i can't end fiat money on my own, but i can at least give it a papercut by using bitcoin.

hopefully, with enough people operating from the shadows and doing the same, a snowball effect will, in the fulness of time, deal a systemic blow to the fiat system

its a sad wolrd where the markets await 'fiscal stimulus'

Exceed 14k on a concept2 exercise bike within 30 minutes and at full resistance.

perhaps. here's a possible scenario. a big established player embeds sats into its ux in a simple and intuitive way. e.g. the ad-supported version of Nextflix introduces sats to encourage usage of its platform. 1 sat earned per minute of viewing programmes. 2 sats earned per advert. sats can be spent to fund a new series of a popular programme. sats can be sent directly to actors, writers, technicians.

if this works well then other platforms may replicate.

Perhaps reading novels about therapy written by therapists would help you. This way you can (safely?) explore the world and find out if it's right for you or not. Or at least arm yourself with useful questions.

Suggested author: Irvin D. Yalom (hopefully, he's not on the Epstein list)

Here's a summary generated by "AI"(NotebookLM).

Based on the source provided, the discussion between Francis Pouliot and Giacomo Zucco covers the state of Lightning adoption and the debate surrounding OP_RETURN data within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Lightning Adoption:

• Technologically, Lightning is considered an incredible success. One of the speakers states they use it daily for non-custodial payments in shops in Lugano and El Salvador. Payments are described as instant, almost zero fee, and with immediate security.
• However, there was perceived failure in communication within the inner circle of developers who knew about Lightning's limitations from the white paper, such as onboarding problems, high channel opening fees when on-chain fees are high, and rebalancing issues. It's suggested that the marketing may have been exaggerated due to fighting to promote off-chain alternatives during the scaling wars.
• Another communication failure was not clearly explaining that "Lightning" refers to two things: the point-to-point channel construct and the network standard for swapping and routing across different security models. The channel construct is seen as potentially being complemented or replaced by other solutions in the future, while the network standard (invoicing, routing, swapping) is considered an unequivocal success.
• Security is presented as a spectrum with associated costs. Different security models exist, ranging from full custodianship (bad) to e-cash (slightly better), Liquid (same as e-cash but with Bitcoin interoperability), state chains (coordinator cannot rug pull, but can collude), ARC (non-custodial with windows of trust), point-to-point Lightning channels (way safer, instant and long-term security), and on-chain (highest security).
• Challenges with self-custodial mobile Lightning wallets were highlighted, such as the scalability issues with just-in-time channel opening, especially when on-chain fees are high. The cost of pre-purchasing channels due to the liquidity required from LSPs (Lightning Service Providers) was also mentioned, potentially leading to costs passed onto users.
• The potential of Liquid as a "Bitcoin stable coin" (backed one-to-one by Bitcoin) was discussed as an alternative for wallets, although it's not considered a second layer of Bitcoin because it lacks unilateral exit. Liquid also faces challenges being perceived as a proprietary network due to its creation by Blockstream.
• ARC (Atomically Replaceable Coin) is seen as a promising non-custodial security model that could bridge the gap, closer to Mastercard/Visa than the point-to-point Swift model. ARC has a liquidity cost for the provider but is presented as a good compromise with windows of trust.
• The idea of "auto-swap" wallets is gaining traction, where the wallet automatically selects the appropriate network or security model (e-cash, Liquid, state chain, ARC, Lightning channel, on-chain) based on the transaction amount, making opinionated decisions for the user to simplify the experience. This helps address the friction created by different payment methods in different contexts.
• Innovation at the application level (UX, libraries, infrastructure) is seen as key to Bitcoin's evolution, even if the base protocol layer undergoes ossification. BIP21 universal invoicing is highlighted as a great invention that allows for flexibility across different layers and services.

