pull down to refresh
642 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Jan \ parent \ on: Bitcoin: anyone anywhere or everyone always? bitcoin
I can't claim I understand him completely, haven't been in the meatspace together since before Bitcoin to discuss this stuff... but from some of his writings would parse that his views are rooted in the position that Bitcoin is black-market money and everything beyond that has no meaning. If it's not black-market money, it's useless. His project therefore prioritizes decentralization/lowering barriers to sovereign operation by making a better bitcoin implementation than core which prioritizes other things.
He pushes back when people doubt the ability of the government to get organized and drive it into the shadows. I think he believes Bitcoin's creation and trajectory has been organic, and that at some point that will become untenable to the state and the hammer will come down.
I think he's right in that the gov could drive it into the shadows, I agree with that so much that I think they'd have done it already so all the other thinking is flawed. My assumptions on provenance is that a sect within the intelligence apparatus created it and has nurtured it as an offramp to a system that was going to collapse with or without it. The incentives of the USG are exactly what Trump and anyone who's ever mentioned the Triffin Dilemma said they are, the dollars reserve status is a national security liability not an asset. Bitcoin is and has always been operation to save the US (and therefore the world) from international bankers in a war that's been fought now for centuries: https://x.com/shocknet_justin/status/1874881261493510252
I agree with that so much that I think they'd have done it already so all the other thinking is flawed. My assumptions on provenance is that a sect within the intelligence apparatus created it and has nurtured it as an offramp to a system that was going to collapse with or without it.
In other words: you agree so much with the idea that the govt could squash it (not literally eradicate it, but drastically curtail its use in practice) that you view its continued non-squashed existence as evidence that the aforementioned sect exists, and was the origin of btc?
reply
Yes
reply
I'm a good audience for this theory, since I believe that the govt could squash btc (using the above definition of 'squash') way more than other people seem to.
But it also seems dangerously unfalsifiable -- so long as btc isn't squashed, the theory holds; and whatever squash-like activity occurs can be explained away without too much trouble (e.g., not everyone in the govt has been read in on what's going on; smaller squash-like efforts are the system LARPing so as not to reveal the true game that's afoot, etc.)
Have you thought about what could erode your belief in this theory? Could anything?
reply
That's what makes it theory I guess. The take that Satoshi being some anon individual is treated as fact because it's not falsifiable, reality is that Satoshi being an NSA op is just as likely (where I say it's more likely)... we may never know and even if we thought we did there's still no objective truth. If Satoshi did reveal themselves, how could we know for sure that wasn't itself a psyop?
Same goes with incentive theory, whether or not it was an executed plan or happened organically doesn't matter, what we have is clear evidence now that the government with the world reserve currency is being taken over by people that recognize it's ability to help save the US (or at least are paying lip service to this effect publicly).
I guess it comes down whether you prefer to believe in conspiracies, or coincidences?
Have you thought about what could erode your belief in this theory? Could anything?
This is a great question, I reserve the right to come back and resurrect this thread after an epiphany... but off the cuff I think it'd have to be a "rat poison" event like we agree is possible (squash). That would still reinforce my theory it's an intel op though, just a dark one rather than a white hat one.
The problem is, even if "Satoshi" revealed themselves and signed with their keys etc as proof... we still couldn't falsify the op theory. That Satoshir could be an actor/agent within the op, just as politicians and CEO are agents for the apparatus.
I suppose NSA/GCHQ etc could just publicly break the encryption or exploit backdoored chips and start sweeping exchange cold wallets for funsies, thus destroying the ledger, but even that still doesn't mean they didn't create it... it's just a different type of rat poison event.
I guess I just follow the evidence, but have to be content with the fact that evidence is not proof, because ultimately there's no objective truth at this scale.
reply
This is a great question, I reserve the right to come back and resurrect this thread after an epiphany.
Please do, would be interested in evolution of the idea.
I guess I just follow the evidence, but have to be content with the fact that evidence is not proof, because ultimately there's no objective truth at this scale.
Yeah, and I suppose it's immaterial anyway -- if the theory is true, it would suggest a certain underlying buffer against 'catastrophe', but that doesn't mean that the catastrophe must actually be averted in practice, since catastrophe can unfold in many ways, even when people are trying to prevent it. (Nor does it mean that if the theory wasn't true, that catastrophe couldn't also be averted. You can just get lucky.)
It does make an evocative explanation, in any event. Will be a good lens to have access to in the days ahead.
reply
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
reply
reply