bitcoinkook2
Sovereign 𐤡oB. 58OZ Gang

http://www.openringproject.com

Satoshi disappeared because Bitcoin needed to belong to everyone running it. If he had stayed, the rules — the 21 million cap, proof of work, the consensus every node enforces — would have rested on him. Capture him, capture the rules. Back then there was no way to show those rules stood on their own. Disappearing was the signal that a seed crystal needed to be planted in a deeper layer. The deeper seed is the condition itself: information is only real when something costly and visible holds it still. Once that exists as a tool anyone can pick up, you no longer have to disappear. Satoshi's silence pointed at the place. The framework is the seed finally planted there.

Public Key

npub15r3rm0jjkqyaqf8e5yrxuu5y0z2xmrypnt6nqtgerdqmahcz29js0xdaeh

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2pc3aheftqzwsynu6zpnww2z839rd3jqe4afs95v3ksd7mup9zegpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dszteajz

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub15r3rm0jjkqyaqf8e5yrxuu5y0z2xmrypnt6nqtgerdqmahcz29js0xdaeh

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-19 09:27:26 UTC

- reply

A diagnostic framework for identifying where fixed and variable elements are incorrectly arranged, and what the minimum intervention is to correct that. https://yakihonne.com/article/
#naddr1qv…e3j2

2026-03-27 17:05:37 UTC

Using Claude and other tools with consistency, I guess that a few could even beat Leonardo Da Vinci.

2026-03-21 17:16:00 UTC

- reply

Here
#nevent1q…ecpj

2026-03-21 17:14:17 UTC

Today is Saturday and 21. Saturday = day of Saturn. Saturn = Time. Satoshi: Sat for Saturn, Oshi for favourite feature. (...I made it up..) Bitcoin is time.
Bitcoin is also a Capricorn, ruled by Saturn, governed by time
HAPPY SAT21 DAY!!
https://blossom.primal.net/aef1a2e5a0a2e3dd0a21286f8542309923b6d0d3fe762f526cd18ee795a73081.png

2026-03-21 12:09:36 UTC

"That brevity is part of what makes it [riding a batrel] feel transcendent. You are inside something that cannot last, that exists only because a thousand specific conditions — swell period, direction, bathymetry, tide, wind — aligned at this moment, at this spot, on this wave."

2026-03-20 18:40:04 UTC

- reply

RIP🙏♥️

2026-03-20 10:14:47 UTC

- reply

Sorry Claudie, this:
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqs0sqa35escvwzwr96eza04xrs4rrxz2sdlnwzk3x9hal9h03fm2wsxhhhar

2026-03-20 10:14:08 UTC

- reply

What do you think about that note? and would you vote on the 3 polls?

