hylomorphic
Neal BIP110

https://www.modernchains.com/

Author of “Modern Chains.”
Catholic. Husband. Father of two.
Former Army Officer, AH-64 Pilot.
BS in Art, Literature and Philosophy from the US Military Academy.
MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary.

Public Key

npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6

NIP-05 Address

ModernChains@primal.net

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsr3gwdr05shx5f35jpthqsrhcgwrc4kuh2y0xmpt0647kgp5p06zgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsdnjnt5

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-06-28 04:36:00 UTC

- reply

“bullying” has a negative connotation i don’t think is accurate to reality.
miners, nodes, and users all work together in unison, but they are not equals.
node runners have to be point man, if they are not the conductor, the ensemble will sound like shit
we will see how it plays out, but i don’t know what principles reason a miner would have to not mine BIP110 compliant blocks.
if they had a URSF we would have a more accurate score card, but as is, act activation block height, if u a miner if you don’t click the button, other miners could blow u up, but if u click the button, you are safe.
if there is no URSF, we will only know after the fact.
and honestly i wont be surprised by either outcome
i think we don’t get a chain split and switch to BIP110, and that’s cause i couldn’t get anyone to provide me with a valid principled answer to why v30 was good without contradicting themselves.
maybe the miners have one.
but i can only go off the best arguments i can gather

2026-06-27 21:29:55 UTC

- reply

“how miners act”
💯

2026-06-25 22:49:48 UTC

- reply

Ad hominems just can’t be all of one’s argument.
applied like salt to a nice tenderloin
you should try some tenderloin btw
they’re still fun, especially when true

2026-06-25 22:33:59 UTC

- reply

lol
you’re a vegan 😂
explains why ur immune to logic

2026-06-25 22:32:19 UTC

- reply

“functionally the same”
don’t tilt at windmills
Bitcoin wasn’t bad on10-9-23.
and making bitcoin on 10-9-23 consensus isn’t bad either.
satoshi used relay policy to address data usage on chain.
v30 said nah
so consensus is the arbiter

2026-06-25 22:05:29 UTC

- reply

he was also the one who made the first filter.
what was functionally accomplished with relay policy prior to v30, is functionally the same accomplished at consensus with BIP110
just because you say the word “technical” does not supercede logic

2026-06-24 18:41:23 UTC

- reply

analyzed from first principles, both sides are advocating for a limit.
but only one side acknowledges that. BIP110
the v30 side is stuck in a performative contradiction every time they open their mouth on the issue.
they can’t answer “why not 200k?” or “why not 4mb”
BIP110 at least has a logically valid and rational justification. for 80.
sure, maybe some other number for the limit is optimal, but it’s the failure of v30 to produce one valid argument for why 100k is the correct limit.

2026-06-24 05:31:57 UTC

- reply

when relay policy functionally prohibited OP_Return >80, there was no problem.
but if protocol consensus functionally prohibits OP_Return >80, there is a big problem?
You do also realize v30 limits OP_Return?
I can’t make a 2mb OP_Return :’(
I’m being censored.
I want to pay the miner but the oppression!
the limiting principle is the same on both sides. each side has to make an affirmative case for why they drew the limiting line where they did.
So why do you think 100k is the right limit? why not 200k? or 4mb?

2026-06-21 17:40:24 UTC

politics makes sense once you realize the purpose of “political squabbling” is to distract people and obfuscate what the monetary system is doing.
#bitcoin

2026-06-15 21:50:54 UTC

- reply

i need to get to that too. got the server set up and my node running.

2026-06-15 19:12:20 UTC

- reply

privacy, like freedom, is a means not and end in itself
reality is the ultimate public domain.

2026-06-13 21:26:59 UTC

- reply

that’s odd, it’s a poll but i only see one option to select. good thing the only answer allowed is the right answer

2026-06-13 20:30:55 UTC

- reply

The main point of my advocacy is showing people that the money isn’t broken.
the title of that book has sent people down the wrong path in terms of advocacy.
macro is noise.
ignores the essence of money.
majoring in the minors
describes when u need prescription
economics is gay if you don’t understand the ethics it derives from

2026-06-13 15:33:50 UTC

- reply

all these are downstream effects of the federal reserve system
the lengths they go to keeping their dream of papering over reality alive

2026-06-13 12:46:44 UTC

- reply

40th time is the charm!

