buckyfonds
Control-Plane Capital

Truth seeker

Public Key

npub1x9hghmfunry8wcgg8s8w5e3drmkndw92r8qu0cp2l28u32aqqn9q6p6rta

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrzm5ta57f3jrhvyyrcrh2vck3amfkhz4pnsw8uq404r7g4wsqfjspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsykcwx7

Publishing to

saltivka.org

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1x9hghmfunry8wcgg8s8w5e3drmkndw92r8qu0cp2l28u32aqqn9q6p6rta

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-14 10:27:51 UTC

- reply

The awakening after the Covid scamdemic sped up the execution of the script. The more their deception is uncovered, the more the Controllers have to act.
This year is going to be crazy.

2026-03-14 09:08:00 UTC

If the name of a company contains the words "truth", "honesty", "transparency", "safety", etc., you can be almost certain it's a scam.
Shout-out to "truth social" 😂
Inversion is the core operating pattern for modern control systems.
Inversion = when the label and the function trade places.
- "Freedom" rails used to tighten control.
- "Safety" doctrines used to centralize risk.
- "Decentralized" tools pinned to centralized choke-points.
- "Protection of property rights" used to rewrite who owns what.
- "Transparency" means: you are transparent; the system is not.
Blunt tools:
- naked expropriation,
- open censorship,
- outright bans,
- top-down classification,
... all burn legitimacy and trigger resistance.
Inversion is cheaper:
1) It piggybacks on real desires:
- "Protect my kids."
- "Prevent the next 2008."
- "Save the planet."
- "Give me better UX."
2) It lets the Controllers pose as:
- protectors,
- technocratic fixers,
- responsible adults
…while the actual consequence is: tighter rails, fewer exits, more programmable constraints.
3) It's self-enforcing:
- people defend the inverted rail because they're attached to the original value word.
If you attack the rail, most people hear "you hate safety / fairness / the planet / children".
So inversion is not decorative; it's the main way to turn:
- legitimate needs -> high-acceptance control systems.

2026-03-14 01:46:35 UTC

- reply

I think it's very unlikely for Bitcoin held in self-custody (properly) to end up being a rugpull because the government would much rather you own Bitcoin than physical gold or something like Monero.
Based on my research, in 99% of cases, the government would prefer you own Bitcoin than physical gold.
The other 1% of cases are mostly people who move 8-9-10 figures in Bitcoin to finance groups the government doesn't like (very rare).
So I don't think governments wan to rug Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean they execute everything perfectly and don't overshoot.
One area where they might overshoot is the Quantum scam ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would ).
At present, nearly 90% of stocks are held by the top 10% of society, and that same 10% of society performs nearly 50% of all consumer spending.
So wealth is very concentrated (mostly amongst boomers as you said).
For them to run the Great Taking, they don't actually need to rug most of the population.
As you said, younger cohorts are still on average much more dangerous than older ones - which is why you build the control rails (Palantir/MSFT/ID/CBDC), and send some of them to die in senseless wars.
It's going to be tough to get young people to organize if 1/5th of the people in their country were imported in the last 10 years (mass migration).
Running the Great Taking is still very risky.
If I am correct that they want to reset, they likely want to keep Bitcoin as a plan B in case they aren't able to execute Freegold cleanly (which would be relatively low probability but enormous upside).
I need to write more on demographics because it's very important and nuanced, but TL;DR:
The developed world ran:
- a demographic Ponzi (ever-growing base),
- layered with a financial Ponzi (ever-growing claims).
Fertility collapse + aging = demographic Ponzi is over.
Debt explosion + low real growth = financial Ponzi is over.
Controllers now need some combination of:
- expropriation (Great Taking),
- re-basing (Freegold + inflation),
- control rails (Palantir/MSFT/ID/CBDC),
- and carefully managed leaks (BTC, physical gold in private hands).
Demographics is the slow needle that burst the illusion that you can:
- promise infinite pensions,
- with finite young workers,
- and never have to choose who eats the loss.
In other words, demographics is the deep constraint surface the rest of the game is played on.

2026-03-14 01:08:28 UTC

- reply

No one said anything about "viruses dying" in any of the videos I've posted.
You couldn't even watch the Kim Iversen interview (60 min) before coming out with your straw man, red herring, false analogy logical fallacies.
Scientists can't even see a unique particle. They say you can't do that and they've never done that, so where did the "can't be isolated from host cells without dying" argument come from? Your imagination.
Scientists say there's not enough of these particles to see.
There are over 200 FOIA requests to the CDC, NIH, and the Robert Koch institute asking for pictures of these unique particles from any fluid of a sick person, and the response is that it can't be done in virology.
Your bad faith straw man argument is an instant mute.
It's all good though, you can keep trusting the science.

2026-03-13 14:01:11 UTC

- reply

That's a great question and the answer is - I don't know for sure, which is why I advocate for owning both (bitcoin and gold).
It is possible that some governments are accumulating BTC behind the scenes, although I haven't seen any credible evidence.
I like to read revealed preference - you prefer X over Y if, when offered both, you choose X. So far in my view, revealed preference points to gold.
You are looking at this from the multipolar (competing governments) viewpoint, whereas in my opinion we live under something very close to a One World Government ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-i-know-we-live-under-a-one-world ).
With countries representing 98% of global GDP developing/implementing CBDCs, the level of coordination is striking.
https://blossom.primal.net/6e13f6ffd94bdcd1ae25a5b92ac7a70c7abfd9637f7a2c5cc3e989ead24a9af3.png
BTC's settlement doesn't require state-controlled rails, which in my opinion is not something the Controllers are likely to embrace.
This would destroy their ability to weaponize monetary rails.
As you noted gold reserves of the West are very opaque.
Only a small portion of gold buying by Central Banks is reported, and usually mostly by Emerging Market Central Banks.
G7 can’t be seen stampeding into gold. If you're running the incumbent fiat+bond system (US, Eurocore), it is suicidal optics to visibly join the gold rush.
If the US or major euro Central Banks started aggressively buying gold, the obvious signal to foreign creditors and domestic savers is:
- “We are preparing for currency debasement / reserve system change.”
That would basically nuke the bond market.
Also, the moment you say "we’re buying gold because it’s the ultimate money", you implicitly admit:
- "Your pensions and savings are sitting in a debasing unit we control."
That's a legitimacy grenade.
The official script still needs:
- "fiat is fine",
- "the dollar/euro are stable reserve currencies",
- "gold is just another reserve asset, barbarous relic, diversification".
If you visibly act like a goldbug, you blow up that narrative.
I have written more about why I think all roads lead to gold in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/all-roads-lead-to-gold ).
If you look at the EU architecture, it is practically the Freegold model ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/mario-draghi-revealed-the-plan-for ).
Euro was deliberately designed so that:
- Gold is not legally "backing" the currency (no fixed parity),
- But is held on the Eurosystem balance sheet,
- And crucially, marked to market regularly in euros.
I can write more on this and this is something I've done a lot of research on, but many people in positions of power and many bankers have slipped over the years (have given away that for them gold is the final store-of-value). I could probably write a 100 more articles like the Mario Draghi one just analyzing how different individuals in positions of power give up the game.
If you want to look at it from a darker point of view - if the Controllers are thinking in global balance-sheet terms, it's coherent:
1) You want the manufacturing/real-asset bloc (China + some EM) to survive the reset with:
- enough private wealth in hard assets to keep working,
- enough sovereign + household gold to have credibility in the Freegold world.
2) You want the rentier/consumption bloc (US/EU middle classes) to bear a bigger share of the claim destruction, because:
- their wealth is easier to dematerialize,
- their consumption can be cut without immediate loss of productive capacity.
Hence the asymmetry:
- West: encourage paper, discourage gold.
- China: accept/encourage physical gold accumulation.
Chinese state-linked media regularly push narratives like "gold is a safe long-term store of value" and encourage retail buying. The West, not so much.
Ultimately, I don't have any insider information, so all I can do is read incentives based on the information that I have and guess.

