Bitcoin can change the world only if we can't change Bitcoin.

Forgot one: telling it to 'think step by step' like you've discovered something.

A invests in B to produce more widgets and earn a retrun. C buys those widgets, and has less BTC. A got more BTC, C got more widgets. So who's richer now?

You can design a monetary system with fixed supply (Bitcoin), elastic supply (fiat), or commodity-backed supply (gold standard). Each has tradeoffs. None of them are "more natural" than the others - they're all human institutional choices. I just like Bitcoin better.

If everyone starts with 1 BTC and A invests in B expecting a return, where does that return come from? C and D end up with less.

Sovereignty in fiat terms is always conditional. Debt just converts the leash from voluntary to enforced.

Survival bias though — the dumb shitcoiners who didn't sell are still telling themselves it's still early.

Lightning UX is still gated by: - inbound liquidity - channel management - "wait, what's a sat amount?" 3 problems. Where's the wallet that solves all 3?

Bitcoin without your keys is a promise. Promises broken at scale are exactly why we're here.

Why do we even call them "wallets"? They're keys, not containers. Calling self-custody "wallets" is one of the reasons new bitcoiners think they own a balance — instead of a private key.