Ethics of Religion, Money and Bitcoin

I wrote a comment reply on on @Nicolas Dorier’s insightful blog The Ethics of Money and Bitcoin.

That comment is reproduced below because it ended up being a very lengthy comment with numerous additional insights and corrections, which is deserving of a blog to be more widely disseminated.

---

I make some important technological points after some lengthy ideological/philosopical arguments.

I don’t consider myself radical libertarian

This flaw pervades the analysis presented in your blog. Sorry if that seems judgmental — I’ll try to justify objectively.

I’ll lead towards the water, but can’t force the horse to drink.

All those definitions contradict one another and are always subjective to the person preaching it. A christian will have a different view on what human nature is than a Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic.

Christianity is the only true Libertarian philosophy of life and society that teaches such as in 1 Samuel 8 to come out of the Great Harlot of statism, combined with making every person accountable for their unethical choices by punishing failures such as in 1 Samuel 15 (and Revelation!) and demanding adherence to the 10 Commandments, against laziness such as in Parable of the Talents, and Proverbs against scamming or trying to enslave our brothers with usury. Whereas, Islam and Asian “religions” are tolerant of scamming as sort of a “ying and yang” aspect of the cycles of nature. A Muslim will proclaim, “Allah the great can overcome anything, including my mistakes, laziness, and sins.”

Thus only the Christian religion can provide for a society of love and communion amongst men who follow the Commandments (females are ribs and can’t be relied on for such virtue because they’re primarily focused on their hypergamy). The modern religion of fairness, equability, democracy, and egalitarianism, is the antithesis of love and the epitome of Satan.

Rothbard definition of human nature is objective in the sense that his definition does not change depending on what religion you are.

Disagree. Only Christianity is compatible with any form of cooperative human nature which prospers. And Rothbard’s theory hinges on human self-interest in the pursuit of self-preservation and genetic legacy.

In a nutshell, the nature of human is selection of a goal by inalienable free will then action guided by reason to reach it in the most efficient way. This lead to cooperate with other fellow and to the division of labor.

Start with some definitions:

https://blog.jim.com/science/dark-enlightenment-and-the-endarkenment/

https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-enlightenment-debunked/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-dark-enlightenment/

Only the Christian religion has ever been most compatible with this Libertarian truth:

https://blog.jim.com/war/the-solution-we-do-not-want/

https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/science-and-christianity/

https://blog.jim.com/war/deus-vult-2/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/fixing-christianity/

https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/no-such-thing-as-moderate-islam/

https://blog.jim.com/war/recap-on-the-left-singularity/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-origins-of-multicultural-rule/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/origins-of-leftism/

https://blog.jim.com/science/technological-decay-2/

https://blog.jim.com/war/the-murder-of-the-czar-and-his-family/

https://blog.jim.com/war/on-fighting-in-the-streets/

https://blog.jim.com/war/red-guards-and-cultural-revolution/

https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-swerve-left/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-puritan-hypothesis-in-short/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/review-of-left-singularities/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/ever-purer-islam/

Slavery is when the fruit of labor of the slave’s labor is being taken with compulsion by the slave master.

Most humans choose to disobey Christianity and enslave themselves in statism and debt. They’re afraid and uninspired.

For example, direct taxation is forbidden in the U.S.A. Constitution and the 16th amendment wasn’t constitutionally ratified and only was intended to apply to corporations not individuals (c.f. also). We’re implored to come out of the Harlot system (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” — Romans 13:1) and have only one King, the Lord. So that we don’t suffer extortion from Satan.

The reason we have this out-of-control Federal government (c.f. also, also, also, also, also, also, also) is because we feed that Beast with unconstitutional taxes.

Martin Armstrong wrote:

What were Roman Taxes v Modern Taxes?

QUESTION: You do a lot of comparison to the Roman Empire. What was the size of the government relative to GDP?

