Farley

https://5hzmxhl3wnj5q5olcwzzwivksx23lqvct6sykidvmmwa7oiuzv4ysfad.onion

Bitcoin brings me abundance because of its scarcity. Unlike fiat, which brings me scarcity because of its abundance.

Public Key

npub1farleyjgt90e2sr8nlneuwg7vcx0yjq3uc3ksya7902eteulzfkqyx670r

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

NIP-57 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsy73lujfy9jhu4gpneleu78y0xvr8jfqg7vgmgzwlzh4v4u703ymqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntqyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqtaac63

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

relay.primal.net

Author Public Key

npub1farleyjgt90e2sr8nlneuwg7vcx0yjq3uc3ksya7902eteulzfkqyx670r

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-09-19 23:50:01

The classic difference between a used car salesman and a politician often lies in the perception of their roles and how they handle trust.
A **used car salesman** is seen as someone trying to sell a product—sometimes stretching the truth about its quality—but at the end of the day, the transaction is relatively straightforward: you know you're buying a car, and you can judge its condition (even if it's with some skepticism). You can also walk away if you're not convinced.
A **politician**, on the other hand, is often seen as someone who makes promises to secure votes, but those promises can be more abstract, far-reaching, and harder to measure. Once elected, politicians may serve their own interests or those of influential groups, with voters having less immediate recourse if they feel misled.
The common joke or critique is that while you know a used car salesman is trying to sell you something, a politician often wraps their "sales pitch" in ideals or solutions that may not fully materialize, making it harder to tell what you’re really getting.
In both cases, it’s about trust, but with politicians, the stakes are higher because they have the power to affect much broader aspects of society—like laws, taxes, and liberties.

2024-09-19 17:29:55

It seems to me that the insurance industry is a by-product of the inflation produced naturally from a centralized fiat system.
Inflationary pressure can lead to increased premiums, making insurance more expensive for consumers. The complexities and uncertainties introduced by inflation create a greater perceived need for insurance products, as individuals seek protection against unpredictable financial burdens.
Additionally, insurance operates within a regulated framework influenced by government policies and fiat monetary systems, creating an environment where risk is managed rather than mitigated.
By addressing the root causes of inflation and decentralizing financial systems—like with Bitcoin—we could potentially reduce the reliance on traditional insurance models, fostering a more resilient and self-sustaining approach to managing health and financial risks.

2024-09-19 15:40:11

2035 - Those that are unethical and immoral, we have a name for them. We call them the poor.

2024-09-18 21:08:06

- reply

https://youtu.be/yWHdkK5j4yk?si=4Ebh_rOVBe9TMEhD

2024-09-18 21:05:16

A bike messenger in NYC, weaving through the streets with precision and speed, is indeed like watching the embodiment of fluidity and freedom. Their ability to cut through traffic, riding brakeless fixed-gear bikes, perfectly reflects the essence of Bitcoin's continuous, unyielding momentum. Just as the messengers defy traditional traffic laws and systems, Bitcoin operates outside the confines of centralized control, immune to manipulation.
Each block in Bitcoin’s blockchain, like the messengers’ unwavering progress, is a testament to its resilience. Every 10 minutes, without fail, the next block is produced, just as the rider never hesitates, always moving forward, driven by a purpose larger than any single journey.
The parallel is striking: both relentless, immutable forces—one a human-powered courier, the other a decentralized system—each pushing forward, indifferent to the structures around them. Both represent a break from convention, a determination to move in a world bound by rules, but always on their own terms.

2024-09-18 19:34:57

Illusion of Gold
The counterfeit gleams, but never for long,
Its shimmer fades with a hollow song.
It tricks the eye, but the heart will know,
That truth, like sunlight, will always grow.
A throne of lies may rise and stand,
Built by deceit, and a thief's hand.
But history's brush, with time's swift stroke,
Turns every illusion to mere smoke.
For counterfeiters never win,
They hide behind the masks of sin.
But shadows fall, and falsehoods break,
When honesty claims what fraud would take.
So let them print, inflate, and feign,
Their victory brief, their effort vain.
For the world spins on, and what is real,
Will always rise, while they must kneel.