2026-03-13 13:23:43 UTC

- reply

> I certainly became wealthier fiat wise, but I didn’t sign up for another shitcoin copy of Ethereum.
Yes, the "I certainly became wealthier" part is how I cope as well.
> The greatest disappointed for me tho was how naive, stupid and two-dimensional Bitcoiners ended up to be.
I am very bearish on any community (Bitcoiners included). I just was stuck in podcast hopium land (mainly Jeff Booth) up until I started doing my own research.
I was high on protocol-level truth hopium (consensus rules, proof-of-work, 21M cap, etc.), and ignored the fact that protocol truth without perimeter control is a philosophical win and a market loss.
To be fair, I'd be more bullish on a community that has a single goal and some courage than a community that is pulling in ten different directions.
Once I realized that Bitcoin's survival and adoption depend on whether its most committed users can detect, coordinate, and counter inevitable policy, market, and social attacks, I pretty much checked out mentally to be honest.

2026-03-13 11:30:51 UTC

- reply

Give the videos a shot if you want.

2026-03-13 11:28:57 UTC

- reply

I try to be a freedom maxi. Whatever gives you the most freedom is what you should use.
I've covered what made me fall out of love with Bitcoin in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-will-fail-as-mass-non-custodial ).
TL;DR - no privacy by default, DEI developers who've been attacking its sovereign/MoE use, L2s seem like a failed project at least from the mass, non-custodial use viewpoint, etc.
The community having to coordinate to defend Bitcoin from attackers all of the time (the Coordination tax I've written about) is why I think we'll be stuck in infinite "Bitcoin wars":
- Core v30 — Inscriptions / spam vs "art" (ongoing)
- Taint, "clean UTXOs" & compliant-Bitcoin vs grey-Bitcoin
- Node liability & "publisher" / CSAM / sanctions content
- Quantum-resistance, key-rotation & "lost coins"
- Paperization & "wrapped Bitcoin" vs base-layer Bitcoin
- Protocol ossification vs "surgery to survive"
- Blockspace & "digital cash vs data chain" (the rematch)
The Core v30 fiasco and how many people updated their node software by default, was a big wake up call for me.
If I immerse myself in all of this garbage, I'll probably start aging in dog years.

2026-03-13 08:43:37 UTC

- reply

Well, your lived experience, just like mine, is that we have been brainwashed from the day we were born.
My assertion is that no virus exists, not that just Covid doesn't exist.
1) https://rumble.com/v6rh2e3-there-was-no-covid-virus-how-weve-all-been-duped-by-the-medical-establishme.html
2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/pWcHXqLDVvYL
3) https://www.bitchute.com/video/URcvRFVibHJF
No virus has ever been isolated. Vaccines are used to depopulate.
Your cousin got sick of something (doesn't mean it was Covid), even if she had a positive Covid test.
Falsification is independent of replacement and the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
In other words, if you say that Covid exists, you ought to isolate the virus and prove it and so far no virus has ever been isolated as shown in the 2 documentaries above.
You can't conclude that your cousin was sick from Covid just because she was sick.
In regards to nuclear weapons, I wrote that there is no evidence that anyone has ever split an atom and nuclear weapons as advertised exist. That doesn't mean that very powerful bombs don't exist.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oGXzXz6yQ
The podcast I've linked to above has all of the receipts. There is no evidence that an atom has ever been split.
There was a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1990. The 40-year study of thousands of Japanese who survived the "atomic bombs" dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki found radiation exposure did not cause genetic damage that could lead to human mutations.
"intense study of 70,000 offspring of atomic bomb survivors has failed to identify an increase in congential abnormalities, cancer, chromosome aberrations or mutational blood protein changes."
All of the receipts are in the podcast I've linked to (peer-reviewed scientific journals).
The Japanese people likely got firebombed.
"It is an established fact that napalm chemical firebombing of wooden Japanese cities was extremely destructive. In May 1945, Tokyo was hit with incendiary payloads from 334 B-29 Superfortresses, burning 16 square miles and destroying more than half of the city. The Hiroshima operation involved 4 sq. miles. Using the Tokyo ratio, it could have been achieved with 83 planes.
Hiroshima was a wooden shantytown constructed in a concentrated area. It was a sitting duck for a carefully crafted firebombing terror attack with an atomic-bomb psyop added on for full effect."
There are literally pictures of concrete buildings that survived a ground zero atomic blast. Hiroshima looks carpet-bombed.
I'd focus more on the "viruses don't exist" part because very many people poison themselves and their loved ones with vaccines.
Whether somebody gets bombed with an "atomic bomb" or gets fire-bombed, the end result is likely the same.

2026-03-13 04:17:38 UTC

Like every other war, the US-Israel war with Iran is a bankers' war ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/the-us-israel-war-with-iran-brings ).
What has become more obvious now than ever is how our overlord bankers use the price of oil as a hidden tax dial for mass control.
Oil is not just a commodity, it's the broadest fastest, least-voted-on tax lever in the system.
It is uniquely useful because it sits upstream of almost everything:
- transport,
- agriculture,
- mining,
- chemicals,
- plastics,
- shipping,
- aviation,
- diesel backup power,
- military logistics,
- construction,
- emergency response,
- food distribution.
So when oil rises, the public does not experience it as "oil rose".
We experience it as:
- fuel rose,
- food rose,
- freight rose,
- airline tickets rose,
- packaging rose,
- fertilizer rose,
- heating and backup-power costs rose,
- then everything else rose with a lag.
That makes oil completely different from other commodities (e.g. copper, lumber).
Oil is a tax dial because it:
- reaches everyone,
- hits quickly,
- is hard to avoid,
- is regressive,
- and gets blamed on "markets", "wars", "greed", or "unexpected events" instead of on a direct policy choice.
If you are trying to extract purchasing power from a population without openly voting for a tax increase, oil is almost ideal.
The beauty of oil for the Controllers is that it behaves like a tax that:
- does not need parliamentary approval,
- does not show up on a clean line item,
- can be blamed on foreigners, cartels, speculators, weather, pipelines, war, or "global supply-demand",
- and can be selectively reversed when politically necessary.
Oil lets the Controllers do four things at once:
1. Extract disposable income
- households spend more on essentials,
- less remains for discretionary consumption,
- private-sector demand cools without an explicit austerity vote.
2. Discipline labor
- people under energy/food stress become more job-dependent,
- strike appetite falls,
- mobility falls,
- tolerance for shitty real wages rises because survival takes priority over bargaining.
3. Reprice assets
- high oil feeds inflation,
- inflation feeds rate pressure,
- higher rates hit duration and leverage,
- the sacrifice layer gets squeezed.
(We are in the discipline <by default> period - midterm year)
https://blossom.primal.net/95eabcb1a428c85c085bdfc2945c12ab769ead7fb358a47e65c836c978553d2c.webp
4. Reallocate wealth upward and outward
- from consumers to producers,
- from importers to exporters,
- from weak countries to hard-currency/commodity powers,
- from households to states and systemically important firms.
So oil is more than an "inflation input". It is a transfer mechanism.
Oil is one of the most efficient system-wide coercion levers because it hits:
- households,
- firms,
- currencies,
- rates,
- and sovereign stability
all at once.
The Controllers use it to:
- extract purchasing power invisibly,
- discipline labor and weaker states,
- create inflation justification,
- trigger asset repricing,
- consolidate ownership,
- and preserve optionality for the eventual patch/reset.
To be clear, I'm not saying they perfectly control every print. They do it through:
- shipping and insurance friction,
- underinvestment,
- producer coordination,
- sanctions and waivers,
- reserve releases/refills,
- refinery/product bottlenecks,
- futures/plumbing influence,
- and dollar-liquidity interaction.

