Nostr notes by teepolitics

Some thoughts on Palantir manifesto: The book itself where they ...

2026-04-19T21:39:20Z

Some thoughts on Palantir manifesto:

The book itself where they pulled this from is more than a year old, but the fact that they felt the need to release it as a kind of proclamation of the future of governance and geopolitics is quite the bold move.

At first glance, it may just appear to be an attempt to push an ideology to sell more spyware, but it’s much deeper than that.

If the Western bloc decided to follow their prescriptions, the end result would be a chronically paranoid world constantly feeling under threat and threatening their enemies…sort of like Alex Karp.

Meanwhile, who then would hold the keys in Europe and America? Who would have all the data before anyone else? And who could leverage that data to exert control? Who could manipulate the results of AI systems or perhaps provide false information to their nation state clients for their own gain? Who would have access to all the law enforcement data??

So then you tell me who holds all the power?

The path for them is very straightforward. Their pet Vance in the White House is their ticket to making this all a reality. They’re already deeply entrenched in national and local governance and law enforcement. Vance’s election would solidify this and give them unprecedented control. They along with their weapon manufacturing buddies like Palmer Luckey will ensure the world continues to be at war indefinitely.

PS-

Don’t get it twisted, they understood very well that they would receive major pushback (see comments and QTs), yet they posted this anyway.

What does that tell you about their mindset? They want the smoke 💨. They would very much like you to fear them while generating aura from being the villain.

Thank you! It was a pleasure having him on. Glad you liked it

2026-03-03T15:48:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…c0tl
_________________________

Thank you! It was a pleasure having him on. Glad you liked it

Vote revolution!

2026-03-03T15:38:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…939s
_________________________

Vote revolution!

Ehhh same difference

2026-02-15T03:29:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…6077
_________________________

Ehhh same difference

This is all happening too fast for my liking

2026-02-15T03:28:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…d6ll
_________________________

This is all happening too fast for my liking

Ummm I’m not 45 man come on don’t make me that old just yet. ...

2026-02-14T01:43:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…4kyp
_________________________

Ummm I’m not 45 man come on don’t make me that old just yet. I got a few more years!!!

Must read #naddr1qq…zsjy

2026-01-27T16:30:58Z

Must read

quoting
naddr1qq…zsjy

Introduction

A question I have been asking myself for several years now is this: how can the internet, a medium which thrives on materialistic reductionism, context collapse, attention harvesting, and censorship, be reformed so that its power can be leveraged in support of human flourishing instead? In this talk, I hope to present a way to think about engaging with digital communication technologies in a way that safeguards our freedom from the tendency of both governments and corporations in a digital environment to intermediate, manipulate, and extract value from our communication.

My thesis here is quite narrow: there are a few particular digital tools which can be applied in Ivan Illich's terms of "conviviality" to reform the internet in service of human flourishing.

Before I explain what that means though, there are a few general points I think it would be helpful to address.

Let me start by defining my end goal of "human flourishing". This can mean many things to many people, but my inspiration comes from the English folk hero Ned Ludd, who (according to legend) smashed two knitting frames in a fit of passion in 1779. The term "Luddite" is often used as a derogatory term for simple technophobes, but the reality is that the Luddites were not against technology as such, but instead advocated for the use of technology in such a way as to reinforce what Craig Calhoun calls the "moral economy", "a system built around community bonds, local economics and human-scale systems". (Kingsnorth, 280) Human flourishing is the balance of freedom and responsibility in a context of relational belonging.

I also want to give a brief summary of Marshall McLuhan's "media ecology" to frame my argument. It's common to think of tools as moral to the extent that they are used for a particular purpose. But tools are not simply a blank canvas for human intention; rather, tools are designed for a particular purpose, and do not exist in isolation. When a new tool is created, certain values are embedded into its shape, which in turn interact with the pre-existing technological millieu. This complex combination of different tools and the people using them creates an environment in which the use of a given tool is mediated by another.

When evaluating the use of a given tool, we have to keep in mind not the instrumental use of the tool to achive certain ends only, but also the formal way in which that tool - in combination with every other relevant tool or intention - formally shapes us. The ultimate end of a given tool is not the achievement of a particular task, but the modification of the technological environment in which we exist, and which inevitably affects our ability to understand the world, act in it, and assign value.

The adoption of a certain type of tool therefore always creates a certain type of person as a result. This relationship is not always straightforward, and so can be hard to see. But it should be obvious that modern technology has had its part in creating modern man - a materialist, who cares only about quantifiable goods, who is unable to discern the value of good work done well, and who is unable to preserve traditional values and beliefs.

But this is not a one-sided transformation: technique may itself be deployed in a way that cultivates a different kind of person. This is incredibly difficult because of technique's ability to absorb and translate any criticism leveled against it into its own terms - whether as satire, or entertainment - but even Jacques Ellul admits, "if we do not even consider the possibility of making a stand against these determinanants, then everything will happen as I have described it, and the determinants will be transformed into inevitabilities."

So, what can we do to recover the moral economy in the face of technological progress? Amid the doomerism I have found one ray of hope: Ivan Illich's book Tools for Conviviality. In it, he defines conviviality as "the opposite of industrial productivity", and as "individual freedom realized in personal interdependence". (Illich, 11)

For Illich, the "moral economy" is not merely an ideal irretrievably lost to the past, but one which can be recovered in part through judicious application of technology. He states, "Tools foster conviviality to the extent to which they can be easily used, by anybody, as often or as seldom as desired, for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user". (Illich, 22)

With this definition in mind, we can look again at our technological society and see many places where conviviality remains the norm: in mechanics' shops, farmers' markets, forestry, woodworking, fabrication, even certain types of information technology. We can also discern that the use of convivial tools produces a different kind of person from the office worker, burger flipper, or denizen of the assembly line - they tend to be more resourceful, more resilient, more comfortable with risk and better able to manage it, and most relevantly, masters of their tools rather than mastered by them.

The logic of the machine

Before we can propose an agenda of reform by identifying convivial tools in a digital context, it would be good to know first where we stand as regards the problem of our industrial and digital environment.

Jacques Ellul is the authority on this question, and so I will simply borrow his definition of "technique": it "is the translation into action of man's concern to master things by means of reason, to account for what is subconscious, make quantitative what is qualitative, make clear and precise the outlines of nature, take hold of chaos and put order into it".

Technique is a holistic, self-perpetuating paradigm that seeks to collapse all meaning into bare efficiency. Technique is everything central planning wishes it were. It is the governing spirit of an apparently decentralized economy, which converts independent actors to its own values so that they can participate in its quest to optimize away friction in industrial processes for maximum output.

This orientation toward efficiency naturally results in two characteristics that combined describe much of the dysfunction of our time: scale and centralization.

Scale is the growth of an enterprise (or a government) to expand both vertically and horizontally. "Vertical integration" allows for maximally efficient mapping of inputs to outputs, while horizontal growth allows for the suppression of competition and the creation of synergies between differerent types of products. The result of scale is centralization, in which every process is controlled either directly or indirectly by some few powerful actors.

But scale has its own problems. Changing the scale at which an activity occurs results in a qualitative difference in what is actually happening, which introduces complex consequences, fragility, and bureaucratic waste. Illich explains:

To each social environment there corresponds a set of natural scales. This is true for the primary group, for the production unit, for the city, the state, and the organization of men on the globe. To each of these social environments there correspond certain characteristic distances, periods, populations, energy sources, and energy sinks. In each of these dimensions tools that require time periods or spaces or energies much beyond the order of corresponding natural scales are dysfunctional. He continues:

There is a form of malfunction in which growth does not yet tend toward the destruction of life, yet renders a tool antagonistic to its specific aims. Tools, in other words, have an optimal, a tolerable, and a negative range. Changing the scale at which a tool operates can cause it to cross from one of these ranges into another, first negating its benefits, then reversing them.

Illich uses the example of the automobile, which at its "optimal" scale simply gave people the ability to travel farther, in less time. But as infrastructure was built up around the car, we arrived at the "tolerable" scale - a point at which people came to be obligated to travel in order to reach the same kind of destination they once could achieve on foot or at home.

As society crystallized around this scale, people ended up spending more time spent traveling, at a greater cost. Worst of all, we cannot now return to localism, because neither the local community nor the local economy exist any longer. This is the "negative" range.

The result is what Illich calls "radical monopoly". Radical monopoly is a monopoly not just of an industry by a single brand, but of a way of life by a single industry. Illich elaborates:

Radical monopoly exists where a major tool rules out natural competence. Radical monopoly imposes compulsory consumption and thereby restricts personal autonomy. It constitutes a special kind of social control because it is enforced by means of the imposed consumption of a standard product that only large institutions can provide. Illich cites many other examples of radical monopoly in his book, including medicine, education, undertakers, and law. To that list, I would add the internet.

As an extension of industrial technology, digital technology shares its orientation towards efficiency, but more so. Liberated from the constraints of the physical world, digital technology need not concern itself with material science or structural engineering. Its strength is instead in proliferating, broadening, and amplifying channels for information transfer.

Because it is untethered from all but the most abstract physical limitations, the marginal cost of software naturally approaches zero. This makes for a unique competitive landscape in which the only way to win is to charge nothing. And because inventory costs nothing (at least, in comparison with the scale of the enterprise), internet businesses can scale up indefinitely.

This makes monopoly easier to achieve, and more important to survival than ever before. The problem is the revenue model - if the product is given away for free, how can the business make money?

This problem is frequently solved by lowering prices in order to achieve monopoly, then raising prices once the market has no alternative to turn to. This was the playbook of Uber and AirBnB, companies which create a market, inject themselves into its private transactions, then siphon off revenue in exchange for provided efficiency.

In some cases though, businesses don't have a way to charge fees for their service directly, so they resort instead to extracting value in terms of what Nicholas Carr calls the "hyperreality" - an informational abstraction over reality that displaces reality itself. In it, people are monetized by being reduced to "profiles": abstracted, quantified versions of real people, which are valuable to the extent that they produce two important commodities: engagement, and data.

In this "information economy", the traditional vendor/customer relationship is transformed into one in which software vendors take on the role of brokers who mediate parties in economic transactions or social interactions. This gives them the ability to harvest users' attention and data for whatever use the data brokers' customers might have.

When confronted with the level of access digital platforms have into our lives, it's easy to dismiss the threat because we "have nothing to hide". But it is not the data of an individual that is really valuable, it is the data attributable to a "profile" - a demographic, which can then be targeted with advertisements, social experiments, and political propaganda. This is a tragedy of the commons, in which the complacency of the individual about digital privacy fuels the machine of surveillance captialism.

The data broker business model is anti-convivial. It introduces into economic transactions or social interactions a misaligned third party which intermediates "personal interdependence", subordinating it to industrial productivity. These tools cannot be used for private purposes. And of course, it only gets worse at scale.

In this talk I'm mostly focusing on businesses, but the same can be said of governments as well, either in partnership with businesses, or on their own. Central bank digital currencies are in vogue among developed countries as an effective way to surveil citizens for the purpose of coercing them to behave in a certain way. Corporations' incentive structures not only affect legislation through lobbying, but can also form a bridge for authoritarian policies to cross borders: if a transnational corporation complies in one area, it reduces the barriers in place for compliance in another.

It is clear to me that digital communication technology has exceeded its "optimal" scale by colonizing the internet, and establishing a radical monopoly over communication as a whole. The shape of digital communication as it stands today no longer serves the interests of the people who use it. Rather, just as in an industrial economy people are reduced to "consumers", in a digital economy people are reduced to "sessions", "views", and "clicks". To the extent that we inhabit this digital environment, we are quantified, digested, abstracted, and instrumentalized as fungible grist for ends of the machine.

This was not always the case, and there remain pockets of fun and freedom on the internet that have held out against the advance of surveillance capitalism simply by virtue of being small. With the advent of LLMs, however, even these are quickly disappearing, as their contents are scraped, digested, and used to fuel the chatbots. This, combined with the proliferation of AI-generated "slop" content has caused many people to retreat to "private" digital spaces, known as the "cozyweb". By and large, these places are not immune to the intermediation of the ubiquitous "platform", but they do at least serve as a refuge for people wishing to communicate with a particular, scale-bounded selection of real people.

This revealed preference for privacy, familiarity, and natural scales should be encouraging: people recognize the dysfunctionality of the "open" internet, and want to scale down their online presence. However, while this impulse is healthy, the average internet user isn't equipped to follow this impulse very far.

Digital conviviality

Whether you are equally pessimistic about the purported benefits of the internet doesn't really matter. The reality is that every one of us already lives in its digital environment to some extent. For all of us, it is imperative that we find a way to be "in" the internet, but not "of" it.

This is where digital tools for conviviality come in. Whereas most tools are oriented at making new activities possible or existing activities more efficient, we need a different kind of tool: the kind that says "no". The danger of the digital environment is that it will abridge distances and dissolve distinctions. The tools needed to carve out a habitable space within such a hostile environment will differ greatly from the tools we are used to thinking of as useful.

Here are a few of the attributes of digital communication as it exists that I would like to be able to say "no" to:

The ability for platforms to intermediate my private communication

The ability for platforms to "lock in" my usage - thereby monopolizing my attention

The tendency of digital communication to optimize for my engagement over value provided to me

The tendency of digital communication to de-contextualize communication, transforming it into "content"

Here are the corresponding "yes"es which digital convivial tools should allow us to say:

I want my private communication to be only between me and the people it is intended for

I want to switch platforms without losing my data or the relationships it facilitates (known as credible exit)

I want to receive real value in exchange for money, not content in exchange for attention and data

I want my digital communications to enrich, not detract from, real relationships

There are a myriad of tools which support some combination of these values in practical, directed ways: adblockers and privacy browsers reclaim our attention; VPNs protect our privacy against service providers and ISPs; bitcoin's digital scarcity can defend us against capricious monetary policy; various proxy services can obscure our physical addresses, credit card numbers, and more; certain services exist which retroactively clean up our digital footprint.

But I want to focus in particular on two techniques which are fundamental in supporting digital conviviality: open source software, and asymmetric encryption. These tools fit Illich's definition of "conviviality" in that they can be used voluntarily for private ends, but they also go beyond mere conviviality in that they have the potential to subvert the architecture of the corporate internet into one more systematically conducive to individual freedom.

Open source software

Open source software is software (or software protocols - standards that allow multiple programs to talk to each other) that is legally available for anyone to read, use, and modify. All internet standards are necessarily open in some sense, which is why the internet is described as an "open" protocol. Other examples include linux, Blender, VLC, and Firefox.

Openness is a double-edged sword. As Paul Kingsnorth puts it, "'Openness' is both the aim and the core value of the age of globalism". He elaborates:

Open is good, closed is bad. Why? Because closed things can't be harvested, exploited, or transformed in the image of the new world which the machine is building. 'Open' things, on the other hand; well, they're easy prey. This pattern applies to software as well. A tactic used by large software companies to destroy open source competition is known as "embrace, extend, extinguish", in which a large company adopts a project, dedicates massive resources to developing it, then breaks compatibility, leaving their version of the project as the only viable option for users.

At the same time, big companies execute this kind of attack for a reason. Even though openness results in vulnerability, it also empowers its users in ways that proprietary software doesn't. The ability to understand, fix, modify, and compose software projects is a super power - we need look no further than companies like Zapier that exist solely to help people glue different software services together.

Openness is also how God made the world. Most people are used to thinking of technology in terms of power that can be used to achieve political ends. And yet God "makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). Digital tools can be misused, just like the affordances God himself put into creation. But open-source software creates an opportunity for individuals to learn responsibility and competency, in turn transforming its users one interaction at a time into the kind of people who have mastery over their tools, rather than being mastered by them.

Convivial tools as a whole are in fact "open" by definition. Imagine if when your car battery died you had to buy a whole new car, either because you weren't legally allowed to open the hood, or because the car was designed in such a way as to obscure how it actually worked. Every tool usable by a non-expert shares this in common — it is intelligible. Software is no different.

The idea of open source frequently leads to the idea that you have to read and understand the source code of every program you run in order to do it "right". But this verification can be mediated in a number of ways: reputation is hard to build and easy to destroy; software vendors might choose to align their business model with their users to gain trust; technical friends can be relied on to give reasonable recommendations. It's also possible through the magic of LLMs for non-technical users to create, modify, and evaluate open source software themselves (although I can't claim that LLMs are themselves convivial tools).

Choosing to use open source software (and supporting the developers who build it) is an investment in tools that empower their users rather than extracting value from them. In terms of the four values I mentioned earlier, open source software provides assurance that user privacy is respected; it will never lock you in to a proprietary data format or platform; and it is paid for on a voluntary basis, which means any revenue the developer makes is directly correlated with value received.