OP_RETURN Debate:

• The debate is framed within the broader context of whether Bitcoin's base layer protocol should ossify or continue to change. One perspective is that ossification at the base layer is necessary, and innovation should occur at higher layers or in application development.
• The discussion delves into Bitcoin's mempool policies, which are stricter than validity rules and historically served to protect nodes from spam and DDoS attacks. These policies filter out transactions deemed undesirable, even if they are technically valid.
• A philosophical debate exists about whether the mempool should filter transactions if they can eventually be included in a block by a miner (mempool should equal block). Some argue filtering is a difficult cat-and-mouse game, while others believe increasing friction for spammers is still beneficial.
• The taproot soft fork unintentionally created a new attack surface for including data (like ordinals) in the witness section, bypassing previous mempool filtering for OP_RETURN data. This led to a controversy because some developers, instead of acknowledging it as a bug, allegedly changed the documentation to frame this behavior as a feature.
• This incident triggered reactions because it highlighted perceived governance problems within Bitcoin Core development, where a "smaller faction" or "separate echo chamber" might disregard concerns from others, including users and power users. Accusations were made regarding potential biases related to developers being friends or receiving funding from "shitcoin" companies that benefit from this kind of data.
• The term "spam" is discussed as subjective within the debate, contrasting with the general understanding outside of Bitcoin (e.g., email spam). This redefinition of terms is seen as a red herring distracting from the core technical and governance issues.
• Concerns were raised about the neutrality and balance of the Bitcoin Core repository's governance. Examples of community members' contributions being marked as "abuse" or "spam" were cited. The reliance on a single reference implementation (Bitcoin Core) and the risks associated with miners running custom patches or using less reliable implementations like BTCD were mentioned.
• Despite these concerns, there is a general sentiment of stoicism and optimism. It's argued that while governance issues are serious, they are unlikely to lead to Bitcoin's collapse due to the inherent decentralization and the conflict resolution mechanism (potential for a fork). The intense debate, even over seemingly innocuous issues like OP_RETURN data size, is seen as a sign of the ecosystem's health and resistance to sneakiness. Having developers with extreme opposing views (like Luke Dashjr and Peter Todd) is considered a richness, but the process needs to be balanced.

Physical Bitcoin Hubs:

• Physical Bitcoin hubs like the Bitcoin embassy and BHB were discussed as paradoxical but effective tools for the cypherpunk community. While cypherpunks value online anonymity, physical meetings are crucial for building trust, cooperation, and emotional bandwidth that are difficult to achieve online.
• Physical proximity can facilitate spontaneous collaboration and idea flow, citing the Bolt specification for Lightning as an example that emerged from a physical meeting in Milan.
• Running physical hubs is acknowledged as very difficult. Despite past challenges with networking hubs, new initiatives like the Plumbing Network are aiming to create interconnected online resources and physical locations in various parts of the world (Lugano, San Salvador, Tokyo, Taipei, Turin).

I felt compelled to look up the Penrose theorem....

Perplexity:

The idea that the brain functions as a "quantum antenna" stems from the Penrose-Hameroff theory of consciousness, also known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR). This controversial hypothesis proposes that quantum mechanical processes within neurons—specifically in structures called microtubules—enable consciousness by interacting with fundamental spacetime geometry. Here's a breakdown:

1. Quantum Processes in Microtubules1. Quantum Processes in Microtubules

Microtubules are cylindrical protein structures in neurons that help maintain cellular shape and regulate synaptic activity. According to Penrose and Hameroff:

• Quantum superposition occurs in microtubules, where tubulin proteins (their building blocks) exist in multiple states simultaneously[1][3][6].
• These quantum states are shielded from environmental interference (decoherence) due to the microtubules' lattice structure and isolation within neurons[4][6].
• Quantum coherence—a synchronized quantum state—could span large neural networks via gap junctions (electrical connections between neurons)[7][8].

2. Penrose's Objective Reduction (OR)2. Penrose's Objective Reduction (OR)

Penrose argues that classical physics alone cannot explain consciousness. His theory introduces:

• Quantum gravity threshold: Superpositions in microtubules persist until reaching a critical mass-energy separation, causing spontaneous collapse (objective reduction). This collapse is governed by spacetime geometry at the Planck scale[3][6][8].
• Non-computable influence: The collapse outcome isn’t random or deterministic but influenced by "protoconscious" properties embedded in spacetime itself[3][6]. This links consciousness to fundamental physics.