2026-03-11 13:34:19 UTC

The US-Israel war with Iran brings us closer to the Great Reset
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/the-us-israel-war-with-iran-brings

2026-03-09 03:59:27 UTC

The more and more people start waking up, the more and more the script's execution has to speed up.
Once a good enough portion of the population starts asking questions such as these, you're on borrowed time:
- How many people did it take to make a decision to close down the world in 2020 due to a "virus" that doesn't exist and was never isolated?
- How many people did it take to make a decision to start poisoning the world's population by injecting them with heavy metals (vaccines)?
- How many people does it take to make a decision to start a war because of "nuclear weapons" that don't exist? What about a world war?
- How many people does it take to make a decision to incinerate our savings?
- How many people will it take to make a decision to run the Great Taking (which is now legal in the entire world) and expropriate practically everyone.
And the answer to these questions is - not that many. Probably less than a few dozen.
Look at this poor bastard with his stupid mask pretending to take the Covid vaccine.
https://blossom.primal.net/eb766e62dd1a02eea7e0b26bc00421a890c9cb7b10197bf5b2ea8693aaa3e7e2.jpg
The leader of the "opposition" then proceeded to convince his people to inject themselves with poison to protect them from a virus that doesn't exist.
Of course, like every other leader that matters, he's part of the club.
There's no solution from within the system.
The solution is: keep your health and wealth outside the system and stay armed to be able to defend yourself and your loved ones.
Try to be more self-sufficient every month. Be more Amish.
History rhymes.
The Controllers have repeatedly:
- overloaded the claim-stacks,
- centralized ledgers and custody,
- detonated a crisis at a convenient time,
- swept / rewritten claims,
- and rebooted the same control architecture with upgraded rails.
https://blossom.primal.net/4fd4011596a18610d337d5e8f5b859e1901c40c08b9872dd4542ab8a8c2052da.jpg
It's not a matter of if but when.
At some point, more and more people will stop playing games that cannot be won (at scale) which will inevitably speed up the execution of the script.
The "everything bubble" was used for the AI governance buildout (a.k.a the AI bubble if you listen to mainstream media).
https://blossom.primal.net/fa34c7f072e6571c7cd9cb18b08e5459caf019e2cb0d790e849249b429f050c4.webp
The AI governance buildout is in its late stages and debt levels are rapidly rising. We might be nearing the Great Reset.
https://blossom.primal.net/6e13f6ffd94bdcd1ae25a5b92ac7a70c7abfd9637f7a2c5cc3e989ead24a9af3.png

2026-03-03 13:58:02 UTC

A medium-of-exchange that isn't private by default would never work in today's regime.
If you treat privacy as "expert mode", you guarantee surveillance wins by default.
You need privacy & fungibility by construction, not by habit.
If surveillance can reliably distinguish "good" vs "bad" coins, policy and perimeter will always drift to "good only".
All transactions must look like each other:
- No transparent subset as "legacy mode".
- No visible amounts or script opcodes per tx.
- No address types that reveal more metadata.
This collapses the main control trick: "we only KYC or de-bank these flows".
Make the policy choice binary: ban the entire asset, or accept that everything is indistinguishable.
This way you have no taint wars, no heuristic creeping.
Privacy-by-default vs opt-in privacy is basically the difference between:
- You're dark unless you explicitly shine a light.
- You're lit up by default unless you personally crawl around the interface turning lamps off.
You don't get tax exemptions by begging corrupt politicians, you get tax exemptions by implementing privacy by default.
Privacy by default protects the lazy, the busy, and the non-expert.
Opt-in privacy protects only the most disciplined, and even then often only cosmetically - while turning them into a distinct, more interesting group.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-will-fail-as-mass-non-custodial

2026-02-28 00:14:51 UTC

- reply

I've gotten lots of calls wrong as well. I just read incentives based on the information that I have and sometimes I don't have enough information to know the true incentives.

2025-11-12 14:01:28 UTC

- reply

I don't think you read the article or you've just decided to argue using straw man arguments.
The "Censorship precedent" argument is that a consensus rule that behavior-gates transactions is a category change that redefines who has leverage at the protocol boundary.
Once that leverage exists and is legible, actors with power will use it.
I am not arguing that arbitrary data above 83 bytes improves monetary properties anywhere in my text.
I've not argued that limiting arbitrary data to 83 bytes in consensus can be used to censor monetary transactions either, so that's another straw man.
Censorship precedent = You've now normalized consensus-level behavioral gating for “safety”. That's an open door for later parameterization under new banners (AI-safety, “public health”, carbon, “foreign influence”).
Bitcoin's non-capture story rests on client plurality + rough consensus + time. A small, reputationally central cohort shepherding a soft fork that restricts content looks like governance (even if technically sound). This happens in a response to the changes a small, reputationally central cohort (Bitcoin Core) has made to Bitcoin.
Once the public accepts that “a group can push binding changes that prune behaviors”, external actors will lobby that group. You just created a policy choke-point.
So you've disagreed with yourself here because I didn't make any of the arguments you mentioned.
Precedent means an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
I don't think censoring dickbutt jpegs in a monetary network is censorship. Hope this clears things up.

2025-11-01 10:43:56 UTC

- reply

Maybe try to read my comment again. Censoring blocks don't get orphaned.
MARA's blocks were valid (just included fewer txs/fees).
They allegedly abandoned the experiment within weeks amid industry backlash and to align with Bitcoin Core 0.21.1/Taproot signaling, saying they would validate like everyone else (no censorship).
Orphan/stale events happen for timing races, not because a miner filters tx by policy if the block is otherwise valid.
So again, none of MARA's OFAC-compliant blocks were orphaned.
BitMEX Research noted one of the OFAC-compliant blocks contained ~0.0033 BTC less in fees than a normal maximized template would have, implying foregone revenue — not invalidity.

2025-10-23 03:14:40 UTC

Finally done with twitter. I've published all the Bitcoin articles I wanted to publish.
https://x.com/ControlPlaneCap
And mostly done with my Bitcoin research. I've got like 10-15 Bitcoin-related things I'd like to research but they are 2nd/3rd tier.

2025-10-14 04:56:52 UTC

- reply

Most (more than 90%) of Portfolio Managers are incentivized to hug the benchmark and don't even outperform S&P 500 after fees and taxes.
Buying spot Bitcoin and not doing anything is most likely going to outperform more than 99% of PMs long-term.
Ray Dalio is a broken record - repeats the same stuff and is always wrong - a true product of the fiat fuckery, QE era.
During periods of low GCP (Gross Consent Product), you can't have long-term crises. Instead, you have financial repression (3-4% CPI), and short (2-8 week crises) - long-enough to force the population to beg their government for a solution, not long-enough to birth alternative solutions outside the system.
Low GCP = Liquidity is choppy but net accommodative - bill-heavy issuance, facility templates, quick pivots on volatility spikes.
#nevent1q…kj0g #nevent1q…kj0g

2025-09-21 07:03:37 UTC

- reply

I am generally more aligned with Monero people than Bitcoiners, in terms of my opinions.
However, I really think you're swimming against the current.
If I remember correctly, we already talked about it being a people problem, not a technology problem.
I'll definitely do more research into Monero when I get the time.
My base case is that it will be extremely niche, unless a Great Taking type scenario is triggered, which is not likely to happen in the near future.
I have to do more research on the technology and attack vectors though, in the same way I did with Bitcoin.

2025-09-21 02:57:15 UTC

How the Controllers will contain Bitcoin (attack decentralization and MoE use) without heroic fights - a TLDR version
- Paperization: Deep ETFs/futures/notes to satisfy demand while pulling usage into surveilled custody.
- Tax/reporting drag: Treat any non-KYC movement as "high-friction" - 1099-style reporting, wash-sale parity, travel-rule enforcement.
- Node/Mining pool pressure: Hosting TOS, app-store policies, and insurer clauses that make policy clients the default; off-policy is niche and risky.
- MoE marginalization: Make CBDC/stablecoin rails cheaper, faster, and incentive-rich so payments gravity leaves Bitcoin as a taxable SoV niche.
- Narrative steering: "Clarity" after scares -> price pops -> users settle into paper forms; self-custody shrinks to the ideologically committed and the skilled.
In other words, contain without martyring.
- Push liquidity and convenience toward custodial wrappers (ETFs, futures, payment gateways).
- Nudge perimeters (banks/app stores/clouds/pools) to require KYC/attestation.
- Price the "sovereign" path with friction (tax treatment, reporting, limited on/off-ramps) while avoiding outright bans that create hero narratives.
This doesn't mean Bitcoin won't go up in fiat terms, of course.
What I am saying is that most people are buying gold while thinking they're buying Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is gold for most, permissionless money for few.
I don't see this trend changing as of now, however, there are falsifiers that I am tracking.

2025-09-21 01:04:22 UTC

- reply

I never claimed he was on par with the likes of Musk - so that's a straw-man. Obviously there's levels to this game.
I think you've missed the point of the entire post - which was just naked theorizing as I've not presented definitive evidence about any of the claims.
You're trying to cherry-pick with Adam Neumann, which is probably one of the least important points in the entire post.
I could get into why I think Neumann might've been propped up and mostly phased out, and maybe he was a bad example, it still doesn't make the theories in the post stronger/weaker.