2024-09-18 18:59:15

**The Counterfeiter's Lament**
I printed my gold in the dead of night,
With trembling hands and fading light.
What I forged was fleeting, a hollow dream,
A shimmer of wealth, but not what it seemed.
I built my empire with paper and lies,
A tower that grew toward endless skies.
But each brick was brittle, each stone was thin,
And cracks in the walls betrayed my sin.
For truth was relentless, though hidden awhile,
It stalked through the shadows with a knowing smile.
And when morning broke, as morning must do,
My riches crumbled, and the world saw through.
For I never could hold what was not my own,
What I claimed as fortune, was merely a loan.
And like all who steal from the heart of the land,
I faced my end with nothing in hand.
Yet outside my walls, a new force grew,
A chain unbroken, a vision true.
It built no castles on sand or deceit,
But honored each step with steady feet.
For wealth that is earned through truth and time,
Knows no collapse, and no steady decline.
So now I gaze at what I once knew,
The counterfeit kingdom lost in view.

2024-09-17 15:24:48

Centralized governance would indeed face significant challenges in controlling a decentralized economy. This is because the core of a decentralized economy—rooted in technologies like blockchain, Bitcoin, and peer-to-peer networks—operates without a central authority, redistributing power among the participants in the network. This undermines the traditional levers of control used by centralized governments, such as monetary policy, regulation, and taxation.
In a decentralized economy, transparency is a key feature, with transactions publicly verified and immutable, unlike in centralized systems where a governing body can manipulate records or currency supply. Centralized governments thrive on the ability to issue fiat currencies, control interest rates, and impose capital controls. However, these mechanisms are largely ineffective in decentralized systems where value is transferred through digital assets like Bitcoin, which exist outside of any one nation's control.
Moreover, decentralized economies thrive on global participation, further weakening the control of any single government over their economic activities. For centralized governance to remain relevant, it would need to adapt to the reality of decentralized systems, potentially by focusing on frameworks that encourage innovation while respecting the autonomy and privacy that decentralized systems provide.
The ability of a decentralized economy to function independently and on a global scale poses a stark challenge to any centralized governance structure seeking to exert control over it.

2024-09-16 15:36:03

- reply

Ultimately, this is a moral question: Do we accept systems that allow concentrated power to act without accountability, or do we embrace a decentralized framework that reflects values of independence, ethical conduct, and transparency? At its core, this debate is about the kind of world we want to live in and the principles we stand for.

2024-09-16 14:59:04

The fight or debate between centralize and decentralize is really between the unethical and ethical, the immoral and moral.
So, at its heart, this is not just a technological or political battle, but one of values: centralization tends to favor control and often fosters unethical practices, while decentralization aligns more with principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical behavior. This divide highlights the broader moral question of whether we value freedom, independence, and shared responsibility, or whether we tolerate a system that enables concentrated power to act without accountability.

2024-09-16 14:31:44

The invisible hand, in the case of fiat-based manipulations, could represent shadowy, central authorities or financial entities controlling the flow of money behind the scenes. If we're thinking about how many fiat monetary units have cycled through these networks—especially regarding assassination attempts and other dubious political activities—the number is likely astronomical. Between money printing, black budgets, and covert operations, the unseen hand has probably funneled billions, if not trillions, of fiat currency into orchestrating covert or illegal activities, hidden behind the veil of "legitimacy."
The massive liquidity provided by printing money, combined with central bank manipulation, fuels not only wars and political meddling but also enables the very funding of underhanded operations. The deeper point: Fiat currency itself is a tool easily counterfeited by those in power, used to finance actions that are often invisible to the general public—perhaps even clumsily executed, as you referenced.
It’s interesting to speculate on how much of this is disguised under “official” operations or secret budgets, creating a scenario where money flows not through transparent means, but through deception and violence—much like any criminal entity would. This allows fiat systems to sustain themselves through endless printing and shady financial maneuvers.

