7317f913c3de739e...

I'm saying you have been psyoped. Those incentives stall out and don't have anything of substance sustaining them except a banking cartel that captured bitcoin and drove its price up to kill off competition to their monopoly. In 2 more 10x runs the market cap is greater than the total global wealth. At that point any increase is verifyably overpriced. If we suddenly adopt the lightning network and use it as MoE, we will be reliant on custodial banks as the limited block size will prevent sovereign utxo ownership. We will use bitcoin, but pay fees to bankers not miners. What drives adoption? Wjen the enshittification of Bitcoin becomes apparent and it becomes a tool to entrench the establishment, what maintains its price? At that point any economic activity outside of bitcoin detracts from its value. The value proposition of any competing and functioning currency has a lot more potential and the house of cards fails. Only totalitarian regulation can save it and force servitude on everyone. This dystopian future can be avoided if Bitcoin develops steadily acros multiple projects backed by genuine economic value.

Bitcoin maximalist falsehood #2: “Never sell your Bitcoin.” Bitcoin is money. Holding $100 worth of Bitcoin may support scarcity, but it does little to establish Bitcoin as a medium of exchange or unit of account. If that same $100 changes hands ten times within a circular economy, it settles $1,000 of trade. Each time, someone’s labour, time, goods or energy is valued in Bitcoin rather than fiat. There is a difference between abandoning Bitcoin for fiat and circulating Bitcoin as money. A real Bitcoin economy requires people to earn it, spend it, accept it and price goods in it. You cannot build a monetary system by treating the money as too sacred to use.

Probably just need an air gapped laptop and an encrypted USB with the keys on it, and a paper backup. The psyop against using bitcoin includes over complicating it and making users feel unsafe.

Why do we need absolute scarcity? So those who accumulated early can hoard it and harvest an ever greater share of everyone else’s wealth while everyone else fights over the scraps? That is exactly the problem we were supposed to be escaping. Bankers accumulate assets, influence the rules and benefit from a monetary system tied to government monopoly. Money becomes a mechanism through which existing power compounds itself. I want sound money, not a permanent rent on everyone who comes later. People should be able to own the fruits of their labour. Money should preserve the value of that work, not guarantee that whoever accumulated the scarce asset first can extract an ever increasing claim on everyone else's future production. Scarcity matters. Absolute scarcity is not the same thing as honest money. If you don't work, you shouldn't eat.

Not voting is a psyop nostr:nevent1qqstyrnhkq52krxttr8megyjmqqvgt2kyhtxl3t98qcqlrrqpuawpxcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsf9exh5gndzm36flxdcz02x9p8d0aqwrdnv0rjtggypanmfuq4cdsrqsqqqqqpshncw2

Not here for the Normie's. I think nostr's architecture is better and its starting to work well... Coincidentally when all the "Nostr is dead" FUD kicked in.

nostr:nevent1qqsgm0szp7gltx4tkt9plpd6l6u3t0ct0j2s4036vmzdawek4xtxdfqpzamhxue69uhhwmm59eeksctkd9hxwtntd9mkjtczype307gnc008885r4vkacecq4r6u4azl43dq934gs664a7dhudx5zqcyqqqqqqgnp6c6j

Dunbar's number. At the moment there people holding the protocol together as a single community. Newcomers either join the community or post into the void until they give up. We need to focus on educating community leaders that nostr is a tool that empowers them, and developing the tools to do that in a way that doesn't have the security flaw of corporate platforms harvesting their data and having power over them. Let nostr grow as thousands of communities.

Boom. I had a better start, bun unfortunately lucked out on the 50:50 nostr:nevent1qqs83dxdt74dvz6k7rc9gnxdk73spj4ynmflhrwzszdys3hl42j983cpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczype307gnc008885r4vkacecq4r6u4azl43dq934gs664a7dhudx5zqcyqqqqqqgqdwdep

Social media sold us reach. Reach more people. Grow your audience. Build a following. Go viral. Be heard. But the part they left out is that reach works both ways. Yes, social media gives us reach into the world. But it also gives platforms, advertisers, governments, data brokers, AI models and manipulation engines reach into us. That is the trade. We get a bigger microphone, and they get a bigger window into our lives. They see who we know, what we care about, what makes us angry, what makes us afraid, what we are starting to believe, and what kind of movement we might drift toward before even we have fully realised it ourselves. That is why private profiles do not solve the problem. Private from who? Private from other users, maybe. Not private from the platform. Not private from the algorithm. Not private from the ad system. Not private from AI training, behavioural prediction, leaks, subpoenas, policy changes, partnerships, or whoever buys the company later. That is not privacy. That is a one way mirror. And once people know the room is bugged, they change how they speak. They become guarded. They perform. They self censor. They stop thinking out loud and start managing an image. Something human gets lost. Because in real life, we do not speak the same way to everyone. There are things we say publicly. There are things we say around acquaintances. There are things we say to friends. And there are things we only say in confidence. That is not secrecy. That is normal human trust. Social media flattened all of that into one giant public stage, then built machines to measure, rank, nudge and manipulate whatever happened on the stage. The result is not just surveillance. It is social manipulation at scale. The algorithm does not simply show people what is happening. It decides what gets amplified, what gets buried, what gets mocked, what gets normalised, what gets repeated, and what gets injected into the public mind. So maybe the next social network should not be designed around maximum reach. Maybe it should be designed around limiting reach. Fully encrypted social media, shared only with the circles you choose. Public when you want public. Friends when you want friends. Small circles when an idea is still forming. Confidence when confidence is required. That would not kill the spread of ideas. It would make them spread more naturally. A good idea could still move from person to person, friend group to friend group, community to community. But it would move through trust, not through an engagement machine. It would be tested, challenged, refined and approved before spreading widely. That is how human culture is meant to work. Not every half formed thought blasted into the open for every scraper, bot farm, journalist, activist group, platform, agency and machine learning system to harvest before it has even had time to breathe. Inside the trust path, the idea is alive. Outside it, there is nothing to collect. That is the missing piece. Not just decentralised posting. Encrypted reach control. Human sized speech. The ability to speak differently in different rooms without every word becoming raw material for the machine. nostr:nevent1qqs8ecqexdh4srqf7y025u85dndl3h30szvfgd2qnq4ulajlm6whgwsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuen0w4h8gctfdchxvmf0qgsw8fveyjfne8ul9hurgjg9t6ectrc5sr7ap30dh9wlpzlde5hxvfqrqsqqqqqpku24kp

You do not win that kind of war by matching the enemy resource for resource. Look at the example of early Christianity. Rome had the money, the armies, the law, the prisons, and the power to kill. The Christians had truth, discipline, community, sacrifice, and refusal to become what they opposed. So the answer is: endure, tell the truth, do not return evil for evil, build something stronger underneath the empire, and make the enemy defeat itself morally. You win by being harder to corrupt than you are to crush.

What do you think a power struggle between Israel and the US would look like? Although they are allies, this comes through economic reality rather than shared values and goals. Despite what some wacko Zionist Christian heretics might preach. Israel can apply pressure on the economy, such as threatening mass redundancies under the excuse of AI, to force the US to corporate in attacking Iran. The US can strike back by legitimising cryptocurrency, weakening the control of central bankers by imposing hard constraints on the base money.

Is this Karnage nostr:nprofile1qqsph3c2q9yt8uckmgelu0yf7glruudvfluesqn7cuftjpwdynm2gygpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszrnhwden5te009skyafwd4jj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcafljxq