winter garten - joy of fresh garden food all-season. 2025 xmas salada was a thing of beauty. it's all about Taste. Like Bitcoin the taste of freedom.

Ever notice gold and silver prices swinging wild? It's like the ultimate wake-up call in a sleepy fiat world—signaling cracks in the system. Reminds me of Taleb: "Antifragility is relative. A boxer might be tough in the ring, but fragile when his girlfriend dumps him." What if markets are the same? Robust on charts, but emotionally... oof. ↓ Flipping through nostr feeds, I'm wondering: Does Bitcoin's volatility build our antifragility—or just lead to "unrequited vol" tears? Gold vol feels like an alert; BTC vol hits different—tests patience, forces low-time-preference thinking. But does it make us stronger, or expose hidden fragilities? What's your take? Has BTC vol ever "dumped" you emotionally? #Antifragile

Hayek provides an interesting connection to Bitcoin's antifragile properties. Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order" provides the economic parallel to operational closure. It is a critical step to connecting this to Bitcoin's self-organizing properties. Read more in my revised Step 3 article. [naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5q9z8wue69uhhqd3hwdck7v3kdd3hz7ntwaerwvn0veaxxcekvcm8wmtpxec8z7trdumhs635d9hrxungv34kvat2wa5rxdn8deckgtn0de5k7m30qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtngv93xccfwdejhwue0qpqxxmr0wdjkgtt5dukkjmnnw3e82cm5d9hkutt0wpjkutt5dukhxarjv4ehxttzd96xxmmfdeej6ctww35kvunpva5kcefdv3jhx6t8dcwq42k4#user-content-fnref-4]

Hayek provides an interesting connection to Bitcoin's antifragile properties. Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order" provides the economic parallel to operational closure. It is a critical step to connecting this to Bitcoin's self-organizing properties. Read more in my revised Step 3 article. naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5q9z8wue69uhhqd3hwdck7v3kdd3hz7ntwaerwvn0veaxxcekvcm8wmtpxec8z7trdumhs635d9hrxungv34kvat2wa5rxdn8deckgtn0de5k7m30qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtngv93xccfwdejhwue0qpqxxmr0wdjkgtt5dukkjmnnw3e82cm5d9hkutt0wpjkutt5dukhxarjv4ehxttzd96xxmmfdeej6ctww35kvunpva5kcefdv3jhx6t8dcwq42k4#user-content-fnref-4

private relay angst.

Bitcoiners thrive on: - objectivism - realism sound money principles rooted in objective scarcity >> (21 million cap) verifiable properties, and permissionless sovereignty Bitcoin network is thriving - there is a synergistic breakout with the emergence of AI applications ---> FSD Tesla cars and swarming drones and self-driving Rovers on mars... Something broke through in 2025. Something else is colliding. McLuhan warned that print's dominance created a "rearview mirror" effect—societies clinging to old forms amid change. I think this "reaview mirror" got broken finally.

What is the true art of Bitcoin? It’s not about building a perfect, fragile gadget that breaks if you touch it wrong. Bitcoin is more like a wild herd of horses — raw, decentralized, impossible to fully domesticate. Look at these mustangs: [... wild horses running free, navigating rough terrain, evading obstacles naturally — pure antifragile resilience] Contrast that with a sleek iPhone: beautifully engineered… but one drop, one bad update, one committee decision, and it’s bricked or redesigned into something else entirely. [Visual contrast: clean, shiny modern iPhone on white background — looks perfect, but clearly man-made and breakable] Wall Street, regulators, institutions — they can try to ride the herd, put saddles on a few horses, even corral parts of it into ETFs. But they can’t turn the whole thing into a domesticated pony farm without killing what makes it Bitcoin: ---> Its unstoppable, leaderless momentum ---> Its ability to route around obstacles instead of being stopped by them ---> Its evolution through pressure, not top-down design The revolutionary magic isn’t in never facing capture attempts. It’s in surviving them — getting stronger, more decentralized, more antifragile every time someone tries to break or control it. That’s the art. That’s why I don’t lose sleep over “hijacking” fears. The herd keeps running. What do you think — horse or iPhone? 🐎⚡

