pull down to refresh
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @daolin 1h \ on: [FM] Ninety Days Of The Unexpected BooksAndArticles
I loved the part about the first week. The last time I remember seeing neighbors share more than few words with each other was during a blackout. Every crisis has at least one pleasant moment
Thank you! I have more scenes of a larger series in the works, so if this is received well then I may post more soon.
I always find it inspring to complete a 5 hour road trip that used to be such a treacherous and painful journey. I'm happy to see Bitcoin adoption is going strong in this region and I like to think that all the technological innovations that allowed humanity to thrive in a desert can serve as a kind of cultural heritage for Bitcoin, a reminder of all the pre-Satoshi off-chain work that made it possible, and a foreshadowing of how far we can take it.
Thank you for reading! It's my first attempt at writing anything, and I don't read often, so it's hard to gauge how it will be perceived from the reader's perspective. I'm drawing inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, but my overall intention is purely for it to have entertainment value, so "fun" is the best compliment I could have hoped for ^^
You can always convert part of your credit score to BTC, but that comes with it's own complications.
I promise you central planning or a mix of central planning isn't what made the West rich. Whenever any state attempts to manage capital, it means someone is taking a cut of what someone else produced, or someone is dictating to someone else what to produce. The parts of the West in the worst states of decay are those that trusted their governments to manage the economy. The richest countries in 2100 will be whichever ones adopted Bitcoin first, because that alone is a dismantling of state influence.
It doesn't look very revolutionary from the outside. It kind of looks like they simply eased up on the statism, and then the economy did what all economies do when the state leaves the private sector alone instead of micromanaging every plot of farmland.
Widespread adoption is a meme. It was never designed to benefit everyone equally. It benefits only the entities who act with rational self-interest. The individual who bought it for $50,000 is happy. Bitcoin works for that guy. If the German government doesn't want any, they don't have to buy it. It's all voluntary.
Buttcoiners are people who think cell phones will never work because you have to charge a battery, and for that you need an outlet, and an electric grid, and construction workers to build it, etc. As though any of that dilutes the magic of sharing voice with someone on another continent.
In the freer regions of the world, the play is generally to hoard as much BTC as possible, use leverage sparingly, experiment with different methods of payment and custody, while revising them as necessary as circumstances and your personal familiarity improve. We need something like a combination of optimism, discipline, and ambition, each reinforcing the other.
You can average out your purchases later and report everything on a single line. You're avoiding the worst tax already by avoiding fiat. Purists will say to live underground but personally I find it easier to pay the protection fee until the state's teeth have fully rotted away, especially if you earn a steady salary and are considering home ownership.
Bitcoin is a game-changer. It's never been done on a large scale because we didn't have Bitcoin. The state's monopoly on violence is over.
The US and Europe have very different reasons for their lax immigration policies. Americans have always had an instinctive revulsion to the idea of judging someone by their last name, but they're coming around to it after a few decades of that openness being weaponized against them by a leftist nanny state. On the other hand, Canada, the UK and Germany seem to be straight-up suicidal.
Not entirely by accident, no. I think it was the underlying cultural and legal propensity for capitalism, in the most idealistic libertarian sense of the term. Are the Chinese under the impression that competent leadership in government is the determining factor behind a nation's wealth?
I think Western motivations are a lot more simplistic and insular than the grand strategy you make them out them to be. An American in Texas votes for Trump because he wants to pay less in taxes. An American in California votes for Harris because she wants student loan forgiveness. We're really more interested in winning against each other than against any other country.
If I hold a gun to a taxi driver's head and compel him to drive me or anyone else around for free, that doesn't make me the provider of public transportation. The worker is still the one providing the service. The fact that some other psycho might do the same thing or worse is no reason for me to be doing it.
Bitcoin, if adopted fully, severely cripples the government's ability to exercise that kind of control. To use the US as an example, if they have 200,000 bitcoins, that's about $24 billion worth if BTC. But they spend about $6 trillion USD annually. There's no closing that gap. That represents trillions in wealth that gets released into the market's control if USD loses its social status.
Your mainstream definition of the tax code is not the reality. There is no exchange of value being made. If you follow the monetary transactions from beginning to end you'll see that it boils down to someone with no skills aside from intimidation and deception demanding money from productive workers who have no means to defend themselves. Those useless bureaucrats then spend that money on frivolous and violent self-serving pet projects that would never have been approved by a free market. Not to mention they're also running a ponzi scheme to raise tax revenue deceptively, without any public negotiation and without full transparency of how the government's monetary system is actually operating.
The fact that some countries in a state of pure anarchy and war are technically without government is a poor excuse for the way governments attack civilians during peacetime, and they might indeed be better off temporarily cycling through such a state than dealing with semi-peaceful slave drivers indefinitely.
The simple act of owning Bitcoin is effectively separating oneself from government manipulation, and that's why the individual who hoards it eventually discovers a better quality of life and a higher degree of freedom than if they bought in to the government's platitudes about altruism being the supreme good.
There is no reasoning. That's the genius of socialists. They get to say whatever they feel will work best for the circumstances. I expect that eventually they'll settle on the conclusion not that Bitcoin itself is bad, but that only government agencies should be allowed to use it.
True in my experience. I find it interesting that the kind of dark mind which holds an aversion to babies or having babies seems to be a persistently recurring element in all populations and not merely a product of our especially gloomy times. I always wonder how traits like depression and anti-natalism ever show up when, on the surface, they seem to directly contradict the basic survival instincts one might expect to be cultivated by natural selection.
His strategy maximizes profit. And it wasn't designed in a vacuum. In large part, it works because other corporations are still ignoring Bitcoin. He would not have the opportunity to buy such massive amounts of Bitcoin with low interest debt, were it not for the fact that mainstream finance still regards it as digital beanie babies, which Bitcoin obviously is not. This is simply the market punishing the wrong decisions and rewarding the correct ones.