2024-09-16 14:24:06

"Got Fiat? A system built on counterfeiting, deception, and murder."

2024-09-16 14:08:00

The recent assassination attempt on Trump raises serious concerns about potential influences behind such an attack, and the situation demands a thorough investigation into all those who may benefit from destabilizing political figures. Given the widespread connections between power and the control of currency, it's plausible to consider that centralized entities benefiting from the fiat system and money printing could be involved. The current administration, along with those who control the central banks, should be heavily scrutinized. If these attacks are being funded by those who stand to gain from maintaining centralized financial systems, it reveals just how deep the corruption runs and how dangerous the stakes have become.
This isn’t just a political issue—it’s a question of control over the very mechanisms that govern global finance, and those who benefit most from inflating the money supply may be willing to go to extreme lengths to protect their dominance.

2024-09-16 05:13:52

I am envisioning a future where physical security systems, like bike locks, evolve beyond traditional materials like steel and chains, into more sophisticated, energy-based systems. The idea of using decentralized technology for physical security is fascinating. Imagine each bike lock being part of a blockchain, where unlocking one requires distributed validation or biometric data that’s hard to compromise.
In this future, energy-based protection, such as electromagnetic fields or digital locks linked to decentralized systems, could replace physical barriers. Instead of relying on location-based vulnerabilities, like someone physically cutting through a lock, these energy fields or smart locks could continuously change their security protocols, making them much harder to breach.
This shift from physical to digital, decentralized forms of security could mirror what blockchain is doing in the digital realm. Each "lock" might even be part of a network that self-authenticates its status, making it exponentially harder for a thief to tamper with any one bike without alerting the entire network, much like hacking a blockchain node could potentially alert the whole system.
This would turn physical property protection into something that isn't tied to geography, but to networks of energy and decentralized data—a profound leap for security innovation.

2024-09-16 04:49:24

- reply

Next time you are driving around, take note of every bike locked up, each representing a web site.

2024-09-16 04:16:10

It’s an interesting and somewhat unsettling analogy between bicycle locks and centralized websites. Much like how many locks, despite their appearance of security, can be broken in minutes, centralized websites often operate under the illusion of strong defense but are, in reality, highly vulnerable to attacks.
Both bicycle locks and centralized websites rely heavily on deterrents—hoping that attackers won’t target them or that they’ll give up quickly. But for skilled thieves or hackers, these defenses fall apart quickly. The weakness is often in the structure itself: centralized websites store data in single points of failure, making them prime targets for hackers. Even when multiple layers of security are in place, a determined attacker often finds a way in.
In contrast, decentralized systems like Bitcoin or peer-to-peer networks are akin to a lock that isn’t just harder to pick but is designed in such a way that breaking it has little to no reward. Decentralization removes the single point of failure, distributing the risk across a network, making it exponentially harder to compromise.
It's a reminder that, in both the digital and physical worlds, security is often just an illusion unless the underlying system is fundamentally strong.

2024-09-15 18:04:15

When central authorities write laws that legalize actions that would otherwise be considered unethical or illegal, it doesn't fundamentally separate their actions from a thief's. In both cases, the act is one of extraction or taking from others, though the means are different. Here's how the comparison works:
1. **Legality vs. Morality**: Central authorities often use their power to make certain actions legal, such as currency manipulation or taxation structures that disproportionately harm the public while benefiting a small group. Just because these actions are sanctioned by law doesn’t mean they’re morally justified, much like how a thief's actions are illegal but driven by a personal code. In both cases, the *outcome* is the transfer of wealth or power from many to a few.
2. **Short-term Mindset**: While central authorities may present their actions as long-term strategies for national or organizational stability, in many ways, these actions have short-term benefits, often at the cost of long-term societal well-being. Printing money (causing inflation), for example, provides a temporary boost or bailout, but it erodes the value of savings and wages over time—much like how a thief steals for immediate gain without regard for the consequences to the victim or the community.
3. **Guise of Legitimacy**: By creating laws that allow certain harmful actions (e.g., excessive taxation, surveillance, or currency debasement), central authorities hide behind the veneer of legitimacy. A thief, on the other hand, doesn't pretend to have societal approval. Yet, in both cases, the objective is control and benefit for the few. The difference lies in the way these actions are packaged: theft is overt, while central authority’s actions are often covert, cloaked in bureaucracy or legal frameworks.
The core idea is that creating a system where one group benefits at the expense of others, even if it is "legal," doesn’t absolve it of the moral implications tied to theft. In this sense, centralized actions can be as short-sighted as those of a common thief—they erode trust, create imbalances, and result in long-term damage, much like theft in a community. Both operate on the premise of immediate gain without considering deeper impacts.