ANSWER: The Roman economy was more like the USA during the mid-19th century in that it was pre-industrial. About 80% of its inhabitants worked in agriculture, which was about where we were in 1840. There was no social agenda of trying to redistribute wealth from one class to the other […] The tax rate in the ancient Roman Empire was about 5% with some paying as little as 2%. The actual cost of government during the Roman Empire was minimal compared to the modern standard.

Virtually all the taxes and rents raised by the imperial government were spent on the military, which came out to be about 80% of the imperial budget in 150 AD. This military spending constituted about 2.5% of the empire’s GDP. Obviously, we do not really see separatists movement until the mid-3rd century when Valerian I (253-260 AD) was captured by the Persians. With the cost of the military coming in about 2.5%, this explains the lack of tax rebellions. The tax enforcement was nowhere near as intrusive as we see today. The US military budget comes in about 4% or twice that of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire lasted far longer than any modern state for it seems to have been much more tolerable of a burden, whereas the U.S. military budget will be around 20% at times of total expenditure.

 

 

 

 

Humans expressing self-interest in the form of Ayn Rand’s concept of “selfish objectivism”, lack Christianity’s superrationality (c.f. also), which is required for cooperative prosperity and love. Superrationality requires communication.

Only religion can inspire people with a common thread of devotion so as to be fanatical enough to defend their neighbor against the mafia and thugs that take control of every government on earth. Otherwise, “rational individuals” (i.e. not superrational) will always suffer the same conquer-and-divided fate:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.” — Response attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

I want to address one of the common criticisms of religion:

I’m left thinking too that religion (like communism) has resulted in enormous misery due to fanaticism, oppression and divisiveness. The perfect tool for pressing people’s buttons, for good or ill.

It’s difficult for someone like me who hasn’t encountered any direct form of religious activity since mandatory attendance of school services and lessons. I’m not someone who could go down the believing in a supernatural being having an influence over us kind of thing. However, I do share many Christian principles on how to live one’s life, and also ethics and principles from other religions too (Daoism/Taoism is perhaps the nearest I get), in addition to various philosophers and secular thinkers. I take it that before this might happen we’ll be at a stage where the majority are both aware and accepting of crypto. In the UK, the MSM only report crypto dismissively as being connected with crime or reckless investment. At the moment, it’s hard to see how a breakthrough can be made — perhaps due to public desperation with political leaders, growing austerity and draconian invasions of privacy and personal freedoms. I can see how more traditional values and self-reliance might appeal to Westerners who are witnessing an accelerating disconnect from reality, spiralling self-indulgence decadence and atomisation of society.

How is it for example that seemingly intelligent and rational individuals can watch Craig Wright so obviously fabricate a story about proclaiming he is Satoshi Nakamoto, and tell me that “he knows all the details, must be Satoshi”? (Yeah like all the same publicly accessible details I know which I could get up on the stage and spout off about) How can some men so utterly lack powers of discernment? How can (a different man) be fooled into losing 1600 BTC on the HashFast scam and then come back for sloppy seconds to be scammed again by Craig Wright? These are smart guys but are somehow totally hoodwinked.

Btw, Craig Wright mentions several times in the above linked video the James A. Donald alias “Jim” who is the source of the numerous Dark Enlightenment blogs I’m citing. Note I have argued with Jim on his blog and I don’t agree for example with his stance that 9/11 was a leftist conspiracy that didn’t involve conservatives, nor his nonfactual insistence that the WTC buildings were demolished by airplanes.

It’s because we humans are rudderless, ideologically predisposed to idols, politics, and covetous avarice. For example, some of them are adamant that transaction volume scaling is critically important (even though that has nothing to do with the true purpose of Bitcoin to be hodler store-of-value for the uber wealthy outside of and superior to Caesar’s grid). Some hate Core’s deceptive softfork hijack of the real Bitcoin. Some believe social consensus matters. Some are jealous they didn’t get enough BTC at lower prices. Etc…

(jump to 50:50 in above video)

All of these negative traits are symptoms of a lack of a solid Christian foundation starting from youth.

