcoin, which if bitcoin continues to be successful will have more impact overall.

When MicroStrategy wants to buy more bitcoin (which is always), what they seem to be optimizing for is how many bitcoin can they get per share. That's what builds shareholder value in this context. So when MicroStrategy stock is trading at a valuation premium relative to its underlying bitcoin, they can take that opportunity to issue more of these expensive shares, and buy bitcoin with those proceeds. When there is not a valuation premium, they can focus more on just buying bitcoin with incoming cash flow, or exploring other low-cost financing.

So far, they have been really on-point about managing this.

I just tried to send an international wire between bank accounts that I've sent between before with no problem, and got denied this time. They didn't give a reason.

People who say bitcoin is a solution in search of a problem generally don't have many international assets to deal with. International connections between fiat rails are slow, expense, ever-debasing, and at any time the rules change and block you.

Fuck them. Accelerate.

What health-related changes or activities had the most noticeable impact on your health?

#asknostr

Every time.

We are all Satoshi.

As developed nations continue to enter sovereign debt crises akin to the 1940s, there are a few main outcomes.

Option 1) In a world without bitcoin, or if bitcoin fails, central banks and their governments recapitalize themselves with gold, devalue the people, and do another cycle of this inflationary policy for the next few generations. The Treasury/Fed handbook literally has a written option for this, although it is stated more opaquely. It can be done in the US (and probably many other countries) based on current laws if shit hits the fan. Denmark's central bank and China's economic ministers have also written similar things regarding extreme outcomes. It's pretty straightforward based on the past.

Option 2) We go into a centralized technocratic future. Centralized AI and CBDCs win. People have cuck money that the AI+government control. It's like Brave New World, 1984, take your pick. Hard to say, but not free.

Option 3) Open source money wins. Bitcoin and its ecosystem win. Governments get defunded from their fiat printers, and have to be more honest with their ledgers or default and get reconstructed since they can't print what their people hold as savings, or in the hegemon's case, can't print what the world holds. Probably a world of chaos for a time during the transition, but also an opportunity for peace and building the next era. Keeping track of the nukes would probably be a big deal, like when the Soviet Union fell. It's actually kind of remarkable that they collapsed economically and politically but in an orderly enough way to keep track of and secure most of the nukes.

I don't know which one will win, but I consider Option 3 to be the honorable method; the path of transparency. That's the one I am rooting for and building for.

If I fail, I would like it written that it's the method I tried for, but realistically the AI+government will probably delete most of the records of all of the failures anyway, since that is how history works, without any sort of objective truth keeper. Our best hope is to hide records in a distributed way and hope they can remain undisturbed for a while. At least bitcoiners have a tendency to write stuff in steel and make low time preference things. Some psychopath will hopefully carve a life work in steel in a cave or something, but who knows, lol.

And ironically, if Option 3 wins, any of the losing factions could still insert their ideas and paths into the Bitcoin blockchain, now or in the future. It's the most immutable database that we know how to build, and would preserve their ideas as it does our ideas. Like, you know what? I *want* the Communist Manifesto to be in the immutable Bitcoin blockchain, because I want people in the future to know how *bad* it is. It might already be in there; I don't know. I wouldn't want people centuries from now to think about those ideas and believe they came up with something new; I want to preserve my enemies' texts because I believe I can win through markets, force, virtue, and truth.

I think that's almost always what determines the winning side. Losers want to burn their enemies' texts to ensure that their good ideas don't spread too much. Winners want to preserve their enemies' texts to ensure that their bad ideas are never repeated.