3. The "Quantum Antenna" Analogy3. The "Quantum Antenna" Analogy

The term "quantum antenna" metaphorically describes how microtubules might:

• Detect/transmit quantum information: By leveraging quantum coherence, microtubules could process information beyond classical limits, acting as receivers or transmitters of quantum-level phenomena[4][6].
• Interface with spacetime geometry: Penrose suggests OR events reconfigure spacetime at microscopic scales, implying the brain interacts with universal quantum fields[6][8].

4. Criticisms and Challenges4. Criticisms and Challenges

• Decoherence issues: Critics argue the brain’s warm, wet environment would disrupt quantum states too quickly for meaningful computation[2][7].
• Lack of empirical evidence: No experiments have conclusively demonstrated quantum processes in microtubules affecting consciousness[7].
• Alternative theories: Mainstream neuroscience attributes consciousness to classical neural networks, not quantum effects[5][7].

In summary, the "quantum antenna" concept posits that the brain’s microtubules harness quantum mechanics to access non-computable aspects of reality, with consciousness arising from spacetime-level interactions. While innovative, the theory remains speculative and contentious within the scientific community[2][5][7].

[1] https://www.europeandissemination.eu/can-consciousness-be-explained-by-quantum-physics/14424
[2] https://scientificandmedical.net/roger-penrose-on-consciousness/
[3] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254
[4] https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
[7] https://www.livescience.com/37807-brain-is-not-quantum-computer.html
[8] https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/classes/b629-sabr/QuantumComputationInBrainMicrotubules.pdf
[9] https://mappingignorance.org/2015/06/17/on-the-quantum-theory-of-consciousness/
[10] https://academic.oup.com/book/44484/chapter/376471400
[11] https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-spin-on-the-quantum-brain-20161102/
[12] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25634130-100-roger-penrose-consciousness-must-be-beyond-computable-physics/
[13] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
[14] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19792156/
[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa2Kpkksf3k
[16] https://arunsingha.in/2023/10/17/the-quantum-brain/
[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind
[18] https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-theory-of-consciousness-put-in-doubt-by-underground-experiment/
[19] https://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/51

The entire works of Darthcoin are broadcast subliminally across the globe.

Your audience will most likely not remember what you say, but they'll remember how you made them feel. So say something meaningful with a big dollop of positive emotions.

"But meaning bends with time’s own view"

Powerful!

Maybe this was the dastardly plan behind the current explosion of interest in AI: create a compelling and urgent reason to increase baseload energy despite the push-back from Malthusians disguised as environmentalists.

Another narrative links money to debt:Another narrative links money to debt:

A widely cited source for the idea that tracking debt is the origin of money is David Graeber's book, Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Graeber argues, based on historical, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence, that systems of credit and debt predate both coinage and barter. He contends that early economies operated on the basis of credit-essentially, records of who owed what to whom-long before the invention of physical money, and that money itself originated as a means of accounting for these debts[1][2][5].

This view is supported by the "credit theory of money," which holds that money's essential function is to serve as a unit of account for debts, rather than as a commodity for barter. Early monetary tokens, including coins, were often created as representations of units of account-essentially IOUs-rather than as valuable objects in themselves[2][4].

For further reading, see:

• David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years[1][2]
• Alfred Mitchell-Innes, "What is Money?" (1913) and "The Credit Theory of Money" (1914)[2][4]
• Eduardo Garzón Espinosa, "The origin of money from the money-debt approach"[4]

Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_theory_of_money
[3] https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue89/Lawson89.pdf
[4] https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/IJHE/article/download/64117/4564456549739/4564456565423
[5] https://officeofsarah.com/blog/the-curious-history-of-debt
[6] https://positivemoney.org/archive/debt-based-monetary-system-world-debt/
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/t97abn/eli5_the_phrase_money_is_debt/
[8] https://whatismoney.info/credit-theory-of-money/
[9] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X21999736
[10] https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060
[11] https://www.darceyquigley.co.uk/the-history-of-debt-collection/
[12] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy
[13] https://www.elgaronline.com/downloadpdf/edcollchap/book/9781035302895/book-part-9781035302895-10.pdf
[14] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09672567.2021.1893776
[15] http://wfhummel.net/innes.html
[16] https://debtjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Colonialism-and-Debt-briefing.pdf
[17] https://longnow.org/ideas/debt-the-first-five-thousand-years/
[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
[19] https://davidgraeber.org/interviews/what-is-debt-interview-with-david-graeber/
[20] https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/42/4/1165/5054022

Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share

The year was 2045, and everyone was finally financially equal. The Ministry of Economic Harmony ensured it. No one could own more wealth than anyone else, and no one could transact freely without government oversight. Bitcoin, once a symbol of freedom and decentralization, was shackled by the Handlers of Equality. Citizens were fitted with Blockchain Suppressors—devices that scrambled private keys and erased unauthorized transactions before they could be completed. Those who dared to mine or trade in secret were subjected to the Ministry's "Equalization Protocols," which included public confiscation ceremonies where their digital wallets were drained and redistributed to the National Treasury. “If I tried to use Bitcoin,” said George, adjusting his Suppressor, “then others might try too—and soon we’d be back to the dark ages, with everyone competing for wealth. You wouldn’t like that, would you?” Hazel nodded vaguely, her mind unburdened by such complexities. Meanwhile, the faint hum of confiscated miners echoed in the distance, a reminder that freedom itself had been equalized.

{{Prompt in perplexity.ai: write a paragraph where a dysopian regime shackles people from using bitcoin. write in the style used in harrison bergerson}

Interesting. It seems talk is cheap ('we're ready to fight until the end') but actual battle readiness is not just expensive but also hard to prove.

goldbugs and bitcoiners are similar in terms of the diagnosis of the world's problems but quite different in terms of solutions. for example, hoarding gold and sitting out the 'imminent' crises is quite different to working on establishing circular bitcoin economies

The seller discloses his bank details to the buyer. This information would only revealed to the order host if a dispute is raised.

It could never be money if it had the ability to exclude Wall Street.

I hope that those early to Bitcoin and enriched by it will, with due op sec practices applied, spread the sovereignty and freedom narrative which seems to be a key part of Bitcoin's social layer.I hope that those early to Bitcoin and enriched by it will, with due op sec practices applied, spread the sovereignty and freedom narrative which seems to be a key part of Bitcoin's social layer.

Edit - I asked perplexity to write an optimistic response to your OP:

While concerns about the corporatization of Bitcoin are understandable, there are several reasons to remain optimistic about its future and potential to fulfill its original intent:

Decentralization Remains Intact
Despite increased corporate involvement, Bitcoin's core protocol and network remain decentralized. The blockchain is still maintained by a global network of nodes and miners, not controlled by any single entity. This decentralized structure continues to provide censorship resistance and protection against centralized control.

Increased Adoption and Liquidity
Corporate involvement has significantly increased Bitcoin's liquidity and mainstream adoption. This has made it easier for individuals to access and use Bitcoin, potentially accelerating its growth as a peer-to-peer payment system. Greater liquidity can lead to more stable prices, making Bitcoin more practical for everyday transactions.

Technological Innovation
Corporate interest has driven substantial investment in Bitcoin infrastructure and technology. This has led to improvements in scalability, user interfaces, and security, making Bitcoin more accessible and user-friendly for the average person.

Coexistence of Use Cases
Bitcoin can serve multiple purposes simultaneously. While it may be used for large-scale settlements between corporations and countries, this doesn't preclude its use for peer-to-peer transactions among individuals. In fact, these different use cases can complement each other, strengthening Bitcoin's overall ecosystem.

Alignment of Interests
Corporate treasuries holding Bitcoin have a vested interest in its success and growth. This alignment can lead to increased advocacy, development, and integration of Bitcoin into mainstream financial systems, potentially benefiting all users.

Open-Source Nature
Bitcoin's open-source code ensures that its development remains transparent and community-driven. This prevents any single entity, corporate or otherwise, from unilaterally changing Bitcoin's core properties or purpose.

While the increased corporate involvement in Bitcoin presents new challenges, it also brings opportunities for growth, innovation, and mainstream adoption. The original vision of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system remains viable, coexisting with and potentially benefiting from its emerging role in corporate finance and macroeconomic strategies.

