Elon is correct in the ent in his Tweet. Brazilians are under no obligation to obey foreign laws, just as Americans are not obligated to obey foreign laws. Andrew Torba is way ahead of Elon in this. Elon is also at liberty to publish secret documents about Brazilian government corruption; that is his right. Is Elon about to become the next Julian Assange? I doubt it. Having said all of this, Elon doesn't seem to be able to make the connection between government censorship and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is "Censorship Resistant Money". If you look at Bitcoin through this lens, it is obvious that adding Bitcoin to X would have been a genius move. Not only would Bitcoin solve the problem of Starlink having its accounts frozen but would have many beneficial effects on a global scale. The ability of any government anywhere to sanction or block payments to and from X and Starlink users would be eliminated. Overnight, X would become the most important (and largest) financial institution the world has ever seen, and it would be a tremendous force for good. The billions of unbanked people would suddenly be able to save, send and spend money; an unprecedented event with multiple order effects that no one can fully grasp. In the long and short term, Bitcoin is good for Elon and good for everyone on Earth who believes in Democracy. Why then, does Elon shun this manifestly obvious checkmate move? Andrew Torba of Gab has partially embraced Bitcoin. Jack Dorsey has gone 100% Bitcoin with Bitkey. David Marcus has gone 100% Bitcoin. How is it that Elon cannot see this? How is it that he thinks Bitcoin is a joke? Your guess is as good as mine.

X (formerly Twitter)

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X

We willl begin publishing the long list of @Alexandre’s crimes, along with the specific Brazilian laws that he broke tomorrow. Obviously, he do...

Look at the "crimes" Durov is charged with. Providing cryptology tools not solely for ensuring authentication without prior declaration (a license) Complicity in... Complicity inWeb-mastering an online platform Complicity in Carrying messages for others. Criminal association and conspiracy to commit crimes. These charges capture every platform imaginable, fron Gmail, to every Apple device and service, all of which are end-to-end encrypted. These charges are completely insane, and every CEO of every web based tool is guilty of them, because encryption is ubiquitous. As I said

X (formerly Twitter)

Beautyon (@Beautyon_) on X

CEOs of the world should be very concerned with the arrest of Pavel Durov. If Durov can be snatched off of his private jet, all CEOs are at risk o...

every CEO of a software company is threatened by this, and they should ALL immediately call for the unconditional dropping of the charges and release of Durov in 24hrs or face an immediate blockade of France. Literally ANY CEO CAN BE THREATENED IN THE EU. https://x.com/tom_dobbels/status/1828127518429454744