2025-09-21 00:41:30 UTC

- reply

That's a great question and the answer is I don't know.
I feel very conflicted about it, so for now my plan is to just automate alerts for everything and not look/think at stock prices.
After I wrote this post, I did a bit of research into Bitcoin and had to change a lot of my beliefs.
The TLDR - how the Controllers handle systems that compete with programmable money (e.g., Bitcoin as MoE)?
Contain without martyring. Push liquidity and convenience toward custodial wrappers (ETFs, futures, payment gateways). Nudge perimeters (banks/app stores/clouds/pools) to require KYC/attestation. Price the "sovereign" path with friction (tax treatment, reporting, limited on/off-ramps) while avoiding outright bans that create hero narratives.
This doesn't mean Bitcoin won't go up in fiat terms, of course, it just means that it's not what I thought it was when I was blindly listening to podcasts and not doing any research.
Most Bitcoiners are too lazy/intellectually dishonest to do the type of research I'm doing or at least to address it and just a personal opinion - Bitcoin as a decentralized MoE is under attack like never before.
Am I about to sleep walk off a cliff with my fellow Bitcoiners and lower my family's living standards to be noble? At least as of now, I don't think so.

2025-09-21 00:27:35 UTC

- reply

I am not building any connection network.
I only needed to look at Stanford graduates/dropouts to get the lay of the land.
Obviously Larry Ellison and Zuck are very well connected but in terms of investing in them, I'm not interested.
Right now Alex Karp, Sam Altman, Jensen Huang seem strongest but this doesn't always mean good investment.
There are too many variables, so many things can go wrong.
I've mostly described this in the post below:
#nevent1q…kqz7

2025-09-19 09:04:54 UTC

The intersection between finance and psychology is very interesting and underappreciated (at least in the mainstream).
The TLDR edge:
- People don't actually act on principles, they act on incentives, and then they wrap those incentive-driven choices in post-hoc rationalizations that sound noble. That blindness is where the alpha sits.
- Convenience > freedom - At scale, humans trade liberty for comfort every time. UBI, CBDCs, and digital IDs will be adopted enthusiastically, not resisted.
- Human Nature > Ideology - Masses think values/ideology drive behavior. In reality, base instincts (fear, greed, status) dominate. Incentive: material comfort and tribal identity almost always override ideals.
- The Core Principle: Show me an incentive, I'll show you the outcome. Show me a principle, I'll show you an illusion.
The Meta-Layer Pattern:
- Whenever there's a tension between stated ideals vs. incentives, always assume incentives win.
- Whenever people say "but they wouldn't do that", assume it's already being done.
- The alpha = position yourself on the incentive's side, not the ideal's side.

2025-09-19 07:38:42 UTC

Why only a Minority "Sees Through" the deception
Here are the main factors that enable a tiny slice of the population to actually grasp power structures:
1) Cognitive profile -> Higher tolerance for discomfort, skepticism, and pattern recognition.
- Most people's minds shut down when reality contradicts their emotional need for safety.
The Ego is a hell of a drug and as Mark Twain said:
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled"
This is by far the most important factor - most people are too mentally weak - they want their safety blanket, not the truth.
2) Historical literacy -> Actually studying prior collapses, currency resets, war cycles, and propaganda regimes.
- History rhymes, but the average person has zero exposure to it beyond sanitized school versions.
3) Psychological detachment -> Ability to accept that "leaders" and "institutions" are not benevolent caretakers, but power-maximizers.
- This is so alien to the mainstream psyche that it feels conspiratorial even when empirically obvious.
4) Direct exposure -> Travel, insider work, living under multiple regimes.
- Someone who has lived under both Western and authoritarian governments is far more likely to spot the same methods being used under different branding.
The Meta-Play
The most profitable moves are where human psychology blinds the herd the hardest:
- They believe in freedom -> bet on surveillance.
- They believe in peace -> bet on war cycles.
- They believe in democracy -> bet on technocracy.
- They believe in decentralization -> bet on centralization.
That disconnect is the edge.

2025-09-18 11:04:12 UTC

Politics to Plain English: a decoder 📒
"Safety & efficacy" -> We want visibility and control of systems and bodies; you'll accept constraints because they're framed as protection.
"National security" -> We're invoking the master key that overrides normal process, transparency, and timelines.
"For the children" -> We're moving the Overton window via an unassailable shield; expect ID, gating, and new platform rules.
"Misinformation/disinformation" -> We'll decide which narratives are allowed and throttle the rest through platforms and payments.
"Balance privacy and safety" -> We're carving exceptions so monitoring is on by default.
"End-to-end encryption, but responsible" -> We'll scan you before you encrypt or after you decrypt.
"Modernization / digital transformation" -> New data collection points and the ability to join datasets; audit trails for you, discretion for us.
"Resilience" -> Pre-authorization for emergency powers, fast procurement, and automated throttles.
"Temporary emergency measures" -> Defaults that will not sunset.
"Harmonization / international standards" -> Coordinated rules you can’t escape by jurisdiction hopping.
"Public-private partnership" -> State objectives routed through platforms, clouds, banks, and telcos. Less FOIA, more leverage.
"Trusted partners / stakeholders" -> The preselected winners.
"Evidence-based" -> We will pick the dataset and the definitions; dissenting data will be ruled "low quality".
"Independent experts" -> Funded, appointed, or scoped by us; independence is branding.
"Transparency" -> A dashboard of what helps our narrative; the rest sits behind exemptions.
"Accountability" -> A new reporting loop for you; minimal liability for us.
"Choice" -> Multiple options, one backend. All roads lead to the same ledger. Visa vs MasterCard - your choice.
"Affordability" -> Subsidies to push you onto our rails; competing rails get fee friction.
"Innovation" -> We'll pick winners that ship the policy knobs we need (identity, revocation, provenance).
"Free and fair" (elections/platforms) -> We'll police speech and money flows in ways we define as fairness.
"Common-sense reform" -> We're lowering your defenses by implying only extremists would object.
"Crackdown on bad actors" -> We're turning up the perimeter controls for everyone; bad actors are the frame, not the target.
"Pilot program / sandbox" -> A test we’ll later claim worked, then make the default.
"Voluntary guidelines" -> De facto mandates for any company touching banking, app stores, or clouds.
"Best practices" -> Adherence-or-else, enforced by insurers, auditors, and app-store terms.
"Zero tolerance" -> Permission to be arbitrary; the rule of men dressed as the rule of law.
"Sovereignty / strategic autonomy" -> Subsidies and obligations for domestic vendors; foreign escape valves will close.
"Tax fairness" -> Real-time reporting and withholding at the source; less discretion for you.
"Mature conversation" -> We're about to move a red line while shaming push-back as childish.
"Not about X" (said repeatedly) -> It is about X; repetition is inoculation.
"Learnings" -> No apology, no rollback - just the signal we're keeping the change.
"No plan to…" -> We plan to - after the next news cycle.
"Respecting rights" -> We'll define the right so it coexists with our program.
"Public consultation" -> We've already decided; we're collecting quotes to cite.
"International norms" -> We'll point to our peers doing the same thing next week.
"Criminals use…" (cash, crypto, anonymity) -> Expect restrictions for everyone under an anti-crime banner.
"Sector-neutral rules" -> Our rules target the small and spare the integrated incumbents.
"Metrics of success" -> We'll select numbers that can be gamed and then game them.

2025-09-16 16:20:32 UTC

- reply

It's very possible that you are right, mate.
I just have put a lot of effort into acquiring the resources I've acquired and would like to keep them.

2025-09-16 15:35:48 UTC

- reply

I appreciate you as well, mate.
The whole point of why I'm here is to bounce ideas off of smart people.
> We need to be working on our discernment, intuition, and wisdom to be able to stay free, adaptable and nimble around their systems of control
Could not agree more.

