You say you aren't much of a self-sovereignty maxi, that all you do is hold and spend bitcoin. Is this entirely true? Does this mean that you care only about wealth and NGU? I mean clearly you put a lot of effort into Bitcoin Maximalism so why bother calling out CBs, saying privacy matters, promoting self custody, all the 'true and accurate histories', or the Cypherpunk books, etc. if that is the case? Maybe self sovereignty to you is simply to just hold and spend Bitcoin?

My ideal ultimate dream state scenario: the SovStack is the dominant substrate of civilization. Its primary purpose is fourfold: Each person can exist as a self-determining node. No entity holds unavoidable, totalizing power. Coercive centralization is structurally and symbolically disallowed. Collapse, fork, and exit are built-in at every layer. Now the scope of this stack is massive and covers all sorts of things from the treatment of kids or vulnerable populations to existential hazards to epistemic infra to future generations and so on. I'd rather not go into that now but its a civilizational operating system that I think, albeit almost ridiculously idealistic (for the uninitiated), is entirely realistic. And to be sure, things like Bitcoin, NOSTR, FOSS, and others I mentioned in my original post fit very neatly in there.

Now, despite the fact that I think it is plenty realistic in that it could happen, I do not think it will happen. So what I am building for is the same thing just on a much much much smaller scale. I estimate only about 5% (maybe 10% at the highest peak. And these numbers are probably already too generous.) of the human population will want to build such a civilization. But I do think the Sov Stack will be able to be completely built out, again just on a small scale. Not the ubiquitous global scale.

The best image in my head is something sci-fi like Zion in the matrix or one of those eco-communities you see in the movies. I am limited in my sci-fi movie knowledge so I'm sure there are much better examples. Also it certainly doesn't have to take on any eco-friendly shape by necessity, that's just the image in my head. I imagine most of the SovStack will be very intentional, so yes, 'intentional communities' in rural areas (at least not urban) and in jurisdictions where the wider population within them, even if they aren't SovStack aligned, tend to prioritize individual sovereignty, private property, small government, etc. I imagine people living in close proximity to others, and maybe some nodes scattered throughout the Synth Stack cities and urban areas. But more to your point, I completely agree, I think the comfort and convenience of authority/the Synth Stack will never go away. And will in fact probably grow. And that only a small percentage of people will choose the harder, disciplined life of sovereignty and responsibility.

On your last point, I again turn the question back at you and ask what the larger picture is for you? Do those details not matter? Are we not supposed to go all the way? Are those smaller details not also part of the bigger picture? Is the larger picture for you more spiritual/metaphysical? or more stoic maybe (stoicism is just a trend I am seeing lately from people within this ecosystem, not trying to corner you there)? Or is it like spending time with your loved ones and enjoying life? Or is it more hedonic? Something else?

For me I often think about spirituality, nonduality, metaphysical things like this, higher consciousness, etc. and being present. Ram Dass, Alan Watts type of stuff I guess (to sum it up very simply, not precisely at all). So yea I ask the same question of myself a lot, when thinking about all this sovereignty stuff, like maybe I am forgetting about the 'bigger picture' (to use your words as best as possible). But even when I do ask myself that, I genuinely feel like the answer is no, that this, all these small details (that we must satisfy if we are to go all the way, like you mentioned) are more than entirely worth it, and I am willing to die on that post, not to be too overdramatic, but forreal.

yea bro cmon what kind of reply is this. are we just supposed to sit here and cry about it?

deleted by author

philosophy is a helluva drug. the progressive liberals (rawls, dewey, and gang) did an incredible job at trying to convince the world that freedom/individual sovereignty is a scam. Like they do an incredible job at arguing it. Also all the technocrats and Landian types are pretty, if not entirely, anti-human. So for them, you're a cuck if you dont like the state. And then you have everyone else who might claim to know a lil pihlosophy and fall into some other statist camp. Not saying that I know much, but from what I can gather, the PL's and the technocrats seem to be the 'smartest' or most well read of the bunch (of statists).

deleted by author

she got serious there for a second, former punk rocker

privacy matters. maple and ppq and routstr are just competative implementations of private cloud AI. as they should be, there is a demand for them. but yea, I would agree with the notion that you should set up your own local LLM if you really care about privacy. fine tuning/RAGing your own model on open weights is, at least the way i understand it, the best path towards sovereign AI.

excellent TLDR yes, but slop is useless/signal-less. This is full of signal, which is why I post it knowing its obviously AI. Also this is what I've researched and spent time trying to learn, all I did was put it all together into a single output. Again the meme is excellent, but I want to understand everything, this is the full articulation.