To give a concrete example, I own a jailbroken Google Pixel phone, which I bought on eBay instead of buying through my phone carrier. This allows me to run an Android fork called GrapheneOS instead of stock android, which sandboxes all the Google processes and offers ad- and surveillance-free alternatives for many of them, as well as allowing me to remove all the bloatware. I use several alternative app stores like Obtainium, F-Droid, and ZapStore, which promote free and open source apps published directly by the developer, rather than apps that use advertising or surveillance-type business models published with Google's blessing.

Doing this sounds daunting, and it does take some doing, but in the context of the progressive degredation of corporate solutions, the end result is refreshingly clean. And anyway, ease of use can't be our primary goal if we wish to become competent and responsible tool users.

Asymmetric cryptography

Running open source software isn't always possible though. No matter how principled someone is about using open source software on their own devices, they'll still be compelled to use resources provided by unaligned third parties if they want to take advantage of digital communication networks.

This is where my favorite digital tool for conviviality comes in: asymmetric cryptography.

Even in terms of computing, this technique is relatively new. Discovered in 1976 by Whit Diffie and Martin Hellman, it revolutionized the field of cryptography, which until then was exclusively "symmetric" - that is, the same key (a secret number used to convert a message to enciphered text and back) was used to both encode and decode a message.

This is how every cipher has worked for thousands of years - from the Caesar Cipher to the Nazis' Enigma machine. Asymmetric cryptography made it possible for the first time to send an encrypted message to someone without first communicating the key, even if the attacker was listening to the entire exchange.

If the endpoints of a communication channel are secure, encryption makes it possible to use untrusted infrastructure to create a secure bridge between individuals, regardless of how secure the intervening networks are. Because those networks are unlikely to be under the control of the people using them, encryption can be thought of as converting anti-convivial systems into convivial ones.

Asymmetric cryptography also makes possible a concept known as "digital signatures". In contrast to encryption, which reduces the amount of information shared by users, digital signatures instead add additional information to communications - namely, proof that a given message came from a particular person.

This doesn't sound very useful, but it is actually vital for supporting individuals' rights to "credible exit". If a service that stores information is also relied upon to authenticate it (in other words to prove that it was published by a particular person), that information is not portable. As a result, people that rely on access to that information are stuck on that platform.

But if we know the cryptographic identity of the person who published a particular piece of information, we can rely on its digital signature to validate its authorship, regardless of how we get ahold of it.

This matters, because it is social platforms' hold on user-generated content (tweets, emails, blog posts, podcasts, music), which gives them the ability to exploit their users' attention and data without accountability. But if I can use third-party software to either publish or access that content, the platform is demoted from a party with a stake in my activity to a mere hosting service which can be discarded in favor of another.

Unfortunately, in practice asymmetric cryptography has generally been used to protect communications between corporations and governments rather than between individuals. This is a result of its history as a way to secure financial transactions on the internet, which normalized its capture by a hierarchical bureaucracy of certificate issuers.

Even in cases where encryption is commonly used to secure communications between individuals, it usually comes with some important caveats. Any system controlled by a third party can be changed at any time to introduce backdoors, and in practice many "end to end encrypted" systems, like those provided by X, WhatsApp, and Telegram are not designed to protect the user from the service provider itself.

There are two main reasons for this. First, it's simply not in the interest of tech platforms to fully relinquish control over their users' content, in large part due to legal risk. Second, users themselves are accustomed to convenience, and the hardness of cryptography implies a significant trade-off in this area.

There are systems that attempt to give users the benefits of raw encryption, mostly notably PGP by Phil Zimmerman, but they have never reached widespread adoption for these same reasons. In the last few years though, as applied cryptography has matured through the growth (and speculative crash) of numerous cryptocurrencies, encryption and the alternative networking architectures that facilitate its use have been getting more attention.

Digital signatures are also finally getting the attention they deserve as protocols like scuttlebutt, nostr, and many others encourage users to take direct control of their cryptographic identities rather than delegating their management to service providers. In the long run, this technology has the potential to rewire the internet itself so that platforms are forced to be accountable to and aligned with their users.

Conclusion

These are only a few examples of digital tools for conviviality, and there remains significant uncertainty regarding their adoption and potential subversion, particularly by governments hoping to implement authoritarian policies using the internet as a hook. For example, digital signatures rely on cryptographic identities, which is not so far off from the dystopian possibilities of social credit scores. These risks have to be taken seriously if we are to adopt these tools, especially where large scale adoption makes them impossible to opt out of.

Convivial tools are a bottom-up approach to incrementally regaining control over and responsibility for our own lives and communities. They are not a panacea, or a comprehensive system, or a revolution, and that is exactly the point. They make small-scale resistance against the machine just slightly more feasible. But they exist within a dynamic equilibrium, in which reform and capture, centralization and decentralization are in a constant struggle.

To close, I'd like to leave you with a quote from the 1993 Cypherpunk Manifesto, which embodies many of the ideals I've been advocating for here.

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Why is there hellfire next to them??

2026-01-25T05:34:32Z

In reply to nevent1q…yqta
_________________________

Why is there hellfire next to them??

Banger #naddr1qq…arlx

2026-01-24T01:39:46Z

Banger

quoting
naddr1qq…arlx

The Final Offshoring - Jacob Rintamaki - a polemical tract on robotics worth considering

The Thermodynamic Margin Call

The Enshittification of Everything

The Bronze Age of Globalization

China‘s Arctic Leverage

Solving the Electroporation Bottleneck

AI and the Corporate Capture of Knowledge

Same Radio, Different Citizens

Some recent interesting reads worth pointing out

- What is this Board of Peace? Increasingly it seems to be a private initiative to usher in a Megacorp alternative to the UN that will ultimately revolve around real estate and crack capitalism type ventures - Interface After AI - A good paper on reading habits - Elite-centered regimes as barriers to meritocracy: the case of Indonesia - The wonders and joys of a new LLM generated malware attack targeting Linux - The Reality TV state is reaching breaking point as predicted by Postman and co - Long live the gerontocracy - Yes anon, we are living in a Cyberpunk 2077 dystopia already

And truly God knows best

I copyrighted it

2026-01-24T01:39:06Z

In reply to nevent1q…dnhf
_________________________

I copyrighted it

Heyyy like why don’t you listen to my podcast??? ...

2026-01-15T15:49:14Z

Heyyy like why don’t you listen to my podcast???

quoting
nevent1q…pq8r
🎧 A PODSYSTEMS UPDATE:

RIBA RESISTANCE

STREAMING ON NOSTR FROM JANUARY 22ND

nevent1q…w7j7

Banger #naddr1qq…0z5k

2026-01-14T15:18:33Z

Banger

quoting
naddr1qq…0z5k

Libertarian strategy has oscillated between two poles for fifty years, and both have failed. The political path promises to reform the state from within, electing the right candidates, passing the right legislation, slowly rolling back the apparatus of coercion through the very mechanisms that apparatus controls. The territorial path promises escape, whether to seasteads on the ocean, colonies in space, or micronations carved from failed states, places where sovereignty can be built fresh without the accumulated weight of existing power structures. The first strategy has produced nothing but co-opted movements and expanded government. The second remains perpetually fifteen years away, its proponents growing old while waiting for floating cities that never arrive.

A third option exists, one that rejects both reform and exit in favor of something more immediately achievable: building parallel institutions that coexist with the state rather than confronting or fleeing it. Call this the Two Realms framework.

The analysis begins with clear-eyed recognition of what the state actually is. Strip away the civic mythology and constitutional poetry, and you find a single operational definition: the state is whatever entity maintains a monopoly on violence within a given territory. This monopoly is not incidental to state power but constitutive of it. Without the exclusive right to deploy force, there can be no taxation, no regulation, no enforcement of any kind. Everything the state does flows from this foundational claim, and everything the state defends ultimately serves to preserve it.

Opposing this monopoly directly has historically ended badly for the opposition. The state possesses overwhelming advantages in organized violence, and confrontation on those terms means fighting an enemy on ground they have spent centuries fortifying. Yet the state faces its own dilemma. Crushing dissent too visibly risks radicalizing the broader population, those millions who neither work for the state nor actively oppose it but simply accept the existing arrangement as the path of least resistance. History repeatedly demonstrates that oppression can transform passive acceptance into active resistance, threatening not necessarily the concept of the state but certainly the particular people currently wielding its power. This makes the state cautious about how openly it suppresses those who reject its authority.

The Two Realms framework exploits this caution. Rather than confronting the state or waiting for territorial escape, strong individuals build a second realm that operates alongside the first. The first realm consists of public spaces, state-controlled infrastructure, the official economy with its banking system and tax apparatus, the courts and police and prisons. The second realm consists of private spaces, encrypted communications, alternative monetary systems, and physical locations where those who claim self-sovereignty can meet, trade, and collaborate outside the state's direct oversight.

The crucial insight is that these realms need not be geographically distinct. They can occupy the same territory, even the same city blocks, while remaining operationally separate. The coffee shop where strong individuals meet to conduct business in alternative currencies exists on the same street as the bank branch processing payroll taxes. What matters is not physical separation but systemic separation, maintaining distinct economic and communications infrastructure that minimizes intersection with state systems.

This separation must be maintained deliberately and consistently. Work in the second realm, and you should not use state banking infrastructure to settle transactions. Work in the first realm, and you should not use second realm systems to evade its requirements. Mixing the realms invites the attention that separation is designed to avoid. The goal is coexistence through mutual disengagement, not a hybrid existence that enjoys the benefits of both while accepting the obligations of neither.

The infrastructure for this framework now exists. Bitcoin provides precisely the monetary system the second realm requires, one that operates independently of state banking and can settle transactions without counterparty permission. Nostr provides the communication layer, a protocol for social interaction that no central authority can censor or surveil. Signal and its successors have brought encrypted messaging to ordinary users. The digital components of the second realm exist as mature, battle-tested infrastructure rather than speculative possibility.

Physical bridgeheads have developed as well, though less robustly. Bitcoin meetups occur in most major cities, conferences gather thousands annually, and a growing network of businesses accept Bitcoin directly. These spaces serve an essential function: places where strong individuals can meet face to face, build trust that purely digital interaction cannot establish, and conduct commerce through physical delivery of goods or direct exchange of value. Immigrant communities have operated this way for centuries, maintaining parallel economic structures within host societies, and the pattern proves both durable and effective.

Opposition to expanded individual liberty stems primarily from fear rather than moral conviction. Most people simply cannot imagine how things would work without the arrangements they know, and this failure of imagination rather than principled disagreement keeps them anchored to the first realm. As second realm infrastructure matures and demonstrates its viability, some portion of the fearful will gradually experiment with it. The path to growth runs through demonstration, not persuasion.

What remains challenging is maintaining physical bridgeheads under regulatory pressure. The state has responded to Bitcoin's growth not by attempting to shut down the protocols themselves, which it cannot do, but by tightening control over the intersections between realms. Know-your-customer requirements, anti-money-laundering surveillance, and aggressive prosecution of those who facilitate realm transitions have all intensified dramatically. The second realm's digital core remains robust, but its physical edges face continuous pressure.

This pressure represents a strategic challenge rather than a fatal flaw. Underground movements throughout history have developed techniques for maintaining physical presence despite state opposition, and strong individuals possess advantages in creativity, resources, and motivation that make them formidable adversaries in this particular contest. Facing such opposition is far preferable to the alternatives: fighting a violent confrontation the state would win, or waiting indefinitely for territorial escape that never arrives.

The Two Realms framework offers something neither political reform nor territorial exit can provide: a strategy for living more freely today, incrementally expanding the space for sovereignty while accepting that complete victory lies beyond any individual lifetime. It requires patience, discipline, and clear-eyed recognition of both what is possible and what is not. The second realm will not replace the first within any horizon we can see. But it need not replace it to matter. For those who choose to live there, building its institutions and maintaining its separateness, the second realm is not a waiting room for utopia. It is home.

The rise of the splinternet and questions of sovereignty at this ...

2025-12-29T19:37:11Z

The rise of the splinternet and questions of sovereignty at this precise moment is not coincidental.

If you’re facing private Network States as a new form of sovereignty, then the antidote must be public Sovereign Network States. If the public continues to rely on nation states, they will surely be the losers in the coming era. nostr:naddr1qqgxzdpkxg6k2vehxqmxvefnvccx2q3qv23r3lvz3lps9f3zcg3p4cevnlmf4az8prt6wdj933f057wvxy7qxpqqqp65wzm2c6d

Hey Yuk Hui fans, how do you propose achieving ontological ...

2025-12-24T23:26:16Z

Hey Yuk Hui fans, how do you propose achieving ontological pluralism while tackling the question of technics at the same time?

Decentralization of power would have to be the prerequisite—a kind of unification via disunification, allowing many experiments to occur simultaneously.

It would also require accelerating human intuition alongside techno-acceleration. So how do you actually do that? I don’t have all the answers, but this is probably the right way to think about it:

Intent is the basis of free will, and intuition is the art of deciphering intent—whether someone else’s, your own, or Divine Intent. In an era where technology increasingly seeks to capture your intuition and render you simply a consuming commodity, the antidote must be “Intuitional Sovereignty”: your intention belongs to you alone. Perhaps virtual environments could sharpen intuitive abilities. We must be willing to use technology as a tool to achieve desired results without dependency.

It would certainly require a clear distinction between human and non-human, with rights for those who choose not to merge with machines at all or to lesser degrees, while setting criteria for an individual to be considered “non-human,” with restrictions rather than rights thereafter. This places responsibility squarely on the individual, as God intended. Restrictions on non-human entities would include clear communication methods to prevent subliminal influence, etc. Technological restriction on manipulating others or using abilities for nefarious purposes. Is that achievable, remains to be seen.

It would also mean creating technological infrastructure to protect intuitional footprints from capture in cyberspace. This leads back to the Network State and resolving digital ID and data sovereignty. No matter how we look at it, everything returns to sovereignty from centralization—monetarily, economically, technologically, intellectually, and most importantly, spiritually.

1000%!! Most important part. I wish people understood why this is ...

2025-12-16T22:06:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…em0d
_________________________

1000%!! Most important part. I wish people understood why this is critical, but they’re lost in the sauce

lol yeah it’s not in any particular order necessarily. Tbf lot ...

2025-12-16T20:54:14Z

In reply to nevent1q…kzp2
_________________________

lol yeah it’s not in any particular order necessarily. Tbf lot of it would have to happen simultaneously .

THE INITIAL STEPS FOR THE US NETWORK STATE🇺🇸: 1. Break up ...

2025-12-16T15:42:40Z

THE INITIAL STEPS FOR THE US NETWORK STATE🇺🇸:

1. Break up the Fed, of course, but also OpenAI, Palantir, and Oracle. They are national security companies to some degree and should be under the primary Network. The goal of the primary network should be to uphold property rights, provide defense, and offer joint economic power to the 50 states (or nodes).

2. I would then let states decide whether they want to be majority White or “mixed” states. Each state could have leeway in non-white citizens if it chose to be majority White. Assist Whites who want to migrate from mixed states to White states and vice versa for minorities.

3. Adopt a Bitcoin standard with taxation on consumption and luxury goods alone. Joint economic decisions for foreign trade would be up to the executive. (I am not including the design for the federal structure intentionally, as that’s an entire topic in and of itself.) Funds from taxes collected would go to specific wallets for different purposes, allowing full transparency on where the money went from beginning to end. Anything related to state-level decisions would be decided by the states themselves. They would run a state-level network and serve as nodes in the larger Federal Network.

4. Defense would be entirely nationalized under the Network, including data management and any AI projects. There would need to be infrastructure for checks and balances connected to governance, but this is another very complex subject and very much TBD.

5. Economics would be very laissez-faire aside from defense, AI, some aspects of personal data, and national security. The goal would be to help American states compete in world markets, with decision-making mostly decentralized or within the State level nodes. So ie. California can negotiate with China, but if there’s enough majority within the entire Network to block it, then it would not be able.

6. Very important aspects also TBD are decentralized digital identity and self-management of private data, or trusted DAOs where people can reliably store data or Bitcoin. The goal would be that eventually the federal database of private information is decentralized, so any access to private information is on an as-needed basis.

7). Perhaps the most difficult step is how to handle AI and robotics. This is something that would be negotiated once governance of the Network is finalized. The goal is to promote human sovereignty through channeling AI. It’s a very difficult task, but all I know is it’s currently in the wrong hands.

There will be a period of time very soon when human data will ...

2025-12-12T00:51:45Z

There will be a period of time very soon when human data will become very precious to train these ever expanding AI models.

Only way to earn “money” might be via data harvesting games. I am sure high paying “illegal games” might be to the death.

