I hope the idea that users don't care about unilateral exits is revisited and scrutinized heavily now. When things go bad and users are unable to access their funds, they'll leave once issues are fixed and never come back. If they don't care much about unilateral exits as a concept, they will care even less about the nuances of why they were not able to access or move their funds.

There can never be 'nuance', 'balance' or 'realistic thinking' when it comes to the subject of taxation. No ground can be yielded. Laffer curve fiscal conservative balance my ass. Fuck their solutions. Fuck their tradeoffs. Get rid of every single tax on income, sales, imports, exports, goods and services, property, capital gains, all of them. Abolish them all.

Advocating for the abolition of legal tender laws, foreign exchange controls, capital gains taxes or any other taxes on the exchange or use of bitcoin is a top legislative priority if the goal is to get bitcoin adopted as a widely accepted monetary good

'Saleability' also means liquidity. More liquidity for bitcoin against every single currency and asset that exists would be great for improving its saleability. This means P2P exchanges, centralized exchanges, decentralised exchanges, OTC desks, shitcoin chains, banking apps, stock exchanges, derivative exchanges, forex exchanges and every conceivable exchange or trading platform supporting and enabling trades between bitcoin and anything that can be traded.

Nostr is the only place I post stuff but I do keep an eye on other platforms and how they are used because I like keeping track of these for some reason. What the average daily user and the average usage pattern for each social platform looks like to me at the moment: Instagram - watching and sharing reels, posting stories and relentlessly checking who has seen them, celebrity updates, thirst traps, brand marketing and following, fashion trends, social trends, discovery of local places to hang out/eat at or go for retreats/vacations to Facebook - Older folks watching and sharing reels and even posting stuff still, buying and selling stuff on the marketplace, groups for local communities, brand marketing for older folks, political marketing for older folks. Snapchat - Maintaining 'streaks' with people where snaps are sent to each other every day, even if they're just blank pictures or pictures of whatever is in front of them. Demographic is young and folks who use it are quite social. Like mostly younger than late 20's. Twitter - keeping up with political and 'macro' trends and drama, fandoms of various kinds with very vocal people, lot of folks whose personas here are different from their IRL personas. LinkedIn - career-related/professional stuff, trying to make onself or one's company attractive to employers/investors/clients. People from all ages. Mostly people from industries where there are big companies with suits. Reddit - Extremely niche communities, finding people with similarly weird interests, NSFW content, folks here also like to keep their online activity unknown to their IRL connections. Pinterest - lesser-known but widely used among women or visual artists afaik. Inspiration for designers, artists, home decorators, home makers, etc. Super sticky because it delivers new content so fast and in an easy manner. YouTube - Nothing comes close to this when it comes to video content still. Vertical videos not as great as Instagram. Social activity is mostly Reddit-type and happens in the comments section. User base and user activity way too diverse to generalize. TikTok - No clue since it's not available in India. From what I hear, this is where trends among younger than 20's people emerge. Like Instagram, folks from all ages spend a lot of time on this. Like a lot of time.

Not a debasement trade or a flight to sound money if shitcoins are also going up along with bitcoin

If it correlates to both equities and gold during different periods, maybe Bitcoin is its own thing because of its multi-faceted nature. Payments, energy, grids, money, finance, etc.

I've seen people say that BTC/XAU, i.e. Bitcoin priced in Gold, is the chart that really matters. That unless Bitcoin is going up there, we can't say that it's bullish. I agree. Going up in fiat terms is easy. Almost every asset does that.

2026 has been massive for the decline of communism in India. For the first time in half a century, not a single Indian state has a commie party in power. They usually win elections in 2 or 3 states. The ideology's armed branch, comprised of Maoists and Naxals, have been dismantled structurally. Lot of folks from these groups have laid down their arms. There's still always the threat of the ideology becoming popular again in public opinion due to the consequences of fiat money and state laws and regulations.

The finishing stages of the 'long run' that those pesky Austrian economists keep warning about are approaching. None of us are dead, Keynes What now?

Regulations have a tendency to kill competition and entrepreneurship. One does not need evidence to understand this. If evidence is needed, look at what's happening to Peach Bitcoin, being forced by regulations to discard important features that give it a competitive edge over centralized exchanges.