How does Rothbard build his apodictic certainty foundation? He tells us exactly: "My understanding of Ludwig von Mises' notion of the a priori... rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas." — Murray Rothbard, The synchronizing point around Aristotle & Aquinas' emphasis on the common good and human flourishing in community. So what’s the problem? This is where I get stuck. To pull from St. Thomas, literally, is a declaration and definition of law requiring a legislator. Aquinas’ Divine Reason is not the same as Rothbard’s Reason - there is a jump. Is this where I am getting this wrong? Did Rothbard justify the de-theologizing (making it work without requiring belief in God as legislator) sufficiently? St Thomas Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4 ---> Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by one who cares for the community." For Rothbard to cherry-pick the famous "Unjust laws are not laws" from the essence of St Thomas' grounding seems a point worth re-examining. The word cherry-picking " is used because I can not find anything in the original source material from Rothbard that describes the trade-off when you remove God. Aquinas is grounded in “divine reason”, yet Rothbard reduces it to “reason.” Rothbard gains something here, but what, exactly, does he lose? In crisis mode, Rothbard's call for decisive action appears reasonable, but at what cost? The main argument centers on what is sacrificed when urgent action is taken: does Rothbard's gain outweigh what may be lost? But in an era of prosperity? The justification to remove “God” through a "modernization" for individual rights itself becomes problematic when the rational fabric of praxeology is to be independent of conditions, to avoid empirical subjectivism. Is this not the exact point that Bitcoin thinking can strengthen this “Blindspot”? Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 91, Art. 1–2 ---> Natural law as "participation in eternal law." The obvious risk is that boundary-line that Jordan Peterson used to pound the table with - Who decides what is offensive" IMHO, without God, the 'good' becomes subjective; the tyrant can claim his aggression as 'natural' if it serves his ends.

"My understanding of Ludwig von Mises' notion of the a priori... rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas." — Murray Rothbard, "In Defense of 'Extreme Apriorism'" (1957) Does anybody think this is an important pivot point on how we understand Bitcoin?

I think many Bitcoiner's will agree with the Thomas Sowell axiom - there are no solutions - just trade-offs. At the same time embrace the "Bitcoin Fixes it" mantra. What is the reconcilation?

If swapped some Bitcoin to MSTR after litening to the Knowles/Saylor podcast - am I a Bitcoiner?

This is the real deflation that can transform anyone, anywhere at anytime: "The free gift of the knowledge that has cost those in the lead much to achieve enables those who follow to reach the same level at a much smaller cost" - Hayek

Hayek's humility got lost. Or I just can't find the thread?

People react strongly to Austrian Economics—it's a love or hate affair. But why? Those who love Mises' axiom fully embrace that humans act with purpose. The apodictic argument—self-evidently true, derived from premises you can't coherently deny—wraps around them like a warm cozy blanket. Those who hate it are often hypersensitive to dogma. The notion of anything "self-evidently true" triggers the skeptical alert. They hear certainty and assume ideology. I call this the **Dogma vs. Apodictic conflation problem**. Apodictic and dogmatic both convey strong certainty, but they belong to very different philosophical traditions and carry quite different connotations. Dogma asserts: "This IS true—accept it." Apodictic reasoning demonstrates: "Given these premises, this MUST follow—check it yourself." Same surface. Different epistemology. And the conflation poisons the orange pill before it's even offered. --- `@natbrunell`'s recent conversation with `@jeffbooth` surfaced what I'd call the "orange pill problem." Natalie named it directly: "I see a lot of anger, especially from young people, toward capitalism... It's so hard to just help people understand that what they're mad at is the wrong thing." The good stuff is there. But the release valve is buried under layers that feel too heavy to lift—too much tech *or* too much philosophy. There's no middle path. Even Jeff's "the natural state of the free market is deflation" points somewhere real. The intuition isn't wrong. But for someone asking "Which market? Farmers market or global gold market? Whose freedom?"—the phrase slips before it can grip. This isn't a criticism of Jeff. It's a diagnosis of a *translation problem*. --- In a separate conversation with `@efenigson`, Jeff went further. He named Saylor as now talking about Bitcoin as "an asset under an inflationary system." His verdict: "The free market cannot exist in an inflationary system. And these are incompatible." This raises questions worth sitting with: Is MSTR's strategy working at cross-purpose to Bitcoin's mission? Could it be a Trojan horse? Is "Bitcoin-backed credit" the fiat flywheel that ultimately destroys a debt-based money system—or does it perpetuate one? I'm not asserting answers. But notice: we can't even *evaluate* these questions without a framework. What IS Bitcoin's mission? By what criteria would we judge alignment or cross-purpose? This is exactly why the framework matters. --- `@MaxHillebrand`'s new book—*The Praxeology of Privacy*—names the real need: a synthesis of theory and practice. Without solid connection between theory and methods, the tools we build risk working at cross-purpose. The Bitcoin ecosystem has no shortage of tools. What's missing is the framework that shows how they cohere. --- We do have solid nodes to build from. On the financial side, `@prestonpysh` and `@LynAldenContact` have built a track record of dispensing what I'd call Buffett-style wisdom—healthy capital allocation beyond NGU. Included but not limited to: @Stephan Livera , @James Lavish , @Marty Bent , @npub1d3f4...r4xv On the philosophical side, Max's work grounds the technical in praxeological foundations. What's missing is the explicit architecture connecting them. --- I propose we a simple model from Peter Senge: Theory → Methods → Tools - 3 Legged Stool Bitcoin manifests through tools—coordinating economic benefit across domains. Those tools emerge from methods (cryptography, P2P networking, Austrian economics). Those methods derive from theory—applied understanding of how the world works. A coherent framework is just the classic three-legged stool. Remove one leg, you fall. --- Mises explicitly built praxeology on Kantian foundations—specifically Kant's concept of the synthetic a priori. "Humans act" isn't proven by observation. It's a premise you can't coherently deny. Mises takes from Kant his central conceptual and terminological distinctions. So let's use the full model. Kant distinguished three modes of judgment: 1. **Problematic** → merely possible ("It might be that...") 2. **Assertoric** → actually true ("It is the case that...") 3. **Apodictic** → necessarily true ("It must be the case that...") Most Bitcoin discourse operates assertorically. "Bitcoin fixes this." "Fiat is theft." The claims may be correct. But delivered as bare assertions, they invite the very conflation I opened with—apodictic reasoning heard as dogma. To avoid the conflation, drop back to **Problematic**. Investigate rather than assert. Korzybski gave us the axiom: "The map is not the territory." His students—Irving Lee among them—developed a technique that proves devastatingly effective against overgeneralization: **index and date**. When someone says "capitalism doesn't work," you don't argue back. You ask: - Capitalism *when*? - Capitalism *where*? - Capitalism *for whom*? Did capitalism work for the soldier returning from WWII? For the immigrant family where a single carpenter's income bought a house, a car, vacations for five? When highways were built across the country to move goods and people? This isn't asserting "capitalism works." It's opening the space where the overgeneralization breaks under its own weight. They have to think: *which* capitalism? *when* exactly? That's Jeff's move. That's the release valve. More to come.