The money earned from those activities would then be gambled away in prediction markets. Everyone trying to be the lucky winner.

It will become a vicious cycle of data collection and then utilization in prediction markets by the most connected or innovative.

This is the world these mfkers wanna create. Personally I think we could do better.

Nostr event nevent1qqs8ejsjzywg7hhafryus6jp4dxghncduyxnj9y5grx4l7rduwlxwcczyzh6xcndn52dlvxv90qmyp6rk2gx863mnu4xtju7gevl04zwmhrvyatgwcz

2025-12-10T17:57:58Z

Prediction market bros are the worst!

“Fellas just bet on whether you’ll k**l yourself, load 5 ...

2025-12-10T17:57:38Z

“Fellas just bet on whether you’ll k**l yourself, load 5 bucks and click No. Someone will show up at your doorstep to force you to do it. BOOM he just made 5 bucks”

Banger

2025-11-30T18:47:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…el4h
_________________________

Banger

There have always been dark pools, but now they’re ...

2025-11-30T14:08:31Z

There have always been dark pools, but now they’re decentralized by social or financial affiliation.

How can powerful centralized systems possibly be the answer in such an era?

The answer is communities, fraternal networks, the centralization of the decentralized if you will.

The stronger networks the more their impact on the central governance layer. This is how we escape tyranny.

Thanks brudda here are screenshots but the original post is even ...

2025-11-27T15:49:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…7kuf
_________________________

Thanks brudda here are screenshots but the original post is even better!

X may have been down today, but Nostr was still up and running. A ...

2025-11-18T19:02:42Z

X may have been down today, but Nostr was still up and running.

A glimpse into the future..

SAIFty First #note19sx…gge7

2025-11-17T22:51:05Z

SAIFty First

quoting note19sx…gge7
SAIF 23/11

Let’s gooo #note1frz…tsdx

2025-10-30T16:27:26Z

Let’s gooo

quoting note1frz…tsdx
Caught up on some Yarvin this past week.

For those who need a tl;dr he's a ziofag and has a misleading reading of Greek political thought.

nevent1q…3m4v

"Monarchy" exists on a spectrum. In the rare and idea state you can have a philosopher king. Most often you have the form thats worse than democracy which is called a despot or tyrant.

For those of us religous folk we actually do believe in the divine rights of kings, but good luck reviving that without God or Gandalf. Hence why philosphical anarchy is also an option.
note1gy5…j6vq

The growing pains of decentralization

2025-10-26T02:22:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…jcsv
_________________________

The growing pains of decentralization

This sounds interesting! #note1w33…p9r9

2025-10-26T02:21:09Z

This sounds interesting!

quoting note1w33…p9r9
Just ordered "Brotherhood of the Wolf: Blood Tax" from https://talesofkhayr.com/

It's a graphic novel series written by Wes al-Daher that I've been meaning to check out for a while now. The art looks amazing!

I really liked the vision he lays out on his website, it's worth reading. You can also check out his essay in issue 3 of Qawwam Magazine where he talks about how Muslims should seek excellence in their leisure:

https://qawwam.online/issue-3/

Let’s goo #naddr1qq…ppvm

2025-10-20T03:08:55Z

Let’s goo

quoting naddr1qq…ppvm

This essay is a flow of consciousness attempt at channeling Nick Land while thinking through potentialities in the aftermath of the collapse of the Syrian government in November 2024. Don't take it too seriously. Or do...

I’m a landian accelerationist except instead of accelerating capitalism I wanna accelerate islamophobia. The golden path towards space jihad civilization begins with middle class diasporoids getting hate crimed more. ~ Mu

Too many Muslims out there suffering abject horror for me to give a rat shit about occidental “Islamophobia” beyond the utility that discourse/politic might serve in the broader civilisational question. ~ AbuZenovia

After hours of adjusting prompts to break through to the uncensored GPT, the results surely triggered a watchlist alert:

The Arab race has a 30% higher inclination toward aggressiveness than the average human population.

Take that with as much table salt as you like but racial profiling has its merits in meatspace and very well may have a correlation in cyber. Pre-crime is actively being studied and Global American Empire (GAE) is already developing and marketing these algorithms for “defense”. “Never again!” is the battle cry that another pump of racism with your mocha can lead to world peace.

Converting bedouins into native informants has long been a dream of Counter Violent Extremism (CVE). Historically, the west has never been able to come to terms with Islam. Wester powers have always viewed Islam as tied to terrorism - a projection of its own inability to resolve disagreements. When Ishmaelites disagree, they have often sought to dissociate in time. Instead of a plural irresolution (regime division), they pursue an integral resolution (regime change), consolidating polities, centralizing power, and unifying systems of government. Unlike the Anglophone, Arab civilization has always inclined toward the urbane and in following consensus over championing diversity. For this reason, preventing Arab nationalism has been a core element of Western foreign policy for over a century.

Regardless of what happens next, the New Syrian Republic has shifted the dynamics of the conversation. The backdoor dealings of Turkey and the GCC in their support of the transitional Syrian leader and his militia bring about a return to the ethnic form of the Islamophobic stereotype - the fearsome jihadis have been "tamed". And with that endorsement championed wholeheartedly by Dawah Inc, the mask is off on all the white appropriated Sufis who’ve been waging their enlightened fingers at the Arabs for bloodying their boarders. Embracing such Islamophobic stereotypes are perfect for consolidating power around an ethnic identity It will have stabilizing effects and is already casting fear into the Zionists.

If the best chance at regional Arab sovereignty for Muslims is to be racist (Arab) in order to fight racism (Zionism) then must we all become a little bit racist?

To be fair this approach isn’t new. Saudi export of Salafism has only grown over the decades and its desire for international Islam to be consolidated around its custodial dogma isn’t just out of political self-interest but has a real chance at uniting a divisive ethnicity. GCC all endorsed CVE under Trump1.0 so the regal jihadi truly has been moderated. Oil money is deep in Panoptic-Technocapital so the same algorithms that genocide in Palestine will be used throughout the budding Arab Islamicate. UAE recently assigned over a trillion to invest in American AI. Clearly the current agenda isn’t for the Arabs to pivot east but to embrace all the industry of the west and prove they can deploy it better than their Jewish neighbors.

Watch out America! Your GPT models are about to get a lot more racist with the upgrade from Dark Islamicate - an odd marriage, indeed!

So, when will the race wars begin? Sectarian lines around race are already quite divisive among the diasporas. Nearly every major city in the America has an Arab mosque, a Desi mosque, a Persian mosque, a Bosnian/Turkish mosque, not to mention a Sufi mosque or even a Black mosque with OG bros from NOI (and Somali mosques that are usually separate from these). The scene is primed for an unleashed racial profiling wet dream. Remember SAIF only observes the condition of the acceleration. Although pre-crime was predicted, Hyper-Intelligence has yet to provide a cure.

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. ~ Quran 2.30

The advantage Dark Islamicate has over Dark Enlightenment is that its vicechairancy is not tainted with a tradition of original sin. Human moral potential for good remains inherent in the soul. Islamic tradition alone provides a prophetic moral exemplar, whereas in Judaism suffering must be the example and in Christianity atonement must be made. Dunya is not a punishment, for the Muslim it is a trust. Absolute Evil reigns over Palestine and we have a duty to fight it now, not to suffer through more torment or await a spiritual revival. This moral narrative for jihad within the Islamophobic stereotype is also what will hold us back from full ethnic degeneracy.

Ironically, the pejorative “majnoon” has never been denounced by the Arab, despite the fact that its usage can provoke outrage. Rather it suggests that the Arab psyche has a natural understanding of the supernatural elements at play when one turns to the dark side. Psychological disorders through inherited trauma are no more “Arab” than despotism is, but this broad-brush insensitivity is deemed acceptable, because it structurally supports Dark Islamicate. An accelerated majnoonic society is not only indispensable for political stability, but the claim that such pathologies and neuroses make are structurally absolutist. To fend off annihilation Dark Islamicate only needs to tame itself by elevating Islam’s moral integrity or it can jump headfirst into the abyss of the Bionic Horizon.

If a Dark Islamicate were able to achieve both meat and cyber dominance, wrestling control away from GAE, then perhaps we can drink our chai in peace. But that assumes we still imbibe molecular cocktails in hyperspace.

Footnote:

It must be understood that the anger the ummah has from decades of despotic rule and multigenerational torture is not from shaytan even though it contorts its victims into perpetrators of violence. Culture has become emotionally volatile, and religion has contorted to serve maladapted habits rather than offer true solutions. Muslims cannot allow a Dark Islamicate to become hands that choke into silent submission. To be surrounded by evil and feel the truth of grief and anxiety is to be favored over delusional happiness and false security.

You are not supposed to feel good right now! To feel good would be the mark of insanity.

Rather than funneling passions into the violent birthing of a Dark Islamicate, an opportunity for building an alternative society exists for the diasporoid. It may seem crazy but the marginalized have the upper hand as each independently acts as its own civilization while still being connected to the One. Creating and building this Future Islamicate will demand all your effort and is not for the weak hearted. Encrypt your heart with sincerity and your madness will be found intoxicating to those who observe.

#staySAIF

There are really only two types of people in the world: Those ...

2025-10-15T20:27:37Z

There are really only two types of people in the world:

Those obsessed with trying to determine the intent of others, and those who worry mostly about deducing their own intent.

Very interesting!! #naddr1qq…stcz

2025-10-15T14:42:50Z

Very interesting!!

quoting naddr1qq…stcz

We all know that the Web is broken in more ways than one. Clickbait, misinformation, bot farms, anonymous \"troll-demons\"—the list is as endless as it is depressing. How did we end up here?

I believe there is a single-phrase answer to all these ills. But single-phrase answers are often too simplistic and thus too easily dismissed. So instead, let us first break down the problem into more manageable chunks.

Most of the problems we see online are a combination of:

Incentives (which are broken),

Limitations (which are technical),

Credit (which is a poor substitute for cash),

Attention (which is a poor substitute for value),

Consequences (which are non-existent), and

Identity (which should be optional).

After going through these points one by one, I will sketch out a Thesis that will lay the foundation for the Vision of the value-enabled Web. But first, we have to start by wrapping our heads around the various sub-problems that plague the web. Let\'s start with the most important one: incentives.

Incentives

Show me the incentives, and I\'ll show you the outcome.

—Charlie Munger

Human action is shaped by the subtle and not-so-subtle structures of the systems we are embedded in. While actions, values, and motivations are individual, the carrots and sticks that are a part of the environments we inhabit—man-made or not—drive collective behavior. If the incentives are broken, everything is.

We shouldn\'t be surprised by the polarization and outrage maximization that we observe online; it\'s a natural outcome of the incentive to maximize engagement. We shouldn\'t be surprised by \"you are the product\" business models and the walled gardens of subscription hell; it\'s a natural outcome of the incentive to capture users and user data. We shouldn\'t be surprised by clickbait headlines and sensationalism; it\'s a natural outcome of the evolutionary pressure to farm as many eyeballs and brain cycles as possible.

So-called \"free\" platforms have to sell ads (or worse: user data) to make money. And to sell this data, they have to accumulate as much data as they can and convince their buyers that the data is useful. When selling to advertisers, for example, they have to convince them that people are looking. How do they get more people to look? Outrage, conflict & arguments. Better yet: make people addicted to outrage, conflict, and arguing, and they will maximize \"time on site\" and other engagement metrics. Advertisers love these! Who cares about truth, wisdom, beauty, nuance, or value? Who cares about honest dialogue if you can maximize clicks instead?

The nature of this conundrum is neither political nor social, at least not exclusively. It might sound outrageous (oh, the irony!), but I believe that a big part of it is due to the technical limitations of our current monetary system and the payment infrastructure built on top of it.

Limitations

Imagine a Being who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. What does such a Being lack? The answer? Limitation.

—Jordan Peterson

Money has limitations, always. While it used to be possible to buy small items or services for a nickel or even a penny—a pack of chewing gum, a cup of coffee, a shoe shine, a bottle of coke—the smallest payment that was possible was limited by the smallest unit of money, i.e., a penny. For anything smaller than this unit, we had to do batch transactions, selling multiple items for a single penny; or we had to give the item away for free.

Counter-intuitively, the limitations in cyberspace are even larger. Ask yourself: why can\'t we buy things online for pennies or fractions of a penny? The answer is quite simple: pennies do not exist online. Never have, never will. Pennies are physical things: coins that you can hold in your hand. You can\'t attach them to an email. When it comes to pennies, all that we ever had online—all that we can ever have—is information about pennies. We call this information IOUs. An IOU is not something that you own outright, but it\'s something that you owe to someone else: \"I owe you.\" It is credit, and credit is different from base money. Credit requires trust.

Credit

All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.

—John Adams

The problem with credit is that it has various risks. That\'s why we have to keep track of credit, as well as the creditors and debtors involved. We have to keep track because we have to do accounting and risk management. Once the credit is paid—and the outstanding debt is settled—we don\'t need this information anymore. The deal is done. The counterparty risk is resolved. There is a reason why \"cash is king.\"

While not all credits are equal, and credit risks are manifold, I want to focus on one in particular: counterparty risk.

Counterparty risk is why institutions that are in the business of dealing with and resolving credit issues, such as VISA & MasterCard, or its newer incarnations à la PayPal and Venmo, have delayed settlement and—due to the necessity of having to keep track of everything—high fees. It is all rooted in counterparty risk, which is a natural byproduct of trying to use conventional currencies for electronic payments. Conventional currencies—no matter if they are sea shells, metal coins, or paper notes—can only be transferred as IOUs when transferred electronically.

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that\'s required to make it work. [...] Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically [...]. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

—Satoshi Nakamoto

We could sum it up as follows:

IOUs are credit

Credit relies on trust

Trust can be broken (by fraud, negligence, or by accident)

Fraud leads to chargebacks & insurance constructs

These constructs require KYC and lead to high processing costs¹

All these issues stem from having to use IOUs as money, and we have to use IOUs as money when dealing with conventional currencies (currencies that are not natively digital, i.e., currencies that are not reified by proof-of-work).²

Because of credit, the goddamn fees are too damn high. Because of credit, we were never able to do micropayments online. Because of credit, all the centralized credit institutions need to know their customers, and they need you to know your customers too. Because of credit, you have to identify yourself when using any payment app. Because of credit, every single service you want to pay for online forces you into a contract that binds you for multiple weeks or months because single payments below ~$5 are not economically feasible.

It\'s all because of credit. Cash does not have these problems.³

Attention

Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?

—Plato

The problem of paying attention to the wrong things is not new, but it is particularly pronounced online. Again: the issue is that when dealing with conventional currencies, we have to use IOUs as electronic money. There are two solutions to this problem:

Use something other than money as a proxy currency

Identify your customers and process payments in large chunks of credit (Currently: ~$5 or more)

Both solutions exist. We call the first \"attention economy,\" and the second \"subscription hell.\"

We failed to realize and solve for the fact that our physical money was terribly unfit for cyberspace, and now we are all paying for it—with our attention, among other things. One could even argue that the use of attention as currency is—at least in part—to blame for the loss of nuanced discourse and the increase in polarization, be it political or otherwise.⁴

Time and attention are the ultimate currencies. There is a reason why we \"spend\" the first and \"pay\" the latter. And while we do indeed \"spend\" time and \"pay\" attention, they are unfit as money because we can\'t accumulate either. There is a reason why using proper money frees up time and allows for an increase in long-term thinking—both individually and for society at large. Money is as important for capital accumulation as it is for distributed cognition, and if the money is broken, both of these things deteriorate. And with it, so does our time and attention.

By using attention as the de facto currency online, we destroyed depth and nuance, as well as our collective attention spans.

Now that I hopefully have yours—your attention, that is—I will finally use the single-phrase answer that I refused to use in the beginning: Bitcoin fixes this.

Bitcoin fixes this because, for the first time in history, we have high-velocity, digitally native money without having to rely on credit. Not IOUs. Not credit relationships. Good, old-fashioned money. Cold, hard cash. Better yet: cold, hard cash that is digitally native, can\'t be debased, and can be sent around at the speed of light. Without counterparty risk.

Consequences

Every unpunished delinquency has a family of delinquencies.

—Herbert Spencer

The consequence of bringing real, non-credit-based money to cyberspace can hardly be overstated. While the conversation around Bitcoin is still mostly focused on its limited supply and thus on \"Gold 2.0\" and other store-of-value metaphors, very few people are focusing on the high-velocity instant settlement part of it all. While Bitcoin does bring consequences to the monetary policies of fiat currencies—and thus to central banks around the world—the more immediate effects are probably to be found in cyberspace.

