Started doing more research on how Bitcoin Core's developers have been attacking its sovereign/Medium-of-Exchange use a while back and it's wild. The post became too long for email just from covering: 1. SegWit (BIP141): The “Witness Discount” and Block-Weight Accounting 2. Taproot (BIP340–342): Easier Complex Scripts and Data Embedding 3. Liberalized Data-Carrier Policies (OP_RETURN and “Standardness”) 4. Replace-By-Fee (RBF): From Opt-In to Broad Default 5. Relay and Mempool Settings that favor Large Players 6. Legal-Risk Externalities shifted to Node Operators 7. Increased Block Weight → Centralization Pressure 8. Convenience Defaults: Assumevalid, Pruning, and Checkpoints 9. Deprecation of Non-Standard Scripts 10. Fee-Market “Purism” — No Priority for Payments 11. Lightning Network Bias — L1 as Settlement Only 12. Governance Activations Show Who Sets the Rules 13. Quiet Merchant De-Feature: BIP70 Payment Protocol Deprecation 14. Removal of “Priority by Coin Age” & Free Relay (historical) 15. Dust Limits & MinRelayFee Floors as Gatekeepers 16. Core v30: OP_RETURN/data-carrier expansion (policy) 17. Core v30: RBF ergonomics tilt further to replaceability (wallet/API surface) 18. Core v30: Multiple OP_RETURNs per tx Have written this in as simple as possible terms for non-developers. Will post later when done.

Why Bitcoin is in a Lose-Lose situation with the BIP-444 Soft Fork

Why Bitcoin is in a Lose-Lose situation with the BIP-444 Soft Fork

BIP-444 presents Bitcoin with a coordination dilemma where both branches tilt the network away from sovereign Medium-of-Exchange and toward sanitiz...

Bitcoin's mining centralization problem (Hashrate ≠ Freedom) - TL;DR Hash power is coordinated by a small number of mining pools. At times, the top 2-3 pools reach or exceed 51%. These pools decide which transactions go into blocks by setting templates and policies — including filters and OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) lists. Individual miners chasing predictable payouts delegate that power upstream. As a result, a regulator only needs to influence a few pool operators, not thousands of ASIC owners.

Bitcoin's mining centralization problem (Hashrate ≠ Freedom)

Hashrate ≠ freedom. Templates = freedom. Until miner-templating is common and censorship correlation breaks, rising hashrate is mostly optics.

Elon Musk's grandfather was arrested in Canada for being part of a cult hell-bent on installing a technocracy. The cult used to meet each Monday evening in the basement of a public library. Now, Elon Musk, the poster boy of technocracy is the richest man in the world, "pro free speech" and "pro humanity". Started from the bottom now we here. Many will have seen the chart depicting a dollar's worth over the years. I'd like to see a chart depicting discernment over the years 😂 Every single one of Elon's companies is run by the government, but the plebs love the "entrepreneurship". - SpaceX - national security launch monopoly. - Tesla - green-transition industrial policy vehicle. - Neuralink - brain–machine interface R&D under DARPA watch. Elon Musk — The Heroic Technologist: - Turns state agendas into heroic challenges ("colonize Mars", "accelerate sustainable energy"). - Makes highly complex state projects legible to the masses (rockets, EVs). - Redefines what is possible, i.e., multi-planetary destiny. https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making

Bitcoin Ossification Client (BOC) — Community-Defended, Minimal-Change, Adversary-Hard https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-ossification-client-boc-community TL;DR Bitcoin is a fixed-supply, Proof-of-Work-secured, UTXO-validated settlement network that anyone can fully verify on consumer hardware. Its base layer resists censorship by making it costly — not by trusting gatekeepers. Its rules are simple, explicit, and operationally testable. If a change makes sovereignty harder, or hands control to perimeters, it isn't Bitcoin. Ossify the base. Keep it livable. Adapt through optional layers. That's how Bitcoin survives adversaries who are richer than all of us, and how ordinary people keep the keys to their own money.