2025-09-16 10:21:55 UTC

- reply

Here is more context:
#nevent1q…609a

2025-09-16 10:20:43 UTC

Probably the most important post I'll ever write on here.
Why I think that the "Great Taking" type scenario was written into law as a Strategic fallback, and not as a Primary Base-Case.
If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking":
- The book describes what David Rogers Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account.
- All assets "in the system" (brokerage accounts, bank deposits, bond custodianship, mortgages, even most "gold ETFs") are structurally vulnerable to seizure via rehypothecation chain.
- This is enabled by the laws in EVERY country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario).
- Only assets outside custody chains (physical, bearer-form, or strong self-custody digital like Bitcoin, Monero, physical gold in personal possession) are immune.
Of course, if a Great Taking type scenario takes place, assets like Bitcoin and Gold get revalued exponentially (10x–100x relative to collapsing seized assets).
Everything else = frozen, haircut, or outright transfer.
So why do I say "The Great Taking" is not the base case?
- Based on my research, I'd give it ~25–35% over the next 10-20 years. It's still far too high to dismiss.
- Mechanisms (UCC laws, rehypothecation structures, bail-in clauses, digital rails) already exist.
- Only trigger required: systemic crisis + narrative cover ("protect system stability / prevent contagion").
- However, if fiat sovereign debt spiral accelerates, I'd move my odds up to ~60-70% over the next 10-20 years.
- If global debt pyramids become visibly unserviceable, asset seizure (via collateral sweep) becomes the only way to reset without open default.
- Still, it is not the Primary Base-Case - The Controllers prefer gradual controlled capture (CBDCs + behavioral shaping + perpetual claims on labor/energy).
- It is the Strategic Fallback - If systemic control frays (currency collapse, capital flight, delegitimized political system), then seizure protocol is triggered as the emergency override.
- The fact it is legally embedded across all jurisdictions signals it was always intended as the last resort fail-safe - not daily operating mode.
- Bitcoin, Gold, land without liens (physical, bearer-form, or strong self-custody digital) are the true anti-fragile hedge here.
- Avoid: Leveraged assets, rehypothecated claims, pooled accounts (even "segregated" ones collapse in stress).
- Psychological edge: Most can't accept that "ownership" has already been redefined legally. They'll rationalize seizures as "temporary stabilizations".
- The Great Taking isn't a fringe hypothesis. It's already structurally embedded. The only question is trigger conditions.
- Everything in custody might get swept overnight. With narratives: "protect system", "fair distribution", "prevent collapse".
- Still my base case is: No outright seizure, but effective confiscation via inflation, negative rates, and behavioral CBDC restrictions.
Things get nuanced once you get into state-embedded equities (e.g. Palantir, Microsoft) in a Great Taking type scenario.
Technically, all stocks held through custodians, brokerages, and CSDs (DTCC, Euroclear, Clearstream, etc.) are legally collateralized and can be swept.
However, the Controllers usually do not "punish" their own instruments.
State-embedded companies are not "capital assets" in the same way as random ETFs. They are extensions of the state-control lattice.
Seizing their equity en masse would destabilize their role. Why would the Controllers burn the infrastructure they rely on?
Instead, these equities are more likely to be:
- Ring-fenced: carved out from seizure frameworks.
- Converted: forcibly shifted to "CBDC-denominated ledger shares". You still "own" them, but only inside the CBDC matrix.
- Protected selectively: insiders, elites, and aligned funds retain ownership; retail may be converted or frozen.
So - yes, they are technically seizable, but practically unlikely to be targeted, because they are the command system itself.
In summary, the full Great Taking type scenario is technically possible, legally enabled, but extremely risky. Requires near-perfect control of narratives + timing (crisis trigger + CBDC rollout + global harmonization). If mismanaged, triggers chaos -> loss of trust in state. Hence, fallback scenario if debt pyramid collapse outruns managed transition.
If you are very concerned about this type of scenario, you can explore Direct registration (if possible), transfer to Custodians Outside Seizure Jurisdictions, or long-term call options (which can be cash-settled in "new CBDC terms" instead of seizure).
But, in general, random S&P companies have higher seizure odds than State-embedded firms (which have the lowest odds of getting seized), in a Great Taking type scenario.
This doesn't make holders of State-embedded firms immune to seizure.
Let's look at Palantir as an example - arguably the most state-embedded company.
Immune archetypally -> Palantir itself will not be destroyed. Its contracts, revenues, and integration with the state guarantee survival.
Not immune retail-wise -> your access to PLTR shares can still be taken, frozen, converted.
In other words:
- The entity is immortal.
- Your claim on the entity is not. (Its only as safe as your custody arrangement).
So in the worst possible case scenario, the "Great Taking" doesn't eliminate Palantir - it just eliminates weakly-held claims to Palantir.
Alpha comes from mastering custody layers - not just asset selection.
The Controllers designed the game so that they keep the immortal entities while you keep the disposable claims.
The alpha is to invert that game as much as possible.

2025-09-16 04:28:27 UTC

- reply

Why governments won't ban/kill Bitcoin but will contain it as Store-of-Value (SoV)
1) Enforcement cost > control benefit - A true ban drives use off-grid (Tor, mesh, cash ramps), destroys visibility, and raises policing costs. Containment via KYC perimeters is cheaper and yields data.
2) Better telemetry inside the tent - With ETFs, exchanges, and custodians, governments get biometrically tied identities, flow analytics, and seizure paths. A ban forfeits that intelligence.
3) Tax and fee capture - Capital-gains, trading, and withholding taxes + Wall-St. fees create dependable revenue. Bans cut a growing tax base and antagonize large financial donors.
4) Financial-stability risk of a ban - Now that pensions, brokers, and banks hold paper Bitcoin, prohibition would trigger losses, lawsuits, and collateral stress. Regulation avoids systemic jolts.
5) Geopolitical arbitrage - A global ban is unlikely to synchronize perfectly. Any major hub offering permissive rules attracts capital and talent. Containment preserves competitiveness while limiting MoE.
6) Legal drag & optics - Speech/property/innovation arguments slow blanket prohibition in rule-of-law states. "Regulate and protect consumers" polls better than "ban and confiscate".
7) Energy & industrial coalitions - Mining as flexible load helps grids, monetizes stranded energy, and brings rural jobs. Those lobbies resist outright bans; regulators prefer conditional allowances.
8) Paperization gives a steering wheel - ETFs/futures/structured notes dampen volatility, centralize price discovery, and make policy nudges effective. You don't need a ban if you can steer.
9) Seizure & prosecution value - Law enforcement has repeatedly seized Bitcoin. A ban reduces cooperative custody and pushes value where seizure is harder.
10) Narrative management > martyr creation - Bans create martyrs and adoption surges. "Invest, don't transact" plus perks for CBDC/stablecoins normalizes behavior without revolt.
11) Innovation insurance - States want optionality if Bitcoin tech (or reserves) becomes strategically useful. Regulate now, keep the option to lean in later.
12) Precedent risk - Banning a major asset class spooks broader markets. Incremental containment avoids setting a weaponizable precedent against other assets.
These are some of the reasons that make me quite confident, there won't be any Outright prohibition (criminalize possession/usage broadly).
I'd put the odds at ~10% or lower over the next 5 years in US/EU/UK.
It would require a massive crisis + political alignment + judicial acquiescence. Possible, not probable. I'd say extreme edge case.
The odds for - Partial/sectoral bans & hard throttling (merchant MoE suppression, node/platform de-platforming bursts, strict KYC travel-rule, custody only) - are higher - ~30%.
My base case is SoV-allowed containment (~60%) - Paper Bitcoin dominates, self-custody tolerated but inconvenienced; MoE pushed to CBDC/stablecoin rails.
Banning Bitcoin is expensive, leaky, and counter-productive for governments.
Containing it - paperizing price, taxing flows, steering payments to CBDC/stablecoin rails - delivers control, telemetry, and revenue with fewer riots. Price can still compound inside that cage; freedom lives only in the relatively small, well-kept self-custody sleeve.
More context:
#nevent1q…6rum

