Imagine how much worse Feudalism would have been if citizens had no idea the king existed, or what he looked like, or where he lived, and none of the peasants had any mechanism to kill the invisible King if the King became oppressive.
That Feudal System is called Ethereum 2.0
It's also called Web 3.0. And all the Kings trying to sell you on this horrible Feudal system are going to try to convince you that it's "better for the environment."
BTW this is the King of ETH2.0
And here is depity king:
deputy*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) As Russia begins to threaten a strategic (i.e. nuclear) response to financial sanctions & rejection of SWIFT, we affirm my thesis that #Bitcoin has major national strategic implications that will lead us towards a new strategic policy of Mutually Assured Preservation (MAP).
2) As both sides of the current conflict weigh using #Bitcoin to minimize the attack surface on their monetary property, it reaffirms my point that we should not get caught up on offense vs. defense but instead focus on the means of power projection being used to defend money.
3) And by far the least important political issue concerning #Bitcoin is its energy usage. Those who criticize Bitcoin's energy usage fundamentally misunderstand the point of Bitcoin, and especially don't appreciate its enormous global strategic implications.
So now that we've established we're not going to get in a kinetic fight against a nuclear-armed peer, and instead going to get into competition where we attempt to deny the other access to a financial network...
Why isn't US buying all the #Bitcoin before Russia/China does.
Every #Bitcoin that US buys is a BTC that Russia & China can't have...
We should probably have someone in our military looking into this... maybe that person should advice the National Security Council on this recommendation...
"Dead men tell no tales" means dead men don't break promises. The implication of this idiom is that violence gives people zero-trust control over people & property. There is no such thing as zero-trust control over ppl/property w/o violence. Peace is merely a state of high trust.
What people misunderstand is that they assume violence must be kinetic. This has never been true.
I argue, an act qualifies as violence if it presens a credible threat of harm. Doesn't have to be physical harm. Can be social, emotional, or financial harm.
Thoughts?
The fundamental tension between peace & violence is that trust, itself, is an exploitable security vulnerability. Peace is a state of high trust, but higher states of trust are more vulnerable to exploitation that need to be resolved via violence.
Problem is, u have to make sincere effort to understand the legitimacy & impact that war has had in scaling civilizations, to fully comprehend/understand why #bitcoin is so disruptive. So military guy has to explain war in notoriously anti-govt community. Recipe for disaster.
I end up being targeted as a warmongering spook for trying to point out the similarities (which is essential for understanding why #Bitcoin disrupts it).
Ironically, the "power projection" framework I'm introducing in my thesis destroys the FUD that nocoiners are so gullible to (ex. ESG, Web3), and are demonstrably effective a orange-pilling govt officials & boomers.
It's also a refreshingly new perspective for ppl IMO.
Ethereum is useful f/lots of reasons, but sovereignty isn't 1 of them. This is why PoW is more secure than PoS. The fundamental security flaw of PoS is that it gets increasingly harder to countervail the control authority of stakers over time, forcing users to trust them
Stakers can change the validation rules on you. Stakers can withhold valid transactions from the ledger. You necessarily have to trust them not to do these things b/c you have increasingly less ability to countervail their control authority if they start breaking bad.