Did that actually happen or is this teabagging core 😂

It's jewelry dude. The sooner you get that the sooner you'll understand these people. It's conspicuous consumption, it's social signalling. Best let them have their badge of success and move on.

When people start acting like it's gonna go up forever, that's a sure sign the end is nigh. Relevant:

Yes. There are natural commons. These benefit from economies of scale to maintain the commons. So naturally, the incentive will be for people to contribute to their maintenance, and refusing to do so can result in free riders, or denial of access to them. Some commons you can ot deny access, so as a result the people that maintain them will have to use force to extract contribution. An example of what I said would be private land ownership and defense of ownership claims. Without courts, police, or armies, every single landowner would have to maintain armed deterrent for just their property boundaries. This is expensive. Adjacent owners can band together, agree not to steal each others land, agree on some dispute resolution protocol, and invest resources together only to protect the outer perimiter of their land. This is much cheaper, and the larger the area of land where owners do this, the cheaper per unit area of land this becomes. Of course, this is just armies, courts, and the taxes that come with that. The other side of "are taxes inevitable" is "is some stronger guy gonna come to my house and shake me down, protection racket style?" The answer for almost everyone, almost invariably, is yes. If that weren't true, we wouldnt have to band together in the above type of scenario. As a result of both of these, ultimately, you can't actually own property. https://falkvinge.net/2017/03/01/a-simplified-taxless-state-a-proposal-part-1/ this is the write up that made me understand that property taxes aren't unjust (if they're only used for defense of property), I've since generalized that out to commons and a set of rules about what makes a tax just or not. Basically, if a state as a market actor maintains a natural commons, or an artificial commons that people ask for that can be managed in no other way, and if revenue to manage them is derived directly and only from the benefit derived from that management, then the tax is just. Otherwise, it is not.

You're a madman.

You're doing God's work man.

See above.

Tyranny is the natural state, it's just predator prey dynamics. All rights are taken by force. If you have them, it's because someone spilled blood to ensure that. Your job is to maintain the ability to do it again so that you can keep them.

People aren't going to get this. This is the most moralized belief, to the point its not even viewed as political. Rights are great, very important. Philosophically, you are born with the right to them (lol) but taking them from you is as easy as smothering a newborn baby, because that's what you'd be and that's the first fundamental right, to live. Practically speaking, they don't exist unless you can defend them, and it takes a moral people to claim and defend real rights with violence if necessary, without trying to claim anything they like as a right and taking it with violence. It really comes down to moral failing as a culture as to whether people are abused or not.

There is way too much drama in that discussion. It devolved very quickly. Not a good sign for the proposal.

Ideally, what you want is no permanent public ledger. You want a system where the current state is all you need to get the security guarantees that bitcoin has. The only thing I know of that does this is mimblewimble, and even then, only the original proposal with no programmability. Everything else that I know of stores historical state indefinitely, even if it's not strictly needed, as in Monero where it's well obfuscsted., but because of how the system works it cannot be discarded without sacrificing security.

Exactly. And, you just have to accept bitcoin for what it is, or what it can be. It is nothing more than how we rug the suits. They successfully have taken control. It is what it is. Let them have their "new backing for the financial system", ride their coattails with it, and when the time is right, move your capital elsewhere.

To say that it's inevitable is to say that your government doesnt work for you. So how can you then say that you'll get the one you want in the first place by voting for it? These things are not inevitable. The state wants you to think it is all powerful, but in reality, every action it takes is a reaction to the behaviors of it's population, or to external state actors. Their power is always tenuous and one angry buffalo can cause a stampede. To ask a question asked below but not directed at you, how does a swiss person actually benefit from the e-id? Not how does it benefit from this version over the inevitable version, you already shared your thoughts on that, but how do you benefit from the existence of this system in Switzerland?

Mining from a quarry is the original PoW.

It's crazy to think there were people who could look at that, read it with almost no effort, form a mental picture of what it all means and make decisions based on it. I'm sure I could learn to read it and that, but it wouldnt be near as natural feeling as it was to the people in the room when it was made.