CEOs of the world should be very concerned with the arrest of Pavel Durov. If Durov can be snatched off of his private jet, all CEOs are at risk of arbitrary arrest when they travel. It should be clear, even to the democracy loving sycophant CEOs, that the current situation is intolerable, and that something must be done. There isn't a precise, universally agreed-upon number of CEOs worldwide, as this can vary based on how "CEO" is defined and the types of organizations considered (public companies, private companies, non-profits, etc.). However, some estimates can be made based on the number of businesses globally. According to the World Bank and other sources, there are over 300 million companies globally. While not all of these companies will have a traditional CEO (especially very small businesses), it gives a rough idea of the scale. Many medium to large enterprises will have a CEO or equivalent position. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate that there are tens of millions of individuals holding the title of CEO or an equivalent leadership role across the world. The exact number would be difficult to pinpoint due to the wide variety of organizations and titles used in different regions and industries. The arrest of Pavel Durov is a direct threat to every CEO on earth. It is obvious that there are more CEOs than there are government ministers, and since these CEOs control all industries on earth, they have the actual power, not the State. It is clear that a world-wide strike and withholding of services from all governments as a warning to stop the rise of totalitarianism is the minimum that should be launched in response to the arrest of Pavel Durov. Perhaps if this is done once, what I propose next may not be needed. Governments can do nothing without the CEOs facilitating their measures. The ID Cards, websites and every other service the State provides are actually done by companies under contract, each with CEOs, not by governments themselves. If all CEOs decide as one that enough is enough, it’s over for the totalitarians, because they can’t even make a phone call without a CEO facilitating it. A new "Chief Executives Alliance for Global Equity and Stability" (CEASE) made up of the CEOs of the world should, as its first act, work to outlaw arbitrary arrest of any citizen, so that another Durov outrage cannot happen. CEASE will have no legislative power, but that doesn’t matter; what matters is that they can withhold services to entire nations to ensure democratically elected leaders do not violate the rights of citizens, starting with CEOs. Does this sound like WEF 2.0? Sadly, it does, but CEASE, working in the open to protect the rights of people would be quite different to the sinister and secretive WEF. Its aims are explicitly for freedom; freedom of speech, freedom to travel legally without fear of arbitrary arrest, and the freedom to trade with others in goods and services on the basis of voluntarism. Julian Assange would not have suffered as he did had CEASE existed when he leaked the secret criminal shenanigans of the State. CEASE, having no legislative power, has only one means of action at its disposal; withdrawal of services. This might not seem like much, but it is in fact an extremely powerful sanction. Imagine if the CEOs of Facebook, X, Google and Apple all decided to go dark until Durov is released. Billions of people would be affected. No government on earth has ever had that much power. Arresting a CEO for running their business where people can speak freely could never result in an arrest in a world where CEASE existed. The price to the State would be too high; and of course, in this case, it would be France that is shut down and crippled as the very fabric of their modern world is rug pulled from under them. They would rightly calculate that it’s just not worth it. Arresting a CEO would only be done when it is actually justified like cases of; murder, theft, and other such crimes where there is a clear victim. Obviously this is a sketch outline of a very big idea, and if the part of your brain that powers your imagination is working and exercised, it should make you go, “hmmmmmmm!”. One thing is for sure; sitting by watching people be hauled off to the camps should not be tolerable for anyone, CEO or not. And lest you believe that something like this would end up creating a “Rollerball” style dystopia, remember, the consumer is more powerful as a constituency than all the CEOs and their companies combined. Ask Harley Davidson, or the owners of Bud Light, Ratner’s, and others… 1. Lehman Brothers (financial crisis and public backlash) 2. Barings Bank (collapsed after a rogue trader scandal, followed by public loss of confidence) 3. Ratners Group (renamed to Signet Group after the CEO's derogatory comments about its products led to a massive boycott) 4. Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) (decline due to a combination of factors including boycotts after the Lockerbie bombing) 5. Arthur Andersen (collapsed after the Enron scandal, leading to a boycott and loss of clients) One of the problems this idea faces that immediately comes to mind is the diversity of CEOs. Some of them are not liberty minded. This is where boycotts by the public may help exert some measure of balance. Either way, Durov being arrested is unacceptable, intolerable and unjustifiable, and unless you want to have your own “oh how we burned in the camps”moment, you had better consider this idea very carefully.

The founder of Telegram has been kidnapped. Why don't they (the EU States) in this case, arrest the CEO of Apple and Samsung or Google, for people using browsers and phones in the commission of crimes? Or ISPs or anyone else transmitting data? No one can answer this, because Ambulance Chasers are Computer Illiterates. This question touches Bitcoin of course, and will have profound effects if the people who make these bad decisions are not re-educated and their ignorance neutralized. The CEOs of Bitcoin companies must assert the truth of how things work at all times to defend not only their businesses but their hundreds of millions of users.

The great and the good are waking up. I’ve had it admitted to me today in private that, “The Laser Eye movement is a dead end.” This is significant. It has always been true that the death of the Bitcoin Cult was inevitable. The Cult was like a, “Universal Basic Income of software”; unsustainable, uneconomic, irrational, hyperbolic and infantile. This doesn’t mean that Bitcoin is dead, obviously; the contrary is the case. Bitcoin is about to experience a multi front boom of the kind very few people have the capacity to conceive of. Wallet download numbers are going to explode. Ubiquitous non Exchange retail Bitcoin delivery is about to appear. The “Consumer Bitcoin” era is upon you. It’s going to be…EMOTIONAL.

An entire generation of potentially capable people have been brainwashed into accepting feelings as a substitute for substance. These people can’t solve problems and are “Great Masturbators”, that can’t solve problems, interact with consumers or measure their own performance. These people are breaking off into a parallel society where people don’t measure their the value of their workers or themselves.

Complaining about something is not the same as doing something about something.