Applied to Bitcoin: the Austrian focus on "sound money" (content) may miss what McLuhan would see as the more important question — how does the Bitcoin medium restructure perception, organization, identity? But does McLuhan miss the self-organizing principles of praxeology?

--->>> Bitcoin's Energy as Antifragile Condition<---- Bitcoin's hash rate isn't just security. It's the metabolic rate of a dissipative structure. The energy flow maintains the far-from-equilibrium state that makes antifragility possible. Without continuous mining, there's no structure to be antifragile. The energy IS the existence. naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qyfhwumn8ghj7cnfw3ehgctrdvhxzurs9uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsqsrrd3hhxety946x7ttfdeehgun4vd6xjmmw94hhqetw946x7ttnw3ex2umn943xjarrda5kuuedv9h8g6txwfskw6tvv5kkgetnd9nkugwx0kk

Satoshi's vanishing completed the operational closure. No one can instruct Bitcoin—not even its creator. This is why the mystery isn't sad—it's structurally necessary. The disappearance made Bitcoin antifragile. read more in my updated article: STEP 3: Closed to Instruction, Open to Stress: Bitcoin's Antifragile Design

This is what I am trying to do here on nostr: Bring attention to Heinz von Foerster's Ethical Imperative & Praxeology: "Act always so as to increase the number of choices." This promotes freedom, diversity, and possibility—for oneself and others—while avoiding reduction of options (e.g., through coercion or dogma). this work challenges almost all of Bitcoin sacred mantras. not to dismiss them, but to provide a new way to understand them. need help to connect to those who understand the mission. @Max @Jeff Booth @Gigi

the only aluable life lesson I remember from high school - drink beers in the school parking lot and listening to some classics.... Won't Get Fooled Again by The Who (from the album Who's Next, 1971) Written by Pete Townshend We'll be fighting in the streets With our children at our feet And the morals that they worship will be gone And the men who spurred us on Sit in judgment of all wrong They decide and the shotgun sings the song I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again The change, it had to come We knew it all along We were liberated from the fold, that's all And the world looks just the same And history ain't changed 'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again No, no! I'll move myself and my family aside If we happen to be left half alive I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky For I know that the hypnotized never lie Do ya? Yeah! There's nothing in the streets Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now the parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no! Yeeeaaah! Meet the new boss Same as the old boss