pull down to refresh
Sure, "Britain's lack of support for the US today is utterly meaningless."
But we're talking about the petrodollar. It's the gulf state's support which matters most; their willingness to continue pricing oil exclusively in dollars. And this Hormuz disaster, among a dozen other ongoing catalysts, is pushing those oil producers away from continuing to cater to the US' ability to export energy, in exchange for cheap paper, to the rest of the world.
I know there are nuances and caveats here.... but from my perspective, wealth is not subjective and/or arbitrary. It's quantifiable. Sure, the measurement sticks we choose to measure wealth can be arbitrary, which is where the nuance can enter here.
Mediocrity, however, cannot be measured. One person's idea of "success" is another's nightmare. What does it mean to be "mediocre", or "successful", or "happy"??
I know a 70 year old man who spent his life as a U.S. marine and then a federal LE Agent. He amassed a greater than average amount of wealth. He exercised daily. He worked hard. Most people who know him would probably say he was not "mediocre".
He was diagnosed with cancer about a year ago. He's a different man now, because the cancer is making it impossible to live how he used to live.
Is he now "mediocre" after spending a life being non-mediocre? Did his lifetime of extra hard work change anything, in the grand scheme of the universe? Will anyone remember him, or care about him 50 years from now?
How can mediocrity be measured? What is it?
Mediocrity is simply a short-term, relative concept. People have their periods of strength, and then they become weak. We experience ups and downs, most of which are derived from forces completely external to us.
Mediocrity, as a concept, is arbitrary and subjective.
Ultimately, we're all naked when we're born, and we all die.
I don't think this is a fair take.
But I also thought Roger Ver has been unfairly demonized.
I think good people make mistakes. I think we've lost a lot of good people by demonizing their mistakes, instead of understanding and sympathizing with WHY they made the choices they made.
Roger and Luke both wanted to see a better world..... a better Bitcoin.
I love how Bitcoin is strong enough to withstand change. It's one of its greatest strengths. But, if the goal was to topple the current fiat oligarchy.... which Bitcoin is NOT doing in its current form..... maybe Bitcoin isn't the answer anymore.
When the fiat-bankers are leading the charge for Bitcoin to become ossified... maybe we should ask ourselves what they're so afraid of.
Roger asked it too soon, and sacrificed sound technical principles. Luke realized it after 20 years of Bitcoin doing fuck-all nothing toward ending fiat.
I'm not sure where I stand on this fight, but I sure as hell see bias on both sides. And the demonification of people like Luke, saying he's "worse than Craig Wright" makes me sick, man.
Why not? An AI with a mandate to take whatever is possible would do exactly this.
The fact that the attack happened so quickly, over such a small amount, and the RBF's were in place immediately, tells me that we are dealing with agentic AI here.
"Why not? One sentinel for every man, woman, and child in Zion. That sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine, to me."
Who decides which words are "curse words" and which aren't?
I find it so strange that we police the manner in which another person moves their facial muscles to make a certain sound. Thousands of possible sounds we can make with our mouths, and for some reason a few of them are considered "foul".
I dunno man.
I'm super bearish, lately, for many different reasons.
What I keep reminding myself is that there are no serious alternatives. Gold (and all monetized metals) has, and will fail as a serious fiat threat. Equities and real-estate are riddled with counter-party risks and corruption. Bonds are even worse. There are no other cryptocurrencies that even come close to Bitcoin for security, decentralization, and fair distribution.
So, yea.... I kinda dislike Bitcoin right now, and especially this fiat-brained "Bitcoin community" we find ourselves in. But what's the alternative? Where can a bear go?
Which is why we need to work on building entire supply chains with Bitcoin as the base.
Merchant adoption is meaningless if the supply chains aren't on-board.
Hodling is meaningless if medium-of-exchange is not there.
The biggest LARP happening among Bitcoin is the idea that you have "opted out of fiat" by simply holding Bitcoin. Even though you use fiat every day for everything, and you talk about the fiat price of Bitcoin more than you talk about creating circular Bitcoin economies.
Denominating your net worth in Bitcoin is not enough to claim you've opted out of fiat. Stop lying to yourself.
Yea, exactly.
Although, I'm also sorta arguing that we can't really tell what the original authors meant. Maybe what translates to "Resurrection" today was more similar to what ancient people thought of as reincarnation.
The vagueness and supernatural-ness of the subject makes it impossible to make any definitive claims whatsoever. That was really the point I was trying to make.
Resurrection.... Reincarnation....