@wuvdoll astutely wrote:

Why are you guys so surprised that there are people who believe in Craig and his idea of BSV? I mean after all there are people who VOTE for dictators in this world, there are people who also murder and steal and rape so we can establish that there are both bad people on this earth and also gullible idiot people on this earth.

If that is clear enough well Craig has a leadership mentality, dude literally tries to grab as much attention as he can and in return some news websites and his twitter makes sure he gets that attention. Then he uses it to attract people to his idiotic idea and persona and the gullible are just idiot so they believe it and the bad people are just in it to make sure they profit from it as well.

So to return to that above-quoted, oft-cited criticism of religion, the problem is the corruption of the church and the horrendous subversion of the brethren by the false prophet, corrupted pastors.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. — Jesus said in Matthew 6:5–8

https://blog.jim.com/culture/god-is-dead/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/christianity-yields-to-zoism/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/religion-and-reaction/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/death-of-christianity/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/christianity-and-morality/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/undead-christianity/

https://blog.jim.com/war/roman-catholic-church-cuckolded/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/losing-the-peace-to-islam/

Devout, true Christians need to produce videos and books which teach well all of the rational concepts so as to help our youth fully understand the truth to instill that granite Christian foundation. Christianity must be spread like a virus bottom-up decentralized without human enforcement (because the inexorable trend of nature to maximum entropy requires free will), and can’t be enforced top-down as for example the Puritans attempted (c.f. Jim’s linked blogs above), because then its corrupt “form” (not actually Christianity) becomes mired and entangled in the corruption of divide-and-conquer politics. Extant religions (e.g. the Mormon Latter Say Saints) haven’t distilled the information well enough from a rational, perfectly defensible perspective. For example, AFAIK they fail to fully explain the nature of the female and role of the virtuous male as a caretaker of God’s plan. Youth need help understanding the feelings and challenges they’re facing. Bitcoin is God’s money to be invested in our brothers and sisters of faith, not to be spent in Caesar’s Satanic grid. Come out her the Great Harlot.

Bad divisibility limit the minimum (or maximum) value of the thing you can buy with it. Note, under this point of view, bitcoin fees are actually a divisibility issue. While bitcoin are in theory divisible to 8 decimals, practically the minimum value of thing you can buy with it is limited by the mining fee. (… in a world where lightning network does not exist)

The on-chain divisibility limitation due to transaction fees also applies to Lightning Networks.

Infinite divisibility is as nonsensical and delusional as egalitarianism, communism, fairness, equability, democracy and social consensus. It’s as if man could wave a magic, snowflake wand to dissolve the inviolable power-law distribution of wealth, Second law of thermodynamics, the maximum-division-of-labor, and the inexorable trend to maximum entropy (all those being consistent with each other).

Infinite divisibility is antithetical to leverage and specialization as if we should dig all our canals with spoons so everyone can participate equally. It’s as if you haven’t understood Rothbard at all.

I think that scarcity is actually the same as portability. All resources are scarce. If oxygen was money, the problem would not be that we have too much oxygen, but that it would be impracticable to transfer.

So stone castles are portable?

What you’re really trying to imply is that distinguishability is a requirement of portability. It’s not that oxygen isn’t portable, but that we can’t distinguish some units of oxygen from each other. Fungible resources can be distinguishable by putting them in a container or if they’re coagulating such as in ingot or nugget form. A transaction output in Bitcoin’s UTXO is a container for fungible BTC.

Scarcity is orthogonal to portability.

Distributed

This one is important but often overlooked.

Imagine a money infinitely centralized such that suddenly I get 100% of the supply right in my hand (Practically speaking, an ICO).

Distributed ≠ decentralized.

Distributed refers to the physical or logical dispersal. Decentralized refers to the lack of a locus of control. Distributed things can still be centrally controlled.

Money is significantly distributed but never significantly decentralized due to the power-law distribution of wealth. Only non-fungible things are significantly decentralized, such as for example fornication and diverse personal interactions.