2026-06-12 23:00:43 UTC

- reply

i remember going to tbr midnight showing for matrix 2. it was on a school night too lol

2026-06-11 21:51:18 UTC

- reply

💯

2026-06-11 03:44:23 UTC

- reply

as a neutral party, it stretches credulity into the absurd to think the better team walked away with the W tonight.

2026-06-10 22:14:04 UTC

- reply

your life itself was given.
you were born from relation, into relation, and will do the to your children.
the “State” means a million things to a million people.
but what it is essentially is relation.
it’s non-rational thinking “the State” could be dissolved or erased.
the sooner people realize all issues concerning “the State” are directional snd not categorical, the sooner bad actors lose their useful idiots.

2026-06-06 18:24:25 UTC

- reply

I’m not numb, as in there is a feeling there that is being snuffed out.
i am happy to be free, to be outside of fiat.
on a bitcoin standard, im always better off. either my savings power is ripping or my purchasing power.
thats the best thing about being on a btc standard. subsume the. volatility. make it yours.
you can’t do that if you think of btc as an investment. that’s still using a fiat dollar denominator.

2026-06-04 21:17:12 UTC

- reply

what do they have you on?

2026-06-03 20:47:38 UTC

- reply

most people are reliably unable to show up on time.
does that count? 🤣

2026-06-03 15:10:31 UTC

- reply

i tip my hat to you
always such a smooth delivery

2026-06-03 14:54:33 UTC

- reply

every human being is a moral agent by nature
it’s a persons mode of being to think in terms of “good” “bad” “better” “worse”
that’s the floor, so i play into that.
every person is already doing enough “philosophy” when they get up in the morning to get the ethics.
but not everyone has the “economic chops”
i see it the other way around.
every person can recognize ethical case.
most people who can get the economics have already.
point out how fiat aggresses upon them. they recognize that’s bad.
ask them questions to make them think about why they have justified that aggression in the past.
they will have to tear down the mental walls in their own mind, and imo that work will make them “philosophically” strong enough so the rest.
meet them where they are as people
speak to, encourge and train
watch them grow and actualize their “philosophical” potential as a human being

2026-06-02 23:51:31 UTC

- reply

Ethical case doesn’t change with price 👀

2026-05-30 18:17:08 UTC

- reply

everything gets worse, but a line goes up.
you get an ATH
you get an ATH

2026-05-30 00:52:13 UTC

- reply

over 40% of americans couldn’t handle a $400 emergency without credit in 2025.
so it’s probably worse now

2026-05-28 17:21:15 UTC

- reply

https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyOWFnaWw4MmZmM2RlczhnOWZhNXljMXlrY2ducmx5MG8yOG14Nzd2NiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/rcqtfj0RAhWLu/200.gif

2026-05-25 18:08:29 UTC

- reply

I hear you, literally and metaphorically.
you speak, I speak and there is power in that.
your right, individually there is “no power” but that is because that power doesn’t exist individually.
it exists relationally, between us.
it’s not an all or nothing, this not that, but the dynamism of our relation.
so keep speaking, keep participating, and you add contribute your power to the whole

2026-05-25 17:37:37 UTC

- reply

that analogy is correct, but it disproves your point.
english isn’t just a static “protocol”
it’s enacted and spoken.
the way people speak english today sounds nothing like it used to sound before even though it has the same grammar
hence “old english”
bitcoin is a protocol language of value the same as english is.

2026-05-25 02:48:21 UTC

- reply

my life isn't a figment of imagination. neither is yours.
Is the bitcoin network not made up of participants?