Are these really different things?
I mean, we can discuss the difference between Star Wars and Stark Trek, but ultimately they're both just fiction.
It's highly possible that Enoch and Elijah were reincarnated in the stories, but after hundreds of years of language translation and cultural changes have made it appear different modern humans.
So, to my original point: vague, fictional stories can be manipulated and interpreted any way you like. I cringe whenever someone says "The bible teaches......" because no it doesn't. It's fiction and it's vague.
You’re arguing against something I didn’t say.
You're correct.
The Star Wars fan says "Han shot first"...
and I say, "How the fuck do you know? It's fiction!!!!"
I didn't address your point, I piggybacked off yours in order to make my own, and we both can be correct.
Exactly.
They never ask about the time that existed before they did. Where was their "eternal soul" while the Earth was forming over millions of years?
Even if they want to take a young-Earth stance, my point still stands, because infinity goes both directions. Where was your soul during the Roman age?
Taking this further, if you believe your soul was somewhere, doing something during that time, but you have ZERO memory of it.... then was it really "you"?
The concept of eternal life and life after death is disgustingly arrogant and narcissistic.
The Bible therefore teaches resurrection, not reincarnation
Does it? Based on those tiny examples?
Today I met 2 incredibly friendly people from California, therefore ALL people from California must be friendly.
It's amazing how many things Christians believe based on the tiniest little mention of something in the bible. Take the concept of Hell, for example. It's barely mentioned, and barely described in any meaningful detail. Yet, Christians take hard stances on it, and make bold claims, acting like experts on the subject.
The bible is so vague about so many concepts that it's possible to make ANYTHING true, if you try hard enough. I'm sure someone out there has found a way to support the idea of reincarnation using biblical passages.
Being vague as fuck is the best way to make lies appear true.
Each time we spend fiat, or earn fiat, we are supporting slavery and war. Spending the weak money first is complacency and negligence.
"Opting out" of the fiat system requires us to do more than denominate our wealth in Sats. We also need to actively look for ways to stop using fiat. To bring about the end of the fiat system.
If 2 decades go by, and we don't see a trend toward the world using Bitcoin as a medium of exchange, then there is no reason to be bullish on Bitcoin, and we may as well start buying gold instead.
Simple.
These people are more easily swayed by a powerful narrative or story. They are more likely to make decisions based on how they feel, rather than on what is true. They are less likely to do technical deep-dives, or give strong consideration to opposing viewpoints.
Do you read her newsletter (paid or public)?
To me, she offers new and fresh perspectives more often than any other analyst (definitely not repeating the same points, except the ones ppl seem to keep missing).
She does it in a way that I appreciate. Cold facts, articulated with brevity and without emotion. She boils complex concepts down to first-principles and doesn't get lost in the weeds.
I can't find content like this anywhere else.
Her new OJ venture appears to be the best and most honest way to propagate Bitcoin adoption in a fiat world. What Saylor is doing is supporting the dollar, with a little Bitcoin sprinkled in. He should be thrown under the bus. Fiat-Financialization of Bitcoin, while inevitable to some degree, is the opposite of Bitcoin adoption and should not be praised by this community.
I don't think she's really "shilled" her fiction book. She mentions it briefly and moves on. This is about the same level "shilling" she did for her first book, "Broken Money".
If you had an audience, and you created a new work that took you a few years of research and time, would you not want to mention it to your audience? She's never shilled her books in a cringy way, in my opinion. She humbly mentions it, and moves on. In fact, this is a refreshing amount of "shilling" in this new digital age of over-shilling everything.
"bitcoin (and stablecoin)"
Stablecoins are the antithesis to Bitcoin. They represent everything Bitcoin stands against.
Not only that, but there's nothing "Stable" about them. Bitcoin is stable, dollars are elastic. Continuing to call them "stablecoins" is how we continue to perpetuate the fiat system.
We should be fighting "stable coins" at every turn, not integrating them into Bitcoin apps!!!!
But if we refuse to do that, then at the very least, the Bitcoin community should pioneer a terminology change and stop calling them "stablecoins". We should call them 'cbdc coins' or something like that. Terminology is important when it comes to public education.
Yea, that's essentially my point as well.
But I was interested in what @coffeebadger would say to my comment, because I'm trying to learn as well. I am not an expert on the subject, just an armchair polymath.
I generally agree with everything you've said here, @Solomonsatoshi. But I appreciate the discord from @coffeebadger and don't wish to be adversarial.