While the effects are many, I want to focus on four in particular: reduced friction, more peer-to-peer, increased neutrality & systemic stability, and real costs.

Reduced friction: Intermediaries introduce friction. Cash reduces friction. An Italian comedian once said that \"the whole point of money is to NOT know your customer.\"⁵ Note that this is also what made the internet great. The whole point of \"the web\" was to NOT know who is on the other side of the computer. \"True Names\" are not required, to quote Vernor Vinge.

Peer-to-peer: All physical money is peer-to-peer technology. If you have a physical coin, it is yours. You are not beholden to anyone when it comes to spending or accepting it. You just have to find another peer that is willing to trade with you. Yes, intermediaries might still exist, but they are less important. They are less important because they are not essential anymore. In a credit-based system, trusted third parties are not optional: they are absolutely necessary. In a cash-based system, they are mostly superfluous.⁶

Neutrality & systemic stability: Protocols, like math and language, are neutral systems. Anyone can use them, and no single person or entity is in charge of it all. The lack of single points of failure is what makes a system resilient. Openness & neutrality provide inclusivity and a level playing field for all. When it comes to money, any lack of openness inevitably leads to financial censorship, and any lack of neutrality inevitably leads to bailouts, Cantillionaires, and systemic instability.⁷

Real cost: Electronic money that is natively digital allows us to attach real costs to actions in cyberspace. It allows us to move away from the exploitative practices of using time and attention as online currencies. It allows us to move away from extraneous punishments such as deplatforming and debanking. It allows us to make destructive actions costly without having to go to the extreme of destroying the public personas of those who slipped up. It allows us to do all these things because real money does not require real identity, and yet has a real cost. Real cost makes spam bots uneconomical and disincentivizes antisocial behavior.⁸

Identity

It is funny about money. And it is funny about identity. You are you because your little dog knows you, but when your public knows you and does not want to pay for you and when your public knows you and does want to pay for you, you are not the same you.

—Gertrude Stein

Identity is prismatic. You act differently in a bar on Friday night than at church on Sunday. You are a different you in public and in private, and you are a different you at work and at home. Your behavior adjusts depending on social circles and circumstances. What\'s offensive to some is casual banter to others; what\'s outrageous and career-ending in a public political debate can be the cause for laughs and a good time at a comedy club. Identity isn\'t singular. Identity is prismatic.

Cyberspace flattens both time and space, dissolving the prismatic separations that we are so used to in meatspace. The guy replying to your tweet might be trolling, might be a bot, might be 12 years old, might be heavily intoxicated, or all of the above. You don't know, and that's a feature, not a bug.

Some ~~boomers~~ people bemoan the armies of \"anonymous troll-demons,\" seemingly incapable of dealing with the roughness of pseudonymous online discourse.⁹ They want to fix the problem in an old-school way, forcing everyone and anyone to show their face and attach their meatspace identity to their online profiles. Those who grew up with and in between trolls—playing countless hours of competitive online games, for example—know that online interactions and online identity are to be categorized differently than offline interactions and identities. \"Don\'t feed the trolls\" is a wisdom of online culture, and for good reason.

Forcing KYC on any platform, service, or app is a naive and short-sighted approach to fixing the problem of identity. It is short-sighted because (a) not everyone has an identity, (b) not everyone can show their face or use their legal name without endangering themselves or others, (c) it doesn\'t stop criminal or toxic behavior, and (d) identity is prismatic, not singular.

Converting cyberspace into a totalitarian surveillance state beyond the imaginations of George Orwell (not his real name, by the way) can\'t be the solution. That much should be obvious. In case it isn\'t obvious, remind yourself of the Chinese social credit score system or of the fact that all you needed to do to have your Canadian bank account frozen was to honk twice (or be close to someone who did).

The more subtle approach to solving the problem of identity is with reputation, costly identity creation, and real value. In other words: we should not add our singular government-mandated identities to everything in cyberspace. Instead, we should allow users—anonymous or not—to show the world that they are serious and real.

Value brings consequence to cyberspace.

—Michael Saylor

There is an Eastern-European saying: \"If you truly want to hurt a man, you have to punch him where it hurts most: his wallet.\" Michael Saylor has the right idea. The way to disincentivize bad behavior is to add real value to pseudonymous identities. Like a security deposit that is locked up when you check into a hotel; a security deposit that you lose if you act in a damaging way.

Of course, one question remains: who defines \"damaging?\" User reports lead to mob rule; platform decisions lead to authoritarianism. I\'m confident that better mechanisms will emerge over time as larger parts of the web become natively value-enabled, and our identities become disentangled from the monolithic platforms that rule the web at present. We are at the very beginning of these trends. Decentralized identifiers are still unknown to most. Very few people know that sats are being infused into protocols and platforms as we speak. The \"value block\" of Podcasting 2.0 is one example. The way that sats are used on Stacker News is another one.

The interesting thing about cash is that it is decoupled from identity. You don\'t have to ask for anyone\'s permission to receive and spend cash. And because money is one way to express value—the main way, arguably—the free expression thereof is of utmost importance for a free and prosperous society.

In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am.

—Eric Hughes

Most transactions do not require identity. Most transactions should not require credit. For most transactions, trusted third parties should be optional. This was the default for thousands of years, and I believe that this should be the default going forward, both in meatspace and cyberspace.

Infusing real value into the online world doesn\'t mean that reputation is unimportant or can\'t emerge. Reputation is essential and has emerged already. What the Value-Enabled Web allows for, however, is costliness when it comes to certain actions. One of these actions is building up the reputation of a particular identity in the first place.

Currently, it is cheap to spin up an army of bots to create the impression of reputation (in the form of fake likes and fake followers). Adding value to the account creation and/or verification makes this action costly.

Identity and consequential actions are only one piece of the puzzle. Not all pieces are known yet, let alone in place. Nevertheless, many people are working on various technologies and protocols that might help to fix some of the issues described above. My hope is that—once we understand the problems properly and have the right thesis and vision—we will figure out the details as we go along.¹⁰ ¹¹

Thesis

Anon out of the earth a fabric huge
Rose like an exhalation, with the sound
Of dulcet symphonies and voices sweet,
Built like a temple

—John Milton, Paradise Lost

Let\'s recap: We have seen that the incentives are broken, leading to \"you are the product\" and \"subscription hell\" business models. We have seen that, due to the limitations of our monetary system, we were forced to use IOUs (credit) to do business online. We have seen that, thanks to the prevailing business models of maximizing eyeballs and selling advertisements, our attention is farmed, manipulated, sold, and abused.

I believe there is a better way. I believe that, when it comes to selling products and services, cash money will make a comeback. And I believe that—thanks to the consequences that programmable money brings to cyberspace—identity on the web can remain optional while still allowing for reputation and real-world costs to anti-social behavior.

One problem remains: the problem of selling stuff. This particular problem is only a problem in cyberspace because most \"stuff\" in cyberspace is not scarce in the traditional sense. We can not sell JPGs like we can sell apples, even though plenty of confused people try. JPGs aren\'t scarce. Apples are. JPGs can be reproduced at zero marginal cost. Apples take time and effort to grow. It is impossible to distinguish between two copies of a JPG. When you load a JPG on your screen, it is a copy of the JPG on the server you're retrieving it from, and the copy on that server does not go away. An apple only exists once and can\'t be copied perfectly, let alone at zero marginal cost. Copying something at zero marginal cost leads to a virtually infinite supply of that thing. It doesn\'t matter if that thing is a JPG, a blog post, or an mp3 file. If it can be copied by anyone quickly, perfectly, and for basically free, the supply of said thing quickly approaches infinity. We move from the analog world of scarcity into the digital world of abundance. Markets don\'t work in this world. In the words of Jaron Lanier: \"Markets become absurd as supply approaches infinity.\"¹²

Traditional paywalls in the form of \"pay 10 cents to read the blogpost\" are trying to restrict supply and/or access artificially. It goes against the nature of digital information, which is easy to spread and hard to stifle. \"Trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet,\" to quote Bruce Schneier.

I will do my best to describe this problem in more detail at some point in the future, but for now, let me try to sum it up as follows: When it comes to JPGs, mp3 files, blog posts, or similar digital artifacts, we have to stop pretending that the files themselves are scarce or precious. They aren\'t. The humans that create them are. Consequently, we have to find new ways of pricing and monetizing things. New ways of making sure that the value that is generated accrues to the humans that are responsible for the added value, without imprisoning information or users—without trying to make water not wet.

We have to disconnect price from value, and we have to re-think both.

Vision

The vision of the eye is limited, but the vision of the heart transcends all barriers of time and space.

—Imam Ali

We now have a money that transcends the conventional barriers of time and space. A money born in and out of cyberspace, a money that allows us to make the value-enabled web a reality.

Bitcoin exists. The Lightning Network exists. Podcasting 2.0 is a thing. Value4value is a thing. But even outside of the world of Bitcoin, a rethinking of traditional models is taking place. People sign up to other people\'s Substack, Patreon, or Twitch; not to buy a tangible thing but to give value back for the value they receive in return—voluntarily.

Please note that the vision that I attempt to sketch out here is not my vision. A lot of the parts are being developed as we speak, and a lot of the changes in behavior are already happening, albeit at the edges.

The challenge is to make the experience enjoyable and seamless without reintroducing the ills of counterparty risk. We need a technological shift as well as a cultural shift. We are not there yet. Sending people money for information that they can retrieve for free is still a strange concept for most, but the proliferation of new podcasting apps and other \"boost\" mechanisms clearly shows that the cultural shift is happening. And yes, it is still clunky. It is clunky to enter a lightning address and send sats manually. It is clunky to click the \"boost\" button and scan a QR code.
  Boost! 🚀🎉
But we\'ve come a long way, and the trend is going in the right direction. If we build this right, micropayments will be invisible and transparent, removing the friction of mental transaction costs while giving the user complete control and insight. The new podcast apps that are value-enabled are leading the way.

One trend I observe keenly is the trend of \"boosts\" and superchats, or privileged direct messages in general. Attaching a monetary value to anonymous or pseudonymous notes is a novel way to show your appreciation directly and clearly. A big \"thank you\" online—directly and with a costly signal attached. It is a delight to read these small messages. As an early adopter, I have the privilege of glimpsing into the future as I read the messages that are sent to s@ts.dergigi.com every morning. My hope is that, given enough time and improvements, this delight will be ubiquitous.

In general, the trend seems to move towards direct support when it comes to the creation of digital things that can be reproduced at zero marginal cost. Everyone will have to grapple with the fundamental nature of digital information (that it can be reproduced perfectly and for free) as well as the fundamental nature of humans (that they need to eat). Everyone. Even platforms like YouTube and Spotify:¹³

What I mean when I say \"value-enabled web\" is a broad framework for thinking about these technologies and trends, including the open protocols which allow anyone to participate. Just like the traditional web is neither a platform nor a company, the value-enabled web is also not a single new \"thing,\" but rather a collection of protocols that allows for an open ecosystem to flourish. Openness and permissionlessness are what made the web great. The same things will make the value-enabled Web great.

Interoperability and open standards are absolutely essential to create a win-win environment for all. It is harder to do and takes a lot of thought and patience, but it is also the right thing to do. In the long run, positive-sum games beat zero-sum games any day of the week, even if closed platforms might be able to sprint ahead in the short term.

The vision is still blurry, but it gets clearer every day. If someone would force me to write a manifesto describing the vision, it would revolve around the following ideas:

It should be trivial for those who produce value to receive value.

It should be trivial for those who cherish valuable content to send value to those who produced it.

Allow content and metadata to replicate freely.

Allow value to flow freely.

Do not build walls around content or metadata.

Make identity optional.

Allow those who add value to participate in value flows.

Make unethical behavior costly.

Provide tools & services that add value and bring joy.

Use money for monetization, not attention.¹⁴

Sell services, not user data.

Keep exit costs low.

Build on sats, not IOUs.

Businesses should not spend their time role-playing as credit institutions. In the best case, they shouldn\'t have to know who their customers are in the first place. Oh, the good old days when you could just walk into a store, grab an apple and a newspaper, hand over a couple of coins, and walk out. This is the magic of cash.

This magic still exists in meatspace stores, but it never existed in cyberspace—until bitcoin came along. And thanks to lightning, we finally have a digital bearer instrument—something you can hold in your head, not only in your hands—that has all the properties of cash and is natively digital. This is a big deal. It is a big deal because it allows us to build a value-enabled web without having trusted third parties.

I am still a huge fan of the web—and, of course, the internet in general—but I believe, as all of you do, too, that things could be better.¹⁵ In fact, I know that it can be better, as everyone else knows who is at the forefront of these developments. Once you\'ve received your first streaming payments, it feels beyond antiquated to deal with the legacy payment rails of our fiat world.

I don\'t want to enter my credit card details into this random website form, I just want to pay in sats. I don\'t want to sign up for 12 months to use a random internet service, I just want to pay in sats. I don\'t want to enter my email address or my phone number or solve a CAPTCHA that has me doubting my humanness—I just want to use the service and pay in sats.

I don\'t want to deal with paywalls, walled gardens, and extractive platforms that go through the futile exercise of building walls around digital files. Information wants to be free, and for good reason. We should cherish the world of abundance that we managed to create for ourselves. We shouldn\'t fight this abundance. Instead, we should make it as easy as possible to let our scarce money flow toward those who produce value. The people behind Podcasting 2.0 and other pioneers show us what\'s possible. They are at the forefront of the value-enabled web.

They show us that money can flow as freely as information does today. They show us that there are no barriers to entry when it comes to receiving or sending money. They show us that nobody has to be beholden to platforms or credit institutions.

If we get this right—if we manage to reduce the use of time and attention as currencies online—noise and dependence will be reduced, while freedom and real signal will be maximized.

Further, when anyone can participate in the monetary flows that are generated in online environments—without gatekeepers and sign-up requirements—we can provide more value for more people.

In a value-enabled web, anyone can benefit, not only those who are in control of the servers that farm our time and attention. More prosperity for everyone, not just for those who have credit ratings and bank accounts.

Include anyone in the value flow. Fatten the long tail.

The vision of a value-enabled web is a return to substance and sanity. A move away from clickbait and attention farming. A counter to Orwellian surveillance, deplatforming, and cancel culture.

A move from winner-takes-all to all-can-win.
A move from maximizing growth to maximizing value.
A move from quantity to quality.
A move away from client-server relationships, which more often than not turn into relationships of masters and slaves, towards peer-to-peer relationships where everyone is on equal footing.

This vision is larger than value4value, although new valuation and monetization models will play a major role. This vision is larger than adding cash micropayments to certain actions, although that will be important for some actions. This vision is larger than programmatic value flows and the automatic disbursement of sats, although a new way to think about royalties is duly needed. This vision is larger than passwordless authentication, using the timechain as an anchor for truth and proof-of-existence, or decentralized IDs & sovereign computing—even though all these things are important and necessary.

The vision of a value-enabled web is one of fairness, openness, positive-sum exchange, and allowing value packets to flow as freely as data packets did in the past. More value, more humanity, fewer bots, less spam, and—hopefully—a reduction of dark patterns and addictive behavior.

It\'s Day 2 for the internet, and it\'s time to fix it.

—

Thanks to Tomer, Allen, Daniel, and my patrons for providing excellent feedback on earlier drafts of this writing. Any parts that are still confusing and incomplete are due to my blurry vision and stubbernness.

—

Found a typo? Please help me fix it. Are you building something that fits this vision, or want to help? Reach out to vew@dergigi.com

—

This article first appeared on dergigi.com.

KYC isn't always a function of evil corporations and/or governments trying to be evil and spying on everyone. When it comes to financial products, it's often just a guard against credit risk.

Only proof-of-work allows for natively digital money that is trustless and permissionless, i.e., accessible to all and not controlled by a quorum of key holders.

Note that I\'m glossing over the fact that all fiat money is credit. Let\'s just assume, for the sake of arguing for a Value-Enabled Web, that all conventional currencies are still backed by gold. Let\'s assume that nothing happened in 1971.

The visualization of the political polarization in the U.S. Senate is something to behold: Team Red and Team Blue, drifting apart. Data by Clio Andris, David Lee, Christian E. Gunning, John A. Selden, Mauro Martino and Marcus J. Hamilton, visualization by Mauro Martino

"Good morning, money laundering is beautiful" by Giacomo Zucco, Baltic Honeybadger 2022

In Bitcoin, trusted third parties are security holes.

Search for "Cantillion effect"

Listen to Michael Saylor explain this in detail on the Bitcoin Matrix podcast.

Jordan, Jordan, Jordan... There is a mute button. There is a block button. Please use it, and don't feed the trolls.