Defensibility

Somehow, I never saw this one mentioned anywhere else. But it is easy to see that a money which can’t be defended would be immediately stolen, and thus completely useless as money.

Bitcoin is the most defensible form of money as it requires very few resource to protect even a large amount from any kind of attacker. (included nation states)

What we call privacy is nothing but an attempt at improving defensibility.

Agreed. Astute point.

So when we talk about the Nature of Bitcoin, we really talk about the Nature of Money. As if Bitcoin could not be money by any characteristic of money infinitely abused, it would cease to exist.

In Bitcoin we talk:

• Mining fee instead of Divisibility
• Censorship instead of Portability
• Privacy and self-validation instead of Defensibility
• Fixed supply instead of Durability

Agreed. Another astute conceptualization.

Except durability seems also related to viability of its design such as what will happen when halvings terminate in year 2141 and/or whether incentives for chain convergence will remain when most miner revenue comes from transaction fees instead of the protocol-dictated, minted coinbase block reward.

Note it’s impossible to permanently censor BTC on-chain without a 50+% attack, in which case Bitcoin would be insecure anyway.

Any development on Bitcoin which hurt its nature as Money, or hurt free expatriation, or the enforcement of property by software should be objectively considered immoral.

The “free expatriation” is not the nature of money nor Bitcoin. For example, you may be holding a few dust micrograms of gold, but gold has no obligation to make sure there’s a willing gold dealer who will buy them from you. The dust is worth less than the transaction costs for the dealer.

As I talked about in The Nature of Money, I consider that mining fee in Bitcoin is bad for the divisibility of Bitcoin by making it unsuitable to use for low value payments. Not only this, but Bitcoin, because of its pseudo anonymous nature, have various hostile forces trying to decrease its fungibility.

I already explained that you’re incorrect about the divisibility issue both philosophically and pragmatically because Lightning Networks doesn’t improve the divisibility without losing the desirable attributes of trustlessness and permissionless.

Also I explained above that censorship fungibility threats don’t exist on-chain unless Bitcoin also becomes entirely insecure due to a 50+% attack. Please don’t spread incorrect FUD.

The fungibility issue only applies when spending and exchanging cryptocurrency into the world of statism and governments.

I cited for you the scripture which instructs Christians not to give to Caesar what is God’s. And apparently Bitcoin is another form of God’s money since it mimics gold.

Jason Hommel wrote:

Your money is not your own. It all belongs to God:
“All silver and gold belong to me,” [says the Lord God] — Haggai 2:8

Since we are God’s stewards, we must invest our money (God’s money) in ways that God instructs […]:
It’s much better to be wise and sensible than to be rich. — Proverbs 16:16

So of course if we go spending God’s money into Caesar’s statism grid, then we can expect to experience woes. That’s not a lack of fungibility of God’s money — it’s idolizing that which we’ve been commanded to come out of.

And Bitcoin is God’s-money-on-steroids because Bitcoin will be actively infuriating (c.f. also) the social consensus snowflakes and causing them to whor(e)ship the governments and demand retribution against those who have God’s money.

Bitcoin is focusing us on making a decision of whether to keep our Godly activities separate from our interactions with Satan’s world. Those of us who are wise will have long-time preferences and not be concerned about spending God’s money for Satan’s trappings. And instead use God’s money wisely to do God’s work, as the Talent of the Parable exemplifies.

In this sense, Lightning increases the divisibility of Bitcoin by decreasing the minimum value of good Bitcoin can be exchanged against.

Again I repeat that you’re technologically incorrect, unless you’re referring to transactions which are no longer trustless and permissionless.

Secondly, Bitcoins sent through the lightning network are completely fungible as it is impossible to know with on-chain information the source of the payment that someone receive.

Thus lightning is virtuous. Chain analysis companies are bound to lose this battle and will become obsolete.

Incorrect. I’m an autodidact expert on the subject of anonymity. There’s no way you can claim the Mt. Box nodes which will dominate LN (due to the asymmetrical requirement for liquidity) will be protecting the anonymity of users and preventing timing analysis and other means of deanonymizing the routings.