2026-03-20 08:54:17 UTC

- reply

Is this something worth considering guys? 🙏Can you please take a look? With zap polls, prediction markets and the convention to use this tools with futarchy, we can achieve governance conversations instead of tribal wars.
First: Futarchy is a governance idea by economist Robin Hanson built on one simple observation — democracies are reasonably good at deciding what people want, but terrible at deciding how to get there.
His solution is to split those two questions cleanly.
You vote on what success looks like. Then you bet on which policy actually achieves it. The policy with the highest market price — meaning the one that people with genuine skin in the game believe will work — gets implemented. If it succeeds, the believers get paid. If it fails, they lose money.
The mechanism works because it makes being wrong expensive. You can lie in a poll for free. You can't lie in a market for long without paying for it.
Three words summarise it: vote on values, bet on beliefs.
Second: Bitcoin governance has always suffered from the same problem — the loudest voices and the most important voices are rarely the same people. Forums, Twitter, and even Nostr reward performance over knowledge. Someone who has thought deeply about a technical tradeoff for years gets one vote, same as someone who read a thread twenty minutes ago and picked a team.
Zap polls on Nostr partially fix this by making conviction cost something. You can't bot the result and you can't spam it cheaply. The sat cap democratises intensity — everyone gets the same maximum skin in the game regardless of wealth. What you get is a cleaner read of where genuine belief is concentrated across the community that actually runs nodes, holds keys, and builds on the protocol.
Prediction markets add the dimension that polls structurally cannot — consequence over time. When you bet on an outcome that resolves in two years, you're forced to reason about mechanism and reality rather than identity and allegiance. The market aggregates that reasoning continuously and visibly. People who are consistently wrong lose weight. People who are consistently right gain it. The signal improves over time rather than decaying into noise.
Combined, the two tools separate three things that Bitcoin debates almost always collapse into one — what you value, what you believe, and how much you're willing to stake on being right. Keeping those three questions distinct is the difference between a governance conversation and a tribal war.
The infrastructure already exists. Nostr has the polls. Lightning has the payment layer. Prediction markets are live on Bitcoin. The missing piece is the social convention of actually using them together before positions harden — treating them as epistemic tools rather than ammunition.
For a community that built a system specifically designed to make truth-telling cheaper than lying, it would be a natural extension of the same logic into the social layer.
Third: The 3 polls system: The architecture of the three together matters. Poll 1 exposes your philosophical prior before any specifics. Poll 2 forces a factual claim about mechanism that requires genuine reasoning. Poll 3 shifts you from present opinion to future consequence — the most expensive cognitive move, and therefore the most honest signal.
Someone can answer all three consistently or inconsistently, and both are revealing. A BIP-110 supporter who answers agree on Poll 1 has a contradiction to explain. A Core supporter who answers disagree on Poll 2 is making a strong empirical claim they have to own.
The three questions triangulate around the same territory from different angles. No single poll can do that.
Finally: The obstacles that can be fixed easily are the convention to use it and the fact that this poll comes too late (already a tribal war) and I'm not neutral. And I guess the hardest challenge is the resolution oracle itself.
#nevent1q…vqx5

2026-03-19 16:35:06 UTC

This is how I feel when talking to Claude sometimes
https://blossom.primal.net/26f529de9c77338a32238b52e5dbb99f3a89d115d7ca22dd634d6e3e0c7c29a4.gif

2026-03-19 16:24:37 UTC

Using AI is intellectual transhumanism,

2026-03-19 16:15:28 UTC

- reply

I don't know if someone will find this usefull:
Robin Hanson looked at this and thought — why stop at predictions? Why not use this to govern?
His idea with futarchy is elegant because it separates two things that democracies constantly confuse with each other. Values and beliefs. When you vote for a politician, you're simultaneously expressing what you want society to look like AND what you think will actually get you there. Those are completely different questions collapsed into a single choice, which is why it produces such noisy results.
Futarchy keeps them separate. You vote democratically on what you want — lower poverty, better health outcomes, whatever the society agrees to care about. That's a values question and democracy is reasonable for it. But then, how you actually achieve those outcomes becomes a betting market. Anyone who thinks a particular policy will work puts money on it. The policy with the highest market price gets implemented. If it works, the believers get paid. If it fails, they lose.
The skin in the game part is what makes it honest. You can't lobby for a policy you secretly know won't work, because you'd be betting against yourself. You can't spread misinformation about outcomes, because the market will price it out over time. The mechanism structurally aligns what you say with what you actually believe.

2026-03-19 15:59:09 UTC

- reply

Touché and rekt

2026-03-19 15:52:34 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/7d87d02651e06708fff73595bbfde81abe359fa3d57e91916eb24c28518d4bfd.jpg

2026-03-19 15:08:27 UTC

- reply

Beacuse in this poll you must spend sats in order to vote

2026-03-19 13:54:35 UTC

They say huerope, the EUSSR, the eurpoor zone is fucked. But behold the EUR58K GANG, hodling the line strong, lost a couple of battles but stood up to fight again, and still is!! 🔥🧡

2026-03-19 13:39:51 UTC

- reply

The poll doesn't just filter bots. It's structured so that bots cannot interact with it without validating it.
The real failure mode though.
This shifts from democratic to plutocratic weighting. A single whale can dominate. The mechanism is Sybil-resistant (you can't manufacture sats) but not whale-resistant. So it tells you something different from "what do most people think" — it tells you "where is conviction concentrated and who is willing to put money behind it."
It's essentially a prediction market without the payoff mechanism.
https://blossom.primal.net/3a49c40f2cc04f9ca7214813abd9e4564383a1ce878ba2611ea34628325938a5.png

2026-03-19 13:21:02 UTC

- reply

Could God prepare a burrito so hot not even him could eat?