Notwithstanding critical vulnerabilities being found and reported, I can only imagine how annoyed devs are at the amount of nothingburger/time-wasting reports, overblown narrative-pushing, clout-farming and headline-generating Folks who dislike posting on socials or public forums probably have things to say about all this

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, one of the greatest political and economic philosophers of all time, comments on how Bitcoin and monetary metals can help improve economic literacy among the public and help them get insights into the dangers of government-controlled money

'Soild economic education is the enemy of government.' -Triple-H, in a new and rare podcast appearance, where he mentions Bitcoin at around 54:30ish

Can certainly stop using the term 'maximalism' and throw it in lingo garbage, who cares? Don't need labels like this to point out what's going on with shitcoin networks and what they actually do in practice, without making any value judgements whatsoever. Three popular examples: 1. Public company shitcoin L2s Two US public co's launched their own L2s on a shitcoin smart contract network, or as they say in shitcoin lingo, 'rollups'. The corpos run the sole 'sequencer' of their respective rollups. Which means, as far as I can tell, transactions can be censored, funds can be frozen and the 'network', or I should say 'system' to be accurate, can be taken down. They openly and unabashedly want to be 'compliant'. This is how they work in practice. Or they have to maybe. 2. 'Tokenised assets' or 'Real World Assets' Stablecoins come under these. They are still issued using smart contracts which can be programmed with 'compliance tools' aka censorship, freezing and seizure capabilities. 'Tokenized' stocks, bonds, digital representations of assets are mostly issued this way. Stables' issuance side is already being gone after by regulations. Transfers post-issuance can be and are being frozen and censored already. Surveillance of them is a matter of when, not if. Security issuance and exchange is regulated by the state monopoly, hence centralized infrastructure has not faced enough competition to evolve and provide faster clearing and settlement times, which shitcoin networks have been able to do. They offer regulatory arbitrage as well, albeit in a limited fashion. Issuers will still constrain themselves based on the laws of the jurisdiction they operate in. 3. Prediction markets Of the two major players, one doesn't even use a shitcoin network on its backend. Just a normal database/clearinghouse. Both attract similar volumes. The other supposedly decentralized one does engage in geoblocking. And it relies on centralized backends for important operations. __________________ Shitcoiners can do what they want. Nothing wrong with what they do really. Regulatory arbitrage will always exist no matter what when regulations are garbage. Preferences for monetary goods will vary. Not everyone needs to or will use a single monetary good. Shitcoins will continue to exist and there's nothing wrong with that either. I can still interact with them economically while sticking to using Bitcoin as money. Enabling that is what markets are for. But avoiding shitcoins is not an 'ideological', 'moral', 'religious' or 'puritanical' position for everyone who does it. It can as well be practical, value-free, economic and realistic. When a Bitcoiner takes a position that: •Bitcoin will outperform everything else. •Many people will accept or use bitcoin as money in the future. •Bitcoin will become the most salable monetary good. •It is prudent to accumulate as many sats as possible by buying or earning. He is making an entrepreneurial choice and prediction based on his own economic reasoning. Such choices will not be objectively 'correct'. Besides, not everyone who calls himself a Bitcoiner will provide the same answers when asked why they take the positions listed above. If one gets that impression, they have not had real conversations with enough Bitcoiners where they pay attention to what they are saying.

Using lightning self-custodially makes me pull my hair out so much I might go fully bald soon. Then, to avoid getting mad at computer code like a crazy person and to get some perspective, I ask some questions to clankers about the state of scaling on popular shitcoin networks. •What would happen to *insert popular shitcoin network' if it faces volumes of millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of transactions per day like UPI, Visa, Mastercard, etc.? •What would happen to their blockchain sizes? •How are fees calculated and how do they respond to insane demand? •How would the network handle spam? •What would become of node hardware requirements when volumes are so high? •What happens to bandwidth requirements with their respective block time intervals? •If scaling solutions exist, how do they enable users to exit unilaterally to the base layer without trusting a third party? etc etc etc

Curious that when Blackrock and other ETF issuers lower their swap thresholds for in-kind creations and redemptions, it is interpreted by Bloomberg and CoinDesk below that this would make it easier for people to move from self-custody to ETF shares. It is obvious that this would make it easier for ETF holders to swap out from ETF shares to self-custody as well, but that is not mentioned in these articles at all. https://archive.ph/MKNYo https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/08/26/E