the only aluable life lesson I remember from high school - drink beers in the school parking lot and listening to some classics.... Won't Get Fooled Again by The Who (from the album Who's Next, 1971) Written by Pete Townshend We'll be fighting in the streets With our children at our feet And the morals that they worship will be gone And the men who spurred us on Sit in judgment of all wrong They decide and the shotgun sings the song I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again The change, it had to come We knew it all along We were liberated from the fold, that's all And the world looks just the same And history ain't changed 'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again No, no! I'll move myself and my family aside If we happen to be left half alive I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky For I know that the hypnotized never lie Do ya? Yeah! There's nothing in the streets Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now the parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no! Yeeeaaah! Meet the new boss Same as the old boss

Gumption. I love this word but seems lost... maybe a revival is warranted? How would you fill in the blanks --> The Bitcoiner explores "gumption" (enthusiasm, initiative, and psychic energy needed for careful, high-quality work) and obstacles that drain it, known as "gumption traps." One key phenomenon is "stuckness"—the frustrating moment when you're completely blocked on a problem, like a __??__ on a __??__ that won't budge despite all your tools and knowledge. TIP: The original from Prisig: "...like a seized bolt on a motorcycle.."

Can you recogonize this paraphrased passage? "...the knowledge taught by the Church of Reason, is the engine and all the boxcars. All of them and everything that's in them. If you subdivide the train into parts you will find no Romantic Knowledge anywhere." hint: circa ~

WTF Happened In 1971?

WTF Happened In 1971?

https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative-inflation-since-1913/ "I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again befo...

In school I always had difficulties remembering facts, data, lists of events: Was Cleopatra the girlfriend of Lincoln or Charlemagne or Caesar? I think this describes a lot of noster Bitcoiner's .

Mises' Dogma Dilemma <-----(Praxeology/Austrian Economics): - Mis-understood by Traditional Economics for 75+ Years. Mises' skepticism of absolute systems is clear - his critique of collectivism and progress was unequivocal: "Free markets as spontaneous order" @Max captures the essence in his latest The Praxeology of Privacy v2 Book: A priori truths in praxeology: Economic laws derived deductively from action axioms, not empiricism; and it is exactly here we find that dirty phrase: ---> a prior Some fancy philosophy term used by sophisticated thinkers - which often triggers the dreaded DOGMA alert for many causual Austrian Economics thinkers, (like me). But why the alert? A prior what does it REALLY mean? The short version - some truths you can verify by thinking clearly about what words mean—you don't need to run an experiment. So what's the problem? The logic seems easy to understand - no ambiguity. “If A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then A must be taller than C.”You don’t have to go out and measure a bunch of people (A, B, and C) to check if this is true. You don’t need any real-world examples or experiments at all. As soon as you truly understand what “taller than” means, your mind can see that this has to be true—it’s built into the idea itself. It’s the same kind of thinking Mises uses for human action. Seems obvious. Mises' claims the action axiom is like this.: "Once you understand what "purposeful action" means, you can see it's true without collecting data. And if you try to argue against it, you're... acting purposefully. The denial proves the claim." This isn't dogma. It's more like noticing you can't step outside your own shadow. But in Mises' case he hits a brick wall with science. Mises' insistence on deductive, incontestable axioms seems to prioritize absolute, non-revisable truths. This is the exact kind of language that could resemble the dogmatic notions of a pompous Keynesian Eco Prof . from Yale. Hence the dilemma - freedoom in the markets, by an absolute axiom that smells like dogma. The Praxeology of Privacy echo's this in chapter 2 & 3: Chapter 3 opens with: "The Action Axiom, formulated by Ludwig von Mises, states that human action is purposeful behavior. This is not an empirical generalization subject to falsification but a self-evident truth: any attempt to deny it is itself an action, purposeful behavior directed toward convincing others, thereby confirming what it attempts to deny." I personally think Max could do a better job here - I don't disagree with the acts - but it completely misses the opportunity to show mastery of praxeolgy in action. Many NON-bitcoin people see this statement as DOGMA. Not walking the reader through the nuance and historical push-back misses a teachable-moment. This is the creative tension between A Priori Rigidity vs. Empirical Flexibility, but it is superficial. I would go further and state that's the opposite of what praxeology should demonstrate. If human action is about purposeful behavior—about choosing, weighing, pursuing ends—then teaching praxeology should invite that process, not short-circuit it. Show the errors. Let skeptics see their objections dissolve. That's how you earn trust instead of demanding submission. Mises' has an eloquent counter for those worried about Dogmatic assertions. Other ideas include Mises' ideas were timeless - found in ancient cultures far aware from western paradigms: Mises didn't invent praxeology from nothing. He adapted it from Tadeusz Kotarbiński's "praxiology"—a Polish theory of efficient action from the 1920s-30s. And the core insight is older still. Confucians viewed human action as inherently purposeful, driven by self-improvement and ethical ends. Similar intuitions appear across cultures, far from Western rationalism. That's not weakness—that's strength. When multiple traditions converge on the same foundation independently, it suggests they're touching something real. Max could use that history to defuse the dogma attack instead of triggering it. However, the most important thing that The Praxeology of Privacy book opens the space for this understanding - I am reading it a second time now - revisiting ideas I thought I knew, but now at a deeper level.

