Man, I like Jeff Booth, but sometimes the statements he makes are wild: - "They can't kill Bitcoin because when they attack it, it just keeps getting stronger, so they'll try to co-opt it." - "As long as Bitcoin stays decentralized and secure ... then XYZ" Jeff is not like the other mainstream Bitcoin salesmen, in my opinion, he gives off good guy energy. He's actually the guy who "orange-pilled" me and I've made lots of fiat on my Bitcoin trades. He'd probably say that if I think in fiat terms, I don't understand Bitcoin, but I think that in order to really understand Bitcoin, you also have to understand how the world works. If you don't understand how the world works, your attempts at Game Theory are worse than useless. The people who focus only on understanding how the protocol works are too zoomed in to see the bigger picture. The idealistic, protocol-centric scenario is unrealistic under a One World Government this tyrannical. So I listened to a recent Jeff Booth podcast to see if he's updated his view on certain things, but he hasn't. It's easy to tell because all of his podcasts are really just the same 1st principles presentation. Going back to this quote: - "As long as Bitcoin stays decentralized and secure ... then XYZ" This of course assumes that Bitcoin is decentralized and secure. I guess we'll have to ignore: - 6-7 mining pools being close to 90% of the hash, - Bitcoin Core being 80+% of the nodes, - most retail users interacting through mobile wallets or browser extensions controlled by Apple and Google, - increasingly more draconian on/off-ramp custody and surveillance, - paperization practically destroying the 21M meme, - crazy tax and regulatory frictions on payments, - crazy Lightning Network centralization and regulation, - significant portion of the reachable nodes being hosted on major cloud providers, - centralized ASIC production, - centralized out-of-the-box, noob-friendly hardware wallet production, - etc. Going back to this quote: - "They can't kill Bitcoin because when they attack it, it just keeps getting stronger, so they'll try to co-opt it." Let's assume that they can kill Bitcoin for a second. Why in the world would they want to kill Bitcoin? For 99% of cases, they'd rather you use Bitcoin than gold/silver, Monero or cash. Unless you're moving tens/hundreds of millions of non-KYC Bitcoin to sponsor groups the Controllers don't like, they'd much rather you used Bitcoin than gold or cash. As I've previously written, it is very likely Bitcoin was actually created by the government, so it makes very little sense for them to kill it in the current environment (with more adversarial alternatives available). image Can we at least stop pretending that Bitcoin in its current state is anti-establishment technology that makes our Jewish central bankers want to shut it down? That's just cringe. For most Bitcoiners, the "have they co-opted Bitcoin test" is: "Is there a new block every ~10 minutes? (tick-tock, next-block?)" - If yes, Bitcoin = not co-opted - If no, Bitcoin = co-opted Of course, this is a gross oversimplification - it focuses only on the protocol, while ignoring the policy and perimeter layers. It's like saying: "If human breathing:" - then human = healthy - otherwise human = unhealthy On this part: - "They can't kill Bitcoin because when they attack it, it just keeps getting stronger" My best attempt at pointing out where Bitcoin is stronger compared to 5-10 years ago: - more people know about it (is good and bad), - more hashrate (although insanely centralized, so doesn't mean much), - higher fiat price (greater incentive to defend BTC), - more people running nodes (although ordinary user nodes are at the bottom of the food-chain), - more client decentralization (although Core still at 80%+). So, a more honest Bitcoin pitch: - Hey, we've got this thing that: - might go up in fiat terms, - is very easy and convenient to transport across borders, - might protect you against the Great Taking if self-custodied properly, - is very CIA/MO$$AD, MI6-aligned, so they've got no incentive to kill it. Think of it as a stock of a blue-chip company, but a stock you can self-custody. So, essentially similar to a paper stock certificate of a Blue-Chip company that is Controllers-aligned (e.g. NVDA, MSFT, GOOG, AAPL, AMZN, etc.). This is the honest pumper Bitcoin pitch. Not - "We are about to separate money and state (... after we get permission from the state), and the Jewish bankers are pissing their pants." View quoted note →

Replies (19)

,👀👀 Well, maybe. Thoughts on freedom monies. Maybe Bitcoin is not the all in one package for freedom money as it has been pitched. That doesn't mean it can't be used to make you more free. Depends on your definition and goals. Fiat currency can be freedom money, depends on your definition and goals. It's all tools. But freedom is created by you, not outside forces. Use tools to your advantage and work with your mental capacity for acknowledge what freedom is and how other factors might not play a part in how you are conducting yourself. The easy part.is black pilling yourself. Build your own cage. That's not necessary. IMO View quoted note →
Your screenshot basically states: propaganda exists and is bad, and Bitcoin mining is not centralized. I have written about mining centralization here: - Your article lost me at "Transactions have never been censored". Mining pools such as MARA and F2Pool have already done “OFAC-compliant“ Bitcoin mining (transaction censorship). It's quite simple: - Bitcoin's mining "decentralization" lives or dies at the template layer, not at hashrate. - As long as pools (not miners) pick transactions, the State can steer settlement via perimeter levers (power, banks, insurers, export controls, app-store rules, cloud/mempool policy). At present, a regulator only needs to influence a few pool operators, not thousands of ASIC owners. Does this sound decentralized or centralized. I guess, your theory is that if censorship becomes too draconian, more mining pools will be formed and we'll have, say, 15 pools instead of 6-7 which would be more decentralized. In theory, 15 pools would be more difficult to influence than 6-7, but would you rather have template control in the hands of thousands of ASIC owners (e.g. OCEAN-model pools), or 15 StratumV1 pools. If it were that simple and miners were rational, not-state-controlled actors, you'd have way more than 2% of the hashrate using the OCEAN model. The theory "if it gets bad, all participants will act in the best interest of the network because they are rational and incentivized to do so" already failed once a few weeks ago. It is great theory if you want a false sense of security though.