Some people assert that we should just follow whatever rule miners decide.

But then, nothing would guarantee that such miners does not act immorally against the Nature of Bitcoin. History shows again and again that whenever a social group take control over the rules on money, they behave against the Nature of Money via debasing, or inflation (impacting durability of money).

Absolutely correct. And Satoshi designed the game theory and economics of real, original, immutable Bitcoin such that the attempted social-engineered (i.e. manipulating the minds of the irrelevant minions who incorrectly think voting is rational) hijacking by the “soft-forked” altcoin known as “Bitco[i]n Core” will not be successful in mutating the immutable v0.5.3 protocol.

It’s simply much more profitable for everyone to enforce the immutability than resist the inevitable and instead push for the divide-and-conquered “social consensus”, democracy and all that Satanic evil.

Miners are nothing but a social group, we should assume history will repeat itself, thus assume they will go against the Nature of Money and thus trusting them is immoral.

Incorrect. Miners are economically driven rational actors. That superrational objectivity is the genius of proof-of-work.

But if you want zero fee, you also need bigger block as the space is eventually too scarce to accommodate every users.

Which I posit is a plausible surreptitious reason for Satoshi Dice’s transaction spam feature.

Thus actions attempting to add inflation should be considered immoral.

We can’t say that durability (no inflation) is objectively better than divisibility (low fees) but we can say that the particular action of raising inflation is an attack on the Nature of Money by impacting durability negatively.

In the same way, assume an altcoin becomes money like Bitcoin one day and has inflation. Is dropping inflation immoral?

And it actually is! Either this inflation is balanced by higher fees and divisibility is damaged. Or miners get less revenue and we increase risks of immoral money control if they collude.

Agreed. Astute. I had also noted in my recent writings (c.f. “7” in the list) that the termination of debasement actually has a form of ongoing debasement via hypothetically higher transaction fees:

Therefore, isn’t true that — a proof-of-work cryptocurrency with a hard limit on the tokens to ever be mined (e.g. 21 million BTC) — has less “effective debasement” for all users after it’s all been mined, than a hypothetical proof-of-work cryptocurrency which has a perpetual minted mining reward (e.g. 1–2% analogous to gold) but no significant transaction fees (perpetual reward being necessary to fund mining in absence of txn fees), because some users may spend often enough and/or in small enough amounts that the projected Txn Fee is greater than said perpetual debasement. Ongoing security must be paid either by debasement or txn fees — the former asymmetrically rewarding transactional quiescence and/or highly valued transactions which is antithetical to prosperity. IOW, the flaw of Bitcoin/Litecoin seems to be the end game where ideally minting should stabilize at some level, but instead continues halving because it’s unknowable at what level the free market will decide #1 above. In my next blog I will discuss theories about thus how proof-of-work may become incentives incompatible and/or centralize due to the loss of Nash equilibrium.

Note debasement is the correct term when referring to the money supply. Inflation pertains to the changes in the prices of goods and services.

Under this notion, needless to say that a central bank consistently playing with the inflation rate is completely immoral as it goes against the Nature of Money.

Agreed. I recently wrote:

I’ve changed my mind. Proof-of-work isn’t evil money. Instead it’s a technological improvement ofJohn Nash’s Ideal Money conceptualization, because it objectively values relative work. Proof-of-work has a natural limit to valuation appreciation when the relative potential increase in value of human work is greater than the relative potential increase in electrical generation possible at an equivalent cost of capitalization. Naturally as the quantity of electrical generation increases, the amount of capital required to make proportional increases in electrical generation increases disproportionately. Thus there must be some level at which human work generally becomes economic again.

However, inflation is not enough for keeping fee to zero. You also need to increase the block space

Maybe a constant block size can accommodate infinite transaction volume. There’s possibly recursive zk-starks for that.

Obviously, a small increase will not have the same impact as an unlimited increase, but still, it impacts the very Nature of Bitcoin, it should be considered immoral.

