travisnj

And that’s exactly the type of centralized control Bitcoin was created to bypass. BUT!!!!! Money infrastructure is too important to be open to everyone. VS Anyone should be able to participate without asking permission. The upside is openness. The downside is that it can turn into speculation and scams... Extremes in both views... But as we have witnessed "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" ~ Lord Acton

And that’s exactly the type of centralized control Bitcoin was created to bypass. BUT!!!!! Money infrastructure is too important to be open to everyone. VS Anyone should be able to participate without asking permission. The upside is openness. The downside is that it can turn into speculation and scams... Extremes in both views... But as we have witnessed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ~ Lord Acton

I agree with the sentiment here. Power structures rarely give up influence voluntarily. Blackmail, pressure, propaganda, and narrative control are unfortunately part of politics everywhere, not just in one place. Expecting those in power to suddenly act against their own interests is probably unrealistic. What does work over time is daylight — open research, open discussion, and people sharing facts without fear. That’s why decentralized systems matter. Tools like Nostr, cryptography, and open networks make it much harder to completely suppress information or control the narrative. In the long run, transparency and open knowledge tend to win.

The FDA announcing a unified platform for tracking adverse events is a welcome technical improvement. Consolidating fragmented databases and making reports easier to access is long overdue. Transparency and better data tools are always a step in the right direction. That said, modernizing the reporting interface doesn’t automatically resolve the deeper concerns many people have about the system itself. Passive reporting databases have always had limitations—underreporting, inconsistent data quality, and the inability to establish causation without deeper investigation. More importantly, the real criticism directed at the FDA over the years hasn’t been about the lack of dashboards or databases. It’s been about trust, transparency in decision-making, regulatory independence, and whether safety signals are investigated thoroughly and communicated openly. A new platform may make the data easier to see, which is good. But rebuilding confidence in public health institutions requires more than improved software—it requires consistent accountability, rigorous oversight, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable findings when they arise. Technology can improve visibility. Trust still has to be earned.

Disgusting... Sad... It will come here, justice is slow... I hate to see bloodshed and so many innocent, one day our innocent will pay the same tragic price... I pray daily this isnt so but, something tells me what comes around... goes around.. what you sow, you will reap...

Until... 2030 (The Plan)... LMAO.... Hubris @ Large

I recently revisited a discussion around The Great Taking by David Rogers Webb, and it forced me to think more carefully about how ownership actually works in modern finance. Webb’s core point—that most people don’t truly hold their financial assets directly but instead hold beneficial claims through layers of custodians and clearing systems—raises legitimate questions about how secure those assets really are in a systemic crisis. It challenges the common assumption that a brokerage statement equals direct ownership. That conversation naturally leads into Bitcoin, which many people—especially in communities like Nostr—see as an answer to that problem. The idea is simple: if you control the private keys, you control the asset. No broker, no clearinghouse, no intermediary chain that could potentially rehypothecate or freeze your holdings. In theory, that creates a form of financial sovereignty that traditional markets do not provide. However, I remain cautious. Bitcoin’s promise of independence from centralized finance exists alongside realities that introduce new uncertainties. For one, the origin of Bitcoin remains opaque. The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is still unknown, and while the protocol is open source and decentralized, the lack of historical clarity inevitably raises questions about how the system began and why it was allowed to develop so freely in its early years. Another concern is the relationship between Bitcoin and governments. While the protocol itself may be difficult to control, the access points to it—exchanges, banking rails, and taxation systems—are not. Nearly every on-ramp and off-ramp requires identity verification and transaction records. The blockchain’s transparency, which is essential for trust and verification, also means transactions can be traced once an address is tied to a real person. In that sense, the same transparency that gives Bitcoin integrity can also create a form of financial surveillance. There is also the issue of volatility. Even when Bitcoin is used in peer-to-peer transactions, its price swings—often influenced by large institutional players, derivatives markets, and macroeconomic policy signals—make it difficult to treat as stable money. While institutions and governments do not control the network itself, their actions in adjacent markets clearly affect its price and perception. All of this leaves me in a position that is neither dismissive nor blindly optimistic. Bitcoin represents a genuine technological innovation that addresses some of the structural weaknesses in modern financial custody. At the same time, it operates within a broader economic and political environment that is still evolving. So the question isn’t simply whether Bitcoin is safe or unsafe. The deeper question is how a decentralized monetary network will coexist with governments and financial systems that historically expect to control money and the mechanisms of exchange. The answer to that question will likely determine whether Bitcoin becomes a durable store of value, a parallel financial system, or something else entirely.

https://youtu.be/dk3AVceraTI Most Excellent @Telluride Listening and half way is outstanding, thanks for the note

I see your note, but I don't see what your replying to: what book is it?

Donald Trump has never had much trouble looking people in the eye and saying whatever he believes will move a situation toward the outcome he wants. That isn’t unique to him—politicians across the spectrum have done the same for decades—but it seems like many people have forgotten that reality. That said, I wouldn’t go so far as to claim everything he says is a lie. During his first term, I believe many of his actions were at least intended to move in what he saw as the national interest. What’s changed, in my view, is the last several months. Something about the direction of his decisions and priorities feels markedly different. Whether that’s political pressure, alliances, or broader geopolitical influence, it increasingly appears that the outcomes being pursued are not aligned with what many Americans would consider the national interest. You don’t have to believe every statement is false to question whether the trajectory of recent actions is serving the country first.

The onus is on the community, not the protocol. A protocol does not think, judge, shadow-ban, or censor. It only routes information. Accountability belongs to individuals and communities choosing what to engage with—not to the rails themselves.

and if it happens to me or anybody else on Primal then I won't be here either and the battle will continue for free speech.