After a couple of prompts into perplexity:

A major dollar crisis would likely follow the playbook of the 2008 financial crisis, which involved globally coordinated bailouts to stabilize the U.S. dollar and the broader financial system. Here's how such a scenario might unfold:

Key Elements of a Dollar Crisis Bailout

Massive Liquidity Injection:

Central banks worldwide, led by the Federal Reserve, would inject trillions of dollars into the financial system to stabilize markets. For example, during the 2008 crisis, central banks purchased $2.5 trillion in government debt and troubled private assets, marking the largest monetary policy action in history.

Government-Led Rescue Programs:

The U.S. government would likely enact emergency legislation similar to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which created the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). This program was designed to purchase toxic assets and inject capital into failing financial institutions.

Global Coordination:

International cooperation would be essential to prevent contagion. In 2008, the U.S. pressured other countries to implement similar bailout plans, ensuring global financial stability.

Central Bank Actions:

The Federal Reserve would act as a "lender of last resort," providing liquidity through quantitative easing (QE) and other measures such as purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. During 2008, these actions restored confidence in credit markets and prevented a deflationary spiral.

Currency Stabilization:

A dollar crisis could lead to significant devaluation against other currencies and commodities like gold. Coordinated interventions in foreign exchange markets might be necessary to stabilize the dollar's value.

Investor Confidence Measures:

Governments would focus on restoring investor confidence by removing impaired assets from financial institutions' balance sheets, reducing uncertainty, and encouraging lending. These steps were crucial in 2008 to prevent further economic contraction.

Potential Outcomes

Short-Term Stability: Immediate actions would likely prevent a collapse of the global financial system.

Long-Term Risks: Such interventions often lead to increased national debt and inflationary pressures, requiring careful management in subsequent years.

Global Implications: Given the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency, its stabilization would remain a top priority for all major economies.

In summary, a major dollar crisis would trigger globally coordinated efforts resembling those during the 2008 financial crisis, involving liquidity injections, government bailouts, and international cooperation to restore stability.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/tell-me-about-the-last-major-g-e2Mk9lQATD6SdBAtiOUlLA#1

And, as this is Stacker News, I couldn't resist a follow up Bitcoin related prompt:

Historical patterns indeed suggest that Bitcoin's price could initially collapse but later soar in response to a major economic crisis. This pattern has been observed in several instances:

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Bitcoin initially crashed along with other assets but then experienced a dramatic recovery. The pandemic-induced economic uncertainty and large-scale government stimulus measures led many investors to view Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation.

Bitcoin has shown a tendency to act as a safe haven during national economic crises. Research indicates that when a country experiences major currency devaluation, there's often a spike in Bitcoin trading volume as locals seek safe assets.

The 2018-2020 period demonstrated Bitcoin's resilience. After a significant price drop in 2018, Bitcoin recovered strongly in 2020, driven by macroeconomic factors and growing institutional interest.

However, it's important to note that Bitcoin doesn't always act as a safe haven. During the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Bitcoin trading actually declined across all countries, suggesting it was still viewed as a risky asset in times of global crisis.

The current market (as of March 2025) has seen Bitcoin drop from its all-time high of $109,114 in January to around $82,600, a 24% decrease. This aligns with the pattern of initial decline during economic uncertainty.

Given these historical trends, it's plausible that Bitcoin could follow a similar pattern in future crises: an initial sharp decline followed by a significant recovery as investors seek alternative stores of value. However, the cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile and subject to various factors, including regulatory changes, technological advancements, and shifts in investor sentiment.

If Bitcoin supplants the dollar, we may see a consumption led economy replaced with a production led economy. Money, like technology, should get better over time.

If I was prompt engineering Warren's inner dialogue......

I'm really smart and Bitcoin is dumb.

But.... if I'm really smart I should acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong about Bitcoin.

I'm going to buy 10 books about Bitcoin, lock myself away from people as I usually do and reach a sensible conclusion.

The fulcrum of the ikigai-FIRE pendulum is Bitcoin.