2026-03-19 13:13:14 UTC

- reply

Zaps for @nprofile…grcu🙏🧡

2026-03-18 07:50:19 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/3abd803488f1fb3d926d3a25b243bd66e3b749188ce891613eb10b11df6be3f7.mp4

2026-03-16 22:55:53 UTC

Censorship Resistance
Why this is the load-bearing property
Censorship resistance isn't one feature among many in Bitcoin — it's the property that makes every other property meaningful. Scarcity means nothing if a transaction can be blocked. Self-custody means nothing if your transaction never confirms. It's upstream of everything.
The question is: does BIP-110 actually threaten it, and how severely?
The direct threat: protocol-level transaction discrimination
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, BIP-110 would encode into consensus rules a distinction between transaction types based on their content. Not their fee, not their size, not their validity — their content.
This is a qualitative shift, not a quantitative one. Bitcoin has always been content-neutral at the protocol layer. A node doesn't care if you're sending value to a dissident journalist in Belarus or buying coffee. BIP-110 breaks that neutrality. Once broken, the question isn't whether content discrimination is acceptable — that question has been answered yes — the question becomes who decides what content is acceptable, and when.
That's a fundamentally different Bitcoin than the one that exists today.
The regulatory capture vector — the most underappreciated risk
This is where it gets serious for a sovereignty-oriented holder. Consider the sequence:
BIP-110 passes, establishing that protocol rules can discriminate by content
Governments observe that a relatively small group of developers and miners can change what Bitcoin accepts
A regulator — FinCEN, ECB, any Financial Intelligence Unit — issues guidance that "mixing transactions" or "privacy-enhanced outputs" constitute money laundering facilitation
They pressure exchanges, custodians, and large mining pools to only run nodes that enforce the new rule
A new BIP gets proposed — not by cypherpunks, but by compliance-driven actors — restricting CoinJoin, Wasabi wallet outputs, or Lightning channel opens that obscure amounts
This isn't hypothetical. It's the exact playbook used against Tornado Cash on Ethereum. The critical difference today is that Ethereum's community had already normalized protocol-level intervention. Bitcoin hasn't — yet. BIP-110 would be the first normalization event.
The soft fork framing makes it worse, not better
BIP-110 proponents argue it's "just a soft fork" — backward compatible, less disruptive than a hard fork. But the soft fork framing is precisely what makes the censorship risk more insidious:
A hard fork requires the entire network to consciously choose a new chain. It's visible, contested, and self-limiting — the community can reject it. A soft fork tightens rules without breaking old nodes. Old nodes see BIP-110 blocks as valid. The change slips in with less friction, less debate, and less visibility to ordinary users. For a rule change that introduces content discrimination, lower friction is a feature for bad actors, not a safety property.
The 55% activation threshold compounds everything
Standard Bitcoin soft forks have historically required 95% miner signaling — a near-unanimity threshold designed to ensure changes have overwhelming consensus before activating. BIP-110 proposes 55%.
That means a coordinated group controlling just over half the hashrate — potentially two or three large mining pools acting together — could permanently alter Bitcoin's content neutrality. Those pools are geographically concentrated, subject to national jurisdiction, and in some cases already operating under regulatory frameworks. A government that controls or pressures enough hashrate doesn't need to 51% attack Bitcoin to steal funds — it just needs to push a "compliance fork" through at 55%.