This mean that the block size bump introduced by Segwit was immoral and Luke-Jr have been 100% right on this. (Note that myself I did not opposed to it, this was a mistake)

Hooray! Correct. But I hear from a chat discussion you had with someone I talk to that you reject the immutability of Satoshi’s v0.5.3 protocol and argue that “social consensus” trumps immutability. You argue that a return to the original, immutable protocol is itself an arbitrary enforcement of rules by the miners. I hope I have adequately explained above that you’re very wrong again. And about to make a HUGE mistake which will cost you all of your BTC.

The immutability isn’t arbitrary and is inherently enforced by the economics and game theory of Bitcoin’s mining. You whor(e)ship too much “social consensus” and you fail to acknowledge the truth of the inviolable power-law distribution of wealth. And thus your lack of radical Libertarianism is going to cause you to make a HUGE mistake. I am here to try to lead you to the truth.

The “soft-forked” altcoin known as “Bitco[i]n Core” (actually just another shitcoin that Satan has fooled his subjects into whor(e)shipping) was put here to separate the witless — who lack Christian truth — from their wealth. Because in the Parable of the Talents, they’re not worthy of handling talents (aka wealth).

People claiming that the Nature of Bitcoin changed by itself because fee became expensive and caused harm to their business are only admitting they failed to understand the Nature of Bitcoin.

Yup. The witless will fall into the woodchipper because their minds are incoherent.

The case of miners mining small blocks

Miners are free to mine smaller blocks if they want. This would effectively mean, as we saw, that the fee would increase and thus divisibility would be impacted.

Let’s take the extreme case of miners mining only one transaction per block. It seems clear that in such case, the divisibility of bitcoin would be so damaged that it would cease to be a useful form of money. This mean that the miner would be immoral despite it being their right as per the Bitcoin protocol.

Incorrect. The lesson from humanity’s experience with Christianity is that truth is corrupted by top-down control. Miners must have their free will and operate decentralized within the forces (i.e. incentives and disincentives) of a free market system if we are to have an objective system.

If 100% of users of Bitcoin were following proof of work, then collusion of miners like happened in B2X would prove fatal to Bitcoin, because as we saw, history tell us that any social group in control of money ends up going against the Nature of Money. A world run like the FED, but with anonymous miners instead.

Agreed.

The case of Schnorr signature

Schnorr signature are an improvement to Bitcoin which allow a bunch of amazing feature like signature aggregation which would basically cut down dramatically the size of transactions in some situation.

Unlike a block size increase which would hurt the “free expatriation” characteristic of Bitcoin, this is not the case of this feature whose main effect would be to improve divisibility of Bitcoin.

Some people might protest saying that any change to Bitcoin is a risk to ruin the Nature of Bitcoin by mistake. Such concern should not be taken seriously given that:

Incorrect! The “need” for improvements is what enables an opportunistic parasite such as the Core “power rangers” to gain political favor in the Satanic “social consensus”. This is how the oft-ineffective, oft-misinterpreted (c.f. also and also), and arguably poorly designed U.S. Constitution was corrupted with latter but not the early amendments. For example the 14th Amendment gave the power to the Federal government which was never intended, by declaring a new subversive form of the extant jui soli citizenship which was national and not imparted by an individual State of the Union. The Civil War never would have transpired if POTUS Lincoln had not been able to print Green Backs out-of-thin-air to finance the subjugation of the sovereignty of the southern States.

Bitcoin will perfectly fulfill its designed function (which is not to be a medium-of-exchange for the masses) without the necessity of any “improvement”. The word ‘upgrade’ is most often an oxymoron. Besides, the risk of introducing unseen changes to Bitcoin’s design, such as perhaps harming the quantum resistance with the double-hashed outputs, isn’t quantifiable because we don’t know all the design effort that Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a $billion think tank of the global elite) invested into designing Bitcoin.

Numerous archives of this post as it was being written are here.

