Solar fountain

Strategic Implications: The Chimera Meets the Protocol Order 1. Escalating Enforcement Arms Race As parasovereign protocols proliferate, states will progressively shift from broad, sectoral regulation toward precision targeting—identifying and neutralizing key infrastructure nodes, developers, or gateways. This will accelerate the arms race in anonymity, routing diversity, and peer-to-peer exchange. The chimera will grow new heads and longer tentacles, but each extension risks overreach, provoking innovation in resistance. 2. Fragmented Sovereign Responses Not all states will move in lockstep. Authoritarian and centralized regimes will seek tight integration between state apparatus and sovereign-dependent firms to choke off parasovereign channels. Liberal democracies may oscillate between accommodation and restriction, creating safe havens and hostile zones. The net result will be a patchwork legal geography—forcing individuals and organizations to navigate jurisdictional arbitrage with increasing sophistication. 3. Institutional Lag and Policy Blind Spots Because engineered parasovereign orders operate “below the horizon” of conventional political and economic monitoring, the chimera will be slow to perceive their systemic impacts. Early policy moves may focus on symptomatic issues—fraud, tax evasion, illicit content—while missing deeper shifts in monetary sovereignty, information control, and social cohesion. This lag will give parasovereign systems time to entrench. 4. Protocol-Layer Leverage over Firms Firms tethered to jurisdictional compliance will increasingly integrate parasovereign protocols indirectly—through layered services, custodial models, or hybrid systems. This will expose them to sovereign pressure at the choke points of onboarding, payments, and identity verification. Those that integrate too deeply will face the risk of being forced into becoming extensions of the chimera’s tentacles. 5. Individual Agency as the Strategic Variable In the long run, the decisive factor may be how quickly and widely individuals can gain operational competence in using parasovereign tools. Protocol literacy—not just adoption—will determine whether these systems remain the domain of niche actors or become part of mainstream economic and social life. Education, UX design, and community resilience will be the critical enablers.

The State as Chimera in the Age of Parasovereign Protocols In the modern strategic environment, the state is best understood as a chimera—part hydra, part octopus. The hydra’s heads represent the multiple apparatuses of sovereign authority—legislative, judicial, regulatory, tax, police, intelligence, and military—each capable of striking independently yet coordinated toward the same end: maintaining the state’s supreme authority over all human action within its territory. The octopus’s tentacles extend through sovereign-dependent intermediaries—banks, ISPs, app stores, cloud providers, corporate platforms—enabling enforcement far beyond the state’s formal institutions. When confronting engineered parasovereign protocols such as Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor, the chimera engages in a perpetual whack-a-mole contest: every node, relay, or instance suppressed reappears elsewhere, often stronger and more resistant. Individuals can slip between the tentacles—adopting pseudonymity, self-hosting, and alternative exchange networks—exercising autonomy within these parasovereign orders. Firms and formal organizations, by contrast, are too anchored in physical jurisdiction, capital structure, and regulatory dependency to evade for long. This asymmetric struggle defines the new geoeconomic and sociopolitical frontier: a distributed, protocol-driven order that is resilient by design facing a sovereign order that is protean in enforcement. The decisive question is not whether the chimera can sever enough heads of resistance, but whether its reach can adapt to a world where individuals, rather than institutions, are the primary actors in emerging domains of money, communication, and exchange.

Just commented on a post by @HoloKat asking if/why new music is bad. My take: 1. Too many cooks spoiling the broth. Some pop hits have 10-12 credits! You can’t produce anything memorable when you’re focused on pleasing ten or twelve people. You get the lowest common denominator. 2. Pop and rock songs from the 60s and into the 80s (90s in some cases) had key changes, wide dynamics, interesting harmonic structure including borrowed chords and other non diatonic elements, tempo changes, and interesting lyrics. All this led to more interesting melodies and emotional content. 3. Most of the classic rock musicians grew up in households hearing jazz and classical music. They knew the Great American Songbook and could play many of the tunes. 4. Heavy jazz, blues, folk, and classical influences.

To all the admirers of dictatorship and authoritarian regimes, haven’t you noticed that Bitcoin, Nostr and other freedom technologies are the product of freedom and democracy, leveraged by efficient and effective private capital markets and free enterprise. Just saying.

Democracy isn’t perfect, but, as Churchill said, it’s the least bad form of government. Ludwig von Mises clearly articulated the key advantage of liberalism and democracy. They enable the orderly change of government and a peaceful transfer of power within the rule of law. Most Bitcoin maxis are engineers and entrepreneur. They hold caricatured understanding of politics and economics.

Just watched the first 15 minutes of the latest BTC Sessions video on YouTube, featuring Alex Svetski, Seb Bunney and Francis Pouliot. They are all in favour of authoritarian rule. They think democracy is the worst form of government. Really? Have these guys read any history at all? The lesson of history is that authoritarian regimes end up oppressing their populations and starting wars.

The signature in Nostr and Bitcoin is a parasovereign act of individual autonomy, made legible to the protocol. It is the moment when intention becomes action, not through appeal to any state, institution, or platform, but by direct expression through cryptographic proof. The protocol accepts or rejects only the technical validity of the act, not the identity or legitimacy of the actor. This is what makes the system both trustless and radically free.

As humans we NEED to express ourselves, even if no one is listening. 📣

Nostr is not a truth machine. It is a topology for symbolic freedom. It does not promise accuracy. It does not require consensus. It does not resolve contradiction. It simply creates the possibility of utterance without prior permission, and leaves filtering, trust, and interpretation up to relays, clients, and individuals.

Nostr enacts the freedom to speak, not the requirement to be right. It is not a system of judgment. It is a field of utterance.

Is someone working on an app to generate our own algorithms, a kind of algostr? #asknostr

The Bitcoin blockchain is not a ledger of account balances—it is a journal of irreversible acts. Each block appends a cryptographically sealed set of digital transactions, capturing not who holds what, but what has been done. Balances are derived, but the essence of Bitcoin is in the recording of intentional acts—secured, sequenced, and preserved without a sovereign overseer.