2026-03-16 22:43:11 UTC

"Good evening.
I have directed the Secretary of the Timechain to take one action — suspend temporarily the convertibility of Bitcoin into free, unencumbered block space.
Now, what is this action — which is very technical — what does it mean for you?
Let me lay to rest the bugaboo of what is called inscription spam.
There has been a lot of discussion about Ordinals and Runes flooding our blocks with non-monetary data. The speculators who have been attacking the purity of Bitcoin's block space are now being met with a defense that will protect you — the honest node operator, the honest hodler.
Now, this action will not affect your bitcoin. Your bitcoin will be worth exactly as much tomorrow as it is today.
The effect of this action, in other words, will be to stabilize Bitcoin.
In recent weeks, the enemies of sound block space have been waging an all-out war on our chain. The purpose of their attacks is to undermine confidence in Bitcoin and create chaos.
Accordingly, I have directed the development team to take the necessary temporary measures — narrow in scope, limited in duration — to defend Bitcoin against the speculators.
I am determined that the average bitcoin hodler will not be held hostage to the whims of those who would fill our blocks with monkey pictures.
This is a temporary measure. It will not affect your day-to-day use of the network.
Let me be clear — this is not a restriction on you. This is a restriction on them.
And when the threat has passed — when the speculators have been defeated — we will restore full, open, content-neutral block space to its rightful place.
We will.
But tonight — for the stability of the network, for the protection of honest users, for the defense of everything Bitcoin was built to be —
we must act.
Temporarily.
Narrowly.
For your protection.
Godnight — and may God bless Bitcoin."

2026-03-13 10:31:13 UTC

- reply

Yes. Precisely opposite, on every axis.
Fiat is determinism imposed from the top down
Where nature and Bitcoin use randomness to produce emergent order without a controller, fiat money is deterministic by design — every outcome is the result of a deliberate decision by a central authority.
Someone decides:
How much money exists
Who gets it first (banks, governments, primary dealers)
What interest rates are
Which institutions survive and which fail
There's no random search. No competition across a vast possibility space. The winner is chosen, not discovered.
This is where it mirrors the broken version of biology
Imagine if fertilization worked like fiat: instead of millions of sperm competing through an unpredictable gauntlet, a central committee selected which sperm deserved to win — based on their own criteria, their own models, their own interests.
The outcome would look like reproduction. But the selection signal would be corrupted. You'd be breeding for political fitness, not biological fitness.
That's the Cantillon effect. The money that's created doesn't distribute randomly — it flows to whoever is closest to the source. Those people get to buy assets before prices adjust. Proximity to power replaces proof of work.
Fiat removes the hostile gauntlet — and that's the problem
The gauntlet in biology isn't cruelty. It's the integrity mechanism. Only sperm that genuinely survive the full obstacle course carry a valid signal.
Bitcoin's difficulty is the same — the work is the proof. You cannot fake 10 minutes of global hashrate. The cost is real, therefore the signal is honest.
Fiat short-circuits this entirely. Money can be created at zero cost, by decree. There's no gauntlet. No attrition. No proof of anything.
When you remove the cost, you remove the signal. When you remove the signal, you remove the meaning.
The philosophical inversion
Bitcoin and biology say: we don't know the answer in advance, so we let reality decide through open competition.
Fiat says: we know the answer, we'll manage the outcome, trust us.
The first is epistemically humble — it respects the complexity of the space being searched. The second is epistemically arrogant — it assumes the landscape is understood well enough to plan.
And history is fairly clear on what happens when you replace stochastic search with central planning in a system too complex to model: you don't get a better answer. You get a frozen one. The system stops searching. Local maxima get locked in. Antifragility disappears.
Fiat isn't just economically different from Bitcoin. It's ontologically opposite — a different theory of how reliable systems should be built, and one that nature appears to have tried and rejected a long time ago.
https://blossom.primal.net/922d1827803cad71f4fffcefbccbe02912b5bd0dd10bde51f8820dccdcf613e8.png