Thanks for the reply, I'd like to state this is not my theory, but I thought it valuable to link this article since I was myself quite surprised to find out that someone out there thought mining centralization is not a valuable concept.
I think this resonates with reality. 'Not great, not terrible' in a kind. Depening on the view point as always. Terrible for separating money from state. With spam it becomes terrible long term electronic cash. But not terrible as a hedge (because also the bad guys use it as such). Sadly, up until recently I was thinking its more on the great side. I had a hope that Chinese and US miners will be more of competition / rivals even assuming national level influence. More sovereign lets say. Though thats not the case. What are your thoughts on 98% of miners (US, China, the rest) acting as one?
On the embedded note about Gold I mostly disagree. Gold has worse auditability, verifiability than Bitcoin. Gold price (which is the influence of the money) can and was counteracted with paper-gold and buy/sell schemes. Gold can be counteracted with strong taxation and severe laws against using it. The same they do now with cash. In comparison to CBDC, Gold and cash are much much better but I still think they both are worse than Bitcoin which also failed.
> "What are your thoughts on 98% of miners (US, China, the rest) acting as one?" I think China and the US are controlled by the same actors, and we live under something very close to a One World Government. I've covered this here: - I've written about the mining issue here: - TL;DR from article Mining pools such as MARA (USA) and F2Pool (China) have already done “OFAC-compliant“ Bitcoin mining (transaction censorship). MARA (previously Marathon Digital Holdings) became the first North American Enterprise Miner to produce fully AML and OFAC-compliant Bitcoin. Marathon abandoned the experiment within weeks amid industry backlash and to align with Bitcoin Core 0.21.1/Taproot signaling, saying they would validate like everyone else (no censorship). A developer called 0xB10C caught F2Pool filtering transactions and their co-founder Chun Wang acknowledged: - "Will disable the tx filtering patch for now, until the community reaches a more comprehensive consensus on this topic." Chun Wang previously wrote (in a now deleted post): - "Why do you feel surprised when I refuse to confirm transactions for those criminals, dictators and terrorists? I have every right not to confirm any transactions from Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, don’t I? Meanwhile, CZ is selling his soul for money. He deserves." So both MARA and F2Pool have deliberately filtered OFAC-sanctioned transactions despite them having competitive fee related to all other added transactions. Analyses of the first MARA “clean” block (height 682,170) focused on lower fees and excluded transactions. BitMEX Research noted the block contained ~0.0033 BTC less in fees than a normal maximized template would have, implying foregone revenue. So these mining pools decided to lose fee revenue, trashed their reputation and eventually reverted to standard, non-censoring validation. MARA is an American company while F2Pool is based in China, but somehow they’ve both done OFAC transaction censorship. I’ve already explained how this coordination works in a separate article. The rivalry between China and the US is mostly theater, and that is one of the main reasons mining centralization is such a big problem for Bitcoin. --- After Covid (the great One World Government reveal), you'd have to be delusional to think that large mining pools are not state-controlled and that "competing" states are not incentive-aligned. The governments of the US and China want the same thing - more control over the plebs, more obedience. The real battle is citizens vs the State, not State vs State. Every state protects force + money issuance. At all costs. Fiat/CBDC is the control layer, not a policy choice. The only reason Bitcoin mining looks decentralized to the average pleb is because it is allowed to look decentralized (for now). I wrote more about Bitcoin mining centralization here: View quoted note →
at the end of the day on a meta level reality is just what we think/perceive it is that's where Jeff lives this is not woo woo this is what visionaries do they envision a different world and if enough go along and buy in a different world we're in that's why mo$$ad want you to believe that they own you so don't bother doing anything and if you buy into that, they are correct that is why the "controllers" of the world tell us what they are doing because without that we wouldn't buy in because we wouldn't know what to buy into we would buy in into our own vision of the world instead narrative is everything
Thanks. I will read the linked articles. I guess the "rivalry between China and the US is mostly theater" makes sense. Its true Covid came from Chinese lab where US was involved with funding and scientists. My thinking was that if the rivalry was true they would act differently. States hate Bitcoin because they hate anything that wants to separate their money from them but theoretically states would hate their rivals too. If China and Russia want to decrease the influence of the dollar, Bitcoin is the perfect tool. Yes, US will censor Putin's transactions but Russia (and China) will put them in their blocks and they will go through ... But it seems the big playes don't want to use that tool or have agreed to keep it under control.
