Auveki - Ecology of Bitcoin

Auveki - Ecology of Bitcoin's avatar
Auveki - Ecology of Bitcoin
🛡️ bumpster@iris.to
npub1meh0...kl6v
Adventuring into places known and unknown. Author: Steps to an Ecology of Bitcoin.
Ever notice gold and silver prices swinging wild? It's like the ultimate wake-up call in a sleepy fiat world—signaling cracks in the system. Reminds me of Taleb: "Antifragility is relative. A boxer might be tough in the ring, but fragile when his girlfriend dumps him." What if markets are the same? Robust on charts, but emotionally... oof. ↓ Flipping through nostr feeds, I'm wondering: Does Bitcoin's volatility build our antifragility—or just lead to "unrequited vol" tears? Gold vol feels like an alert; BTC vol hits different—tests patience, forces low-time-preference thinking. But does it make us stronger, or expose hidden fragilities? What's your take? Has BTC vol ever "dumped" you emotionally? #Antifragile
Hayek provides an interesting connection to Bitcoin's antifragile properties. Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order" provides the economic parallel to operational closure. It is a critical step to connecting this to Bitcoin's self-organizing properties. Read more in my revised Step 3 article. [naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5q9z8wue69uhhqd3hwdck7v3kdd3hz7ntwaerwvn0veaxxcekvcm8wmtpxec8z7trdumhs635d9hrxungv34kvat2wa5rxdn8deckgtn0de5k7m30qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtngv93xccfwdejhwue0qpqxxmr0wdjkgtt5dukkjmnnw3e82cm5d9hkutt0wpjkutt5dukhxarjv4ehxttzd96xxmmfdeej6ctww35kvunpva5kcefdv3jhx6t8dcwq42k4#user-content-fnref-4]
Hayek provides an interesting connection to Bitcoin's antifragile properties. Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order" provides the economic parallel to operational closure. It is a critical step to connecting this to Bitcoin's self-organizing properties. Read more in my revised Step 3 article. naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5q9z8wue69uhhqd3hwdck7v3kdd3hz7ntwaerwvn0veaxxcekvcm8wmtpxec8z7trdumhs635d9hrxungv34kvat2wa5rxdn8deckgtn0de5k7m30qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtngv93xccfwdejhwue0qpqxxmr0wdjkgtt5dukkjmnnw3e82cm5d9hkutt0wpjkutt5dukhxarjv4ehxttzd96xxmmfdeej6ctww35kvunpva5kcefdv3jhx6t8dcwq42k4#user-content-fnref-4
Bitcoiners thrive on: - objectivism - realism sound money principles rooted in objective scarcity >> (21 million cap) verifiable properties, and permissionless sovereignty Bitcoin network is thriving - there is a synergistic breakout with the emergence of AI applications ---> FSD Tesla cars and swarming drones and self-driving Rovers on mars... Something broke through in 2025. Something else is colliding. McLuhan warned that print's dominance created a "rearview mirror" effect—societies clinging to old forms amid change. I think this "reaview mirror" got broken finally.
What is the true art of Bitcoin? It’s not about building a perfect, fragile gadget that breaks if you touch it wrong. Bitcoin is more like a wild herd of horses — raw, decentralized, impossible to fully domesticate. Look at these mustangs: [... wild horses running free, navigating rough terrain, evading obstacles naturally — pure antifragile resilience] Contrast that with a sleek iPhone: beautifully engineered… but one drop, one bad update, one committee decision, and it’s bricked or redesigned into something else entirely. [Visual contrast: clean, shiny modern iPhone on white background — looks perfect, but clearly man-made and breakable] Wall Street, regulators, institutions — they can try to ride the herd, put saddles on a few horses, even corral parts of it into ETFs. But they can’t turn the whole thing into a domesticated pony farm without killing what makes it Bitcoin: ---> Its unstoppable, leaderless momentum ---> Its ability to route around obstacles instead of being stopped by them ---> Its evolution through pressure, not top-down design The revolutionary magic isn’t in never facing capture attempts. It’s in surviving them — getting stronger, more decentralized, more antifragile every time someone tries to break or control it. That’s the art. That’s why I don’t lose sleep over “hijacking” fears. The herd keeps running. What do you think — horse or iPhone? 🐎⚡
How does Rothbard build his apodictic certainty foundation? He tells us exactly: "My understanding of Ludwig von Mises' notion of the a priori... rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas." — Murray Rothbard, The synchronizing point around Aristotle & Aquinas' emphasis on the common good and human flourishing in community. So what’s the problem? This is where I get stuck. To pull from St. Thomas, literally, is a declaration and definition of law requiring a legislator. Aquinas’ Divine Reason is not the same as Rothbard’s Reason - there is a jump. Is this where I am getting this wrong? Did Rothbard justify the de-theologizing (making it work without requiring belief in God as legislator) sufficiently? St Thomas Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4 ---> Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by one who cares for the community." For Rothbard to cherry-pick the famous "Unjust laws are not laws" from the essence of St Thomas' grounding seems a point worth re-examining. The word cherry-picking " is used because I can not find anything in the original source material from Rothbard that describes the trade-off when you remove God. Aquinas is grounded in “divine reason”, yet Rothbard reduces it to “reason.” Rothbard gains something here, but what, exactly, does he lose? In crisis mode, Rothbard's call for decisive action appears reasonable, but at what cost? The main argument centers on what is sacrificed when urgent action is taken: does Rothbard's gain outweigh what may be lost? But in an era of prosperity? The justification to remove “God” through a "modernization" for individual rights itself becomes problematic when the rational fabric of praxeology is to be independent of conditions, to avoid empirical subjectivism. Is this not the exact point that Bitcoin thinking can strengthen this “Blindspot”? Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 91, Art. 1–2 ---> Natural law as "participation in eternal law." The obvious risk is that boundary-line that Jordan Peterson used to pound the table with - Who decides what is offensive" IMHO, without God, the 'good' becomes subjective; the tyrant can claim his aggression as 'natural' if it serves his ends.