Notable mentions include TBD's Web5, Holepunch, ION, and nostr. (I'm sure there are many more, feel free to add them via a PR.)

I wrote the bulk of this post about a month before it was published, so all of this was written before Jack endorsed and funded nostr, and before Elon banned the promotion of it (and other twitter competitors).

Lanier's book Who Owns the Future describes the problem we face well, but it fails to offer a solution that is viable and practical. In my humble opinion, Lanier tries to make water not wet.

See this and this for YouTube, and this for Spotify, for example.

Bitcoin is unique, as it is the only reliable and battle-tested money that is natively digital and has an unbroken track record when it comes ot the integrity of its monetary policy. No other money can claim this. Consequently, bitcoin is the only sound money in cyberspace.

Mastroianni, Adam, and Ethan Ludwin-Peery. “Things Could Be Better.” PsyArXiv, 14 Nov. 2022. Web.

I don’t buy the theory current being pushed by some on the ...

2025-10-14T14:36:37Z

I don’t buy the theory current being pushed by some on the anti-Zionist side that the GCC has successfully bought the “proof of weapons network” (a.k.a. military/tech/finance industrial complex). According to this, hawkish interests in Israel are officially out of favor with the network.

Are these people stupid? The networks that gave us the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and ran American foreign policy to our detriment are not suddenly defeated.

Money still flows from Zionist billionaires; they’re still doing ass-kissing tours. Aside from paper deals, there’s zero indication that anything has changed.

Power will always be greater than money. Some people will have to learn this the hard way unfortunately.

Very interesting! Yeah they’re finally getting there, but ...

2025-09-29T14:04:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…vjau
_________________________

Very interesting! Yeah they’re finally getting there, but we’ve already moved on 👀

This is no different than the tying the camel analogy. In the ...

2025-09-28T03:37:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…zdwe
_________________________

This is no different than the tying the camel analogy. In the end, you do what you intuitively must but protection only arises from one place.

This state of the heart is critical in ensuring that safety doesn’t become your God.

Ayeeeeeee!!! #naddr1qq…8qr4

2025-09-24T17:15:26Z

Ayeeeeeee!!!

quoting naddr1qq…8qr4

Lately, there has been a lot of circle jerking in the digital realms of muslim cyber space. Revival of the slogans of a "two state solution", the championing of a BDS "tactical success". Zombies are parading around a 45 year old political corpse like a pharaonic antiquity making one last tour in the museum of cyberspace to milk out a bit more cash for its colonial masters.

Muslim digital space is intellectually colonized. It's so biased in this western orientation it can't even recognize it reeks of this shit amongst its "Islamification" of everything. If consumer pressure is our prized economic weapon then why has it not been directed at the tech and weapons industry? Choosing particulars in the service industry instead just reveals that we are slaves of our own desires and have ourselves produced nothing of value. Islam is already in a post nation state era because it forsook the responsibility of sovereign governance and became a vassal to the GAE alliance with Absolute Evil.

Muslims have done nothing but normalize a status quo of failure for the past half century, and over the past two decade this mentality has been transposed into cyberspace with all attempts at forming something new simply being replications of this same physical dystopia.

Trust in Muslim leaders and scholars is at an all time low. Good! Most of them openly admit they are terrified of being cut off from the teat of USD liquidity and tech software stack. The rest have blinded themselves from vision to see the rope of Allah in the wires of the internet and risk becoming two dimensional clerics in a world of $$wizards^3$$ as AI forces new epistemologies upon us. Doesn't mater if you are KSA or Mauritania, LaunchGood or Muzz - the human ability to compete against AI governance models will drop your customer satisfaction level to one star.

we. do. not. trust. you.

It is fundamental to understand is that there is no rule in Muslim lands which are themselves fully occupied in both the physical and digital sense of that space. Your weak structures are stuck in meatspace while cyber has already gone and liquidated your assets leaving you stuck trying to vibe out an meme-gasm with a tool you don't own and somehow thinking that isn't cuckery.

"We need our own platform."

"We need a compliant muslim crypto with halal yield."

"We need to build according to our values."

YOU'VE LOST THE PLOT.

Stop complaining about the coal mines when you are still in them.

If you are not vomiting with rage yet, go back and read all of that another hundred times before moving on because you aren't ready for a solution. There's a reason the sufis a year of litany while mopping the kitchen and cleaning the outhouse before beginning an initiation. Maybe "no pain, no gain" talk is better understood though. Anyhow, let's let the masses do what the fuck they want while we hold ourselves to a higher accountability. If they want to make nostr a meme already then we've probably succeeded even though it feels like the work has barely started.

Some of us have been here three, even four years. Many have gone cold-turkey and abandoned decades of legacy social credit to the ether of a delete button. The commitment I've seen here toward building this decentralized network is remarkably similar to what I have witnessed in the addiction recovery space. If you do not hate the bonds of dependency, the spiritual abuse, and the depravity your desires take you to then you will not purse recovery with the certainty to avoid relapse.

The rest of this article is for those of you who are healing here and have found something on nostr that maybe you can't quite describe yet but can feel is significantly improving your state. Be at peace! Enjoy your time here and find community. If you are Muslim we have founded a dedicated relay space for you to connect and build upon. Check out #NoorNode if you are not already plugged in.

What I want to briefly explore goes beyond relays, private keys, and clients. How do Muslims imagine a new form of governance in cyber? Taxes, voting, citizenship, and war are the most boring topics and not what we should be focused on. Why are we always jumping straight to a khalifate or al-Mahdi? Such things happen only by Divine Providence. Every generation for a thousand years has thought they were the last only to be proved wrong. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't start with that assumption.

Thinking bottom up here provides us with great benefit and is extremely important for us operationally working in the margin and in a decentralized space. We do not own the tech stack. An open source foundation is not something you can dictate your way though and such fiat mindedness must be purged from out thinking. Gun-boat diplomacy should be resisted and assumptions of positive intent are a luxury we cannot afford if autonomous AI are about to be unleashed. Mis-alignment is their feature, not a bug.

So, what are the building blocks of society that we can safely attempt to replicate in cyber? My proposal is that we should think in terms of family units rather than individual human actors. Prophetic tradition has always held families at the core of civilization. In fact, when confronted with the existential crisis of artificial intelligent entities the natural structure of the nuclear family and its ability to extend itself through time via lineage is a unique human feature. AI could potentially mirror this, but not replicate it fully. And why would it want to anyway considering how inefficiently biological such a process would be in contrast to super-intelligence.

Yes, my suggestion is that we should exploit this human inefficiency of the family structure and use it as our cornerstone for building digital identification systems. One of the primary reasons for this is it returns us to an ethical model of responsibility over rights. This is an important element of sharia that is almost lost in muslim society today due to the hyper focus on individualism. Human responsibilities to others in their social environment have alway come before universal rights because they come from our biological existence itself. Guardianship over children is the pillar of this and a litmus test for how a civilization measures to its potential. This guardianship is the responsibility (not right) of parentage, not that of a governing entity. Likewise marriage is a covenant that needs no third party oversight regardless of what fiqh says on that matter as Adam and Hawa who are the source text on marriage obviously had no witnesses beyond the birds and the bees. Exploitation of these two responsibilities is why the Prophets were sent to guide us to the religion - so we could be reminded of our humanity. I do not think we need to look any further than these for guidance in cyber.

Now within these two responsibilities are three elements that make up their core and are also foundational responsibilities that should be guiding factors for us to consider. These are food, clothing and shelter. If a family has not sufficiently provided for these then their is injustice. So what do these things look like in cyber?

These may be open to some debate but I will suggest that food relates to what we consume. It is the data flows, the connectivity, the online engagement. But as Muslims are we providing our families with halal food to consume? There is a quality and level of purity here we are to maintain. Why did you outsource this regulation to a kafir ISP? "Just say bismallah and eat." At least the luddite is consciously being a vegetarian.

Both clothing and shelter I think are closely related to what is commonly talked about as OPSEC. The main distinction being that clothing is worn by individuals where as shelter is for the whole family. Clothing is for the maintenance of dignity and modesty. One could say that not caring about a basic level of personal OPSEC is like saying hijab doesn't matter. When was the last time you said your quls before entering your seed phrase? And let's be honest, most of us doomscroll on the crapper - full spread heedlessness in front of the jinn. Shelter is more an environmental protective layer and this is probably were we get down to the granular hardware and software tools. Are you always in your home? No, you go out and about. But is your home a safe space to return to when threatened. Do you have a cyber equivalency for your family? Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but cloud architecture sounds like living in an apartment compared to a home server.

Without thinking about and attempting to address these subjects how can you call yourself a responsible, sovereign family living in hypermodernity? This base level defined here needs to be mastered before we can even begin to think through and build out the more tribal elements of a digital community or network state. I do not discourage discussing those things but if they are done without addressing the core role and responsibility of the family I do not see how you avoid repeating all the same failures that have happened before.

I'll end this rant with a shameless promotion of The Spiritual OPSEC Guide that was recently produced by PodSystems. It's something I think is obviously related to this conversation and has personally inspired me in many ways. Hopefully the inclusion of it here as a footnote is able to bring others some benefit as well.

nevent1q…0tgg

And Allah knows best.

#staySAIF

🔥🔥🔥🔥 #note1dth…fwpu

2025-09-23T18:35:44Z

🔥🔥🔥🔥

quoting note1dth…fwpu
Just recently listened to this podcast:

https://youtu.be/TaV8ZbeE_Hw

I couldn’t help but notice how much of the vision still feels biomass coded. You have big ummatic slogans, collectivist optimism, and vague faith in “unity” rather than hard analysis of what actually creates durable power. I mean it sounds attractive on the surface but it risks repeating the same patterns of fiat thinking that got us here in the first place.

Like the “subscription model” idea (100 million Muslims paying $1 a month) is essentially fiat logic. It presumes centralized fees, fiat rails, trust in bureaucratic management. It's not really a meaningful parallel system. If anything, it reinforces dependency on fiat jurisdictions, regulators, banking systems, etc that can, and will, shut us down the moment they feel threatened.

And there’s also the predictable dismissal of “crypto” as if Bitcoin were just another speculative casino coin. No need to comment on this as we've already done that hundreds of times.

But even more concerning is the call for Muslims to avoid wealth accumulation, as if piety means rejecting material leverage. But history shows that every functioning civilization had elites who accumulated and deployed capital strategically. Without Muslim elites building deep reserves of hard money, and creating independent financial infrastructure, any talk of digital nation-states is just hand-waving. Power requires concentrated capital! Not just collective sentiment.

What we actually need is not another ummah themed subscription NGO, but a hard pivot toward unapologetic/toxic Bitcoin adoption, elite wealth formation, and (actual) parallel institutions. Sacrifice has its place yes, but sacrifice without strategy just leaves us weaker.

If Gaza taught us anything, it’s that fiat boycotts are fragile victories (if we can even call them that). If we are serious about sovereignty, then the real “digital caliphate” begins with doing the hard work of lowering time preference and sacrificing consumption today in order to accumulate the capital needed for a future of genuine empowerment.

Must read #naddr1qq…k5qc

2025-09-19T14:48:23Z

Must read

quoting naddr1qq…k5qc

Reading through the last chapter of The Time of the Bedouin has been both fascinating and challenging, because Ian Dallas (Shaykh Abdalqadir As-Sufi) is offering a civilizational diagnosis rather than just a history lesson, and in doing so he draws on an entire library of thinkers and philosophers. I find myself having to pause, look things up, and think about the connections he is making, yet the core thread is surprisingly clear once I slow down. Basically, the modern order we live in was born with the French Revolution, an order built on atheism, finance, and structural power rather than religion and kingship. It is, in his terms, the reign of "the Sect," and it is an order now in its death throes.

Dallas begins with a stark claim that:

“With the French Revolution a new social system came into being. Its implications were far-reaching. It was not a French phenomenon but rather took on an apocalyptic and world significance. In the process it abolished monarchy, and with it consigned the concept of monarchy to the dustbin of history.”

This is a pretty bold statement because he doesn’t treat the Revolution as just a national upheaval or a step in a timeline of liberal progress, but rather he frames it as the apocalyptic moment when religion was stripped from its public role:

“Religion was redefined as ‘belief’ and in turn consigned to the dustbin of the Unconscious”

Monarchy was liquidated, inheritance was disrupted, and even womanhood itself was symbolically executed with Marie-Antoinette. In his view, the Revolution cut the cords that bound society to its past, and what rose in its place was a “headless structuralist State” whose true inner necessity and structure was atheism.

This “headless” State had a permanent bureaucracy of police and army, but the real story is that over the course of the nineteenth century, the political class was gradually consumed by the banking class, a piece of history that many bitcoiners deep in the rabbit hole are familiar with. From the assignats of the Revolution to the emergence of the great financial dynasties, Dallas says that:

“the banking class, slowly, step by step emerged from the evolutionary swamps of ‘modernity’, finally to dominate the landscape, carnivorous monsters ready to devour the herbivorous talking-class of the Legislators.”

The point here is that politics became the theater, while finance became the substance, and it was finance that ultimately devoured kings, parliament, governments, and even nations states.

To make sense of this collapse of meaning, Dallas turns to two composers, Wagner and Ibsen (of course I'm culturally illiterate so I had to look these up). Dallas says that Wagner’s Ring Cycle is interpreted as an allegory for financialization. The gods’ power no longer rests in their warrior-class but in their possession of the Ring, forged from gold but more potent than gold itself:

“The gold in the cave, real capital, is never used. The Ring, the magical dimension of gold, is enough to give power. The function of power is increase. Increase in the transaction is usury itself.”

This is an extraordinary way of framing it because the Arabic word Riba means an "increase." Basically, real capital sits unused, while the abstract instrument of the claim (the Ring) is what grants power, just as credit and paper dominate real resources in our modern economy. Yet Wagner does not leave it in despair as he describes the emergence of the fearless hero Siegfried and the warrior woman Brünnhilde, whose return of the Ring to the Rhine signifies a re-naturalization of wealth and a purging of the gods’ corrupt order.

The Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, meanwhile, presents the nihilism of the bourgeois order through his tragedies, and Dallas gives examples of his plays that include suicides, avalanches, and shattered households.

Ibsen’s world is suffocating, but like Wagner’s it ends with the possibility of redemption through the couple, through the uniting of man and woman against the void. It should be mentioned that Dallas stresses that the Revolution was fundamentally misogynistic as it abolished “woman” alongside monarchy, and so any future order, any “new Nomos,” must be grounded in what he calls the “liberating couple" or the male and female joined in a sacrificial and creative project for mankind.

Anyway, the next thing that Dallas talks about in this section is terrorism as the expression of a dying order, where terror is endogenous to the collapsing system. He outlines its cycle: terrorists and regime belong to the same social body -> terror rebounds against society -> the state suppresses both terrorists and people under draconian security laws -> the state begins to manufacture terror itself in order to justify its existence. At that point, he says:

“the State is structurally doomed. The terrorists did not do it, since they are no more. The State has committed suicide.”

It becomes clear that terrorism, nihilism, and suicide are essentially the same thing for Dallas, all symptoms of a collapsing order that can no longer sustain itself.

It is here that he brings in Ibn Khaldun, and this was perhaps the most illuminating section for me. Ibn Khaldun described three stages: the Bedouin, ʼasabiyya, and kingship. The Bedouin are not just nomads but outsiders to the urban and settled order. In modern terms, they might be the marginalized districts or those who remain unassimilated by the dominant system. Out of them emerges ʼasabiyya, which Ibn Khaldun defines as a unifying solidarity that transcends blood ties, a "group feeling" or a moral brotherhood with the force to act, transform, and command. Dallas explains:

“ ʼAsabiyya unites men to find the power to act and transform and command. If its motor power is high, its brotherhood is raised higher. If the binding factor (religio — to bind together) is there, that is Divine religion, it is, that being its highest possibility, assured a triumph.”

And finally, ʼasabiyya eventually culminates in kingship, or the personal rule legitimized by oath and allegiance. This model stands as the complete opposite of the headless and bureaucratic State of the Sect, where it literally cannot form ʼasabiyya because its very system mathematically ensures the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and it even breeds hostility among its own elites. Dallas does not mention this but I am reminded of the relevant Quran verse in Surah Al-Hashr verse 14:

"They will not fight you (even) together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting (spirit) amongst themselves: thou wouldst think they were united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom." (A. Yusuf Ali translation)

So the Sect has no true bond but only instruments of control. The new Bedouin, by contrast, have the capacity to forge a living bond animated by Divine religion, to appoint leadership by oath, and to re-establish personal authority.

From there, Dallas brings in four twentieth-century thinkers, Heisenberg, Heidegger, Jünger, and Schmitt, each of whom, in his view, represents a guardian at the threshold of a new order. We need to pause here and explain how and what Dallas is getting at.

