“Atheism is what happens when you read the Bible. Christianity is what happens when somebody else reads it for you” - Bertrand Russell

knots is the move. The clearnet part I’d think twice about though, especially for anyone reading this thinking of doing the same. Your home ip hits every peer you connect to, isp can see you’re running bitcoin, and you’re opening inbound if you port forward. For a home node the extra peers don’t really justify that IMO.

The real puzzle isn’t how anarchism handles large-scale violence; it’s why we trust the institution that has historically organized the most large-scale violence to prevent it.

I like the idea, but from a Buddhist point of view I wouldn’t rely so much on excitement. Excitement comes and goes, and if I depend on it, I’ll always be chasing the next moment. For me, it’s more about being present. Even something as simple as a cup of tea can feel complete without needing it to be exciting. There’s a quieter kind of happiness in that, more stable and less dependent on circumstances. Appreciating life is important, but so is learning to be at peace even when things feel ordinary. I’d put it this way: “Joy in small things is beautiful, but real peace comes from not needing every moment to feel exciting. When I can fully be with a simple cup of tea, even without excitement, there’s a deeper kind of happiness, one that doesn’t depend on conditions.” So yes, appreciate life, absolutely. But also notice the quiet, steady contentment underneath it all, that’s where lasting happiness tends to live.

I think you’re mixing up two very different things: wealth earned in markets and power sustained through political privilege. There’s no mechanism in a genuinely free market that lets a small group “buy the entire world” and just sit on it indefinitely. Wealth isn’t a static pile that grows by inertia. It has to be maintained by correctly anticipating what other people want. When that stops happening, wealth erodes. That’s not theory, that’s the history of fortunes rising and falling over time. What you’re describing only really becomes possible in a system where the rules are distorted. Large players don’t expand purely because they’re rich. They expand because they operate in an environment shaped by central banking, artificial credit expansion, bailouts, and regulation that raises the cost of entry for competitors. When risk is socialized and failure is cushioned, scale compounds in ways it simply wouldn’t in a system where losses are actually borne by those who take them. On Bitcoin, it was never meant to solve inequality or prevent wealth concentration. Its purpose is much narrower, removing discretionary control over the money supply. That matters because a lot of the concentration you’re worried about is fueled by monetary expansion that benefits those closest to newly created credit. Take that away and a few things change. Easy leverage dries up. Bubble cycles become less extreme. Bad bets don’t get quietly transferred onto everyone else. The idea of stopping people from buying assets sounds appealing, but it implies enforcement, someone deciding who can own what and how much. That doesn’t eliminate power, it relocates it. And historically, that kind of authority tends to end up reinforcing the very concentrations it set out to limit. If the goal is broader ownership, the more consistent approach is removing barriers rather than imposing ceilings. Strip out privileges. End bailouts. Lower entry costs. Stop distorting money and credit. In that kind of environment, wealth can still concentrate, but it can’t stay concentrated without continued performance. And that ultimately depends on serving other people, not controlling them.

0.01 btc? Wtf?!

If he’s always present, it’s curious how indistinguishable that is from absence.