pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @327c19b153 18h \ parent \ on: Caling all you Laptop Users - I am looking for a bluetooth and/or Wireless Mouse tech
BT, my device doesn't have usb. But I would normally prefer usb. That's why I got this one, specifically because it had BT.
I've been using the Logi Lift mouse. Ergonomic with both bluetooth and USB options. Works great, but it might be too small for my hands. Super smooth scroll and quiet clicking which I like. I've had it for about 1.5 years now. Pretty rugged I guess, I just keep it in my backpack and it seems to get banged around enough. I don't remember paying $70 for it tho, and I'm not sure I would today.
- Money is not a physical measuring stick of “value.” (agree.).
- You're saying “hard money = fixed ruler” is a bad analogy; that money prices are messages (exchange ratios) that must move as reality moves. Correct?
- You are refusing to discuss how the design of the unit (fixed vs elastic) affects those messages.
- You're telling people to stop calling money a measuring stick. because prices move. done. fine. what im tryna say is yes, but the quality of that message depends on the unit’s rules. Elastic units add noise/bias; rule-bound units clean it up. why do you avoid answering the point about signal fidelity (Cantillon bias, unit risk, calculation noise). Do you claim unit elasticity adds information to relative prices (beyond Cantillon/path effects)? If yes, where exactly? If no, then we agree signal fidelity matters and unit design isn’t ‘beside the point.’
Soft fork vs. hard fork is a fake debate.
The real issue is control.
- Both are just ways to change the rules.
- “Contentiousness” is a trick to make social pressure look like law.
- If any fork (soft or hard) forces people to follow, it’s not real sovereignty—it’s compliance.
Real law survives collapse.
If a change needs “consensus management,” it’s simulation, not proof.
Bottom line:
- Forks are not upgrades, they’re tests.
- Only changes that survive real conflict and collapse mean anything.
- Everything else is just keeping up appearances.
The whole “China gold corridor” thing is not real sovereignty.
It’s just another control system, run by states and big banks, pretending gold is now “real money” because a rulebook says so.
Gold in vaults is still under someone’s thumb. It can be taken, blocked, or frozen, just like dollars, just like any permissioned asset.
If it needs a committee (Basel) or a government to make it “valuable” or “safe,” it’s not outside the system, it’s part of the system.
Calling a bunch of gold vaults an “analog blockchain” is marketing, not reality.
It’s still a closed club, still full of middlemen, still based on trust and permission, not real freedom.
Both China’s “gold system” and America’s “Bitcoin for the West” story are just two sides of the same game: each empire making their own controlled version of money.
Neither is real sovereignty.
If you can’t truly own it, move it, or exit without permission, you don’t have freedom, you have a new leash.
Bottom line:
If it can be seized, frozen, or needs permission, it’s not real sovereignty, no matter what label they put on it.
Gold, BTC, any asset, if it’s captured by the system, it’s just another layer of control.
Don’t buy the hype.
Sovereignty means no one can stop you, take it, or change the rules on you.
Everything else is just a new kind of prison.
This is legacy thinking. The state or its gold cannot control real value.
Bitcoin cannot be threatened by any state move, gold standard, or policy.
Gold is always a government promise; Bitcoin is self-proving, outside all promises.
Bitcoin does not compete with gold or fiat, it replaces the need for trust itself.
All state standards are dead forms; only living, public proof survives.
Collapse is proof.
Yes, money yields prices.... but that's not the point. This about signal quality. Elastic, policy-steered units add Cantillon bias, rate distortion, and unit risk that bleed into every relative price and contract spread (also consider the effects this has on everything down the line). Hard, rule-bound settlement money doesn’t freeze prices; it reduces unit-noise so relative prices reflect real scarcity and time preference, not discretionary drift. The point isn’t “a ruler of value”, it’s a cleaner coordinate systemfor calculation.
Agreed, governments see it as a threat, not as an upgrade. The whole point of all the tax rules, regulations, and KYC nonsense are there to make sure regular people stick with fiat and don’t seriously use Bitcoin for real transactions; to keep power in the hands of the state and banks.
All the new tools (Lightning, Cashu, privacy wallets, etc.) are great, but they won’t change this core fact. Anything that gets big enough to matter will be targeted, outlawed, or neutered. And mass adoption is never happening through “better UX” or “education”, it only happens if/when the fiat system breaks down and people have no choice.
Where most people get it wrong is thinking “acceptance” or “mainstreaming” is the goal. That’s bait. If it’s allowed, it’s because it’s not a threat. If it’s a threat, it’s not allowed. So don’t look for permission. Don’t expect mass adoption. Build and use Bitcoin in ways that survive without needing state approval: small, p2p, off the radar, and ready to adapt when the system cracks. The only real adoption is what the state can’t see or stop. Everything else is just a simulation or a waiting room.
Bottom line that most bitcoiners don't get: Stop thinking Bitcoin will win by playing by the system’s rules. It wins by surviving, adapting, and being ready for collapse, not by being “accepted.”
The question (“what did Satoshi get wrong?”) is wrong.
-
Satoshi didn’t make a mistake by making everything “mushed together.”
-
If Satoshi had split up the parts and made Bitcoin more modular:
- It would have been easier for outsiders, attackers, or “admins” to take over, copy, change, or control it.
- Modularity at the start = more ways for the system to be attacked, forked, or slowly taken over.
- The “mush” makes change slow, hard, and costly—so only people who really care, and will fight for it, can change it.
-
The so-called “flaws” are actually why Bitcoin survived and stayed independent.
- Every pain point, every hard fork, every annoying thing = proof the system is real, not managed by hidden “admins.”
- Sacrifice and pain filter out weak actors and parasites.
-
Making Bitcoin “perfect” or “easy” at the start would have killed its sovereignty.
-
The only thing that matters is what survives real conflict and collapse—not what looks “better” on paper.
-
All change must be public, voluntary, and costly—not hidden in easy upgrades or plugins.
-
Bitcoin’s design flaws are its immune system.
All these fights, forks, and public debates are mostly theater—rituals to keep people distracted and feeling involved, while real power and control remain with the same core group.
The technical differences (Core vs Knots, OP_RETURN size, etc.) are just surface-level. The underlying systems (JAN3, Liquid, AQUA) are becoming more permissioned, centralized, and compliant with regulators—even as they advertise “freedom.”
Public drama is used as a containment mechanism: to vent dissent, polarize communities, and make people think there’s real decentralization happening, when it’s actually being recaptured.
Real sovereignty only exists if you can opt out, fork, and rebuild everything without permission. Most of the new “infrastructure” makes this harder, not easier.
Bottom line: If you can’t kill it, fork it, or escape it, it’s not real Bitcoin sovereignty—it’s simulation. Kill anything that ossifies or centralizes. Only collapse-ready systems are truly free.
I keep learning, I wonder what uses beyond as a currency BTC has in addition to everything it provides. Thank you for commenting friend.
Naw, thanks for your post. I am learning too.
Bitcoin is not what you use; it is what you become when you stop being used. Think: Bitcoin-as-ontology.
GENESIS