i don’t think i’m the one stretching definitions here

> Do you not agree that centrally planned credit expansion facilitates financing for endless wars much more effectively than hard money standard would allow?

yes but it doesnt end war, just forces efficiency in conducting them

especially if the target is rich in resources and bitcoin

prediction markets as an advanced warning system

discussed at length in theory, pretty crazy witnessing it in reality

You’re right that implicit rotation can work in a perfect discipline model and does minimize client work.

The reason I still require explicit root authorization is survivability under failure. I want a cryptographic way to distinguish intent from accident or compromise, and a way to revoke or supersede a key after the fact.

Implicit “highest index wins” infers authority. Cold Root Identity makes authority explicit. That’s the tradeoff I’m choosing.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but in your model, it appears that any derived key that can produce a higher index is implicitly authoritative, because there is no separate authorization step.

A compromised device doesn’t need the seed forever, it just needs it once to jump the counter and publish a “newest” npub. From the network’s point of view, that looks indistinguishable from intent.

Cold Root Identity separates those roles. Derivation is cheap and local. Authority is explicit and verifiable. Clients don’t infer intent from an index. They verify an authorization.

Epochs add one missing thing: an explicit, verifiable statement of authority. Clients follow what’s authorized, not whatever shows up with the highest counter.

They improve key hygiene, not identity survivability. CRI separates authority from usage so compromise doesn’t end the identity. They are solving different problems.