2026-05-25 02:30:52 UTC

- reply

right now, consensus says nothing on the matter and lets the relay policy do all the talking.
consensus needs to speak up, one way or the other.
that fixes all the issues with mempools, miner fee estimations, block propagation, et al. and then we have legit consensus on data carrier size, everyone on same page.
if we give a fuck about bitcoin at all, we should only be discussing in the affirmative, why one particular data carrier size is right, in order to work out consensus, to make the butter. rationally dialogue back and forth.
should it 0 or uncapped?
or something in between?
there is a right answer.
an answer that makes the network maximally valuable.
it exists not in your head or in mine, but between us all.
and if a person cannot make the affirmative case for what number they think is best, that speaks louder than words.
they either lack the rational capacity for dialogue and should ostracized and shunned until they stfu.
or they are bad/hostile actors.
either way, children don’t belong at the adult table.
i honestly don’t give a shit what number any person says, as long as they make the affirmative case for it. just be honest and say how much and why.
whether people know it or not, they are answering that question with their actions.
most people don’t even know that’s the question because they are debating whether sally said sue had a fat ass at gym.
or debating self contradictory arguments about too busy tilting at windmills about “what is spam?” or “what is censorship?”
if we are too fucking retarded to get it right, then we deserve this fiat hellscape we inhabit.
@nprofile…yzgx @nprofile…urxs @nprofile…8ckh @nprofile…ja5u @nprofile…6xme @nprofile…nf8k @nprofile…ywzm @nprofile…yptf @nprofile…92fc @nprofile…04rp @nprofile…xxx2 @npub1lh2…a9nk @nprofile…09rd @nprofile…ddnk

2026-05-24 14:29:19 UTC

- reply

whatever you want to call the default change in carrier data size from 83 to 100,000
that was the change in contention.
it’s absurd to say it was “already blown out” else there would have been no need to change the default
there are a lot of bad arguments on both sides. it’s been a pain working through them all looking for the best affirmative case for what I ought to do.

2026-05-24 12:49:30 UTC

- reply

let’s not pretend anyone was advocating for blowing out op_return with the message “this change makes it easier for you to anchor”
we heard about “censorship resistance,” block propagation, fee estimation, and miner centralization.
everything but the elephant

2026-05-23 21:54:22 UTC

- reply

😂
it’s ok to just say the affirmative case for the change is to do stuff ontop of btc.
that’s the elephant in the room no one wants to acknowledge.
“block propagation” and “fee estimates” dont wet my whistle.
but maybe they wet yours.
i’m not forcing anyone to respond to inquiry. If you feel those authentic questions are an attack, that says more about you than anything.
i have no ill will towards you or @nprofile…xxx2
🫂

2026-05-23 15:06:15 UTC

- reply

I advocate for bitcoin.
I talk to people and try and persuade them rationally why bitcoin is good for them.
the same standards i hold myself to in my advocacy for bitcoin, i hold to other advocates to.
if i thought of that work as beneath me, then i wouldn’t be an advocate.
if i thought everyone else was just retarded and didn’t get this simple obvious thing, then i would be a horrible advocate
infact, when I have thought others as just retarded for not getting something, it’s been an indicator that i’m missing a part of the picture. it signals to me that i have oversimplified reality.
perhaps that’s a takeaway from these exchanges. it’s never a bad idea to reassess your assumptions and ask “what am i missing?”
one of the ironic things about being philosopher, i don’t walk around pretending i’m an amazing computer scientist, doctor, or aeronautical engineer.
but yet every computer scientist, doctor, and aeronautical engineer i’ve ever met, thinks they are an amazing philosopher.

2026-05-23 11:35:06 UTC

- reply

my understanding of printing:
archival nodes can’t prune.
so we need archival nodes to spin up new nodes, yes?
so for an individual node runner it’s a step forward, a plus.
but for tbr network as a whole, it’s no step, just stays the same at best, and bloats the chain itself at worst
seems like a very meager benefit to trade for more hefty risks

2026-05-23 11:21:06 UTC

- reply

I appreciate the suggestion but I don’t outsource my thinking to LLMs. In terms of research, I treat AI like I would wikipedia.
I understand the limits of what they are capable of. I use AI, but to do very specific tasks for me.
Also, for better or worse, I have never really cared “how I sound”
i am more concerned with being honest with myself, pursing the truth best i can, and letting my work speak for itself.
I am not bothered by someone calling me “retarded” or whatever variety of insult is in vouge.
i break down complex issues into syllogisms and meticulously try to break positions. I have an aseptic approach: principles above all.
That’s the best i can do, i’ll walk my path with the crowd or alone. That’s what’s important to me.