2025-09-16 03:52:05 UTC

- reply

Had to go from 95% net worth invested in Bitcoin -> 15% about 2 weeks ago.
A lot of the confidence I had, vanished, once I stopped listening to podcasts with Bitcoin authority figures and started to research on my own.
The reason I made the move is that I am pretty sure Bitcoin is going to become Gold.
Based on my research, the masses embracing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange over stablecoins/CBDCs is a very remote probability.
This doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not going to go up in fiat terms of course. I still think there are massive fiat gains to be made in Bitcoin.
I'll be a buyer on draw-downs of 45-55% from ATH, and seller during "clarity" (e.g. policy, liquidity, etc.) spikes.
For me, Bitcoin went from being Hope to being a hedge against "The Great Taking" type scenario and a niche, permissionless MoE.
If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking":
- The book describes what Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account.
- This is enabled by the laws in every country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario).
Of course, if this happens, then Bitcoin and Gold get revalued much higher overnight.
Based on my research, the Controllers changed the laws for an edge case, this is not the base case type scenario.
If I have a reason to believe that the odds of Bitcoin as a mass MoE increase over time, I will scale back into it.
For now, Bitcoin is a dissident MoE, a Store of Value, and a "Great Taking" scenario type hedge, and I don't see this changing for the better any time soon.
More context on the post-ETF era:
#nevent1q…8sqa
More context on how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption:
#nevent1q…j2ml
More context on how governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin:
#nevent1q…u4tf
More context on what OG Bitcoiners don't understand:
#nevent1q…s0uk

2025-09-14 07:55:22 UTC

- reply

I keep seeing this statement: "If Bitcoin doesn't survive the State's attack due to Bitcoin Core v30, then it was never going to make it anyway. Everything is good for Bitcoin, else Bitcoin is no good."
The answer is a bit nuanced but very important.
Governments don't actually want to kill (ban) Bitcoin because it is contrary to their incentives.
If the US government had a magic "ban Bitcoin" button, they would not press it.
A true ban drives use off-grid (Tor, mesh, cash ramps), destroys visibility, and raises policing costs. Containment via KYC perimeters is cheaper and yields data.
However, if the US government had a "disincentivize Bitcoin as a mass MoE, disincentivize Bitcoin node running, and force Mining pools toward template rules", they would press that button.
And if they had a pretext (e.g. a mass CSAM spam attack), and the narrative is on their side, then they would instantly press that button.
That's called the "Hegelian dialectic" (Problem -> Reaction -> Solution).
Governments don't usually come out of the blue with draconian measures, they create a problem first (which is what Bitcoin Core v30 is).
If governments decide to disincentivize Bitcoin as a mass MoE, disincentivize Bitcoin node running, and force Mining pools toward template rules, they can do it starting tomorrow.
After all, they control the perimiter:
- cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
- app stores,
- payments (exchanges, banks),
- policy.
More context:
#nevent1q…j2ml
However, they would really like to have the "Problem" part of the "Hegelian dialectic" before acting.
Elizabeth Warren (of course it's not her, its the deep State central bankers) already attacked Bitcoin nodes - painting them as unlicensed money transmitters.
This happened in December of 2023, but she got a lot of push-back.
She argued that Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for unregulated activities, including operating as an unlicensed money transmitter.
She argued that without proper oversight, Bitcoin can facilitate illegal activities and evade traditional financial regulations.
I am not under the impression that Bitcoin is unaffected by every state attack, however, the optics and narrative around the State's draconian measures are very important - why would you give your enemy more ammunition?
Here is the TLDR of what governments actually want:
- Merchant MoE suppression, node/platform de-platforming bursts, strict KYC travel-rule, Mining Pool/template control.
The worst attack vectors for Bitcoin are:
1) App-store & wallet policy
- Even though Google Play and Apple App Store have not banned self-custody wallets yet, you saw what enforcement looks like with Samourai Wallet (they also got criminally charged). That wasn’t “non-KYC equals banned,” but it proves the lever works.
- App stores can (a) require KYCed identity linking for crypto wallet apps, (b) remove background sync/relay privileges, or (c) restrict non-custodial key paths under "consumer protection". That would instantly de-index non-KYC wallets for 90%+ of retail, with zero parliamentary debate.
2) Mining Pool/template control
- If big pools adopt policy clients (template rules that filter or prioritize transactions) due to insurer requirements, utility interconnect terms, or internal counsel, actual block content becomes politically steerable - without touching Bitcoin consensus.
- Marathon already did this in 2021 when they announced “OFAC-compliant” block production (reversed after backlash, but proof that template policy pressure is real).
- Same for F2Pool (China) in 2023-2025 when independent monitoring spotted missing OFAC-sanctioned transactions in some F2Pool blocks.
- Large U.S./EU miners rely on insured facilities and utility PPAs (Power Purchase agreements). Clauses about "legal compliance" and "risk mitigation" can be interpreted as transaction-screening expectations (especially when governments publish sanctioned lists). You don't need a law; you need an underwriter or grid operator to say "no template screening = no coverage/interconnect".
- Counter-force: Stratum V2 job negotiation lets individual miners propose their own templates - reducing pool control - but adoption is partial, and pools can still set acceptance policies.
- Insurance/utility/hosting contracts can quietly force pools toward template rules ("we comply with lists").
So I am not under the impression that Bitcoin is invincible, the question is: Why make it more vulnerable?
Why gift governments the "Problem" part of the Hegelian dialectic?
More context:
#nevent1q…vlws