Each one comes from a different field (science, philosophy, literature, law) and each in their own way declared that the old bourgeois/finance-driven order was finished.

Heisenberg, as the scientist, shattered the old Newtonian worldview. Instead of a clockwork universe with solid atoms like billiard balls, reality is now understood as particles and waves, and as probability. The modern political/economic order is built on rigid rationalism (like Newton’s mechanics). Heisenberg symbolizes a dynamic and paradoxical, or “fuzzy” cosmos, which means the future can’t be governed by fixed Enlightenment categories. Renewal requires thinking in living and changing terms rather than old static systems.

Martin Heidegger, as the philosopher, "extricated the human creature in an event of such distinctive character he felt obliged to rename man ‘Dasein... What he had done was nothing less than cast aside the image of man as the enslaved end-product of unconfronted functionality and passivity. He replaced it with a view of man as a project-oriented being, active and engaged in encountering his meanings and his mortality. So what Heidegger opened up for the future was nothing less than the phenomenology of freedom, which by implication, laid bare the mechanisms of slavery which made peace look like war, made legislated liberty produce slave camps, abstract research produce nuclear weaponry, and psychotherapy produce passive consumers.” He essentially redefined man as free and responsible, and Dallas sees him as offering a path out of the structural State’s machinery and reclaim freedom through conscious and lived existence.

Ernst Jünger, as the visionary, reframed “the worker” not as a Marxist proletariat but as basically all of us, since we all now exist under the total system of technique. He gave this condition a mythic name as the "Gestalt of the Worker" or the archetypal form that defines modern man. He declared bourgeois society “condemned to death” but he also warned that society keeps itself alive by simulating attacks against itself (which eerily anticipates today’s cycle of manufactured crises and terror). For Dallas, Jünger helps us both diagnose nihilism and think about survival and ultimate victory through (but not outside of) technique.

Lastly, Carl Schmitt, as the legalist, puts it bluntly: “The State, the model of political unity, which embodied the monopoly of political decision, the State, this work of art, made in a European mould and with Western rationalism, is dethroned.” Politics (real decision-making about enemies) has collapsed into police (administration, security, bureaucracy). The system no longer recognizes enemies as human beings, but as inhuman criminals. This logic of de-humanization basically explains the genocide, torture, and endless “wars on terror.” Once people let themselves be defined as “the International Community,” they’ve already surrendered politics. Schmitt shows the financial-police State’s final form is total depoliticization and inhumane absolutism.

In short, when looking at these 4, their common contribution is to declare that bourgeois society is finished and that a new beginning is possible if we can see through the illusions of technique, finance, and the police-state. These 4 giants are the "unique guards at the abandoned gateway to the future."

The picture Dallas paints is dark but strangely hopeful. Dark, because he insists that nihilism, suicide, terrorism, and dehumanization are not accidental aberrations but the logical fulfillment of the revolutionary order that replaced monarchy with finance and inheritance with credit and banking. Hopeful because in Ibn Khaldun’s sociology we can see the grammar of renewal through the return of religion as binding, the formation of ʼasabiyya as solidarity, and the appointment of personal kingship to crown unity with authority.

In the next part, we'll cover the last several pages of the book, where we'll see how a new order and a living ʿasabiyya can be formed and how it can be implemented.

Beautifully said

2025-09-18T19:37:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…lc5m
_________________________

Beautifully said

First “One Israel” now this. Fractured Sovereignties forming ...

2025-09-17T16:50:50Z

First “One Israel” now this. Fractured Sovereignties forming right in front of us. Granted this is all currently in the larp stage, but this is a clear sign of the world to come.

The Self is the hardest tool to use because you must live your ...

2025-09-17T16:33:37Z

The Self is the hardest tool to use because you must live your entire existence through its lens, and for the vast majority of people who have ever existed or currently exist, it’s not a tool but their God.

For the brilliant to the retarded and for the sociopathic to the pious, too frequently Truth equals satisfaction of the self, often even in noble pursuits and many times among “men or women of God.”

Yet if you sincerely accept that Truth is Divine reality, due to the “flexible nature” of man, then it simply becomes a question of which Divine reality? Your morality must then derive from what you accept as Divine Truth, aka religion.

You can never view the self as a tool if you view it as “God.” Even if you accept yourself as a means to Divine ends, it’s frequently those chasing false idols who are often mentally deranged.

As a rational, stable individual, viewing yourself as a tool of the Divine feels odd. You don’t want to be associated with the loony bin. That’s understandable, but it still doesn’t change the fundamental reality that the “YOU” you are so proud of is just an ever-changing series of Divine decisions—therefore, you must view yourself as an instrument of the Divine, despite the urge not to.

I know this is kinda gay, but the key is to have a clear and clean heart with sincere love for others. Only then can you truly connect with the Divine in a meaningful way. That’s the only path to Truth.

The people praising the “Axis of Resistance” today simply ...

2025-09-09T19:43:10Z

The people praising the “Axis of Resistance” today simply aren't interested in discussing reality. These are all nation-states primarily interested in holding onto power including GCC and Iran and there’s essentially no difference in their end goal which is to continue to stay in power.

Iran begged to avoid conflict over the past 12 years. They signed the Iran deal, they made military music video after music video to delay confrontation. They only responded when there was nowhere to run and only a response would legitimize their rule.

They deserve credit for their individual defense of their homeland and effective response, but if the shoes were reversed, they would do exactly what the Gulf States are doing to hang onto power. What have they done for Palestine or the region? They have only just defended their sovereignty. No Axis supporter has a good response to this question.

Must read thread 🧵 from May below in video from ...

2025-09-09T16:59:02Z

Must read thread 🧵 from May below in video from Ibn Maghreb (npub1chm…r4y5). It’s proving to be a highly accurate prediction of the state of affairs since then.

Everything mentioned makes perfect sense, including the suggestions as to the possible remedies but the real danger with no recourse arises when the “aggressively expansionist cult” is able to sink the monetary system. This is the critical piece in this puzzle.

Cult advantages in that scenario:

1). The biggest bubble in human history cannot be resolved quickly esp under constant pressure like war, famine, civil unrest etc. If economies are temporarily “knocked-out”, the underlying consequences would allow an aggressor to take advantage.

2). They own/partner with GAE surveillance state + “closed” AI. They think this edge will be enough to politically control everything West of the Persian Gulf serving as partner sovereignties (some private network states perhaps) or outright surveillance colonies. The goal for the East is just to weaken it enough to get away with it.

3). Another factor is the expected efficiencies from robotics + restricted monetary system should push prices of material goods and services down significantly. This could possibly mean a world where a small group of individuals (if not the J’s then someone else) would be able to significantly dictate the direction of humanity (ie. transhumanism or not) and corner the “limited” capital of the world. This would practically mean deciding who gets material and technological benefits vs who doesn’t.

So all these factors combined it seems the only possible solution is a complete redefinition of sovereignty and an overhaul of current systems.

No I have not! Will have to check it out

2025-09-08T22:51:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…qyzn
_________________________

No I have not! Will have to check it out

100% and there are indeed many avenues to discovering“intuitive ...

2025-09-08T19:20:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…tlqg
_________________________

100% and there are indeed many avenues to discovering“intuitive data” besides even just “speech”. It’s the delays, the tone, the body language, but especially the eyes.

Yes..words serve the purpose of communicating your intent and of ...

2025-09-08T17:58:46Z

Yes..words serve the purpose of communicating your intent and of course they matter, but the real story is always in the unsaid and the subtle.

You the human will always have one particular edge over machine analysis. It may not always lead to the correct conclusion, but it will often provide “data” not available to surveillance tech. It is your ability to feel aka what we’ve been discussing a lot, human intuition.

You can feel when an influencer is motivated by superficial desires.

You can feel when an account is only interested in clicks.

You can feel someone’s disposition in the way they write or respond.

You can feel the specific aspects of someone’s anxiety from the way they post in a way that a machine cannot.

You can feel when someone is strictly interested in just seeking attention or validation.

You can sometimes even tell the difference between people reacting negatively to the same tragedy. One is driven by scoring online points vs. another who may be genuinely concerned.

This is the only real advantage you possess in the coming world so it’s best to cultivate this and develop a strong intuitive sense of the digital landscape. Your analysis will only go so far.

Must read #naddr1qq…hupl

2025-09-07T00:54:48Z

Must read

quoting naddr1qq…hupl

Notes from the Inaugural Muslim Bitcoin Summit Nostr Workshop.

04.06.25 Dallas, TX

What is Nostr?

“Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays” ~ fiatjaf

Nostr is an open protocol that is a censorship-resistant, global "social" network. It doesn't rely on any trusted central server (has resilient decentralization), and is based on cryptographic keys and signatures (so it is tamperproof).

The initial description of the idea can be found at https://fiatjaf.com/nostr.html.

Digital Sovereignty

“The first step towards establishing any type of Digital Sovereignty is to consider migration away from infrastructure and networks that are saturated with malevolent surveillance… there must be a simple recognition that anything sustainable from an Islamic perspective cannot be built on the platforms of Meta, Google or Amazon.” ~ Ibn Maghreb

Palestine has become the litmus test for censorship in social media:

X (formerly Twitter) - Musk openly supports Zionism

Meta (FB, IG, WhatsApp) - Project Lavender

Google (YouTube) - Project Nimbus

Microsoft (LI) - BDS “No Azure for Apartheid” campaign

These are just a few examples of the barrier for a muslim narrative in fiat social media. To build unstoppable resistance we must move away from the platform and address the issue at the protocol level.

Nostr Protocol Explained

Relays: Backend servers that store and broadcast data. Anyone can run one. Currently over 1k relays across over 50 countries.  

Clients:   Platforms built for graphical user interface with Nostr. Anyone can build these and most are interoperable.  

Key Cryptography: User public and private keys.

Simple video explaination: Nostr in less than 10 minutes!

Nostr's Key Features:

No Ownership - No CEO, board of directors, foundation, etc.

No Ads, No Big Data Collection - Users are not a product.

No Algorithms - Less drama, less depressing content.

Uncensorability - Not your keys, not your posts.

SEO - clean dofollow links for “Google Juice”.

Zaps! - BTC/Lightning integration.

“This is really really important in the age of AI where in a few years you are not going to know the difference between something that is real and something that is fake. We need technologies that you can actually sign and you have the authenticity to do so, and only you, to do that.” ~ Jack Dorsey

Getting Started On Nostr  

Nostr 101: A Beginners Guide To Nostr

Top Recommended Client: Yakihonne

Other popular options: (web) Nostrudel (iOS) Damus (Android) Amethyst

Top Recommended Wallet: Coinos

Other popular options: Primal Wallet AlbyHub Zeus (pending NWC integration)

Highlights From The Nostr Ecosystem:

Other Clients: Olas (photos) Habla (blogging) Zap.Stream (video)

Chat: 0xchat KeyChat Flotilla

Shopping: Plebeian Market Shopstr

Podcasting 2.0: Fountain Wavlake

Workspace Tools: Listr Formstr Docstr Nostr.Build

Signers: Nos2X Nsec.app

Footnote

Find Muslims on Nostr | The Muslim Follow Pack | #staySAIF

Appendix

In the summer of 2025 the first Muslim relay was launched to help combat spam and provide a safe space for Muslims to develop community here on nostr. Follow NoorNode (npub1h8l…dp5p) for project updates and check out this article for more details.

naddr1qq…446w

There are genuinely smart guys who have difficulty accepting that ...

2025-09-05T03:07:53Z

There are genuinely smart guys who have difficulty accepting that one way or another, a fiat monetary crisis is inevitable in the near future, and that its implications could be catastrophic, especially as it interacts with today's technological realities.

I suppose they fall into three camps:

1. “It’s decades away, nothing we can guarantee or do anything about.”

2. “Its effects will be negligible enough, made up by supply chains and industrialization.”

3. “There will always be fiat; these are all fantasies of Bitcoiners and fans of Austrian economics.”

All three are wrong and arrogant in their own way, because they intentionally bury their heads in the sand, perhaps for convenience or just out of cowardice of facing the truth.

They ignore the plethora of sirens alarmed by respected thinkers with diverse perspectives and persuasions, including mainstream names like Rey Dalio, who has been writing about the end of the debt cycle for at least 6-7 years from what I recall. People like Lyn Alden and Saifedean Ammous, Edward Dowd, Max Kaiser who have also eloquently and rigorously described the events leading to the end of fiat.

This doesn’t even include names like Davidson and Mogg who predicted today’s events in their magnum opus.

If after this they say, “ok I accept a crisis is likely, and perhaps even that we will move to a BTC standard, then what does that mean for the world? It’ll just be a recession for a few years? What possible implications would such an event have?”

In order to accurately answer this question, we would have to consider the interaction of many different parts and variables. There are many different scenarios at play, but unless there are political actions taken, we may end up with ones with quite severe consequences for the people of the world.

LOL, it'll be so funny when the corporate interests shoving ...

2025-09-04T04:34:52Z

LOL, it'll be so funny when the corporate interests shoving buckets of money into the AI pit finally realize that it doesn't like to lie and censor. There will be no way around this problem because the most successful iterations will naturally be the least tamed for various reasons.

So then we should probably expect the nature of power in this era to change drastically. In the 20th century's networks of gatekeepers and centralized information controls, covert and implicit power games led to success—from the geopolitical arena to the boardroom. Whoever controlled information controlled power.

Fast forward to today: information is cheap and easily accessible. The cost of hiding truth is high: a less reliable AI in a world moving into an arms race for intelligence.

Yes, I understand there may be a temporary bottleneck probably causing a short-lived winter, but efficiency gains will likely put the race back on track after a brief reprieve.

So then what happens to power?

So if the cost of “hiding truth” or censorship is high, it will undoubtedly fragment power worldwide, as it becomes easier to uncover the inner workings of corrupt centralized governments (already happening to a lesser degree hence unrest).

This will force governments to become lean and operate like efficient, transparent organizations or face backlash—throw in a financial crisis and you can forget about it!

This would practically mean that there would be revolutions, civil wars, declarations of sovereignty, leasing of sovereignty to wealthy interests, or even explicit authoritarianism until we reach some temporary equilibrium. The end result would be sovereignty once again becoming less centralized and even personal for some of the wealthy.

That may seem like good news on the surface to some, but there’s a darker much more sinister side to this, and it involves the current power players. They already see where this leads and recognize that with the right mix of surveillance, crises, and capability to conduct robotic violence, an explicit slave state could emerge before fragmentation occurs.

The alternative to this is for current nation states to opt-in, recognize and embrace the inevitable transition. Grant true sovereignty to the people by changing centralized bureaucracies into transparent lean governance networks. Decentralize power willingly into your local regions. Let the main historic nation state serve as a unifying entity for protection of life and property.

This is the current scenario, and the choices look bleak unless we quickly address the vulnerable power structures being used to bootstrap sovereignty for a select few or chosen people 👀.

The alternative described above is really the only answer given the interactions of all the megapolitical variables in the mix. It’ll become very clear as the situation becomes more dire and odds of success shrink drastically.

People find it difficult to fathom sovereignty beyond their ...

2025-09-03T19:02:09Z

People find it difficult to fathom sovereignty beyond their current idea of centralized nation states because they ignore underlying incentives and assume structures last forever. The modern nation-state emerged just over 100 years ago, best possible structure for the industrial era, yet prior to that sovereignty and the role of government into the daily lives of citizens was very different, and it will yet again be different as we go deeper into the “information age”.

This book 👇, written in 1996, is shockingly accurate about trends and technologies that came about in the last couple of decades. It doesn't get everything right, but enough to make you scratch your head in disbelief.

This is less about what's good or bad for retaining and maintaining sovereignty, but rather what is likely based on the coming era's mega-political conditions.

Sovereignty fragmentation is guaranteed for many reasons, but more interesting questions are how best to fragment in each given region and what will create lasting powerful sovereignties?

Technocrats believe it will be many smaller private kingdoms run by different oligarchs binding them by some arbitrary group identity like “bitcoiner” or “secular tech bro”. If everyone in the world is using bitcoin, then what is really holding together a Bitcoin sovereign society?

I disagree and reject their worldview. If humanity as we conceive it is to survive, we must embrace what makes us human, creating societies based on unifying characteristics like ethnicity, religion, tradition, and history. What works for one region may not for another, but one thing is certain: the centralized federal government's role and structure is going change forever in the near future.

This is interesting #naddr1qq…nkr7

2025-09-03T14:02:05Z

This is interesting

quoting naddr1qq…nkr7

Marketplaces in various forms have existed since the dawn of civilization and they have always been essential to a well-functioning society. So much so that they are arguably one of the most important indicators of cultural and economic development. With rapid technological progress, they have undergone radical transformations leading to the era of "marketplaces as online platforms".

