Tasuta asjade hankimine maksab terve varanduse

See on arvamustoimetus autor Andrew Keir, an author of a daily newsletter, where he dives deeply into the transformational nature of Bitcoin.

See artikkel on inspireeritud säutsusest saidilt Guy Swann, “Tasuta asjade hankimine maksab terve varanduse”, mis võtab täpselt kokku olukorra fiat-rahasüsteemis: süsteem, mis võimaldab lõputult suurendada rahaühikuid väikese maffialaadse kartelli käe all. ülejäänu kulu.

See dünaamika tuletab mulle meelde üht teist tsitaati Jeff Booth see on midagi sarnast,

“Raha küllus toob kõikjal mujal kaasa nappuse. Rahapuudus toob kaasa külluse kõikjal mujal.

Täpselt nagu see, mis juhtus roomlastega, kui nad vastutustundetult õhku paisutasid denaarius, sama juhtub praegu USA dollari ja kõigi teiste olemasolevate fiat-shitcoinidega. Kahju, mida see ühiskonna lõhkumisele teeb, uurivad ajaloolased lähiaastatel.

It’s so counterintuitive. Most people have no understanding of money or the monetary system and they just blindly trust the lunatics in government. They have no idea that the ability to give out stimulus checks and just hand out money with bailouts is actually the very thing that is harming them most. It’s distorting all natural incentives provided by a free-market dynamic and creating dire unwanted externalities which create alternate incentives that are much, much worse than what would be output otherwise if the market were simply allowed to do what it does best, which is solve myriad complexity in the most supreme way we know how.

See stiimulite moonutamine rikub meid sügavalt psühholoogilisest vaatepunktist ja see rikub meie väärtusstruktuuri, mille kaudu kogu teave liigub, kui me otsuseid langetame ja püüame maailmas orienteeruda.

Selle ilmseim ilming on kineetiline sõda. On palju vähem ilmseid näiteid, kuigi te ei pea nende nägemiseks palju otsima. Sel nädalal juhtus USA-s kaks asja, mis on näited sellest segadusest, mida me kogeme.

The FBI Raided The Home Of Former U.S. President Donald Trump.

The raiding of a former president’s house is absolutely obscene and should give you chills. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know all the details. I’m not sure anyone really does at this point, but It has some spooky John F. Kennedy vibes about it, and it looks to be a deeply political act at its core, further highlighting how far the U.S. establishment has fallen and how far it has drifted from having any kind of moral compass.

USA riigikassa sanktsioneeris tarkvara, mida nimetatakse Tornado Cashiks

Ma hoolin Ethereumist vähe, kuid sanktsioneerimine avatud lähtekoodiga tarkvara on midagi pretsedenditut. See ei ole isik ega äriüksus; see on lihtsalt teave fundamentaalsel tasandil. Teavet ei saa sanktsioneerida. Seda ei saa kutsuda kohtusse pöörduma. See on suunatud privaatsust taotlevatele ameeriklastele - neile kõigile. Siiani on sellel olnud palju tagajärgi: rahaliste vahendite külmutamine tsentraliseeritud ja reguleeritud üksuste poolt ning Tornado Cashi asutaja githubi hoidla peatamine, mis on lihtsalt teabe ja koodi tsensuur. Kahjuks on tõenäoline, et halvim on alles ees.

Minu peamine väljavõte sellest on see, et USA valitsus on just oma kodanikke tähele pannud. Nad ei usu, et teil on õigus privaatsusele. Nad tahavad kohelda privaatsust nii, nagu see oleks midagi kriminaalset ja võigast. See on otsene rünnak USA kodanike vastu, kuid on ebatõenäoline, et see seisukoht piirdub USA-ga. Tundub väga tõenäoline, et paljud teised väiksemad "liitlased" järgivad eeskuju ja astuvad järjekorda.

Mida see Bitcoini jaoks tähendab?