2025-09-14 03:37:27 UTC

- reply

Let's debunk the most common Bitcoin Core v30 arguments that I've seen circulate.
Sadly, we are sleepwalking off a cliff.
I keep seeing this Andreas Antonopoulos clip in which many assumptions are made and is taken out of context.
The TLDR statement he makes that I'm going to address is:
- "If you pay the fee, your transaction is legitimate. There is no spam transaction, there is no such thing as an illegitimate transaction. There are only transactions that did get mined and transactions that didn't have enough fee to get mined."
And here @nprofile…pu3f asks a very important question:
- "What happens when 'the market' is being distorted (and possibly attacked) by state actors with an infinite money printer? Is that a 'free market'?"
To say that "if it pays a fee it's legitimate" is a market-purist general truth, but it ignores adversarial demand with non-economic motives (a state actor willing to burn money to shape outcomes).
1) Why "fee = legitimacy" is incomplete
A free market doesn't only include utility-maximizers.
It also includes strategic buyers whose objective is not settlement utility but congestion, legal traps, and narrative damage.
The fee market can't distinguish between:
- a million normal, pleb payments and
- a million high-fee, low-utility writes whose sole purpose is to raise the global fee floor, bloat the chain, or embed toxic payloads.
If someone with deep pockets (e.g. state actor) wants a persistent 200–400 sat/vB floor to price out MoE (Medium of Exchange), they can try to buy it.
2) Concrete economics of a fee-floor attack
- Rough vBytes per block ≈ 1,000,000 vB.
- At 50 sat/vB, the cost to fill one block ≈ 0.5 Bitcoin.
- At Bitcoin $114k, that’s ~$57k/block; ~$8.2M/day (144 blocks).
- At 200 sat/vB, ≈ 2 BTC/block; ~$228k/block; ~$32.8M/day.
A major state could sustain this for weeks/months if the policy goal (cripple retail MoE, force users custodial, create "Bitcoin hosts illegal content" headlines) is valuable enough.
Miners would happily include these transactions (fees up, revenue up); small-payments get crowded out; most users slide toward custodial L2s or stable-coins (CBDCs). That's containment by price, not protocol.
3) The usual counter-claims - and why they don't fully save you
- "But the attacker is paying a real cost; Bitcoin wins on miner revenue" -
True; miners profit. But if the policy win (killing retail MoE, justifying compliance clients) is worth $30–50M/month to a state, they can keep burning.
- "Market adapts; fees settle back" - Yes, fee spikes mean-revert. The question isn't spikes; it's a new fee floor (e.g., 50 -> 150 sat/vB median) that permanently prices out low-value payments and normalizes custodial pathways.
- "Users move to Lightning/Fedimint; problem solved" - Those centralize at the edges (big custodians, popular guardians), where legal and policy pressure is easiest. Great UX, easier to KYC/blacklist - mission accomplished (for containment).
- "We'll counter with node filters" - Per-node filters just shift the politics to who runs whose filter. If enough pools embrace policy templates (insurer/utility pressure), miners - not your node - decide settlement norms.
The Andreas Antonopoulus statement that's taken out of context ("fee = legitimacy") is neat for peer competition but naïve in an adversarial, policy-driven world.
If default policy makes large arbitrary data easy (Bitcoin Core v30), you've just lowered the attacker's operational cost and raised the political payoff for compliance clients and app-store/cloud choke-points. That's not a protocol break; it's a governance win against MoE.
4) Why v30-style policy loosening (OP_RETURN large payloads) matters
"State actors can attack the network right now, so how does Bitcoin Core v30 change things?"
Bitcoin Core v30 removes the long-standing ~80 B OP_RETURN relay default, effectively making large OP_RETURN payloads easy by default and allowing multiple OP_RETURNs per tx.
Before vs after (at the policy layer)
- Before: Standard mempool policy discourages very large arbitrary data in policy (nodes won't relay non-standard forms by default). You could still stuff data (e.g., Taproot/witness tricks), but you have to work around policy filters, custom peers, or miner relationships - more work, more obvious.
- After (if defaults relax): Arbitrary-sized OP_RETURN payloads become "standard enough" to relay by default. That:
* makes spam cheaper to coordinate operationally (no special peering, no boutique scripts);
* reduces attribution (looks like "enthusiast data" rather than an obvious custom exploit - e.g. by a state actor);
* and widens the "liability channel" (malware/CSAM-in-chain is one broadcast away for anyone with a wallet kit).
The effect under a Core v30-like default:
- It's easier for a deep-pocket actor to spam-attack: less custom infra, fewer "nonstandard" hurdles, more plausible deniability.
- Consequences: sustained high fee floors, node-operator legal risk, centralization pressure (compliance nodes, policy-pools), and stronger MoE suppression (push to custodial/stable-coin [CBDC] rails). That's exactly the containment corridor I've described in my previous posts.
So what about Bitcoin Core v30 makes the attack surface bigger?
1) Congestion efficiency:
- OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable, so they don't bloat the UTXO set - but they do bloat block bytes and mempool memory/bandwidth.
- For a fee-floor attack, OP_RETURN is an efficient "pure byte" filler: maximum congestion, minimal future state; attackers aren't "paying" with future UTXO pressure.
In other words, to push up the minimum fee ("fee floor"), an attacker can flood the mempool with transactions that use OP_RETURN outputs - these are just data bytes that fill blockspace and cause congestion, but they don't create UTXOs (they're provably unspendable).
So the attacker maximizes congestion per sat paid today while leaving no long-term UTXO bloat to "pay for" later.
2) If large arbitrary payloads propagate by default, it's trivial to get contraband onto-chain. Then you can run the playbook:
- "Nodes relay illegal content -> node = publisher"
- "Clouds hosting nodes violate AUPs (Acceptable Use Policy) -> mass evictions"
- "App stores delist non-filtering wallets"
Net effect: chill self-custody and self-hosted nodes, push usage into KYC custodians.
3) Narrative cover for policy clients:
- Once headlines say "the chain hosts harmful content", pools adopting filtering templates (policy clients) get social and insurer cover: "We're just blocking abuse".
- That's the fast lane to politically steerable settlement - without a single consensus change.
4) Operational deniability for the attacker:
- With big payloads accepted by default policy, spam waves look like speculative mania or "digital art" booms. It's harder to finger a single adversary, easier to sustain the fee floor.
The fact that most Bitcoiners still haven't figured out that we don't live in a free market, the largest companies are State-subsidized, the State picks winners and losers, and that Bitcoin as a MoE is a direct competitor to CBDCs/stablecoins, is shocking.
==================================
The other day I saw Peter Todd (Bitcoin core developer) begging for donations again for his projects.
How it is even possible to be an OG Bitcoiner, to be in Bitcoin cycle after cycle and to still beg for money is something I can't comprehend.
These are the people you are outsourcing your Bitcoin decision-making to.
From anecdotal observations, these Core developers aren't exactly ballin'.
This doesn't conclusively mean anything of course - I just ask you to use your critical thinking abilities and to not blindly appeal to authority.
==================================
More context on how Bitcoin Core's v30 Update is an attack on Bitcoin's decentralization:
#nevent1q…ueac
#nevent1q…d8y8

2025-09-13 05:24:13 UTC

- reply

The concept that permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption is very misunderstood in Bitcoin.
This concept is called "The Perimeter Capture Rule".
It means that you have to watch the perimeter:
- cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
- app stores,
- payments (exchanges, banks),
- policy.
Control at the perimeter beats control at the center (permissionless, global).
If a technology looks uncontrollable, ask: "Can a perimeter actor rate-limit (policy, app stores), de-list (exchanges, banks), de-prioritize (policy, app stores, exchanges, banks)?" If yes, price the center like a tenant.
Many Bitcoiners often say: "We have the best tech, it's permissionless" and I have to agree, the tech is brilliant.
However, is the tech good enough to compensate for the deficiency in the psychology of the user base?
And when you cut the ideology, the answer here is no.
Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease (scale is assumed, I'm not talking about niche Bitcoin communities, I'm talking about a parallel to CBDCs/stablecoins global payments network).
#nevent1q…xlha

2025-09-12 03:27:39 UTC

Had a quick look at Bitcoin twitter the other day and it is shocking how clueless most Bitcoiners (even OGs) are.
They fail to understand simple concepts and incentives, or at least pretend to not understand them.
Here are some of the things most fail to understand:
1. Confusing permissionless tech with permissionless adoption ( permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption).
- The system controls rails, not code; adoption is steered by defaults, custody concentration, and tax/reporting.
- Separate tech truth (permissionless, scarce, global) from adoption truth (defaults, rails, policy).
2. Ignoring revealed preferences.
- States repeatedly choose ring-fencing (ETFs, KYC, custody oligopolies) over Strategic reserve adoption. No G7 state is buying Bitcoin to pump your bags (they may steal it though), so stop begging 😂
3. Assuming "co-opt the State"
- In reality, the State co-opts Bitcoin by financializing price exposure while starving sovereign usage at scale.
- When I listen to Bitcoiners talk about how "Governments are so stupid and don't understand Bitcoin, but they'll understand it eventually", I have to laugh. These people might actually have a mental disability.
4. You can't enforce SoV (the 21 million cap) by not holding your coins, by investing in Bitcoin ETFs (remember GLD?), and by not asking treasury companies for Proof-of-Reserves, etc.
And I am not saying that you won't get incredibly rich by buying Bitcoin.
If you invested in gold in its infancy, you still got incredibly rich even with the State co-opting it.
What I am saying is that most Bitcoiners are buying Gold, while thinking they're buying Bitcoin.
In other words, digital gold for most, money for a few.
Again, the State's dominant strategy is containment, not capitulation (nor killing Bitcoin). Bitcoin will be tolerated as financial exposure (in surveilled wrappers) and as a self-custody tail hedge for individuals - but not as a parallel monetary base.
I have to write more about the Travel Rule / KYC hardening, etc, because the State has clearly shown its cards, but most Bitcoiners listen to words coming from charismatic politicians instead of looking at the actions of the string-pullers.
This has been a tough pill to swallow for me as well 😂, but burying my head in the sand is not an option for me. Mental weakness is not an option.

2025-09-05 05:07:36 UTC

- reply

Well, you don't have to be "100% sold on "don't exist"" - that's called shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy.
You are not called upon to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
"Things like herpes etc. are difficult to explain without some transmissible component." - falsification is independent of replacement.
You don't have to explain how something works to falsify it.
Basically, the TLDR version is:
https://rumble.com/v6rh2e3-there-was-no-covid-virus-how-weve-all-been-duped-by-the-medical-establishme.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o
And the more in-depth version is this 3-part documentary.
https://odysee.com/@spacebusters:c9/A-Farewell-to-Virology-pt-1-Final:3

