What are the odds that Jeffrey Epstein is sitting somewhere on an island enjoying all this attention he's been getting? Probably higher than the odds of him having killed himself.
The Bitcoin or Gold psyop is silly and the debaters on both sides are usually clueless. Why wouldn't you own both Bitcoin and Gold? They are both assets outside the system and have different advantages/disadvantages. To mention some of gold's advantages (because everyone here already knows about Bitcoin's advantages): (1) Physical gold has no public ledger. - No historical chain of custody anchored in a global database. - Evidence of holdings is fragmentary: vault records, invoices, eyewitnesses, maybe customs records. - Outside that, the state has suspicion, not a cryptographic audit trail. - The "omniscient ledger" simply doesn’t exist. (2) Harder to geofence at scale from a screen. - Once it is in your physical possession, there is no equivalent "app store ban" or "node-liability" lever that instantly makes it unusable for most people. (3) Gold has no "core devs", no client politics, no mempool policy. - "Protocol" = physics, metallurgy, and a scale. - There is no equivalent of a small GitHub group with agenda-setting power. - There is no "v30" for gold. No client upgrade that suddenly increases storage risk by 1200x. - Coordination burden is basically zero at the "how it works" layer. (4) No need to defend a node/mempool ecosystem. - No nodes. - No mempool. - No UTXO set to bloat. - You don't need an army of volunteer maintainers to keep "gold full nodes" defensible. - Less coordination tax, fewer sociotechnical attack surfaces. (5) Gold expropriation requires physical enforcement, not just data + policy. There is no universal gold UTXO set or "travel rule". Expropriation requires either: - Knowing where the gold is (vault, safe deposit box, storage facility). - Or house-by-house enforcement with massive manpower/legitimacy cost. In practice, enforcement tends to focus on: - Formal channels (vaults, dealers, banks). - Border crossings. - Declarations above thresholds. @Daedalus also opened my eyes to some very significant issues regarding Bitcoin hardware wallets. TL;DR - I'd imagine the government has access to the vast majority of seed phrases. From what I've researched, getting this risk to zero is extremely hard (if not impossible). It can be minimized with multi-sig, heterogeneous devices instead of trusting any single black box. Just one of the many issues are "secure" elements in which many wallets store the seed phrase. A secure element (SE) is: - Closed-source silicon + firmware - Designed and signed off by a tiny number of entities - Certified by processes you don't control (Common Criteria, labs, NDAs) - Distributed at scale into "secure" devices (wallets, phones, SIMs, payment cards) Secure elements are perfect for creating choke points where keys & identity cluster: - Centralized design - Long lifetimes - Hard to inspect physically - Wrapped in "security" narrative So if you assume a serious state-level adversary wants that lever and can get it sometimes, the right prior is: - "Treat any closed-source Secure Element as potentially backdoored if you're defending against a nation-state" That's not the same as "we know for a fact every Secure Element is backdoored". We don't. Lacking verifiable proof is exactly what makes this such an asymmetric control point. Dice-based seeds fix RNG trust, not key exfiltration. If a device ever sees the full seed, a malicious Secure Element/firmware can leak it later. The only real structural defense is collusion forcing: - Heterogeneous multi-sig (different vendors + DIY), - Multi-source entropy (XOR’d seeds), - Passphrases kept off the compromised device, - Independent stacks for different key shares. There is no neat solution that makes you "immune to NSA". The best you can do is: - Make mass, silent theft via one corporate/vended rail impossible, - Force any serious adversary into messy, noisy, manual operations if they want you specifically. A state-level actor can plausibly: - backdoor RNG/nonces, - exfil keys via signatures, - coerce vendor into "minor tweaks", - intercept shipping, - or just use host+legal leverage. (6) Gold doesn't need electricity, internet, DNS, app stores, or routers. - You can transact in a blackout. - You can pay a smuggler without any digital evidence. - You don't care about packet filtering or "crypto port" throttling. There are many more examples of where Gold has an advantage over Bitcoin. And of course, Bitcoin has many advantages over gold (teleportability, shock convexity in a specific Great Taking scenario, programmability for complex, conditional arrangements, granularity in price discovery, verifiability, etc.). That's the point, gold vs bitcoin is a stupid debate. BTC sovereignty is mathematically elegant but socially expensive and perimeter-fragile. Gold sovereignty is technologically dumb but perimeter-resilient and legally fuzzier. Both are useful, but for different failure modes of the system. The same exercise can be repeated for Bitcoin and Monero. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