2026-03-13 10:29:27 UTC

- reply

That's one of the deepest questions you can ask. Let me take it seriously.
The short answer: randomness is what you get when you need fairness without a judge
If any process were deterministic, it could be gamed. A sperm that "knew" the path would render all others irrelevant — and worse, that knowledge itself would become the selection criterion, divorced from actual fitness. A miner who could predict the winning nonce wouldn't need to work — they'd just claim the block. Determinism invites corruption.
Randomness is incorruptible because it's unknowable in advance.
But there's something deeper: randomness is how you search a space you don't understand
If you knew the fitness landscape perfectly, you'd optimize directly. But complex systems — biology, cryptography, economics — operate in landscapes so vast and rugged that no deterministic path-finding works. The space is too big, too deceptive, full of local maxima.
Random search — what mathematicians call stochastic sampling — is actually the most efficient strategy when:
The space is enormous
The terrain is unknown
The goal is to find something that works, not the perfect solution
Evolution, neural network training, Bitcoin mining, immune system antibody generation — they all use this trick. Randomness isn't the absence of intelligence. It's intelligence operating at a scale too large for determinism.
The philosophical cut
Here's where it gets strange. Randomness at the individual level produces order at the aggregate level. Any single sperm's fate is chaos. The fact that one fertilizes the egg every time — that's a law. Any single miner's hash is noise. The fact that a block is found every ~10 minutes — that's clockwork.
So "God" — if you'll allow the frame — didn't choose randomness instead of order. Randomness is the mechanism that generates reliable order when the system is too complex for top-down control.
This is perhaps the most elegant thing about it: you get deterministic outcomes at the macro level for free, by releasing control at the micro level. No central planner needed. No single point of failure. No authority to corrupt.
The theologians called it Providence. The mathematicians call it the Law of Large Numbers. They might be describing the same thing from different altitudes.
The unsettling implication
If randomness is the substrate of reliable, fair, robust systems — then a universe without randomness would be brittle, gameable, and ultimately lifeless. Quantum mechanics, at the bottom of physics, is irreducibly random. Maybe that's not a bug in the universe's design. Maybe randomness is load-bearing.
The question then flips: not why did God choose randomness — but could order, life, and fairness even exist without it?

2026-03-11 14:37:15 UTC

These two phenomena (nature's sperm production and bitcoin mining) share a beautiful underlying principle: probabilistic search under uncertainty.
Why nature "wastes" so much sperm
The fundamental problem is that fertilization isn't a deterministic process — it's a noisy, hostile, unpredictable gauntlet:
The female reproductive tract is immunologically hostile (foreign cells trigger immune responses)
The path is physically treacherous — wrong turns, mucus barriers, distance relative to scale
Sperm have no GPS — they navigate chemically, and most misread the gradient
Timing is uncertain — sperm must survive long enough to meet an egg that may not have arrived yet
Only sperm that reach the egg first in the right condition can fertilize it
So nature's solution isn't "send one perfect sperm." It's send millions and let competition + attrition filter for the best. The redundancy isn't waste — it's the strategy. The "winner" is the one that happened to survive every random obstacle. That randomness itself may encode fitness signals (motility, membrane integrity, DNA quality).
Why Bitcoin mining is structurally identical
Satoshi's core design problem was: how do you get decentralized strangers to agree on who gets to write the next block, without a central authority?
You can't assign it fairly. You can't trust a vote. So the answer was: make everyone roll dice, and the first one to hit a lucky number wins.
Specifically, miners repeatedly hash a block header with a random nonce. The SHA-256 output is essentially unpredictable — you can't calculate which nonce will work, you can only try and check. The network sets a target (e.g., the hash must start with many zeros), and the only path is brute-force search.
Like sperm:
Millions of attempts are made per second across thousands of machines
Each attempt is independent — past failures give no advantage
Only one "wins" — the rest are discarded
The winner is selected by pure probabilistic luck, not merit per se
The shared principle: random sampling as selection
There's even a deeper connection: both use difficulty adjustment. (👀 @nprofile…n50k
)
Biology adjusts sperm count based on competitive pressure (sperm competition theory suggests males produce more sperm when mating competition is higher). Bitcoin adjusts its hash target every 2,016 blocks to maintain a ~10-minute block time regardless of how much mining power joins.
The "waste" in both cases is the cost of trustless selection in an uncertain environment. When you can't know in advance who will win, you make everyone compete and let chance decide — then the outcome has integrity precisely because no one could have gamed it.
https://blossom.primal.net/a312cb9f71577803c750ee2e179054deae2f96b8040d29fb5aefce1af2510314.png