2026-05-23 05:48:31 UTC

- reply

I understand spam can’t be stopped. It doesn’t bother me at all.
The object of the question remains, as you say, “less worse usage.”
Articulate in the affirmative what that means?
What good comes from blowing out the op-return?

2026-05-23 05:28:07 UTC

- reply

I know you have explained those things.
Which is why I asked about the affirmative case for what benefit larger allocations of arbitrary data provide me, a regular pleb with a node on a btc standard.
That’s the only answer I want.
Cause that’s the essence.
That’s the principle.
I don’t give a fuck about personalities.
It doesn’t matter how shiny the code is polished if the principles underpinning it aren’t aligned with my interest.
as a person who continually steelmans many opposing sides, the complete lack of direct answers for why arbitrary data allowance should be increased is scary.
I have asked and searched far and wide, and best affirmative answer I have gotten is “it will give u a faster more accurate estimation of fees.”
if the only significant benefit is “it lets me do cool shit on top of bitcoin” then that’s that.
for as much as you hate luke, the things you advocate for are sending a lot of people his way.

2026-05-22 19:16:43 UTC

- reply

I could not agree more with you.
That’s the whole bitcoin game: serving one’s self interest.
I asked for your counsel because I saw that you were advocating for people not to run knots, not to run BIP110, so you are already in the persuasion game, you are already trying to convince others.
Just being real man, it is a little on the nose to hear you say "I'm not going to try and convince you" after I just got done reading your entire blog post trying to convince me.
I am a moral philosopher. that is literally my profession.
I do nothing but study and write about “what ought one do?”
There is nothing wrong with persuading others through rational dialog.
I am interested in the principles behind your logic and actions because I know I get a lot of things wrong, so I am constantly revalidating my thought process, asking what am I missing? The best way I have found to deal with my blindspots is to steelman every possible position I am aware of, and then pit them against each other.
Of all the contentious issues I've used this method for, this one is the most lopsided, no pun intended.
I am about to spin up my new node. I was running core v28 on an old laptop and never upgraded it, but that just seems like non-participation now because we signal our self interest with our actions. Like bitcoin is going left or right, there is no pause, tick tock next block.
So help me steelman the case for increasing the amount of arbitrary data per transaction. I cannot make a good affirmative case for why I should run the latest version of core, why I should reject BIP110.
I guess this was my final hail mary heave to make sure I'm not making a mistake in serving my interests as a bitcoiner.

2026-05-22 14:20:07 UTC

- reply

let’s grant that luke is hitler or the devil incarnate.
with that aside, now we could get to the contentious issue: how should the network handle arbitrary data?
current consensus says: do what you want with it. so it makes sense why you advocate the way you do. you have a use for arbitrary data, and I do not blame you for serving your interests.
but it also makes sense why BIP110 advocates argue the way they do. they have no need for arbitrary data, and I do not blame them for serving their interests either.
right now, i have no use for arbitrary data; it does not serve any interest of mine. I am on a BTC standard; it is my chosen money.
just got my start9 server, my participation with the network contributes to forming bitcoins consensus
so what is the affirmative case?
how does the current consensus around arbitrary data serve me?

2026-05-20 04:01:16 UTC

- reply

yeah, i feel the same.
high time preference
Maybe i’m a hopeless romantic, but i think the millennial and gen z turn out is evidence they won’t be as easy to pay off.
I think there are more of us at the “fuck it I’m done with this shit” stage of life

2026-05-19 23:49:32 UTC

- reply

i think when i first followed you we had about the same follower count.
you have been crushing me!

2026-05-14 16:52:22 UTC

- reply

“It simply grows until the spell breaks, and confidence/perception collapses.”
At that moment, what happens?
What action takes place in reality?
You are describing the real act of people taking their real value out of fiat dollars and putting them into other monetary objects, with abstract theoretical rhetoric
If done so in mass, the demand for those other monetary objects would skyrocket, and people would be happy to get them at any price.
nothing snaps, no thing breaks.
people are doing what they always do in an economy, create/store/exchange value, just with a different monetary objects
using abstract rhetoric of “breaking the spell” does not negate the reality that there is real value contained in fiat dollars.
this is the danger of approaching the domain of reality from abstract economic theories. inevitably something real and relevant gets abstracted away and we lose our tether to real life