I recently had to increase my odds of a Great Taking (mass expropriation) event happening in the near future. One of the reasons is that consent has been massively deteriorating (which is mostly a good thing) and I think they'll use a Great Taking type event to usher in the CBDC + Digital ID era. More and more people understand how the game is played and you can see Central Banks becoming more and more cornered and hiring more "credible" actors. It's like when one of these scammers on the street (with the cups) gets exposed, they can't run the same scam in front of the same people anymore. If the Controllers rob everyone in an artificial financial system collapse, a massive cyber attack, or w/e mass crisis they pick, people won't have much of a choice but to accept their CBDC + Digital ID. This guy is the founder of Interactive Brokers and basically explains how most people lose everything in a Great Taking. I remember watching this clip a few years ago and I went to check the comments and I didn't find anyone who even reacted to what he said. Blows my fucking mind πŸ˜‚. This is the owner of Interactive Brokers (almost a trillion USD under management). And of course, you also have the 2016 predictions for 2030 of the World Economic Forum with their 1st prediction of "In 2030, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy". You also have UN's agenda 2030 which is basically the same thing. To give you 1 more data point: Using Federal Reserve distribution data summarized by multiple outlets: - The top 1% by wealth hold roughly 40–45% of all U.S. corporate equities and mutual fund shares. - The top 10% hold something like 80–90%+ of all equities; one analysis of Fed data has top 10% at ~90%+ of stock and mutual-fund wealth, bottom 50% at ~1%. You don't have to rug very many people to actually execute the "Great Reset". It can easily be sold as: "protecting the many from the excesses of the few". Of course, the few will quietly be robbed via inflation, forced conversions, and taxes. You probably have noticed the push toward socialism especially with this Mandani actor (redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor to reduce "inequality"). By 2030, they want to equalize us. For more context on the Great Taking, watch David Rogers Webb's documentary:
Politics is completely fake and the easiest way to figure out that someone is mentally disabled is when they say they are a republican or a democrat. The republicrats and the demopublicans are equally bad and equally fake. The people you see on TV are actors. They are not the ones making the important decisions. They are the ones who sell you decisions that have already been made. And because this is a midterm year in the US, you often hear: "Trump has to juice markets to win the midterm elections." And because politics is fake, this of course is completely incorrect. In fact, Trump wants to lose House seats. In midterm years, historically, the president's party usually loses House seats and often loses control of at least one chamber. And this is useful to the system (the bosses of these actors) for multiple reasons, but I'll give you the main one. It is a blame machine & excuse generator. If the president's party keeps a big majority: - They "own" everything. - They have no one to blame when they don't deliver what the base wants (and what they've promised). - The gap between promises vs outcomes becomes too obvious. Even the biggest dummies eventually figure out that the game is rigged. When they lose seats and often lose one chamber: They can say: - "We wanted to do X, but the other side blocked us." - "We're constrained by a divided Congress." The opposition gets partial ownership of austerity, rate hikes, and "discipline". So the regime gets: - A durable excuse for why deep structural things never change. - A way to redirect anger horizontally (left vs right) instead of vertically (people vs system). Midterm losses create narrative cover. It's all fake. image
How Central Banks deliberately cause crises and inflation In this article, I've exposed the entire game of Central Banking. How they under-inject liquidity by however much they want, whenever they want, to rug-pull whoever they want and bail out whoever they want.