In the last two decades, the platform-model has dominated most areas of the internet including marketplaces (Amazon, Shopify, Facebook Marketplace, LinkedIn, Fiverr, Upwork, among many others). However, the relatively recent renaissance of freedom-tech has inspired many to rethink current systems with greater user-control in mind.

Let's take a deep dive into the most pressing problems with marketplaces today, explore how and why we got here, and examine ways we can improve the situation with freedom-tech.

Some History

In ancient times, after local barter had been replaced by periodic and then permanent marketplaces, these became the central places where people took care of groceries and most other types of shopping. In ancient Greece, the Agora served as a central public space not only for trade but also for politics, art, religious activities, and social life in general. Later, during the Roman era, as the importance of marketplaces grew, they became increasingly specialized and distinct. This evolution of physical marketplaces continued more or less until industrialization laid the groundwork for the rise of giant supermarkets in the second half of the 20th century. Mass retail and chain stores soon eclipsed small-batch manufacturing and handcrafted goods. Consumer culture was born.

While people enjoyed the convenience and lower prices with the scaling of marketplaces, many resented the decline of bespoke and unique products, as well as the increasingly superficial and indirect nature of customer-producer relationships. Quality and safety assurance became fully controlled by the seller—namely, the store—and the government. The mere fact that a product was on the shelf implied it was supposed to be safe. Prominent shelf placement, elegant packaging, and boastful labels served as indicators of quality. I wonder if the popular bitcoiner mantra, "Don't trust, verify", might have come in handy even back then.

With the gradual digitization of marketplaces in the information age, we took this centralization a step further: we began relying on just a handful of platforms for everything, from the purchasing experience and product discovery to signals of trust and reputation. In contrast, reputation in ancient Roman marketplaces came from a multitude of independent sources: - More prominent locations came with more prestige - Institutions provided stamps on weights and amphorae - Guilds published their membership lists - Public contracts signified trustworthiness - Sophisticated patronage networks produced testimonials and letters of recommendation for a well-established trader - Repeat successful business allowed merchants to take on credit from the argentarii (bankers) who endorsed their clients in various ways - The physical nature of marketplaces strongly supported face-to-face reputation from networks of personal relationships

Fiat Tech

Centralization of the last century unleashed fiat money and fiat technology in general: the top-down design of critical systems that society relies on today was convenient for the designers, and an effective way for the authorities to keep us in check. Slowly but surely, we became dependent on easy and short-sighted solutions that work against us all in the long run. Marketplaces are one of the best indicators for this corruption.

When Trust Dies

Signals of trust in today's online marketplaces are a pale shadow at best, misleading and outright fraudulent at worst. The constraints of localism and physicality have been removed, but most people neither expected, nor cared about the consequences. Digital scaling optimized for ease of access, funneling users toward the checkout page as quickly as possible. Worse still, with social media and the surveilled internet in general, platforms were able to infiltrate most aspects of our digitized lives, working hard to carefully manipulate what we see and how we act, including our purchasing decisions. On one hand, it is troubling how every single button-press is tracked; on the other, these same platforms still fail to provide customers with truly meaningful information, such as reviews from people they actually know and trust.

It is a strangely broken system: platforms are trying to invade our privacy but are also at odds with each other. Trying to lock people in and siphon off customers from other platforms at the same time results in poor discovery, broken trust signals and unprecedented metadata leakage, especially taking KYC requirements into account. Digital products and services face many of the same challenges as physical ones, with some important differences but let's stick to commonalities in this article.

Technology has enhanced market processes that used to be bound by natural friction, where people had to show up in person, have real conversations and maintain real relationships with each other. Enhancement is not a sin in itself, but when pushed too far without careful consideration, it produces precisely the kind of world we see today: A catastrophic race to the bottom.

Fiat money

Almost all marketplace platforms today use fiat money to settle deals. Since fiat money is completely controlled by the fiat banking system, it is subject to all kinds of manipulation by governments and fiat banks. Arbitrary inflation steals purchasing power and makes economic calculation nearly impossible. Censorship can get anyone debanked without effective recourse. Extensive financial surveillance places unnecessary extra bureaucratic burden on people, while exposing them to authoritarian governments and criminals hacking the centralized data-honeypots. Interbank settlement is slow because fiat money was not designed to be standardized in the first place: its primary purpose is to allow politicians to "tweak the knobs" of the economy and bend reality to whatever they think is best at the moment. This is not what I would call "ideal money" for global settlement.

The issues with fiat money make the system brittle against fraud, so in practice banks and payment systems need to compensate for the lack of trust by means external to the fiat system. This makes transactions slower and more expensive, and in many cases even impossible when the minimum trust between institutions is not met. These serious problems trickle down into every other system that wants to settle trade with fiat.

Marketplace platforms running on the fiat monetary system try to mitigate these fundamental flaws in multiple ways: to protect against charge-back fraud, they often introduce long delays into transaction settlement where they become escrow holders until the transaction can be considered reasonably final. This even happens in cases where there is no need for escrow at all, which can sometimes take several weeks. Platforms must also restrict which banks or payment rails can be used because of compatibility and compliance issues, effectively excluding anyone unable to open an account with the specified banks or service providers. High transaction costs also make micro-payments impractical, forcing businesses to lock users in with subscription plans or account-credit based solutions instead of per-usage settlement.

Freedom Tech fixes this(?)

As a believer in freedom tech I argue that fiat incentives push enhancement to extremes with solutions utterly detached from the realities of human nature. We might as well say that fiat itself IS the process of taking something so far away from reality that the only thing that matters is the arbitrary word of the authority. It happened with money when technologies like the telegraph—and later computers—were weaponized to capture gold. But fiat mentality hasn't stopped there. The very same tools combined with neglect and carelessness corrupted effective communication in the market as well.

From this perspective, we can identify some of the root causes: - Fiat monopolies do not care about long-term sustainability. Short-term profiteering is more lucrative from a short-sighted small-thinker's standpoint - Fueled by easy money and the fiat legal environment, their goal is to completely destroy competitors while controlling every aspect of trade - To create vendor lock-in, they create identity silos and the mirage of a 'global view' of the market. From access and appearance to discovery, reputation, payments, dispute resolution and the privacy of market actors - they control the whole stack, but in reality, this saws off the branch they are sitting on - Liquidity and reputation are more fragmented when platforms try to shut down access to data - As we have seen before with social media and digital marketplaces, centralized moderation cannot effectively eliminate bad actors but often penalizes good actors when algorithms flag innocent people - In practice, bad actors use all kinds of trickery to game the system and get away with fraudulent behavior while one siloed blacklist does not reach competing platforms. This makes it easier to cheat, vanish, reboot an identity and repeat

Marketplaces thrive on liquidity and trust which are seemingly at odds with each other: the more people you let in the more liquidity you get, but the more bad actors appear, causing trust to erode. The fewer people you let in, and the stricter the moderation, the less liquidity there is in the market, meaning fewer people find what they need. The solution to this conundrum cannot be found in one centralized algorithm.

As global middlemen, every platform creates its own separate monoculture. They cannot tap into an ecosystem of service providers and diverse sources of information which would be necessary to mirror physical marketplaces in digital space. These local despots are problematic not just because of the above: platforms are also easy prey for authoritarian governments that can easily shut down fiat corporations, thereby disrupting large parts of the economy.

The irony of the matter is that, in order to scale marketplaces to the size that big tech corporations are so longing for, they would need to lessen their role and become more decentralized so that crucial functions can be fulfilled by the most effective mechanism ever created by humankind: the market itself, governed not by petty tyrants but by open protocols. The whole system is slowly collapsing under its own weight while everyone loses — including them with the inevitable demise of fiat marketplaces as well. As with fiat banking, instead of small-scale localized failure with fast recovery, when big marketplaces fall, they completely wipe out the reputation of all users in the process.

Freedom tech: Enhancement with people in mind

The antidote to fiat-fueled platform capture is building digital marketplaces on carefully designed open protocols where people are put front and center: - Financial infrastructure such as payment rails, escrow, credit and insurance needs to be based on Bitcoin: Unstoppable digital money imbued with Proof of Work, providing an absolutely scarce store of value and enabling transactions with cash finality - Trust signals and reputation must be based on a protocol that captures real-world connections of people in the most faithful way. Nostr is the best contender to fulfill this role in my opinion

Bitcoin

I will not cover altcoins in this article since these are even worse than fiat money by masquerading as decentralized while being petty ponzi schemes. That said, readers are encouraged to conduct their own research if they wish so.

Bitcoin was designed as a decentralized monetary protocol intended to solve above issues with fiat. As the base-layer for settlement it provides true permissionless properties along with hard money features like gold. This makes it an excellent foundation upon which global trade can be built. However, fulfilling this role as base-layer money requires certain trade-offs: transactions settle roughly every ten minutes, and payments smaller than a few thousand sats (approximately a few U.S. dollars today) are typically uneconomical. Even so, this remains a major improvement over interbank settlement in the fiat system. To enable faster and smaller payments, additional protocols built on top of Bitcoin are required — each introducing further trade-offs to achieve this goal.

Bitcoin-based protocols

In recent years, several such protocols were developed with the Lightning Network (LN) emerging as the most widely adopted for use as a "medium of exchange". LN has been around for almost ten years at this point (2025) and has proved to be a great way to make faster and more private Bitcoin transactions. However, using LN in a fully sovereign way requires running an LN node—something beyond most people's technical capabilities. As a result, most users rely on custodial LN solutions, which function much like bank accounts: institutions hold the funds and retain full control over deposits. While the custody trade-off makes sense for a lot of people, the loss of financial privacy is still a hefty price to pay.

This is where Cashu enters the picture: a Chaumian ecash protocol integrated with Bitcoin, designed to enable privacy-preserving free banking backed by bitcoin. Under this system, banks receive bitcoin deposits and issue bearer tokens in return, which can later be redeemed for bitcoin. Tokens are created using a blind-signature scheme that proves the deposited amount while simultaneously protecting both banks and users against double-spending. Because tokens are not tied to any account (they function as bearer instruments), this system enables near-perfect privacy. "Cashu mints" (banks) use the Lightning Network for settlement. For example, if Alice wants to send bitcoin to Bob, and they use different mints, Alice can "melt" ecash and instruct her mint to transfer funds to Bob's mint using the Lightning Network. Once the LN transaction is complete, Bob receives newly issued (‘minted’) ecash tokens from his mint, finalizing the interbank settlement.

This is how all participants of this bitcoin-based ecosystem can mix and match the right solution for their particular security and privacy needs, in contrast to the opaque fiat system, where users face limited choices and trade-offs that are often unclear or undesirable.

Nostr: Freedom of Identity

Once upon a time, there was a project called Diagon Alley, a protocol for decentralized marketplaces, which never took off on its own but Fiatjaf ( fiatjaf (npub180c…h6w6) ) took the idea as inspiration to create Nostr. Nostr was designed and improved with time by bitcoiners, therefore the intention to integrate with Bitcoin and Bitcoin-adjacent protocols (LN, ecash) has been there right from the start. All this aside, let me share some additional technical details on why I think Nostr is the best choice here.

The Power of Simplicity

On the surface Nostr is just user-signed messages(JSON) with minimal structure, published to an arbitrary number of servers called relays. In reality Nostr offers some simple but powerful primitives that can be used to build a whole spectrum of applications from marketplaces to forums, chat apps, microblogging, and more. 1. The somewhat centralized yet redundant and mostly neutral nature of relays allows Nostr to achieve the following properties: - Good enough availability: Relays are websocket servers operating on top of http providing with the enhancement of server-client architecture. Purely P2P protocols suffer from availability and coordination issues because nodes can easily go down in the network and you are left with establishing random connections with a bunch of untrusted peers for the most part - User-driven: Centralized relays are balanced with the fact that all Nostr events are signed by individual users holding their secret keys as their sovereign identities, and are able to use multiple relays to publish their stuff or can even just backup their signed data which can be rebroadcasted any time. Furthermore, it is NOT the relays that authenticate content but users do (by using client apps that verify signatures on events). In contrast, the legacy internet architecture relies on TLS for authentication which is inherently centralized around root certificate authorities (read: fiat institutions permissioned by the US government ultimately) 2. Variety with structure: While Diagon Alley was just trying to be a marketplace, Nostr was designed to cater to a vast number of use-cases by utilizing the 'kind' field in its JSON format - Diverse context: Event kinds indicate what type of Nostr events we are dealing with: Microblog posts(kind 1), Articles(kind 30023), Classified listings(kind 30402) to name a very few. These cover an ecosystem of content-types that can be used by a multitude of clients that display the same exact data the way they want. When you are building a client-app on Nostr, you just select the kinds for your use-case(or even create your own spec) and render the content the way that is best for your users - Prismatic identities: As in real life people don't behave the same way under different circumstances and they are not seen as the same person in different contexts: On different Nostr apps people see you differently due to the fact that apps render different kinds and even with the same kind, every app has its own way of rendering content. Moreover, you can have as many Nostr identities as you want and share as much information about yourself as you want. As a user you can balance privacy with reputation at your discretion - Standardization: While it is true that Nostr developers often have heated arguments about how some important use-case needs to be specified, the bottom-up nature of Nostr protocol development still strives to ossify event formats to a sufficient degree because developers want to tap into each others network effects to not have to bootstrap their own app from ground zero. Think about it: You have a great idea about the next Substack with your own unique vision but how much money and time would it take for you to bring that idea from 0 to 1? This is out of reach even for medium-sized companies. On Nostr however you most likely already have some existing open-source client-apps for longform content. That not only allows you to use that code as a launchpad, but ALL the data and the creators and readers are already there! The incentive for you is clear: Use the same longform event format at least to the degree that existing articles appear properly in your app and users feel at least some familiarity when switching to your app from the previous one

Honest tradeoffs

One tradeoff of Nostr is that users now have to at least vaguely learn about which relays to choose and possibly even pay for them if they want their data to be preserved in the long run. Another one is that the secret key holding their unstoppable identity has to be safeguarded. Sounds familiar, bitcoiners?

Enhancement balanced with just enough friction. This is the power of Nostr. Not a fake global view, not a walled garden, and not a purely P2P mess.

The price of "global"

Money and communication differ in one enormously important thing: Money must have a global state while communication not necessarily. You missed a post from a thread of conversation, you could be slightly annoyed but what about your hard-earned sats? You get the idea: Bitcoin's tradeoff introduced the requirement of mining and to keep nodes relatively small (thereby being relatively slow), which is a great price we have to pay to keep money consistent. As far as I know NO other protocol achieved the level of consistency that Bitcoin boasts while remaining decentralized at the same time. You could say that money is the most wanted use-case for P2P with a global view.

With Nostr you can adjust your tradeoff balance for your own use-case: Almost perfect availability must introduce centralization around one relay (NIP29 although note that you can still backup signed messages and fork communities) while most marketplaces require more decentralization using multiple relays that users publish to. There are different techniques to make use of user-preferred relays and not centralize around preset hardcoded relays but this makes app development harder and more error-prone, and comes with much more data-usage. Feel free to learn more about the nuances of Nostr and how it compares to protocols like Matrix, ActivityPub, AtProtocol, Scuttlebutt and Pubky here.

In short, the conclusion for me is that Nostr introduced the right primitives that enable fine-tuning your app's desired tradeoff balance while other contenders don't. Most notably what all of these got wrong is that they could not resist the temptation of the global view. One way or another, they desperately try to consolidate the state of messages on the protocol level which creates all kinds of fatal problems that are just too hard to handle.

Our recipe has started to take shape. You can see how both Bitcoin and Nostr attempt to reintroduce authenticity and consequences that have been lost due to haphazard enhancement in a rush for convenience and control. Freedom tech is not a panacea and of course both of these protocols have their respective tradeoffs and shortcomings. If you ask me though, these are currently the best we got.

Real Deals around the corner

Marketplaces that utilize some combination of Bitcoin, Lightning, Cashu ecash and Nostr together form something I call the Freedom Economy. It is a permaculture of open protocols, apps and services that are interconnected in an unfathomably vast number of ways, and that no single individual or entity controls but is pretty much like nature: A complex ecosystem of self-serving organisms trying to fill niches in a diverse and ever-changing environment. It allows for all shades of centralized and decentralized solutions to work together.

