You should write a book. I’d buy it.

I have already written a book, but it's mostly about programming. Maybe I will write a book about Bitcoin and share it for free. The book will be called "Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of how the US government is turning Bitcoin into Gold".

From a personal perspective, I can tell you that using BTCMaps and paying with Lightning is becoming easier with adoption, but I recognize that a psychological push is necessary to break the inertia of the majority, and frankly, I don't think that can happen. So I'll try to build my personal community and live within it until BTC is fully controlled.

Best account in Nostr.

Maybe use co-opting instead of hijacking. Bad connotation with Roger Ver’s cope book.

Or disarming/subverting/repurposing/domestication

Yes, exactly. You've described a behavior that strays away from the defaults (introduces friction) and the masses follow the defaults. The masses go to Amazon, Walmart, Costco, not to small Bitcoin hubs. These large retailers will never directly accept Bitcoin payments because that would mean competing with the US government and they are subsidiaries of the government. Also agree that building your personal community is the way. It also works with or without Bitcoin.

The canvas is open to all, but the paint costs sats. (Your words just powered a pixel. )

I keep seeing this statement: "If Bitcoin doesn't survive the State's attack due to Bitcoin Core v30, then it was never going to make it anyway. Everything is good for Bitcoin, else Bitcoin is no good." The answer is a bit nuanced but very important. Governments don't actually want to kill (ban) Bitcoin because it is contrary to their incentives. If the US government had a magic "ban Bitcoin" button, they would not press it. A true ban drives use off-grid (Tor, mesh, cash ramps), destroys visibility, and raises policing costs. Containment via KYC perimeters is cheaper and yields data. However, if the US government had a "disincentivize Bitcoin as a mass MoE, disincentivize Bitcoin node running, and force Mining pools toward template rules", they would press that button. And if they had a pretext (e.g. a mass CSAM spam attack), and the narrative is on their side, then they would instantly press that button. That's called the "Hegelian dialectic" (Problem -> Reaction -> Solution). Governments don't usually come out of the blue with draconian measures, they create a problem first (which is what Bitcoin Core v30 is). If governments decide to disincentivize Bitcoin as a mass MoE, disincentivize Bitcoin node running, and force Mining pools toward template rules, they can do it starting tomorrow. After all, they control the perimiter: - cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), - app stores, - payments (exchanges, banks), - policy. More context: View quoted note → However, they would really like to have the "Problem" part of the "Hegelian dialectic" before acting. Elizabeth Warren (of course it's not her, its the deep State central bankers) already attacked Bitcoin nodes - painting them as unlicensed money transmitters. This happened in December of 2023, but she got a lot of push-back. She argued that Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for unregulated activities, including operating as an unlicensed money transmitter. She argued that without proper oversight, Bitcoin can facilitate illegal activities and evade traditional financial regulations. I am not under the impression that Bitcoin is unaffected by every state attack, however, the optics and narrative around the State's draconian measures are very important - why would you give your enemy more ammunition? Here is the TLDR of what governments actually want: - Merchant MoE suppression, node/platform de-platforming bursts, strict KYC travel-rule, Mining Pool/template control. The worst attack vectors for Bitcoin are: 1) App-store & wallet policy - Even though Google Play and Apple App Store have not banned self-custody wallets yet, you saw what enforcement looks like with Samourai Wallet (they also got criminally charged). That wasn’t “non-KYC equals banned,” but it proves the lever works. - App stores can (a) require KYCed identity linking for crypto wallet apps, (b) remove background sync/relay privileges, or (c) restrict non-custodial key paths under "consumer protection". That would instantly de-index non-KYC wallets for 90%+ of retail, with zero parliamentary debate. 2) Mining Pool/template control - If big pools adopt policy clients (template rules that filter or prioritize transactions) due to insurer requirements, utility interconnect terms, or internal counsel, actual block content becomes politically steerable - without touching Bitcoin consensus. - Marathon already did this in 2021 when they announced “OFAC-compliant” block production (reversed after backlash, but proof that template policy pressure is real). - Same for F2Pool (China) in 2023-2025 when independent monitoring spotted missing OFAC-sanctioned transactions in some F2Pool blocks. - Large U.S./EU miners rely on insured facilities and utility PPAs (Power Purchase agreements). Clauses about "legal compliance" and "risk mitigation" can be interpreted as transaction-screening expectations (especially when governments publish sanctioned lists). You don't need a law; you need an underwriter or grid operator to say "no template screening = no coverage/interconnect". - Counter-force: Stratum V2 job negotiation lets individual miners propose their own templates - reducing pool control - but adoption is partial, and pools can still set acceptance policies. - Insurance/utility/hosting contracts can quietly force pools toward template rules ("we comply with lists"). So I am not under the impression that Bitcoin is invincible, the question is: Why make it more vulnerable? Why gift governments the "Problem" part of the Hegelian dialectic? More context: View quoted note →