Open source and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) have roots going back several decades, although the concepts evolved over time. Here's a brief timeline of their development: 1. Early Foundations (1950s-1970s): - In the early days of computing, during the 1950s and 1960s, software was often shared freely among researchers and developers. Software came bundled with hardware, and source code was openly distributed. - The sharing of software was common in academic and research settings, particularly within the ARPANET community (the precursor to the internet). - In 1969, the creation of UNIX at AT&T's Bell Labs became significant because, although initially proprietary, its widespread academic use led to the development of a collaborative culture in software development. 2. GNU Project and Free Software Foundation (1983-1985): - In 1983, Richard Stallman announced the GNU Project, aiming to create a free Unix-like operating system. This project laid the foundation for the Free Software Movement. - In 1985, Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to support the movement and promote the idea that software should be free to use, modify, and distribute. 3. The Term "Open Source" (1998): - Although the practices of open sharing and collaboration were already in place, the term "open source" was coined in 1998 by Christine Peterson as part of an effort to rebrand free software to make it more appealing to businesses. - The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded the same year by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond to promote the use of the term "open source" and to certify open-source licenses. 4. Rise of Popular Open Source Projects (Late 1990s-Present): - Throughout the late 1990s and into the 2000s, major open-source projects like Linux, Apache HTTP Server, and Mozilla gained traction, showcasing the success of the open-source model. - The development of platforms like GitHub (founded in 2008) further accelerated the open-source movement by providing a collaborative environment for developers to share and contribute to projects. In summary: - The principles underlying open source and FOSS have existed since the early days of computing in the 1950s and 1960s. - The formalization of the Free Software Movement began with the GNU Project in 1983. - The term "open source" was coined in 1998 to promote and standardize the practices of collaborative software development. So, open source and FOSS have been in existence, in various forms, for around 70 years, with more formalized movements and terms emerging in the last 40 years. For 40 years FOSS people have not cared about design; in fact, they’ve been openly hostile to it. Desktop system authors used to refuse to produce screenshots for users, insisting that they compile and run the code if they want to see anything running. That’s the mentality you’re dealing with. And simply calling for something won’t make it happen; this is the magical thinking rife in communities who don’t know how to solve problems or deal with real people. And when the scant few try to work with designers and get quotes for work, they scoff at the cost, saying “anyone could do this”. They’re pig ignorant, philistines, stubborn and un cultured. They will never win!

Today, the artist with the most intelligent thing to say about ChatGPT is Mark E. Smith.