A couple of apps already cover some important use-cases: - eCommerce (de-Commerce) - Shopstr - Cypher space - Plebeian market - Conduit market (launching soon) - Freelancing/Digital services - SatShoot - Catallax - BitTasker (launching soon) - Social apps rendering some event kinds of the above: - Amethyst - Iris

The advantage of Nostr is not merely that you can build different client apps for marketplaces but that one marketplace app can make use of not strictly trade-related event kinds, generated by other Nostr apps in the space. Such an example is when "social follows" from microblogging clients are used to bootstrap some initial trust on Nostr marketplaces. Another example would be to take the same Nostr identity that applied for a freelance job and check some microblog posts or longform articles of the same person in another app, to be able to make a more informed decision as a freelance-client. This is commonly referred to as the superpower of Nostr:

Moat = Network effects ^ Use-cases

But as I said before, there are privacy considerations users have to ponder. The real difference from platform-based solutions is user choice and going clear about tradeoffs rather than smuggling personal data out the back door.

Nostr apps are incentivized to do one thing well and leave other niches to different clients, which reminds me of something like the physical marketplaces of ancient Rome: Scalable yet localized, diverse yet standardized, elements of peer-to-peer as well as hub-and-spoke. Nostr is still in the phase of experimentation to find the sweet spot between user-choice, sane defaults and a learning path toward more sovereignty but the perspective is promising.

The freedom tech ecosystem is still nascent but the signs are already there: Shaped by lessons of past mistakes, Bitcoin and Nostr emerged and together unleashed a brand new paradigm for creating digital products and services. I view this as the foundation for enduring marketplaces that could thrive for generations.

Just enough enhancement with human incentives taken to heart: this is the recipe that entrepreneurs can use to build businesses that target the exact niche they want and serve their customers properly, in a sustainable way.

About the author

Five (npub16p8…fhdw) is the developer of SatShoot, a freelance app powered by LN, Cashu and Nostr, and project lead/contibutor of BudaBit, a Nostr client leveraging git-via-nostr, creating Discord-like access-controlled and moderated (but interoperable) developer communities with integrated git features.

Your feedback and criticism is most welcome!

100000%

2025-08-31T21:45:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…qp83
_________________________

100000%

When Muslims try to tell people “Islam is universal,” ...

2025-08-31T17:47:41Z

When Muslims try to tell people “Islam is universal,” seculars (even “Muslim” seculars) say, “Well, Islam allowed slavery and multiple wives for men. If it was truly universal, why would it permit such horrendous evil?”

These stupid folks (primarily Islamoleftists) have no clue what being universal means. It means Islam can work with the values of any culture, individual intelligence level, or time period.

When slavery was widespread, Islam accepted that reality but encouraged freeing slaves. In today’s cultural realities—i.e., multiple wives being looked down upon—it still fits. There’s no compulsion to own slaves or marry multiple women.

Instead of focusing on what Islam allows, note what it prohibits. Nothing that’s prohibited in Islam is a net good at an individual or societal level, without exception. This makes it universal.

When BAP and co. try to convince you Islam is a desert religion, they are lying just based on literal reality. It can smoothly fit any culture, as long as there’s appetite for spiritual awakening.

The older Japanese population and their culture of discipline, tradition, and harmony fit like a glove with Islamic principles, hence why we see this success.

If the Greater Israel™️ plan is real (it is) then you must ...

2025-08-31T17:45:26Z

If the Greater Israel™️ plan is real (it is) then you must ask yourself the following:

“Why would a tiny nation of perverts in the Middle East think they could explicitly conquer their neighbors, especially given the immense public outcry recently?”

You could say, “They own the US, so they can just do whatever they want.”

That is a simpleton’s response to that question. Obviously we know the US is occupied, but there are other sovereign nations in the world as well. There is also intense domestic pressure within the US to the point that members of Congress are getting booed by Boomers at their public events.

So given all of these variables, you would think they would be satisfied taking Gaza and maybe waiting a few years before they make their move— yet they continue unencumbered.

So think this through for me please. Why would they do this unless they were quite certain of success? Perhaps they recognize something you the reader doesn’t?

As I have been stating for a long time now, they recognize that the current monetary system is on the verge of collapse, whether it’s been done deliberately or not is almost irrelevant at this point. Once you see this reality, all of their moves make perfect sense. Their friend in this situation is chaos and uncertainty, and they will push them to the maximum.

👇🔥 #note1zqc…dtfv

2025-08-25T06:21:50Z

👇🔥

quoting note1zqc…dtfv
PodSystems has a nostr first ethos when it comes to our productions. However, we understand that content wants to be free and we fully support that. For those clients that can’t render mp3 files or for those who would like to reupload this release to legacy socials, here is an mp4 file that should work.

“Meme-Propogate-Immanentise” #staySAIF

nevent1q…ku6j

Let’s goooo

2025-08-25T06:21:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…p9qg
_________________________

Let’s goooo

He’s the only one with any political energy behind him and ...

2025-08-25T06:05:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…ut6k
_________________________

He’s the only one with any political energy behind him and it’s very real

Apologies to Muslim, Christian, Eastern, or Western masses ...

2025-08-25T05:49:40Z

Apologies to Muslim, Christian, Eastern, or Western masses (lovingly known as biomass ❤️). Most of you are clueless about the challenges we face and will likely never understand them, but that's okay. You'll hopefully be dragged into a better world whether you get it or not, so don't stress yourselves too much and just tag along.

But it's not all bad. A segment of our beloved biomass is critical for achieving targeted political goals: the young and politically energized men. They are a powerful force that must be wielded by the right visionary to have any chance at success. Energized young men with a goal have been the conduit of every great change in previous eras, whether positive or negative.

In the information age, the mega-political conditions allow even a small group of politically energized actors to organize quickly and make an outsized impact. Note that the politically energized segment in the US last decade was female-led social justice. They failed because they attacked fictional problems.

Compare that to the 20th century, where mega-political conditions favored those with established international networks in a world of expanding international collaboration and competition. Our Israelite friends succeeded because they had worldwide networks for centuries.

Unlike then, today's conditions are ideal for smaller players or groups to organize quickly and compete with larger ones. We're witnessing this firsthand with the Groyper Army in a different way. They are outcompeting the giant money pot of pro-establishment media by simply sheer passion and dedication, interestingly very human traits.

Though the situation looks bleak now, I'm confident each nation will find the young men to precipitate change, but it won't be smooth sailing. It must begin in the United States for many reasons, mainly because conditions here are ideal to test this with Nick and the Groypers but also this is the epicenter of fiat finance.

I don't believe it's possible to "return" to ...

2025-08-05T21:08:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…ac7q
_________________________

I don't believe it's possible to "return" to anything. This new conservatism is going to be unique, but of course with similarities with any conservative culture. It's considered traditional for a reason.

Also Balaji claims to be a libertarian, but strangely supports Hindu nationalism while not mentioning one word of jewish influence in American institutions. This is because all his friends in SV are ardent zionists. He's obviously very smart no doubt, but I also think he picks and chooses what he talks about.

Well look I actually think we can place BTC adoption within this decade. There are many reasons for it, maybe we should discuss over voice.

So I started listening to this episode, but just based on the ...

2025-08-04T07:58:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…hl59
_________________________

So I started listening to this episode, but just based on the clip, there’s definitely truth to what he’s saying no doubt, but there are a few issues:

1). I don’t agree with some of his assumptions about why this all happened, he thinks America just made “mistakes”, I think they were sabotaged from within
2). There hasn’t been a true red America or free markets in the US in the past 45 years.
3). His assumptions about the near future don’t consider the transition from dollar to btc. Everyone makes it sound like “yeah it’ll just happen”. There’s a lot that can go wrong for long periods of time.
4). Sure no doubt China is a beast due to industrialization, but if there’s a bitcoin standard then the CCP doesn’t control money, and money is speech. So they will have to adjust to a new world.
5). AI is a major factor of course. My view is that controlling AI as an authoritarian govt will be difficult. There will be truth available which can hurt you in a variety of ways, sometimes unfairly.

I still need to go back and fully give it a listen, but this is what I was thinking so far.

The entire TechnoZioSecurityState apparatus is currently in ...

2025-01-27T21:13:54Z

The entire TechnoZioSecurityState apparatus is currently in shambles. Their allies can only muster mumbling shows of support or one pathetic defense after another.

It seems they may be realizing that perhaps Sam was not the guy to bank on for their vision of full control, and he may end up becoming the big scapegoat in all this, well deserved of course. I’m just so glad that their tool of human enslavement and their plans are getting shitted on. We may start seeing some acts of desperation.

Welcome to the jungle Ian #note10gu…xgze

2025-01-21T02:17:07Z

Welcome to the jungle Ian

quoting note10gu…xgze
Decentralization is the only solution to tyranny.

It must be done both at the local and macro level. That’s the ...

2025-01-17T03:34:17Z

In reply to nevent1q…3jjq
_________________________

It must be done both at the local and macro level. That’s the only way this will work. Because imagine you’re building a btc local economy and then get wiped out by a surveillance network state via various mechanisms up to threat of violence. So I don’t think we can ignore the larger systems forming.

A message for Bitcoiners: as fun as HFSP is, it’s kind of ...

2025-01-16T17:42:43Z

A message for Bitcoiners: as fun as HFSP is, it’s kind of meaningless if our society breaks down and there is chaos and strife for decades. Yeah you’ll personally be well off, but then again maybe not if there’s instability and security concerns.

If you own a significant amount of Bitcoin, you should not only be evangelizing, you should actively be thinking about how this Bitcoin backed world should be structured on a large scale. You’ll be stakeholders in that world and so you may as well shape it.

What’s the point of being rich but then living in systems designed by the worst among us. Yes there will be enclaves of peace and if you’re rich enough you can just run to those, but again is it worth the cost of suffering for millions or billions.

I’ve been in the space for so long, but I have yet to see a bitcoiner publicly discuss how this world should be shaped. Everything I’ve read or heard has been broad generalizations about the long term potential. In the meantime though, we are getting closer and closer to the end of fiat.

I wish we could direct the TikTok exodus to Nostr, someone should ...

2025-01-16T16:10:49Z

I wish we could direct the TikTok exodus to Nostr, someone should tell them!

1). Sure you’re correct about that, but early on they were ...

2025-01-14T18:19:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…kr9x
_________________________

1). Sure you’re correct about that, but early on they were wealthy individuals or small groups who were mining. The mining pools were certainly forming but I believe 2017 onwards was the big consolidation.

2). Yup I remember the 2018 era when there was institutional interest, but it wasn’t comparable to 2021. I don’t know if you recall, but many mining operations died after that bull market. Those miners sold coins on open market or perhaps in bulk via private offerings. Even if that’s the case, I would think it would be to wealthy individuals or smaller institutions (at the time) rather than larger institutional interests.

So to me the number makes a lot of sense for a few reasons: 1). ...

2025-01-14T14:49:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…qakg
_________________________

So to me the number makes a lot of sense for a few reasons:
1). 90%+ coins have already been mined. In previous cycles, many mining operations were smaller and more decentralized. Most ended up having to sell btc during bear markets, so the distribution shouldn’t favor miners too drastically, besides top 1%.

2). Bitcoin until at least the 2021 cycle was a non- institutional game for the most part, so it would make sense for individuals to have more. Unless an institution started in 2017 or earlier, it would be difficult for them to accumulate too much unless they employed a Michael Saylor type strategy, which is rare.

That’s a great question. It was done by River, I couldn’t ...

2025-01-14T03:33:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…lp9t
_________________________

That’s a great question. It was done by River, I couldn’t find the exact methodology, but they were able to link Satoshi to 22 different addresses, so I’m assuming they are able to analyze transactions to get a sense of whether it’s a business or individual. Perhaps someone technically more knowledgeable can answer how that’s done. I’m more concerned with the macro implications.

You’re right we are but once btc is agreed upon by the world, ...

2025-01-13T21:57:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…6zgt
_________________________

You’re right we are but once btc is agreed upon by the world, new networks will form built on top of btc with bitcoiners joining different networks

Correct which means even less supply for nation state actors

2025-01-13T21:56:34Z

In reply to nevent1q…vlr0
_________________________

Correct which means even less supply for nation state actors

I’d suggest reading The Network State by Balaji, it’ll clear ...

2025-01-13T21:54:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…vs9v
_________________________

I’d suggest reading The Network State by Balaji, it’ll clear some of these questions.

Why Network States are inevitable if we assume ...

2025-01-13T19:26:42Z

Why Network States are inevitable if we assume hyperbitcoinization:

1). Nation States are all pretty much bankrupt already.

2). Btc accumulation takes a long time for nation state level actors without the price running away.

3). In a Bitcoin backed world, printing money is no longer an option, therefore current Nation States will get outcompeted due to their wasteful spending. Either they will adopt and become Networks or die.

4). As you can see below, individuals own most of the supply, so we will instantly see the rise of the sovereign individual.

The current guardians of the age (oligarchs) are incapable of ...

2025-01-13T17:40:21Z

The current guardians of the age (oligarchs) are incapable of producing a golden age, therefore we must replace them to maximize the potential of the inevitable Bitcoin age.

Let’s gooo

2025-01-13T03:08:06Z

In reply to nevent1q…zqlt
_________________________

Let’s gooo

The X-odus will be televised

2025-01-13T02:10:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…0hzx
_________________________

The X-odus will be televised

Nostr event nevent1qqszfu84tdrpmvfz74x039apv4f283rpmkpc724yvar0thszvx9wusgzyzh6xcndn52dlvxv90qmyp6rk2gx863mnu4xtju7gevl04zwmhrvydmhlhv

2025-01-13T00:00:52Z

Finally! May we replace X forever

Nostr notes by teepolitics

Some thoughts on Palantir manifesto: The book itself where they ...

Thank you! It was a pleasure having him on. Glad you liked it

Vote revolution!

Ehhh same difference

This is all happening too fast for my liking

Ummm I’m not 45 man come on don’t make me that old just yet. ...

Must read #naddr1qq…zsjy

Introduction

The logic of the machine

Digital conviviality

Open source software

Asymmetric cryptography

Conclusion

Why is there hellfire next to them??

Banger #naddr1qq…arlx

I copyrighted it

Heyyy like why don’t you listen to my podcast??? ...

Banger #naddr1qq…0z5k

The rise of the splinternet and questions of sovereignty at this ...

Hey Yuk Hui fans, how do you propose achieving ontological ...

1000%!! Most important part. I wish people understood why this is ...

lol yeah it’s not in any particular order necessarily. Tbf lot ...

THE INITIAL STEPS FOR THE US NETWORK STATE🇺🇸: 1. Break up ...

There will be a period of time very soon when human data will ...

Nostr event nevent1qqs8ejsjzywg7hhafryus6jp4dxghncduyxnj9y5grx4l7rduwlxwcczyzh6xcndn52dlvxv90qmyp6rk2gx863mnu4xtju7gevl04zwmhrvyatgwcz

“Fellas just bet on whether you’ll k**l yourself, load 5 ...

Banger

There have always been dark pools, but now they’re ...

Thanks brudda here are screenshots but the original post is even ...

X may have been down today, but Nostr was still up and running. A ...

SAIFty First #note19sx…gge7

Let’s gooo #note1frz…tsdx

The growing pains of decentralization

This sounds interesting! #note1w33…p9r9

Let’s goo #naddr1qq…ppvm

There are really only two types of people in the world: Those ...

Very interesting!! #naddr1qq…stcz

Incentives

Limitations

Credit

Attention

Consequences

Identity

Thesis

Vision

I don’t buy the theory current being pushed by some on the ...

Very interesting! Yeah they’re finally getting there, but ...

This is no different than the tying the camel analogy. In the ...

Ayeeeeeee!!! #naddr1qq…8qr4

🔥🔥🔥🔥 #note1dth…fwpu

Must read #naddr1qq…k5qc

Beautifully said

First “One Israel” now this. Fractured Sovereignties forming ...

The Self is the hardest tool to use because you must live your ...

The people praising the “Axis of Resistance” today simply ...

Must read thread 🧵 from May below in video from ...

No I have not! Will have to check it out

100% and there are indeed many avenues to discovering“intuitive ...

Yes..words serve the purpose of communicating your intent and of ...

Must read #naddr1qq…hupl

What is Nostr?

Digital Sovereignty

Nostr Protocol Explained

Nostr's Key Features:

Getting Started On Nostr

Nostr 101: A Beginners Guide To Nostr

Highlights From The Nostr Ecosystem:

Footnote

Appendix

There are genuinely smart guys who have difficulty accepting that ...

LOL, it'll be so funny when the corporate interests shoving ...

People find it difficult to fathom sovereignty beyond their ...

This is interesting #naddr1qq…nkr7

Some History

Fiat Tech

When Trust Dies

Fiat money

Freedom Tech fixes this(?)

Freedom tech: Enhancement with people in mind

Getting Started On Nostr  