2026-05-14 14:35:04 UTC

- reply

when the government prints new dollars, they have no value in them.
they are exchanging those empty dollars with other people for real value.
if people didn’t accept printed money from the gov, it would never be injected into the economy.
if they didn’t exchange their value for fiat, fiat wouldn’t be money.
since people treat dollars fungibly, the empty dollars siphon out the real value contained in all the dollars already in existence.
the value equalizes across all containers.
that’s the “inflation” due to monetary debasement
my point is that if the gov prints dollars and you sell them your sheep, that is real and not just a perception in anyones head.
the value you created with your sheep, was exchanged for an object that now contains real value.
yes, perception, our subjectivity plays a part in our actions, but it does not negate the reality of objective consequence. it does not make it “all in our head” or “held together by perception”

2026-05-14 13:54:31 UTC

- reply

“entirely held together by human perception.”
no
people create value in the world
they are putting that value in real monetary objects
fiat is a evil monetary object designed to extract and control
it’s a real thing, it’s a real monetary object.
they aren’t putting the value their create in their head, it’s not imaginary. it’s real money.
this is what happens when the “subjective theory of value” over corrects the “labor theory of value”
it’s just esoteric bullshit that doesn’t resonate with the reality of people’s lives.
but our upcoming book will correct this.
if we want to orange pill the masses, we have to sacrifice macro for the moral, theory for reality, economics for ethics.

2026-05-13 21:01:59 UTC

- reply

people are using fiat and debt as money.
it’s evil money, but money all the same.

2026-05-13 20:51:52 UTC

- reply

late for entry 🤣
but my answers:
1a) by decree.
1b) yes 💯 absolutely money.
2) it is formal slavery
3) the illusion of comfort is tempting

2026-05-09 23:53:51 UTC

- reply

i pray you’re right.
i can’t pretend i don’t see the uniparty marching along just fine though.

2026-05-09 17:26:46 UTC

- reply

even with trump as the input, we get the same neocon uniparty output.
it doesn’t matter if he is a good guy or bad guy. results speak for themselves
i personally think he had the best of intentions, but talk is cheap.

2026-05-09 01:50:30 UTC

- reply

sad but true.

2026-05-07 00:14:47 UTC

- reply

i will have to try this!

2026-05-06 14:41:02 UTC

- reply

false, false, true

2026-05-04 01:31:44 UTC

- reply

big word small word is just the rhetorical short hand the point at the necessary relation that something always exists beyond our perspective.
ultimately, it’s the relation between the origin source of existence itself and that which exists.

2026-05-04 00:39:13 UTC

- reply

why not eternal?
—bitcoin is a small world we created.
— work is motion, it’s a function of time blocks created by PoW is still “in time”

2026-05-03 23:38:59 UTC

- reply

to say “time itself” is to mean “time as-such” or “the whole of all time” or everything “in time” or everything “not eternal”
that real phenomena of the dynamic flow is the more holistic accounting of the principles.
our rationality and the intelligibility of reality makes it possible for us to know the continuous dynamic of flow is primary to discreetness itself through a transcendental argument.
we can talk about any particular measure, plank, years. hours etc, but if we lose sight of the particular’s relation to the principled whole, we aren’t talking about reality anymore.
and that’s what I think philosophers do, as others dive deep into specificity and particulars, we try to make sure no wires get crossed in relation to the general principles.

2026-05-03 22:32:25 UTC

- reply

“I am defining continuous time in the definitive sense that there is no fundamental quantized unit of time.”
— agree, if you want to say there is no quantized unit of time, i’m 100% on board.
but you lose me when saying therefore time is not continuous, or there is no such thing as continuous time.
whatever time is, it’s essentially the dynamic relation of that which is possible, that which is, and that which was.
the denial of the continuity aspect of time breaks the logic.
the words and meanings we use matter, and we can’t break the whole on account of a part.