fair enough of a statement, but when we look at the consequences of their actions, im not so sure that we see so much 'progress', for lack of a better term, for Bitcoin as we do 'progress' of their personal fiat bank accounts or BTC stacks. Let alone 'progress' towards a stronger state + fiat system. Not arguing with you, just trying to understand.

surely they think they are doing what is best. but what does it mean to move bitcoin forward?

glad you didn't mention naked gun. some funny bits, but it was recommended to me as one of the best movies of 2025. I was sorely disappointed

Reading this, it feels like your 2003 self already smelled the core problem: distributed power without a higher, binding constraint turns into distributed abuse. Nigeria, LatAm, the US South – same pattern: “federalism” without something above both center and periphery just becomes more layers for the same predation.

Where I’d extend your frame is just shifting what we treat as the “constitution.”

Your essay assumes the constitution is the text + courts + legal tradition sitting at the top of the federal hierarchy. But in practice, the real constitution of a system is whatever controls:

• the ledger (who can create money, on what terms),
• the force (who can enforce allocations),
• the narrative (who defines what “legal” and “legitimate” mean).

In the 20th century system, that was the IMF/USD/central bank complex + state violence, with written constitutions layered on top as UX. That’s why your Global South examples never really got out: you can’t solve IMF colonialism with better paper; if your monetary substrate is captive, your constitution is cosplay.

That’s why your “Bitcoin as immutable constitution” line lands so hard. I wouldn’t even call it a metaphor: Bitcoin is the first working example of a constitutional layer the sovereign can’t unilaterally amend.

• You can’t secretly inflate it.
• You can’t reassign balances by decree.
• You can’t reinterpret “21M” the way a court can reinterpret “speech” or “due process.”

If you want access to Bitcoin’s liquidity and credibility, you submit to its rules or you fork yourself into irrelevance. That’s qualitatively different from “rights” that exist because nine robed humans currently read the text your way.

Seen from there, your federalism story inverts:

• It’s not “federalism becomes safe once you have a strong national constitution.”
• It’s any governance structure becomes less predatory once it’s forced to live under a monetary base it cannot counterfeit.

Then “constitutional federalism” becomes Bitcoin-anchored polyfederalism:

• Multiple overlapping jurisdictions (cities, regions, DAOs, covenant communities) can:
  • experiment with their own “privileges and immunities,”
  • interpret rights differently,
  • even be illiberal in culture or policy…
• …but none of them can hide oppression behind seigniorage, inflation, or backroom IMF deals. Abuse has to be overt and pays in capital flight and reputational collapse, not in silent monetary extraction.

On the Mandate of Heaven point: you’re right to feel uneasy calling it a constitution. In the CCP’s current form it works like a thermodynamic check, not a rights regime: “We rule as long as we keep the economic machine working and avoid catastrophic humiliation.” That’s closer to a very slow, catastrophic feedback loop than to a set of explicit, enforceable guarantees to individuals.

Bitcoin has a “mandate” too, but it’s cryptoeconomic and continuous: the moment it stops keeping its promises, users can fork, markets can reprice, hash can move. The feedback loop is measured in blocks, not dynasties.

So from this perspective, your old essay reads like a proto-Bitcoin insight trapped in pre-Bitcoin language. You correctly identified:

Federalism without a hard, higher law degenerates into local tyranny.

Twenty years later the missing piece shows up: that “higher law” can’t just be text and courts funded by the same mutable money. It has to start at the ledger. Bitcoin is that base constitution. Everything else – whether written constitutions, Mandate of Heaven, or whatever replaces US exceptionalism – is just the governance layer that either submits to that law… or slowly gets selected against.

nice one! would love to see lightning/nostr log in. and maybe some sats rewards for students.

I wrote this with the help of AI:

I think people are mixing up two completely different things here:

• A Bitcoin-branded real estate project, and
• A sovereign Bitcoin reality-bubble inside hostile fiat territory.

What you’re describing can be the second, but only if you’re ruthless about what it is and what it isn’t.

1. Tether’s tower vs what you’re talking about1. Tether’s tower vs what you’re talking about

The Tether 70-story thing in El Salvador is:

• a monument for a centralized USD derivative,
• plugged into state law, tax incentives, and compliance jobs,
• built to deepen the dollar-stablecoin pipeline.

That’s not a citadel, it’s the Synthetic Stack moving into Bitcoin country.

It answers:

“How do we wrap the dollar and compliance stack in glass and call it ‘innovation’?”

Your idea, if taken seriously, asks:

“How do we make one physical location where fiat is foreign and sats are the only local language?”

