This chapter as well as chapter 19 made me feel uncomfortable, which is a good thing. On a scale from 1 (low threat) - 5 (maximum threat), where would you place the general AnCap / Nostr User? (Even yes, this is highly individual)

You are a privacy maxi and write “Default privacy is more powerful than opt-in privacy because it protects the vast majority who never adjust settings.” Why do you think building all the layers and improvements on Bitcoin is still better than switching to privacy’s coin like Monero? Is there a podcast where you talk in detail about bitcoin vs monero? Thanks!

Repost: For “normal” internet usage, is a VPN fine or do you f.e. mostly use TOR? I know it’s individually, maybe you could add 3 user personas (normalo, cypherpunk(bitcoiner), whistleblower) or similar and do a recommendation for those? Always with a grain of salt of course …

For “normal” internet usage, is a VPN fine or do you f.e. mostly use TOR? I know it’s individually, maybe you could add 3 user personas (normalo, cypherpunk(bitcoiner), whistleblower) or similar and do a recommendation for those? Always with a grain of salt of course …

Who has experience living as perpetual traveler and doing services over US LLC with european companies and would answer some questions against little zaps? #asknostr #LLC #PT #nomad

“Und doch weiß ich nicht, was (…) verhängnisvoller (…) ist, die Kriegstragödie oder die Geldkomödie.” - Argentarius

“Es werden wohl immer nur ganz Vereinzelte sein, die erkennen, dass zu wenig Geld ein Widersinn ist. Geld ist der Maßstab, nach dem sich die vorhandenen Güter auf die Bevölkerung verteilen, und man kann die einzelnen Gü-terportionen nur vergrößern, indem man die Gütermenge erhöht, nicht aber, indem man den Maßstab verlängert.” - Argentarius #GM

Every time I think about NAP and argumentation ethics, I think about the the Impossibility of arguing for Initiatory Violence. Maybe that’s trivial but I have never read it in a clear and simple term. Maybe you finde the following valuable: The Impossibility of Arguing for Initiatory Violence To argue for something means to justify it as generally acceptable. This implies that I would have to accept it even if I myself were affected by it. Initiatory violence, however, is by definition an action taken without or against the consent of the affected party. It excludes consent. Anyone who claims to support initiatory violence would therefore have to accept being subjected to it themselves. Yet this is impossible: Either the affected party consents, in which case it is not violence. Or they do not consent, in which case, by definition, one cannot support it. It follows that initiatory violence can be carried out, but it cannot be consistently endorsed or defended through argument. Any attempt to do so collapses conceptually. @Max Isn’t this a descriptive, logical truth that nonetheless imposes normatively binding rules? Sometimes this thought feels important sometimes I think it’s trivial :D

Which privacy score you are using normally? f.e. Last time when I used “maximize” privacy the value was 37. In this post you say 50 is sufficient for a forensic analysis, so the default from Wasabi was lower…

“It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth.” - Bastiat