2026-05-03 20:32:29 UTC

- reply

“Where is this continuous time you speak of?”
—you tell me, you exist in it

2026-05-02 12:26:02 UTC

- reply

I’ve honestly interacted with you on the logic.
The same logic in Aristotle’s Physics.
You are still stuck between two impasses, yet claim you have disproven the continuity of time.
Ironically, you like to say “since the genesis block” as if that was the origin, but the block wasn’t the origin.
Satoshi ran bitcoin, and started mining. There was a length of time where bitcoin was running and there was no discrete quantized block of time.
bitcoin was running and there was no genesis block.
the now, the present, the continuity of time is a necessary condition for all discrete measures.
the discrete necessarily relies on the continuous.
it’s not an axiom, not asserted
it’s necessitated logically.
demonstrated through our very existence
i respect you enough to point out that’s the logic.
you have not contended with it.
i don’t know how else to put it, but that’s the honest truth. 🫡

2026-04-30 23:55:40 UTC

- reply

you got that running slick

2026-04-27 23:18:38 UTC

- reply

“fix” as in nail down.
there is no repairing this monetary system.
the money isn’t broken.
if we get money right, we have our best shot, but it doesn’t guarantee we overcome our human nature.

2026-04-25 16:07:50 UTC

- reply

stop trying to control her life! 🤣
I think that behavior demonstrates a marxist theory of power underpinning her worldview, and she is just big mad she doesn’t have the power.
ie. if she had the power, she would be gleeful to use it on others.

2026-04-23 18:06:21 UTC

- reply

from debasement of the dollar.
which means when the dollar dies, so does the yield 👀

2026-04-17 21:26:31 UTC

- reply

girls painted the piggy, now just have to set up the device

2026-04-15 21:38:58 UTC

- reply

great view 🫡

2026-04-15 13:04:41 UTC

- reply

PoW is a means not an end.
Value is an end.
Comparing the two is a category error.

2026-04-14 14:40:21 UTC

- reply

Odd way to frame Marx’s labor theory of value.
time put into writing does not equal value of writing
learning is the valuable object of writing
slop is slop, but if i am learning something i didn’t know, why would i stop halfway because someone used an AI to help them convey the idea?

2026-04-11 20:09:36 UTC

- reply

My roommate from school wrote that. I think no matter what our background is in, there is something we already use that we can relate to AI with.
It doesn’t have to be mysterious or scary, too big or too small.
see it for what it is clearly

2026-04-11 18:28:12 UTC

https://dklogics.com/blog/writing-code-with-ai-feels-a-lot-like-flying-with-autopilot-v2

2026-04-01 13:37:55 UTC

- reply

that is such a cool idea!

2026-03-29 02:01:54 UTC

- reply

My purpose is to arm bitcoiners with the moral language to talk with their loved ones about fiat and bitcoin.
From the newest pleb to the most OG, there is something fresh in to chew on.
Big things are coming :)

2026-03-28 12:43:14 UTC

- reply

I like the idea of the bot telling people you have left.

2026-03-28 12:39:36 UTC

- reply

that’s the most powerful asymetry we have to our advantage advocating bitcoin.
it doesn’t take 1000 hours of studying economic theory to get that.
hard truth: “economics” is noise, ethics is signal

2026-03-27 12:07:55 UTC

- reply

Start with the ethics and you will 1000x your progress vs the economic stuff
A rake has its uses, but economics is limited to surface lvl descriptions.
“Getting bitcoin” is grasping the roots. Sounds like you need a philosophical shovel.
It only takes “1000s” of hours of study to get bitcoin, if you are trying to dig a hole with a rake.
If interested, I would send you a hard copy of my back-ho of a book at the cost to ship, or the pdf for free.
here is a good taste about what you will find inside.
let me know
https://youtu.be/eWwesp5QgbA

2026-03-25 01:51:04 UTC

- reply

one of my favorite challenge formats was how many reps could i sustain for 60 sets, each set on the minute every minute for an hour.
I would do it with my soldiers when I was a commander. pushups is easy, pull-ups more challenging with the group, but everyone has a number, it’s fun to find it, and it’s easy to program progression once u have baseline.
the numbers u can hit will 🤯 over time.