FOSS stands for **Free and Open Source Software**. It refers to software that is both free to use (as in freedom) and whose source code is openly available for anyone to inspect, modify, and distribute. Here’s what each term means: 1. Free Software: - "Free" in this context refers to freedom, not necessarily price. Free software grants users the freedom to run, modify, and share the software. The key principles of free software are often summarized by the Four Freedoms: - Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. - Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works and change it to make it do what you wish (access to the source code is a precondition for this). - Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. - Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this, you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. 2. Open Source Software: - Open source software is similar to free software, but the focus is more on the collaborative benefits of making the source code available. The term "open source" emphasizes that the source code is open and accessible to anyone. Users can modify the software and distribute their modified versions. - Open source projects often involve collaboration among developers from all over the world, contributing to the software's development, bug fixes, and new features. Examples of FOSS: - Linux: An open-source operating system kernel that is the basis for many operating systems (e.g., Ubuntu, Debian). - Apache: An open-source web server software. - Firefox: A free and open-source web browser. - LibreOffice: A free and open-source office suite. - GIMP: A free and open-source image editor. Benefits of FOSS: - Transparency: Anyone can inspect the source code to verify what the software does. - Control: Users have control over the software and can modify it to suit their needs. - Community b: FOSS projects often have large communities that contribute to and support the software. - Cost: Most FOSS is available at no cost, making it accessible to a broader audience. FOSS plays a crucial role in the software ecosystem, empowering users and developers to create, share, and improve software freely. For founders, CTOs, and developers of Bitcoin companies however, whether your code is FOSS, or not has nothing to do with asking for your users trust. Your code being free is irrelevant, and being a Bitcoin company has nothing to do with the license your software runs under. The vast majority of users who run FOSS never read the licenses or Source Code of the tools they use; they are normal people who simply want to get things done. Gimp, Apache, Linux, Firefox are all fine tools that the license they're offered under has no bearing on the user's experience. People use Gimp because they could not afford Photoshop, not because the source code was available. Today, they run it because Photoshop has not been ported to any GNU+Linux operating system with the Gnome interface. If Adobe ported Photoshop to Ubuntu, everyone would abandon Gimp for PS overnight. ColdCard is secure not because people can copy the code; it is secure because it is properly and carefully written. The license code is written under cannot affect the execution or quality of software. This is the fundamental mistake Open Source fanatics make; they think virtue signaling to people who can't write "Hello World" in PHP matters; PROTIP, it DOESN'T MATTER and NO ONE CARES. Open Source can kill companies. If you release your source code, you are inviting people to copy your ideas and compete with you, with no advantage to yourself. The license you use to release your source doesn't matter either when it comes to the business risk; people can read your source and then re-implement it without using your code, and then BANG you've got a clone of your service trying to knock you out of the market. If the people who are cloning you are better funded, more clever, able to look people in the eye when being spoken to, and are affable, then you've got a real problem. And where are all the Bitcoin Cult checklist ticking followers when your magic dust is being "stolen" or "Ripped Off"? They will be nowhere...or buying the tools and service of your competitor because you believed some cult gibberish about MUH OPEN SAUCE. Sharing source code and licenses that compel disclosure are useful things in narrow circumstances, like tools that underpin everything; SSL, GPG, HTTPS, POP3, SMPTE, C, C++, Linux, Bitcoin and so many other tools used to build tools or build businesses. The number of developers working on these tools is astonishing and everyone benefits. This is beyond argument. But. Just because other Open Source tools have big developer bases, it does not follow that every tool must be open source, and that the act of disclosing your source code under the GPL will attract an army of developers commiting changes. You will have seen this with projects breathlessly announced at conferences that failed to attract developers to do the work for free to build them, the assumption being that developers are a magic and infinite resource with infinite time to work for free on an infinite amount of projects, the sole method of recruiting them being to chant "ACK" after posting your just about running source sketches on GitLab. This is the fact that is left out when cheerleaders for Open Source make irrational claims about Open Source being the foundation of user trust. They're not seeing the big picture, are fatally unrealistic and in fact, don't see the picture at all. It's a safe bet that they are not using Ubuntu, Mint or any GNU+Linux operating system for their daily work either, but are in fact hypocrites using *CHOKE* MiCro$oft Winblows and Micro$oft Visual Studio Code or MacOS as their development platform. They will never tell you this of course, while they type out their pro Open Source screeds on Google Chrome or M$ Word. We all know this. In the final (and financial) analysis, all the virtue signalling in the world will not make people use your tool. Only a small number of fanatics care about the license your work is released under, and those people will not move the needle when it comes to changing the world, and the ones that will change the world will copy your weak sauce and turn it into hot sauce. Bitcoin changing the world does not require Open Sourced tools; it requires what google did with Chrome; blasting the competition (Internet Exploder) to smithereens with a browser that beat every other browser by being better for the consumer. Failing to understand this is in 2024 a fundamental error. Thankfully, there are serious people coming to Bitcoin who do not care about any of this, and who are focussed on doing a narrow range of things right. Google's Chrome is focussed on browsing the internet securely and quickly in a standards based way, providing password management and a few other things along the way. A very small number of things. They're not interested in the latest fad, and do not have a model where they keep adding new services to their offering to be cool and hip; they do one thing and do it right. Bitcoin companies are coming that do one thing and do it right. They are extremely focussed (not laser focussed) and they know that bitcoin is for other people, not for developers. By understanding this, they will be the people who change everything. And again when it comes to the license your tool is released under, as far as the public is concerned... IT DOESN'T MATTER and NO ONE CARES.

It’s hangman time. Winner gets an ZAP from ME. You get one clue, “NOT SINGULAR”. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This contest lasts 24 hours. The judges decision is final! REPLY WITH YOUR GUESS RITE NAO. ↴