still working on this for inline txt links? Cleanest solution so far - but hate the idead of publishing http?? /published: "http s://njump.me/naddr..." Thoughts?? What does not work is publishing is straight embed: //naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qyfhwumn8ghj7cnfw3ehgctrdvhxzurs9uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsqdrxd9jkcepddehhgefdvehrqc33vykhq6r9dehk6etwdakx7eme94hkvttdd9ej6atwv3jhyum5v9hxg6twvujg6r7a// as you see below - it auto-fills. I could not find an escape char or parameter to toggle those image and tags or description. naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qyfhwumn8ghj7cnfw3ehgctrdvhxzurs9uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsqdrxd9jkcepddehhgefdvehrqc33vykhq6r9dehk6etwdakx7eme94hkvttdd9ej6atwv3jhyum5v9hxg6twvujg6r7a

NOSTR help need - long form article - internal linking best practices? Discouraged? Needed , but constrained?

bitcoin whitepaper: reference [8] is interesting—it's the only non-computer-science citation in the whitepaper. The reference: William Feller, "An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications" (1957) This is a foundational probability textbook, still used in graduate programs. Satoshi cites it for Section 11: Calculations, where he models the double-spend attack as a Gambler's Ruin problem The core idea: An attacker trying to catch up to the honest chain is like a gambler with limited funds playing against the house. Each block is a "bet": Honest network finds a block → attacker falls further behind Attacker finds a block → attacker catches up by one Feller's book provides the math showing that if the attacker has less than 50% of hash power, the probability of ever catching up drops exponentially with each confirmation. This is why "6 confirmations" became the rule of thumb. The network's "immune response" to attack isn't a designed defense mechanism—it's an emergent property of probabilistic dynamics. The system doesn't prevent attacks; it makes them economically irrational over time through statistical inevitability. This is closer to how living systems maintain integrity: not through walls, but through processes that make certain outcomes overwhelmingly likely. "The Praxeology of Privacy" does excellent work connecting Austrian praxeology to cypherpunk implementation. But in Chapter 15's treatment of Bitcoin, it focuses almost entirely on the economic and cryptographic lineage: Hashcash, B-money, Bit Gold, the double-spending problem, proof-of-work as throttling mechanism. What's missing: Satoshi's explicit grounding of Bitcoin's security in probability theory, not cryptography. @Max Why is this important? The network's "immune response" to attack isn't a designed defense mechanism—it's an emergent property of probabilistic dynamics. The system doesn't prevent attacks; it makes them economically irrational over time through statistical inevitability. This is closer to how living systems maintain integrity: not through walls, but through processes that make certain outcomes overwhelmingly likely. I find it a strange ommision from "The Praxeology of Privacy" -- curious if there is intention to omit ? From my radical constructivst POV it's the single most curious citations - this is the thread that I pulled where I encountered the idea that Bitcoin may have autopoietic properties - self-organizing /producing system.

what seems out of place here? b-money, design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements, how to time-stamp a digital document, improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping, secure names for bit-strings, hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure, protocols for public key cryptosystems, an introduction to probability theory and its applications. 1998 1999 1991 1993 1997 2002 1980 1957 <-- References: [1] W. Dai, "b-money," 📃.txt, 1998. [2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquater, "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements," In 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, May 1999. [3] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "How to time-stamp a digital document," In Journal of Cryptology, vol 3, no 2, pages 99-111, 1991. [4] D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping," In Sequences II: Methods in Communication, Security and Computer Science, pages 329-334, 1993. [5] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Secure names for bit-strings," In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 28-35, April 1997. [6] A. Back, "Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure," 📄.pdf, 2002. [7] R.C. Merkle, "Protocols for public key cryptosystems," In Proc. 1980 Symposium on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society, pages 122-133, April 1980. [8] W. Feller, "An introduction to probability theory and its applications," 1957

Great stuff - enjoyed revisiting the old with renewal. I am reading this as a "radical constructivist epistemologist" - so my comments have roots from thinkers like Heinz von Foerster, Glasserfled and Manturana. I say this now because I have compiled comments - and hope you can reference back this opening to know where I'm thinking from. The first comment, out the gate, is how the INTRO made me think of concepts found in "Dissipative Structures" , quote: "Encryption is cheap, while breaking strong encryption is expensive. This asymmetry shifts the balance of power." **This is dissipative structure thinking applied to security:** ---> The system maintains itself through energy expenditure by attackers ---> Defense is cheaper than attack ---> Viability through sustained imbalance Order from chaos - needs energy input.