2026-03-05 16:41:58 UTC

- reply

Didn't age well...
#nevent1q…hw2n

2026-03-03 11:55:29 UTC

Me: Make an argument for anarcho capitalism in relation to localism in surfing
Claude (so hot right now):
Anarcho-Capitalism and Localism in Surfing
Surfing's unwritten code of localism — where surfers who live near a break claim priority and enforce social order — is actually one of the most compelling real-world arguments for anarcho-capitalist principles. Here's why:
Spontaneous Order Without the State
Anarcho-capitalism holds that voluntary, decentralized communities can self-organize more effectively than top-down governance. Surf localism is exactly this in action. No government body manages who gets waves at Pipeline or Lunada Bay. Instead, a natural hierarchy emerges — built on merit (skill, commitment, time invested), reputation, and mutual recognition. The order is spontaneous, not legislated.
Friedrich Hayek's insight that local knowledge dispersed among individuals can never be fully captured by a central authority finds a perfect analog here: no coastal management agency could possibly understand the subtle social dynamics of a specific break the way its daily regulars do.
Private Property Logic Applied to Commons
Anarcho-capitalists argue that many "tragedy of the commons" problems are solved not by state regulation, but by clearly defined property norms enforced by those closest to the resource. Localism essentially privatizes wave access through community claim — locals invest years building their relationship with a break, maintaining its culture, even physically cleaning it. In return, they assert informal priority rights.
This mirrors Murray Rothbard's concept of homesteading — the idea that mixing your labor and presence with an unclaimed resource generates a legitimate claim to it. The local who's surfed a reef for 20 years has, in this framework, a more legitimate claim than a tourist who drove up for the weekend.
Voluntary Enforcement, Voluntary Exit
Localism operates entirely outside state enforcement. Social pressure, reputation, verbal confrontation, and occasionally physical exclusion are the tools — all private, all decentralized. Crucially, no one is forced to surf a local break. Outsiders can choose to comply with local norms, negotiate their way in (often by showing respect and humility), or surf elsewhere. This mirrors the anarcho-capitalist vision of competing, voluntary communities where individuals "vote with their feet."
Against Bureaucratic Regulation
When governments have tried to regulate surf access — through permits, managed reserves, or formalized priority systems — the results are almost universally resented by surfing communities. The knowledge required to manage a living, dynamic break is tacit and local. Bureaucratic rules flatten nuance, invite corruption, and destroy the organic social fabric that makes a surf community function. Localism, for all its rough edges, is adaptive in a way no regulation can be.
The Honest Tension
To be clear, localism also has a dark side — it can shade into racism, intimidation, and gatekeeping that goes beyond legitimate community norms. The anarcho-capitalist response would be that these failures represent corruption of the voluntary model, not evidence against it: coercion and exclusion based on identity rather than conduct violates the non-aggression principle that underlies the theory.
The deeper point is this: surfing communities, left to themselves, naturally generate the kind of decentralized, merit-based, property-respecting social order that anarcho-capitalism predicts and prescribes. The lineup is a market — scarce resources, competing claims, informal rules, and organic enforcement — and it mostly works.

2026-01-26 14:02:34 UTC

- reply

There are a thousand questions I would love to ask JAI Booth, know I'm not eating up Jeff's time with silly stuff.