---

EDIT: The “modern religion of fairness, equability, democracy, and egalitarianism”, which is the antithesis of love and the epitome of Satan, is driven by jealousy about an unfair and “unjust” privilege or more comprehensively Nietzsche’s ressentiment thesis. The plebs want a redistribution of wealth because the power-law distribution of good-fortune (aka luck) is unfair. But if the probability of outcomes was uniformly distributed (i.e. maximal distribution of and thus minimized uncertainty) then maximum entropy would have already been attained, the inexorable trend to maximum would cease, and we’d all live in a static, predetermined Universe. Life and free will couldn’t exist. Instead the fairness in nature is that there isn’t just one resource of good-fortune we’re competing for. There Universe has unbounded opportunities and alternative dimensions (that exist on this Earth!) because nothing can monitor all the decentralized activities in real-time, because the speed-of-light is bounded.

Nature takes care of redistributing resources that become too centralized and which are no longer commensurate with the overall trend of the Universe to maximum entropy. Those who covet instead of seeking their own opportunities, or stand in the way of that admonishment in the Parable of the Talents (in which God/nature redistributes wealth as necessary), are only their own worst enemy.

---

Additionally, I wrote a follow-up comment given a newly discovered revelation about the likelihood of Craig’s group initiating the posited SegWit donations attack by May 2020:

I want everyone to know I was discussing this with @hv_ in private messages. As I suspected he is concerned about issues with the real or Core Bitcoin such as scalability, fungibility, anonymity, etc.

So I replied to him as follows.

I already sent you a link before which explains that adaptive block size can’t be secure:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/psadrv

So how can you claim to be analytical? Do you disagree with my analysis or find it difficult to follow my explanation?

IMO, you do not understand Bitcoin. Please read my Ethics of Religion, Money and Bitcoin:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoin-cb5e43396ce9

The AML shit is in the Great Harlot world. We can never win in that system, not even with a perfectly anonymous, scaling coin.

Idolizing the courts is idolizing the Great Harlot. Satan can make all sorts of deceptions in that system. Instead we (with strong Christian foundation) must turn towards provable objectivity that can't be faked, such a proof-of-work, game theory and economics.

All of Craig’s signings were debunked anyway.

Christianity as a philosophy of life and society (regardless of whether you believe in the supreme God) is not—and the corrupted churches and sects are—a false idol(s), because it has been proven throughout human history to be a fundamental truth and wisdom about human nature and our cooperative organization, prosperity and failures, as I have explained it in the above linked blog.

And a follow-up to above post:

Hope this is the last follow-up, because I really don’t want to be posting on this forum, but this is very important for readers. Want to make clear what our options are and what the reality of the situation really is.

@hv_ wrote:

Sigh, world s financial markets and regulations are not a wish concert.

And yes, it's pretty much overdone and overregulated , totally agreed

But how can u safely and sustainable change that to a better?

Try to offend it openly by using clear and obvious illegal protocols and expect world wide adoption?

Would that ever work knowing before there are 100s of analysts and cyber risks experts sitting on every such gateway where we see they can stop things and close down every that touches law by any means?

My point is that there’s nothing we can do to change the fact that satism will enslave those who want to participate in the statist economy. How can one honestly expect to partake in an evil thing and not be subject to evil? Of course statism is all about defection and cheating on each other via the collective, so of course everyone (other than the devout Christian) prefers to cheat than be honest with themselves.

Instead come out of the statism and only use cryptocurrency in the non-statist economy of like-minded (probably devout “superrational” Christians, because others will be “rationally” selfish and turn against you when convenient) individuals who refuse to report transactions to and source their services and goods from the statist economy. In that case anonymity is irrelevant, e.g. refer to everything as a gift which is for example excluded from taxation in the U.S.A.. Additionally if careful about meta-data and knowing your entire community is using the same ISP, then individual identity can’t be traced on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Better on-chain anonymity might be helpful for those who come out of the Great Harlot statism (yet not absolutely necessary), but it won’t help those who don’t come out of the statism, because statist economy meta-data will be impossible to scramble sufficiently.