See näitab veel kord, millisele tasemele riik läheb, et hoida sind alluva orjana. Kui kood on kõne, näitab see täielikku eiramist selle vabaduse suhtes ja see on karjuv meeldetuletus tõelise detsentraliseerimise vajadusest ja enesehoolduse kriitilisusest.

Detsentraliseerimine annab meile võimaluse eemaldada üksikud tõrkepunktid, näiteks vahetused. Börsid on reguleeritud üksused ja nagu käesoleval juhul näeme, painutavad nad koheselt põlve. Nad teevad seda, mis neile kästakse.

If you opt to use bitcoin in such a way where you allocate trust to an exchange to take custody of your bitcoin, it is important you understand the risk you are taking. The reality is, that bitcoin is no longer yours. All you have is an IOU, and under extreme adversarial conditions, as with this current example, that IOU will not be redeemable for your bitcoin. What could have been fuck-you money, will become fuck-me money.

I can’t speak to the properties of shitcoin mixing services like the one in question, but bitcoin mixing can imply a custodial service. One where you relinquish custody of your bitcoin. If you use a mixing service, you are sending your bitcoin to a third party and hoping to receive someone else’s bitcoin back. CoinJoins on the other hand are collaborative transactions which leverage the core properties of the Bitcoin protocol — that being self-custody — to provide you with a powerful tool to improve your privacy while not compromising the trust model which Bitcoin affords.

Iga üksus, mis on tsentraliseeritud – olgu see siis vangistuslik segamisteenus või mõni muu – on üksainus tõrkepunkt ja seda tuleks vältida. Usaldage neid oma ohus.

The question remains: If open-source software can be sanctioned, can Bitcoin be sanctioned, given that it is simply free, open-source software, too?

As mentioned above, open-source software cannot really be sanctioned. Can people using certain software be targeted? While the notion of such a thing seems completely insane, the answer of course is yes, but it becomes more a question of how can that be enforced. If the U.S. Treasury said tomorrow Bitcoin is sanctioned, what they are really saying is you are sanctioned from using Bitcoin. They would be criminalizing the transmission of scarce information. Despite how absurd that sounds, it’s worth considering the possibility given this recent development.

In this instance, any bitcoin custodied by regulated third parties vanishes and would be under the control of the government. That is the most obvious point of capture. Any single points of failure become targets. Assume failure. Even with that, Bitcoin would remain. The network would continue to produce blocks and facilitate transactions, which highlights the critical nature of running a node. If there were only a few nodes, then the potential may exist to capture and shut down the network, but there are tens of thousands of nodes and this number is growing every day. In addition, the nodes are geographically distributed throughout every corner of the planet. The realistic probability of shutting down every one of those, while it is not zero, would likely be close to it.

The Bitcoin network would endure such attacks and, ultimately, it would become stronger. But how individuals use bitcoin would have significant ramifications on individual Bitcoiners. Which brings us back to the critical nature of privacy: If you have a high level of privacy, you cannot be targeted as easily. If the majority of users have a high level of privacy, such an action becomes almost unenforceable. A powerful asymmetry would exist and render any attempts to sanction or outlaw it as futile.

Seal on 437,000,000 XNUMX XNUMX uut põhjust to ensure you custody the keys to your bitcoin, and there are many future Bitcoiners learning this lesson the hard way right now.

Bitcoin was designed to operate under adversarial conditions. There is little the government can do to attack the Bitcoin protocol, which makes it unlikely they would try. They would simply attack the users: us. Acknowledge the game board and act accordingly. Privacy is not just a right, it is critical. Everything is downstream of privacy and it is a central piece of the fortune you pay for getting things for free.

Remember: Freedom is not given, it is taken. Bitcoin empowers you to take yours.

Parandage raha, korrastage maailm.

See on Andrew Keiri külalispostitus. Avaldatud arvamused on täielikult nende omad ja ei pruugi kajastada BTC Inc. või Bitcoin Magazine'i arvamusi.