Many people talk about how the AI sector is in a bubble, and maybe that is the case for some companies, however, they fail to understand that many of the companies with billions in CapEx are actually the government. The end goal of course is AI governance. Many portfolio managers, hedge funds and defense-aligned funds already know this and you can see it reflected in financial markets. So how much AI/High-Performance Computing would the Controllers need for AI governance? Think in three compute tiers (because that's how you'd actually run it at scale): 1. Edge sieve (cheap, everywhere): cameras/phones/routers/ATMs/industrial sensors run tiny models to tag, hash, and discard 99.9% of raw stream. 2. Regional fusion (medium, many): metro/co-lo sites run multi-modal "situation" models across streams (ID, location, payments, comms, logistics). 3. Central brains (heavy, few): national/ally clusters train & steer giant world-models + simulations; push down policies/weights. Back-of-the-envelope capacity (ballpark, not brochure math) - Population-scale monitoring target: suppose you want to continuously cover meaningful signals across ~8B people + critical infrastructure. After edge filtering you still ingest, say, 10–100 events/person/day (payments, travel gates, high-salience comms, checkpoints, high-risk Internet of Things). Call it 10¹¹–10¹² events/day into regional fusion. - Regional fusion inference: lightweight multi-modal models at ~1–10 Giga Floating Point Operations Per Second (GFLOPs)/event (post-edge). That's 10²⁰–10²¹ FLOPs/day ⇒ ~1–10 exaFLOPS (EFLOPs)/s sustained (exaflops/second) just for regional inference. - Central training & simulation: persistent fine-tuning of trillion-parameter world-models, policy Reinforcement Learning, counterfactual simulations. Realistically 10–100 EFLOPs/s peak (not sustained 24/7, but frequent). Plus a few EFLOPs/s for national-level inference/agentic planners. - Power footprint: today’s top AI Data Centers run 100–300 MW each. A governance-grade grid is ~50–150 sites at 100–300 MW = 5–30 GW facility power (Power Usage Effectiveness ~1.2), with bursts and redundancy. That's multiples of current hyperscale. That's far above what's broadly deployed now; not infinite, but constrained by power, High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), packaging, and grid plumbing, not by demand. Accelerator count (NVIDIA H100-ish equivalents): - Moderate regime: ~5M accelerators (IT power ~3–4 GW). - Hard regime: ~20M (IT ~14 GW). - Maximal "omnivision": ~50M (IT ~35 GW). These numbers are feasible only if you solve: High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) output, Chip on Wafer on Substrate (CoWoS)/System on Integrated Chip (SoIC) capacity, 2–3nm leading-edge, and multi-GW interconnect + cooling. CoWoS (Chip on Wafer on Substrate) and SoIC (System on Integrated Chip) capacity refer to the ability of semiconductor packaging technologies to integrate multiple chips and components into a single package, enhancing performance and efficiency. TL;DR 👇️ Takeaway: For AI governance under a low Gross Consent Product lens (stability > truth), demand for AI/HPC is effectively insatiable for a decade. The constraint is power + packaging + memory, not "use cases". More capacity yields broader context windows, deeper cross-domain fusion, faster simulation cycles — directly improving control quality. There is no natural upper bound until the grid and supply chain say "no". More context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-the-controllers-use-public-companies https://controlplanecapital.com/p/state-embedded-investment-thesis https://controlplanecapital.com/p/gross-consent-product-make-informed https://controlplanecapital.com/p/filtering-state-embedded-companies https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making https://controlplanecapital.com/p/short-selling-weaponized-against

One of the few things that excites me about AI videos is realistic, well-made simulations. E.g. imagine a realistic simulation of a world without Central Banks. Imagine a realistic simulation of a world in which the slaves organize a tax revolt and reject fiat slavery. We live in such a weird world that most people will never be able to break the programming unless they can visualize the problem and the solution. Basically all financial analysts track liquidity cycles, but none of them analyze why liquidity is cyclical (at least openly). Allegedly Thomas Jefferson did: - “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Richard Werner made a documentary (and wrote a book) about this ( Princes of the Yen -

Odysee

Princes of the Yen - The Hidden Power of Central Banks_fixed 2014

View on Odysee: Princes of the Yen - The Hidden Power of Central Banks_fixed 2014

), however, it didn't do a very good job of explicitly stating the problem and didn't identify the solution. The Problem: the Central Banks of all countries (that matter) coordinate liquidity. They cause inflation waves or crises to discipline leverage, herd behavior, migrate usage onto programmable rails, and re-select winners — without the blow-back of permanent financial repression. The only Solution: a mass tax revolt and rejection of fiat slavery. The only way this type of coordination (that you also saw during Covid) works is if we live under a One World Government. https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated Are we going to be able to create some of these realistic AI simulations and get any type of distribution? There will probably be a very small time window.

Bitcoin Core's attack on Bitcoin's user base is fascinating. As a programmer, one of the first things you'll learn is to create useful abstractions and not leak implementation details onto your user base. This is crucial if most of your user base is non-technical. TL;DR - What happens when implementation details leak to a non-technical crowd When core developers narrate mempool policy, witness discounts, inscription paths, version bits, OP_RETURN limits, and soft-fork mechanics to a mostly non-technical user base, governance "leaks" without ceding control. Users inherit responsibility (anxiety, vigilance costs) but not power (they don't run code audits, write policy clients, or operate pools). In a low Gross Consent Product world, this leak is useful to the Controllers and intermediaries because it: - Expands the social attack surface (narratives, panic, brigading) while concentrating technical leverage (maintainers, pools, relay policy, app-store distribution). - Raises the "cost of being sovereign" (time, knowledge, operational burden), pushing the median user toward paperization (ETFs, custodians, on-ramp wallets). - Creates manufactured "consent cycles" — public comment drama around esoterica (v30 defaults, policy limits) that legitimize changes after the audience tires out. Leaking implementation details to the masses doesn't democratize Bitcoin; it socializes worry and privatizes control. In a low Gross Consent Product regime, that's a feature: it nudges users toward policy-safe defaults while maintaining the narrative of openness. Expect rising paper share, falling realized volatility, steerable settlement via pools/relays, and Medium-of-Exchange throttled in favor of stablecoins/CBDCs. It goes much deeper and I'll cover this in more detail later.

The new "OpenAI is asking the government for a bailout" narrative is hilarious. This of course implies that OpenAI is not the government. Well, OpenAI is actually the government. https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making