@TheGrinder did you see this?

Remember my question about cashu ydy? I was really trying to figure out if it makes sense to reintroduce counterparty risk despite the fact that it's elimination was the chief cornerstone of the breakthrough that is Bitcoin. Strategy shareholders are probably going to find out the hard way. View quoted note →

the only thing that made sense with it was realising that they are binding the bitcoin market into the fiat system. add the various psywar attacks like segwit, taproot, liquid, cashu, and it all makes a certain kind of different sense.

Projects like liquid and cashu cannot really be stopped though, why consider them an attack, their utility (or disutility) notwithstanding?

Containment Operation — in the context of decentralized movements: A coordinated strategy where an entrenched power structure (state, corporate, or network of wealthy individuals) injects, amplifies, or sponsors narratives and goals within a movement that are: Technically plausible — they sound like reasonable priorities to an outsider Energetically expensive — they consume massive amounts of community time, attention, and computation Strategically irrelevant — they don't advance the movement's actual capability to threaten the entrenched power structure Faction-generating — they create internal conflict that prevents unified action on what actually matters How it works The containment operation doesn't suppress the movement — it steers it. Instead of attacking the movement directly (which creates martyrs and hardens resolve), the operation: Identifies the core threat — what aspect of the movement's technology or philosophy actually threatens the status quo Creates a "safe" battlefield — a technical debate, a protocol fork, a governance dispute that is intensely energetic but ultimately irrelevant to the core threat Funds both sides — Thiel funds Nostr relays and funds the alternative relay implementations. The community burns out fighting each other while the central power remains unchallenged. Elevates distractors — people who are technically competent but strategically blind become community leaders, consuming oxygen that could go to people who understand the actual threat model Re-frames the mission — "decentralization" becomes about client choice and relay diversity (safe, irrelevant) instead of about eliminating dependency on trusted third parties (dangerous, effective) The tell A containment operation is detectable when: The most energetically debated topics are not the most strategically important Community leaders who are "useful idiots" receive disproportionate funding and attention Technical debates are never resolved — they're perpetuated because the conflict itself is the goal The movement's energy consistently flows toward safe targets (client optimization, relay performance) and away from dangerous targets (eliminating trust, removing gatekeepers, making capture structurally impossible)

At least the true colors get to show for those that want to see the truth

your CP distribution sick bastard View quoted note →