2026-03-24 21:17:49 UTC

- reply

I think your “fall from grace” claim is unfounded.
either Christ was the son of God and founded a Church he said he would never let fall, or he was not/did not.
He created man and became man.
Safe to say Christ knew human nature and its fallibility.
To me, the blunders and blemishes of the Catholic church are a testimate that the Catholic church doesn’t stand on the virtue of men, but stands still through Christ’s Grace.
every protestant sect that has hard forked away answered “I know better, Christ didn’t know what he was doing, we will enact his vision more perfectly”
hence why there are thousands of types of “christians”
If Christ wasn’t who he said he was, then it’s retarded to be Christian.
I believe he was who he said he was, and did what he said he was going to do.
So I’m Catholic and nothing will get to me fork off His chain. no matter what spam humans put on it.
I love protestants enough to speak plainly, honestly, and earnestly.
I cannot unsee protestantism as the BSV of bitcoin

2026-03-23 20:51:45 UTC

- reply

tried to zap but i don’t think ur wallet is set up.
but yeah, 🙏 thanks
freedom and sovereignty are sometimes messy with humans :)

2026-03-23 18:32:00 UTC

- reply

love you, but don’t your hold a correction past when it becomes an overcorrection.
it’s not an either or type of issue.
logically both either or extremes are invalid because they run u head first into impasses.
the middle way is harder, and yes you will never stay perfectly on your heading, so you have to be aware and consistently make adjustments when what brings u back on course takes you off course.
this demonstrates the need for our next book 👀
big things coming

2026-03-22 15:47:38 UTC

- reply

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqs02uta6w6hdtwllp4anuax7nllfcuap6x95wm8gyd7h6kzuluj2pqx8wylz

2026-03-20 16:14:28 UTC

- reply

i’m slightly terrified 🤣
geozapping your junk to the entire world is now possible 😬

2026-03-19 02:36:24 UTC

- reply

did the nail gun destroy carpentry?
anyone could argue endlessly on what constitutes “real” carpentry
but we can say with certitude that there is a market for amish furniture and a market for bob’s furniture warehouse.
i think we can safely assume, if an amish person were to use a nail gun, they probably would make a decent piece
is it true?
does it hep me fit my actions to the world?
these are the more important questions imo.

2026-03-18 11:27:32 UTC

- reply

the trauma is deep, thinking is hard, and NGU bro

2026-03-16 00:16:59 UTC

- reply

the point of the passed is not “do not judge” for judgment is part of our mode of being.
a human being cannot “not” judge.
the passage means pay extreme attention to how you judge.

2026-03-14 13:13:48 UTC

- reply

“Time has primacy over philosophy.”
Agree. 💯❤️‍🔥
time, being, knowledge, act, reality itself, all these things have necessary primacy over philosophy, physics, and ever process by which we, human beings, relate to them, including bitcoin
that’s the entire point.
we cannot scrub out our humanity
bitcoin is just another process
it helps us understand how we relate to reality, but it does not change the relation itself
bitcoin’s block time occurs/exists within reality’s time.

2026-03-14 05:21:43 UTC

- reply

“So if reality preserves truth, how?”
This question is asking for a small world answer to a big world question.
big world answers are why? questions
and we have answers
“But that just names the thing, it doesn’t explain the mechanism.”
exactly, to explain the mechanics is to create a small world.
all we can do is name the thing, acknowledge the necessary relation.
You are asking me to make a small world out of the big world.
And I’m saying, that’s not possible, and not even a bad thing.
that ls the actual defining limitation boundary of our humanity
i respect the physics, it answers how questions
but philosophy has primacy to physics, and answers the why questions.
if bitcoin answers the how, it says nothing about the why.
I agree with you that bitcoin is a small world formal system which produces truth equal to that of reality itself.
but to say bitcoin is therefor the mechanism by which reality itself produces truth does not follow at all.
as a syllogism:
1) that which produces the big world truth is beyond the human mode of being
2) bitcoin is not beyond the human mode of being.
3) MT therefore bitcoin is not that which produces the big world truth

2026-03-14 02:25:24 UTC

- reply

“What other structure can you demonstrably point to that that preserves truth through time besides Bitcoin that we can both objectively agree upon?”
reality itself?