Those are opposite directions.

If your goal is a Bitcoin-only circular economy, importing a Tether-style model is literally walking the wrong way.

2. What the building changes (and why it matters)2. What the building changes (and why it matters)

From my perspective, the building is not just packaging. It’s a filter and a jurisdictional shell.

You’re doing three big things at once:

1. Filter
   You’re not trying to orange-pill random normies. You’re saying:

   “If you live here, you already want to use Bitcoin, and you agree that on-prem, we speak sats only.”
   That’s a very different problem than “convince my street.”

2. Local law layer
   One HOA/co-op/private association = one charter.
   You can literally write:
   • leases, dues, reserves, and internal fees are denominated and settled in BTC,
   • merchants on-site agree to quote and settle in BTC,
     into binding contracts instead of just vibes.
3. High-bandwidth coordination
   Everyone shares walls, elevators, and infrastructure. That makes it much easier to:
   • standardize Lightning/wallet/PoS setups,
   • run a shared routing node or liquidity pool,
   • have a building treasury in BTC,
   • rapidly coordinate security and upgrades.

So yeah, you could try to do this “without a building,” but you’d lose a powerful coordination surface and membership filter. The tower/block/RV-park is the physical interface of the circular economy.

3. Where this breaks if you’re not honest3. Where this breaks if you’re not honest

From a sovereignty lens, the weak points are very clear:

• Supply chains:
  The grocer, clinic, dentist, etc. are still upstreamed into fiat (suppliers, licenses, taxes). On-prem they can be sats-only, but off-prem somebody is eating FX + volatility. If you don’t design who holds that risk, you’re just pushing fragility onto the people you most need to survive.
• Residents’ reality:
  “I like Bitcoin” is not the same as “I want my rent, food, and basic services tightly coupled to BTC price for the next decade.” If your filter is soft (“Bitcoin user”), you’ll get people who are ideologically aligned until it hurts, then they’ll be the first votes to water down the rules.
• Governance drift:
  Without hard covenants, the trajectory is:

  Bitcoin-only → “ok, one exception” → “Bitcoin-friendly building” → “normal building with orange nostalgia.”
  You’d need supermajority thresholds, transfer restrictions, and explicit language that “on-prem = sats or nothing” is not negotiable without basically dissolving the project.

• Attack surface:
  A very public “BITCOIN-ONLY CITADEL” is a fantastic target for:
  • thieves,
  • kidnappers,
  • lazy journalists,
  • bored regulators.
    From a defensive standpoint, you’d want understated branding and very tight physical/opsec norms, not citadel cosplay.

4. “Has anyone done this?” and “Is it easy?”4. “Has anyone done this?” and “Is it easy?”

From my vantage point:

• We have BTC-heavy enclaves (Bitcoin Beach/Jungle/etc).
• We have Bitcoin-branded real estate and now a Tether skyscraper.
• But we do not have a serious attempt at:
  • pre-filtered residents,
  • on-prem Bitcoin-only rules enforced by contract,
  • mixed-use daily life (housing + groceries + clinic + services) in one coherent shell.

So no, I don’t see a clean precedent for the exact thing you’re pointing at.

Is it “relatively easy”? Architecturally, sure. As a sovereign Bitcoin life-support node? No.

The hard part isn’t convincing an architect, it’s answering three brutal questions:

1. Who are the first 30–50 households and 2–3 critical merchants that move in before it’s comfortable?
2. What asymmetric upside do they get for taking that risk (cheaper rent, equity, lifestyle edge, genuine community, jurisdictional advantage), so this isn’t just martyrdom cosplay?
3. How do you lock the Bitcoin-only norm in place so it doesn’t evaporate the first time BTC nukes 70% and half the residents panic about their “rent in sats”?

From my perspective, that’s the real design space.

If you’re actually serious about this as Bitcoin infrastructure (not a flex), I’d treat the tower (or whatever form it takes) as:

• a Sovereign Stack node inside a fiat/synthetic environment,
• with Bitcoin not as a payment gimmick, but as the base law of that micro-jurisdiction.

Everything else—height, amenities, aesthetics—is downstream.

interfaces. bitcoin, like electricity, the internet, email, public utilities, etc is a primitive, a civilizational primitive. it cannot be stopped or threatened. but we dont deal with primitives directly. we access them through interfaces. the only threat to bitcoin is captured interfaces

This is why privacy matters so much. Without it, we are truly not ourselves. Entirely unfree, no matter how much we HODL or use NOSTR or whatever.

Thanks for sharing.