This makes a lot of sense to me and hits hard. "The governments of the US and China want the same thing - more control over the plebs, more obedience. The real battle is citizens vs the State, not State vs State. Every state protects force + money issuance. At all costs. Fiat/CBDC is the control layer, not a policy choice."
there is one big difference between the two. usa (like it inherited from the british empire) is a maritime empire, it spreads across the world creating garrisons and outposts, de-facto soft-conquering creating puppets (eg israel, ukraine) whereas china has expanded to its limits already, and doesn't spread its military around, it just sends out its merchants to do business. russia is another thing again, their thing is resources and for which reason they hold siberia, where the vast majority are. almost all of the former USSR states are major producers of one or more important resources. russia and china quietly agree to not take mongolia but russia controls most of the mining there. similarly, kazakhstan is full of current and old and dirty mines of all sorts, being a big desert, lots of military experiment grounds too, a famous one with anthrax. so, they are kinda different. neither russia nor china tend to create vassals, probably you could say russia does the puppet thing and south america has a lot of that. china not so much interferes with politics. yes they are empires, all of them, and their business is extracting wealth and concentrating it for the ruling class but europe (ie, spain, portugal, france, netherlands, denmark, germany) is a maritime empire and they all have colonies where they puppet governments and extract, especially africa and south america, they are allied with uk, also maritime, and usa, also maritime. as a trio, when you include all the commonwealth, australia, canada, new zealand, much of the pacific islands, papua new guinea, phillipines, are all unified on methods, and are all maritime powers. so, yeah, the methods of the 3 maritime powers is different from the two landlocked ones. really you can also split out turkey and iran and pretty much, serbia is a stubborn little shit in the middle of europe that refuses to play vassal and is friends with russia to keep it that way... while also giving lip service to europe for some things so they'll buy all their wheat.
I agree for the most part, with constraints. If a man thinks he's a woman, then is that also reality. As I've stated in this and many other posts ( ), there are better tools for the job (freedom money), so why would we handicap ourselves by using Bitcoin. Bitcoin's design is terrible for this purpose and it was likely created by the government ( ). Blackpilling yourself is not a solution, the solution is giving yourself the best odds to succeed. But if one's whole identity is Bitcoin, I can see why they'd want to make it work, while ignoring better-fitted alternatives.
Skater goy 's avatar
Skater goy 5 days ago
Great thoughts. I appreciate the fresh take. I have to say the intel community stuff is kind of a red herring. Suppose it was created by the CIA. What exactly would that change? IMO not much. Even your statement about them not wanting to kill it cuz they made it isn’t true. There are warring factions all the time. Spend ten mins in DC at a bar or watch Burn After Reading and you will realize how many factions and laughable human clumsy ambition is at play.
If it was created by the government, it was created to serve a specific purpose. It wouldn't change what Bitcoin is, nor does it guarantee that they're never going to want to kill it. I mentioned this more in relation to Bitcoin being marketed as this mythical, anti-establishment technology that governments are so afraid of, which it is clearly not. Jeff Booth presented it as governments trying to kill it because it threatens them so much. I mentioned they are unlikely to kill it because there are more adversarial alternatives available, and it serves as a useful decoy (which is what its likely purpose was). This of course doesn't guarantee that they're never going to want to kill it. Still, Bitcoin has been a massive net positive for the Controllers and a massive net negative for the freedom money movement. I am sure there are many warring factions at the lower levels, doesn't seem like it at the highest levels though.
Default avatar
seeker 5 days ago
There is reality. And there is your perception of reality.
Skater goy 's avatar
Skater goy 3 days ago
“Still, Bitcoin has been a massive net positive for the Controllers and a massive net negative for the freedom money movement.” I dont agree at all. I’d like to give my reasons but I’d like to hear your thoughts unbiased first because I am curious.