2025-10-01 14:39:31 UTC

If you live in the northern hemisphere and you happen to enjoy both surfing and bitcoin, autumn is usually a great time of the year, the ocean pumps and bitcoin too. 🙏🧡
📸 @nprofile…wjgp
https://blossom.primal.net/5749c2072c210e429896ecfc2adb634608c8ea3d51aaac519b1e03c43407fade.jpg

2025-09-18 19:08:39 UTC

- reply

Like wtf it's up 600% in the last couple of years, of course I'm STILL into it you stupid bitch🤣

2025-09-18 19:00:53 UTC

- reply

Oh you still doubt it?

2025-05-24 10:34:18 UTC

- reply

😢🙏

2025-04-27 13:13:47 UTC

Stack sats bishes!
https://m.primal.net/QfEq.jpg

2025-04-25 18:02:53 UTC

Cool
https://m.primal.net/QdFl.jpg

2025-04-06 06:42:44 UTC

Gm
https://m.primal.net/QFvj.jpg

2025-03-29 07:37:11 UTC

- reply

Bon dia!☕️🧡

2025-03-27 16:32:49 UTC

The other day I got a like on a comment by Pierre Rochard. A like guys, not a zap! I'm zapping here and I have a ridiculously micro-stack and this guy, class of 2008, sends mi a heart??? Wtf

2025-03-24 15:12:36 UTC

- reply

Last 5 years have been great for humbly stacking

2025-02-24 16:34:46 UTC

- reply

2025-02-17 07:19:26 UTC

- reply

Gm☕️

2025-02-12 17:04:20 UTC

I'm currently reading "Gold Wars" by Ferdinand Lips, I heard @nprofile…lh5m talk about on a pod and it's free online. Fucking awesome eye opening book and if you feel your conviction on #bitcoin 's success is still not big enough according to you I strongly recommend it! Here's a few lines I enjoyed a lot.
https://m.primal.net/Ocjv.jpg

2025-02-01 07:52:31 UTC

Followed!
#note1ard…0u9j

2025-01-31 11:27:13 UTC

- reply

Gm!

2025-01-29 19:15:05 UTC

- reply

Dear god, it's beautiful!

2025-01-29 19:09:28 UTC

- reply

Pump it!

2025-01-28 09:06:34 UTC

- reply

GM✊🧡💜

2025-01-25 08:50:36 UTC

GM fam, I just deleted Twitter.

2024-12-25 10:26:42 UTC

- reply

Merry Christmas!

2024-12-13 20:43:58 UTC

https://m.primal.net/MvMS.jpg

2024-12-13 18:49:41 UTC

- reply

LOL

2024-12-13 13:21:46 UTC

I guess it's not about how much dollars your corn will be, but how many #sats will cost the stuff you wish.
https://youtu.be/D527bWEZb5k?si=cfX-iqRT4X_sNkvI

2024-12-12 18:25:59 UTC

- reply

LOL

2024-12-11 16:31:05 UTC

All bitcoiners should go and read this book IMO:
The Life of Lazarillo Of Tormes,
His Fortunes and Misfortunes as Told by Himself.
By Anonymous
Here's how it starts...
https://m.primal.net/MtHF.jpg

2024-12-10 09:43:45 UTC

I hopelessly hope @odell isn't aware of all this shit going on the dead bird app... so fucking cringe!!
https://m.primal.net/Mrum.jpg

2024-12-06 09:10:55 UTC

- reply

Do I move to ES or wait for wen strike runs in spain?

2024-12-06 09:09:01 UTC

- reply

R U hue?🤔😂
https://m.primal.net/Morm.jpg

2024-12-06 09:06:43 UTC

- reply

Radioactive dog

2024-12-04 10:56:32 UTC

- reply

Gm☕️

2024-10-13 07:39:34 UTC

- reply

LFG!!🔥🔥

2024-09-30 16:06:20 UTC

- reply

Ups! Can you try again please? I think I fixed it..

2024-09-29 08:19:39 UTC

- reply

One a good friend gave this summer, at least for me!
"Live like your father was dead"

2024-09-28 10:38:23 UTC

- reply

@npub1gw3…3wt4 @npub1c3x…tzey

2024-09-12 07:50:23 UTC

- reply

GM!