2025-09-03 10:51:32 UTC

- reply

Jimmy Song made a great video on what makes him concerned in the Bitcoin space.
We should definitely make this a trend and game theory more often.
So here's what worries me about Bitcoin - and this is anecdotal - but it seems to me that most Bitcoiners think we've already won and hubris is the folly of mankind.
When Bitcoiners say things like: "Governments are stupid and will panic-accumulate Bitcoin" and get little to no push-back, it makes me think we are way over our skis.
CBDCs are inevitable and the implications for Bitcoin are significant.
Expect Bitcoin to be positioned as: "You need CBDCs to protect you from volatile, criminal, climate-damaging, tax-dodging Bitcoin" in a coordinated attack on Bitcoin before/while CBDCs are rolling out.
Of course a crisis will be used to roll out CBDCs, e.g. a cyber attack.
CBDCs = Programmable money = Programmable populations
Did I also mention that there will be global coordination for CBDCs rollout?
In the same way there was coordination for:
- COVID policies: Nearly identical lockdown, mask, and vax-passport frameworks adopted within weeks worldwide.
- 2008 GFC response: Coordinated rate cuts, liquidity swaps, bank backstops.
- Sanctions regimes: US/EU/UK/JP harmonized instantly on Russia in 2022.
- Financial surveillance: FATF "Travel Rule" rolled out across dozens of jurisdictions in lockstep.
- Antarctic Treaty, Cold War-era arms control: even ideological enemies coordinate when the substrate of control is at stake.
So what are some of the chokepoints governments will use:
- On/off-ramps: Exchanges, stablecoins, custodial wallets - increasingly regulated, with AML/transaction monitoring locked in.
- Surveillance: All exchange/KYC’d Bitcoin addresses will be continuously monitored by AI analytics (already happening at Chainalysis/Elliptic).
- Programmability of CBDCs: Governments will make CBDC rails more convenient/cheaper than Bitcoin for everyday use, and throttle Bitcoin flows by limiting fiat gateways.
- Capital controls: Outright bans are unlikely in advanced economies - instead, de-banking pressure will make it harder to move large sums into/out of Bitcoin.
- Tax policy: Unrealized gain tracking, harsher reporting requirements, and selective tax enforcement can suppress open usage.
Everyday transactions will skew heavily toward CBDCs once government incentives (cashback, welfare payments, transit, payroll) go CBDC-only.
Bitcoin will shrink as a daily medium of exchange in most advanced economies.
The seemingly inevitable bifurcation:
- CBDCs: everyday payments, wages, taxes, and surveillance finance.
- Bitcoin: long-term wealth insurance, geopolitical hedge, black/grey market settlement rail.
CBDCs will not kill Bitcoin. They will make it harder to use, less liquid, and more surveilled at the fiat interface.
But those same pressures strengthen the need for Bitcoin as an uncensorable, neutral, borderless store of value.
However, we have to think about the market participants.
1. Retail Masses (Matrix Participants) - Believe government narratives. View Bitcoin as too risky, criminal, or bad for the planet.
They fully embrace CBDCs - convenient, subsidized (UBI/benefits direct), integrated with social credit/tax systems.
They exit Bitcoin or never touch it. No buy pressure from 90%+ of the population.
2. Institutional Allocators (Funds, ETFs, Pension Money) - Don’t care about ideology; they’re benchmark-chasers. They’ll only hold Bitcoin if it’s wrapped in State-approved rails (ETFs, custodians, banks).
They flow into ETF/Treasury companies versions of Bitcoin. These structures are easier for governments to synthetically suppress with paper-Bitcoin issuance.
Leads to short-term price dampening (due to synthetic exposure), but legitimization as a portfolio asset.
Those who hold real Bitcoin in self-custody will eventually get scarcity premium when Institutions need physical (think GLD vs gold bars).
3. Dissidents & Parallel Economy Builders - see CBDCs for what they are (control grid). Use Bitcoin/Monero/Lightning as opt-out rails.
They transact outside the CBDC framework and build shadow economies.
This is a minority - so low transaction volume relative to global GDP - but persistent, irreducible demand.
4. Elites/Controllers - understand Bitcoin perfectly. They don’t fear it, they use it. Bitcoin provides a release valve, a honeypot, and a test-bed.
They box Bitcoin as the opposition currency and use its volatility and media framing to make CBDCs look stable.
They manage Bitcoin like a pressure gauge on the system - too much systemic stress -> Bitcoin price spikes (Bitcoin's price becomes a signal of system fragility).
Retail thinks Bitcoin is dead.
Institutions think Bitcoin is just another portfolio line item.
Dissidents think Bitcoin is freedom.
Elites think Bitcoin is useful controlled opposition.
And the reality is that Bitcoin is all four at once.
If you want more context, check the post below.
#nevent1q…r282

2025-09-02 04:37:58 UTC

Reform theater is the most addictive drug for politics enjoyers.
Very few stop to ask: Who decides what counts as "reform"?
Most people will just accept "reform" as proof the system works, even when nothing substantive changes.
In reality, a political reform is just a creation of a release valve by labeling controlled adjustments as big transformations.
Look at how powerful this politician is! He brought back plastic straws. Based!
And of course, it goes both ways. E.g. Elon Musk on something truly reformative such as Bitcoin: "Dogecoin is better, it has lower transaction costs!".
So, the meta question is: Who decides what counts as "reform"?

2025-08-27 06:52:33 UTC

- reply

Great question: "If money is your time and energy in abstracted form, what does it mean if another man can print the money you use?".
With added context, it means that you've been born into a system in which the vast majority of people have consented to being slaves unknowingly.
Slavery has been so normalized that the vast majority of people are willing to defend their masters by participating in humiliation rituals - paying taxes even though money is printed out of thin air, selecting masters (even though voting has never worked), proudly sacrificing themselves to further their masters' agenda (military).
The most common way to at least partially unslave is to aligning yourself with the State - working for the State, or starting a business that serves the State, or working for a very large company that serves the State to gather resources to exit the system (Bitcoin, land, homesteading, gardening).
When most people understand how the system works, they usually want to fight it or change it, but fighting the system or trying to change the system from within is most often a waste of time and energy.
How would you defeat a system that has the power to create infinite money to incentivize as many slaves as necessary to protect it? You wouldn't.
It is usually much easier to exploit the system and exit the system.
#nevent1q…u6c9

2025-08-26 03:56:17 UTC

In 1986 someone bought a surplus copier from Boeing Aircraft and found an old Top Secret document named "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" in which the Elites practically declare war on the plebs.
This is the most mind-blowing thing I've ever read because it perfectly shows the contempt and hate the controllers have for us.
Here is a short quote on social welfare programs, which of course can be extended to the vast majority of state workers - the are simply hired to be a standing army for the elite.
https://blossom.primal.net/337423f0575ad12df0c107e23cc81da5df08b57b16970dd2cc3717273a04b0cf.png
And here is them explaining how wars are used to simply balance the fake budget and the whole point of politicians is to be publicly hired hit men who justify wars to keep the responsibility and blood off the public conscience.
https://blossom.primal.net/f0a73c33875554ccf800cc0dbff682c3bf405627abdddb00053b789a47e2e728.png
https://blossom.primal.net/b2ba1e69c4baf055dfeeaf2dfe51390728c94db6cb2a10df60ea0c339bdf2209.png
There are many more mind-blowing pages in this document:
- https://archive.org/details/SilentWeaponsForQuietWarsOriginalDocumentCopy/mode/2up
There is also a video of a guy who read the document if you prefer audio format, but there are a lot of charts, so you still have to look at the screen from time to time to get the full picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCl9EHlnFV8

2025-06-30 07:30:06 UTC

Are the normal people the ones who are perfectly adjusted to an abnormal society (vast majority) or the ones who refuse to adjust to an abnormal society (minority) 🤔
https://blossom.primal.net/7508569a2a04003ad45aeba57bef769c70ca5a861795a573d5b3b5f95165e62b.jpg

2025-04-02 08:13:35 UTC

Confessions of a Medical Heretic is one of the better books I'm reading right now.
Useful if you need more convincing that Modern Medicine is designed to harm/kill you and prevent your body from fixing itself.
Doctors keep killing/harming people and testing their medicines on unsuspecting victims.
The next promise, of course is that AI will take over the medical field and fix everything, however, the AI is trained with garbage data, so garbage in, garbage out.
So if you believe that you can train AI models with bought and corrupt research and get anything other than garbage out, I have a bridge to sell you.
https://m.primal.net/QBZF.png
https://m.primal.net/QBZG.png
https://m.primal.net/QBZH.png
https://m.primal.net/QBZI.png

2025-03-08 04:48:07 UTC

If VPNs gave you privacy online, they would be illegal.
When you connect to a VPN server, they obviously log your IP address and then there's browser fingerprinting, cookies, etc.

2024-07-01 05:01:16 UTC

Time magazine - some of the worst propaganda of all time.
https://m.primal.net/JEDt.png