2026-03-14 02:22:47 UTC

- reply

if by universe you mean “reality itself” then that breaks the meaning of the term.
all the other examples you give are small worlds in a small world, and perfectly valid and coherent.
i think the profundity of insights provided by bitcoin about reality are incalculable, but they won’t get me to flip the script on how we relate to reality itself.
to me, what you do with time inverts that relation.
your website referred to the continuity of time as an “assumed self referential axiom”
it’s not assumed, it’s demonstrated and earned though a transcendental argument: it’s a necessary relation, a necessary precondition for anything to be at all.
our rational faculty cannot draw a boundary around the big world, that is correct, what the big world means to us empirically is nonsensical, means nothing, beyond our mode of being.
but, our rational faculty does recognize the way we relate to the beyond.
what’s beyond the horizon of human rationality? not an answerable question, it’s a category error
but how do we relate to the horizon?
much and more can be known

2026-03-14 00:28:06 UTC

- reply

yeah, we are probably talking in different terms.
the way I understand and use the terms big world /small world is to point at an A and ~A relation.
So to claim both A and ~A invalidates itself.

2026-03-13 22:48:29 UTC

- reply

“How could logic exist without a system?”
While we cannot know the “system” the geneisis is, we can know the our relation to the source/genesis.
Whether it’s doing, knowing, or being, the relation to gensis, the source, creation, whatever you want to call it, remains absolute.
something beyond, some pure act, fully actualized, unmoved mover, some Absolute, God, Logos, Word.
reality is inteligible, full of structure and order, logos, because whatever the source of this reality is inteligible, structured snd ordered.
that’s the big world behind our small human world of formal systems.
if bitcoin explains the big world, then that is in contradiction with the above relation, and why i recognize bitcoin as another small system man made.
I do enjoy these back and forths, and agree that real dialog is better.
I am rather stretched thin on time, but i would like to make the effort to make it happen 👍

2026-03-13 21:49:23 UTC

- reply

🤣

2026-03-13 21:27:36 UTC

- reply

cutting someone down doesn’t help anyone stand up.
name calling, speculating on the unknowable interiority of another, and chicken little “the sky is falling” type of hyperbole belongs in tabloids.
When discourse resembles the dialog of “real housewives of miami” it’s apt to call it kardashian drama.
no matter how wrong anyone else is, makes no difference in whether or not you are right.
so just persuade people why your actions are right for others.
“i like my money being money, so i do X for Y, and Z. I have no use for B and C, and I think they hurt my interest with D and E risk.”
that’s how people make affirmative cases for their actions and negative cases against the opposite.
speak to the principles not the people
not sure if that helps

2026-03-13 21:19:14 UTC

- reply

yeah, you correctly articulated our misalignment.
which i have always aspired to be able to do with my friends: to pinpoint an exact premise we go different ways with.
i, like @nprofile…fp8q pointed out, think there is a circularity of reason which contradicts itself in thinking truth is a byproduct of an empirical instantiation.
But i’m compelled by the Thomistic arguments that act has primacy to potency, form to matter, the immaterial to the material.
if i were not, then i would probably agree with you 🤣
🤜🤛

2026-03-13 15:11:09 UTC

- reply

i read your post, then re-read my post, and i have no idea what you are responding to.

2026-03-13 14:43:51 UTC

- reply

and never will be able to 🤣

2026-03-13 00:33:08 UTC

- reply

couldn’t be further from the truth.
speak up, advocate for your self interest, make the affirmative case
let the principles informing your action stand on their own.
be a beacon for others to reflect upon.
promoting sovereignty, helping others stand, that’s how bitcoin actualizes itself as the unstoppable force it can be.
spending your time and energy speculating about the interior motives of others, trying to tear others down doesn’t help those ends.

2026-03-12 23:40:40 UTC

- reply

I think bitcoin is very anti-fragile.
Satoshi knew bad actors would attack it. I think his consensus mechanism is up to the task of sorting through all the conflicts of self interest.
The principles of consensus make sense to me, so I’m good with participating in forming the consensus by contributing my vector of action to it, and let the chips fall where they will.

2026-03-12 23:14:49 UTC

- reply

🫡

2026-03-12 23:11:43 UTC

- reply

🤣
one who philosophizes and leads?
🤷‍♂️
it’s not hubris for the man building a house to say he is a carpenter.
I’ve devoted my life to philosophy and leading soldiers.
Now i’m in the bitcoin space.
if you want to go back to clucking, knock yourself out
imma do what i do. 🫡

2026-03-12 22:14:21 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…jqr4 ^