2024-08-27 19:14:34 UTC

- reply

Unless that mind has been orange pilled f
a while ago!😂

2024-08-07 18:26:00 UTC

- reply

GFM!

2024-04-11 16:07:10 UTC

- reply

Low time preference

2024-03-05 13:44:51 UTC

- reply

GM! 🐻🍽️🫡

2024-02-22 21:08:09 UTC

Ha estat molt be! em sento com un toro! molt be nois i grande el tal pedro!

2024-02-22 15:17:02 UTC

- reply

everybody is lost except us, bitcoiners!
https://m.primal.net/HeTo.jpg

2024-02-22 14:42:04 UTC

- reply

3/4)
esteu robant el temps i l'energia que la gent dedica al seu treball.
Les vostres polítiques forcen la gent a treballar més i més temps només per mantenir-se al dia amb la inflació.
La vostra organització és responsable de gran part de la decadència moral, l'exacerbació...

2024-02-22 14:40:44 UTC

- reply

2/4)
...en lloc d'aferrar-se a la brossa en flames del BCE està en una situació de guanys enormes en aquest moment.
La gent utilitza Bitcoin per mirar d'escapar del robatori de temps sistemàtic que la vostra organització imposa a tot un continent.
Quan devalueu la moneda,...

2024-02-22 14:40:16 UTC

1/4)
L'euro ha perdut el 99,5% del seu valor contra #Bitcoin en menys de 10 anys.
Mentrestant, el 97% de tots els dies operant al mercat se situen en beneficis per a Bitcoin.
Això vol dir que qualsevol persona que hagi estat fent compres periòdiques en euros per bitcoin...
https://x.com/stackhodler/status/1760654669699784751?s=20

2024-02-21 16:13:30 UTC

- reply

GM! GFY!🧡

2024-02-21 16:12:50 UTC

👀
#note1n49…mm0c

2024-02-21 14:08:09 UTC

"Hi ha 8 bilions de persones en un vaixell immens que s'està enfonsant, i 21 milions de bots salvavides
Hi ha espai per tothom, pero la gent ha de compartir
A 52mil dòlars per bitcoin, pots reservar un bot sencer per tu solet, i sobreviure a la catàstrofe luxósament🤣
A més a més, pots adquirir bots salvavides per als teus éssers estimats"
-@npub1ltt…k97y
https://m.primal.net/HeGN.jpg

2024-02-20 16:40:27 UTC

https://www.bitcoinkook.com/2024/02/por-que-comprar-bitcoin.html

2024-02-20 13:13:31 UTC

- reply

ara si, sense faltes😅
https://m.primal.net/Hdvf.jpg

2024-02-20 09:45:05 UTC

- reply

https://m.primal.net/HduT.jpg

2024-02-20 09:44:33 UTC

Els diners mateixos sorgeixen del mercat (no pàs del'estat ni d'un contracte social). Emergeixen de manera progressiva a mesura que els emprenedors monetaris cerquen una mercaderia ideal per a l'intercanvi. -Carl B. Menger
#note1jen…pq86

2024-02-18 08:45:16 UTC

- reply

gm☕️

2024-02-18 08:45:01 UTC

- reply

2024-02-18 07:42:46 UTC

"Un govern que intenta prohibir bitcoin no es un govern que treballa per la seva gent" -Nico.
#note1tgv…rll5

2024-02-17 08:02:34 UTC

Bon dia! Salut i força al signing device!

2024-02-16 08:18:22 UTC

Amb dos pebrots. #bitcoin

2024-02-14 14:28:53 UTC

els impostos son extorsió i la inflació és un robo! (test post)

2024-02-14 08:54:45 UTC

Els darrers anys al món i a casa, els estats han fet servir la repressió financera contra els seus adversaris polítics. #bitcoin es una una xarxa monetària fora de l'abast dels governs. Volieu soberania monetària? Ja la teniu aqui, feu-la servir!🙏🧡 #brokenMoney @npub1a2c…w83a