Crypto Doublethink is widespread. On the one hand, people say that USD backed by Bitcoin, "can't work", but out of the other side of their mouths they uncritically support Tether. This is 100% irrational Crypto Doublethink. Stablesats Think accepts the premise, inevitability and legitimacy of fiat as its starting point; that the measure used to value Bitcoin is and should be fiat. This is clearly wrong, and anti-Bitcoin. If it were not the case that fiat is the ruler used to measure the value of fiat, no one would think "Stablesats" were required, because Sats are Money. Fiatistas never accepted and still do not accept the fundamental thinking behind the creation of Bitcoin. They are US American Dollar addicted delusionalistas and fiatistas. And you must remember; none of the people advocating Stablesats are actual Bitcoiners; they came to the ideas that underpin Bitcoin after it was released, not before. They are not philosophically aligned with the ideas that were the spur to create Bitcoin (many of them are die hard collectivists and Socialists), and so of course, they are predisposed to accepting lies as the truth, like measuring value in US Dollars. Thankfully, Bitcoin does not and cannot care about any of this, and the true Bitcoin entrepreneurs building Bitcoin companies on its sound foundation are the ones that are changing the world, not people at the periphery promoting the US Dollar, wrapped dollars, Stablecoins and other junk, who scream about other dollarization ideas, "Not that way, but the way I want them!" https://medium.com/@beautyon_/bitcoin-is-the-c-of-money-dce63ce8e37a

If people who ran the platforms in the west did what they knew was right there would be no problem. The actual problem is the people who own platforms do what is wrong, even when they know it is wrong. “Multipolarity” will not solve the problem of western men who shy away from boldness or taking direct correct decisions for their users and companies. Asking for other people to do the job you should be doing is the same as pushing the problem into the technical sphere through “decentralisation”; it’s failing to live up to your responsibilities. Leaders of properly run companies are exactly that; LEADERS. They don’t do things by consensus, or defer to every opinion or allow themselves to be distracted or diverted. They have strict hierarchy where the CEO has final, absolute say on everything important. And history shows this is correct, from Trump, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, to Steve Jobs; companies led by LEADERS succeed in serving the public through strength. And this is all about serving the public. If you fail to do that, you’ve failed. Thankfully in Free Market Capitalism, Natural Law is the rule, not theory: LAW. And make no mistake; all cultures at every scale are not equal. Some work better than others. Failing to accept this is suicidal. But “You do you”!

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect encapsulation of....something. Nostr is actually about what people think they represent; "Freedom, self sovereignty, Bitcoin". It doesn't have to solve a real problem; all it has to do is make people feel good about themselves, so that they can, "identify" with it. Meanwhile, in the real world that they're hiding from, access to Bitcoin is being made harder and harder by the EU (

Regulation - 2023/1114 - EN - EUR-Lex

while they Virtue Signal and spray around tiny amounts of "Sats", the origin of which is never accounted for. Nostr is an easy place to be and hide; you don't have to take responsibility for what you're doing (or failing to do) in the real world, and you can openly Virtue Signal in several areas simultaneously. It's crack for Virtue Signallers. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the idea behind Nostr, which is just software. This is a "people problem", a problem of the character of some users, and obviously, this brush cannot be used to paint all Nostr users. It's endlessly fascinating!

3. Is bitcoin safe? Yes, bitcoin is safe if you take care.

Is bitcoin a good investment? Should you invest? Is it safe?

Is bitcoin a good investment? Should you invest? Is it safe?

This guide will help you to understand if you should invest in bitcoin, how much you should invest, and whether it’s safe.

In the end, if Bitcoin is the money everyone is using, the State will have to start accepting it for the payment of taxes. This will have many advantages for the state, as they can "Micro Tax" activities; something that is beyond the ability of the Geriatrics to conceive. There will be an interim stage however, where the State demands that you pay it in its money, meaning you have to convert Bitcoin to fraudulent fiat. They will see, as they need to change the exchange rate twice per day, that the situation is untenable, and this will spur them on to switching to Bitcoin. Bear in mind that once they have collected their own money as taxes, no one in the real economy will accept their money for goods and services, requiring them to buy Bitcoin just to pay salaries and live. There is another scenario however, that indicates that the life of coerced money forms can persist indefinetly if properly managed: THE TALLY STICK. The Tally Stick was literally a piece of wood sawed along its length with a random zig zag that the British Crown would accept as a payment method for settling tax bills. The power to enforce payment methods backed by violence is how this worked so well: It's hard to describe the great depth of genius behind the concept of the Tally Stick. By doing this, the crown managed to create money out of nothing, and build a sound economy on it, whilst remaining at its centre as the essential manager. Bitcoin with its jagged edged keys made of text is very much like a Tally Stick, but without an issuer or the need for saws or supervision. All of this is missed by the vast majority of Bitcoiners because they're ignorant. Nevertheless, it is possible to build different kinds of economies on Bitcoin, and if used by the replacement central banks, can be the fundamental base layer like the Tally Stick. FASCINATING!