I previously wrote about how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption. When managing money, it's very important to understand mass behavior, incentive structures, and why people act against their own long-term interests. Here are the four engines of mass behavior: 1) Incentive gradients (what pays now) - People follow net-effort -> net-reward gradients, not ideals. If the reward is near-term, visible, and certain - while the cost is delayed, abstract, and probabilistic - behavior will skew short-term every time. 2) Defaults & frictions (what's easiest) - Behavior follows lowest-friction paths. Defaults, one-click choices, and pre-checked boxes beat sermons. Tiny frictions shift billions of decisions. 3) Narrative & identity (what feels right) - People protect self-image and in-group membership even when facts conflict (identity-protective cognition). The story that preserves belonging wins over the truth that threatens it. 4) Feedback loops (what reinforces) - Immediate reinforcement (likes, payouts, relief) rewires habit faster than distant outcomes. Why even "smart" people still defect from long-term: - Meta-incentives dominate beliefs. Even smart people first decide what benefits them (status, income, network), then craft rationalizations. - Compartmentalization. Professional intelligence ≠ incentive literacy. People who model markets still miss their own behavioral accounting. - Social risk > factual risk. Getting ostracized today feels worse than being wrong in five years. How to tell if you're acting against your own long-term interest: - If the benefit is now and the cost is later, assume you're under-pricing the cost. - If a choice preserves belonging, assume you're over-weighting identity. - If the platform chose the default, assume it benefits them more than you. - If the metric is public, assume it's being gamed (by you or to you). - If a habit depends on willpower, assume it will fail under stress. How to consistently pick long-term: - Automate the boring: savings, skills, sleep, strength, deep work. - Deliberately add friction to bad paths. - Make identity explicit: tie your reputation to long-term behaviors. People don't "fail" because they don't know; they fail because the environment pays them to fail now and bill them later - in cash, status, and belonging. This is similar to how Bitcoiners are sabotaging themselves by buying Paper Bitcoin with no understanding of the long-term consequences. More context: View quoted note → The antidote isn't stronger opinions; it's stronger defaults and pre-committed rules. Read the incentives; expect the behavior; position ahead of it. The concept of people acting against their own long-term interests becomes very obvious when you start asking: - "If the default were the opposite, what % of people would still end up here?" - If the answer is "probably <30%", the current outcome is default-driven, not preference-driven. View quoted note →

Only partially agree, it will drive more dissident Bitcoin adoption. The normie Bitcoin adoption is ETF/treasury/options market adoption, not MoE adoption. Bitcoin as MoE is competing with stablecoins/CBDCs (governments), and so far governments are clearly winning. Context: View quoted note →

Had to go from 95% net worth invested in Bitcoin -> 15% about 2 weeks ago. A lot of the confidence I had, vanished, once I stopped listening to podcasts with Bitcoin authority figures and started to research on my own. The reason I made the move is that I am pretty sure Bitcoin is going to become Gold. Based on my research, the masses embracing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange over stablecoins/CBDCs is a very remote probability. This doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not going to go up in fiat terms of course. I still think there are massive fiat gains to be made in Bitcoin. I'll be a buyer on draw-downs of 45-55% from ATH, and seller during "clarity" (e.g. policy, liquidity, etc.) spikes. For me, Bitcoin went from being Hope to being a hedge against "The Great Taking" type scenario and a niche, permissionless MoE. If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking": - The book describes what Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account. - This is enabled by the laws in every country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario). Of course, if this happens, then Bitcoin and Gold get revalued much higher overnight. Based on my research, the Controllers changed the laws for an edge case, this is not the base case type scenario. If I have a reason to believe that the odds of Bitcoin as a mass MoE increase over time, I will scale back into it. For now, Bitcoin is a dissident MoE, a Store of Value, and a "Great Taking" scenario type hedge, and I don't see this changing for the better any time soon. More context on the post-ETF era: View quoted note → More context on how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption: View quoted note → More context on how governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin: View quoted note → More context on what OG Bitcoiners don't understand: View quoted note →

You are ignoring the point that for the people at the very top, it's not about making as much money as possible because they print the money. If you want some more context, look at the posts at the bottom of this note: View quoted note → To be more concrete, you're ignoring the point that permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption. View quoted note →

in the words of my 98 year old great aunt, "you worry too much". i'm sorry this is a low IQ response to your research. but coming from someone who worries a lot... you're worrying too much.