Given that Bitcoin’s [im]mutability can’t be challenged, per the game theory and economics of the SegWit donations attack that is coming, we have no option of adding on-chain anonymity to the store-of-value cryptocurrency which already has the most network effects and mining adoption that can’t possibly be superseded any more:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/secrets-of-bitcoins-dystopian-valuation-model-cbf95efa3542

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model

The only competition now is potentially for a transaction volume scaling coin and for the reasons I explained on my above linked blog, the scaling coin can’t also be the hodler store-of-value coin.

And because adaptive block size is insecure (or trustless due to centralized control over parameters, which is thus insecure), it’s not even clear that a secure, trustless scaling coin can be constructed.

What is the correct strategy to get Bitcoin adoption world wide?

A ) btc with shit protocol changes and dropped signatures plus 2nd layer stuff against aml checks?

B ) bch going anarcho and dark protocol

C ) bsv, stay as clean as possible and openly go the most transparent and regulation friendly road map?

Whether you like it or not, the store-of-value coin is Satoshi’s immutable v0.5.3 protocol. And this will be enforced soon with the SegWit donations attack on the Core shitcoin. Per my first post in this thread (relayed via @infofront because this is very important), Craig is apparently claiming they will initiate Satoshi’s cleverly designed defense mechanism. So Craig is playing the role of fooling those mindless bunny rabbits (http://trilema.com/2018/how-to-piss-me-the-fuck-off-a-guide/) who idolize nonsense so much that they can’t even correctly interpret what Craig is really saying. This is again how Satan is giving people their free will as he corrupts them with idolization. You have your free will to correctly interpret that invariants of the reality here, or irrationally idolize what you wish would[for] a snowflake reality.

SUBJECT: I don’t think crypto can fix the West

I don’t think crypto can fix the West. The West must crash and burn.

So I ignore Craig’s vacuous blather about legal compliance. The West will turn batshit insane and lawless, totalitarianism will prevail.

There is absolutely nothing we can do in the cryptocosm to avert that outcome.

False [snowflake] hopes are not going to help us survive what is coming.

Bitcoin should resist all government interference in terms [for] on-chain transactions. But no form of money can resist the government thugs with “rubber hoses” at the on and off-ramps.

All the cheerleading about scaling and adoption is vacuous, inapplicable nonsense. Bitcoin is being adopted as a superior gold by the wealthy who want to store their assets out-of-reach of the government. The problem is if you don’t come out of the Great Harlot system, then the government is going to find some way to take it all away.

Stop [the wishful, snowflake] thinking about good times coming. About how many yachts you’re going to buy and living the good life. Bad times are coming. Very bad times. Prepare accordingly.

Also Jason Hommel clarified:

See jesuswordsonly.com. I no longer believe that Paul was inspired by God. I quote Paul a few times towards the end of the article. The rest of what I wrote, I stand by.

I replied:

Luckily someone had archived your old writings, so I was able to find it.

I’ll add a link in my blog to your latest comment and make sure I archive (archive.is and archive.org) your comment in case Quora censors you at some point or goes defunct. We really need a blockchain system for the Internet so nothing can be censored. Steem has flaws such as not being proof-of-work driven (proof-of-stake is always fraudulent).

I agree the corruption of the word is how “Christianity” gets a bad reputation. We should point out, that corrupted form is not Christianity.

But somehow we need to give our youth exposure to the Biblical truth which they may not be smart enough to deduce on their own. So we still need faithful apostles? I bet we will find many Bitcoin philanthropists wanting to (perhaps anonymously) donate to such endeavors. Personally I really want to see Christian schools formed which have no connections whatsoever to the government and statism. I would like to fund that. For example, complete disobedience to any government edicts. Can we still do that in the USA? Home schooling is still legal? Don’t you have a dilemma concerning where to send your son to school? I will be coming back to the USA and I hope I can network with like-minded Christians. Hope I bump into Ron Paul […]

The “alternative” is we can teach our youth unbounded diversity.