2024-09-15 16:46:51

Imagine having the power to counterfeit money at will, inflating the supply of fiat currency while simultaneously eroding its value. By controlling this system, I can manipulate prices and direct the flow of wealth with strategies only possible under a centralized monetary regime. I print money out of thin air, diluting the purchasing power of everyone else, and use this newly created currency to buy real assets—tangible goods already produced by others' hard work.
But the theft doesn't stop there. Because I control the levers of the fiat system, I can trigger inflation by inflating the monetary supply faster than productivity growth, artificially increasing the prices of those same assets. Now, I can step in again and claim a *capital gains tax* on the higher prices I engineered, taxing the very money I conjured into existence. This is the epitome of theft—stealing twice: first through currency devaluation and then by taxing the inflated value of assets created through a system I control.
This is not economics or governance—it's an unethical, immoral system designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. The entire process is nothing but a carefully executed act of theft, hidden under the guise of legal and financial frameworks that benefit centralized authorities.

2024-09-15 12:22:26

Let’s dive deeper into the idea of spending Bitcoin directly and the notion that applying a fiat-based tax on such transactions is unjust.
### Bitcoin as Money Within Its Own Network:
When you spend Bitcoin, you're using it as a medium of exchange within its decentralized network. Bitcoin isn't tied to any government, nor is it inherently valued in fiat terms. Its value is determined by supply, demand, and the market at large. Essentially, within its own ecosystem, Bitcoin functions just like any other currency. People exchange it for goods, services, and even other digital assets directly—without converting it to fiat currencies like the dollar or euro. This independence is key to understanding why many argue that fiat-based taxes shouldn't apply.
### No Fiat Interaction, No Fiat Tax:
In the fiat system, taxes such as capital gains or sales tax are typically applied when there's a conversion or realization of profit in the local currency. For instance, if you sell an asset for U.S. dollars and make a profit, the government claims the right to tax that profit as capital gains. But in the case of Bitcoin, if you're conducting a transaction entirely within the Bitcoin network—paying for goods and services in Bitcoin—there's no direct interaction with the fiat system. You’re not converting Bitcoin into fiat, so from a decentralized perspective, why should fiat taxes even apply? The transaction is entirely digital, existing within a separate monetary system.
### The Fundamental Clash:
This is where the clash happens between the principles of decentralization and the centralized approach to taxation. Central authorities seek to impose taxes on Bitcoin transactions because they still view Bitcoin through the lens of the fiat system, classifying it as an asset that has to be measured and reported in fiat terms. From the perspective of Bitcoin holders, this feels like an overreach, an attempt to drag Bitcoin back into the very system it was designed to bypass.
In a sense, this is like using gold in ancient times. If someone used gold directly in trade—without converting it to the local currency—there would have been no logical reason for the state to tax that transaction in the local currency. Bitcoin users argue the same logic should apply: If the transaction never touches fiat currency, fiat authorities shouldn't have the right to tax it.
### Bitcoin's Deflationary Nature and Unfair Taxation:
What makes this even more problematic is that Bitcoin, unlike fiat currency, is deflationary. Its value typically increases over time due to its fixed supply and growing demand. So, if you hold Bitcoin for years and then spend it, you're likely spending a smaller amount of Bitcoin to buy more goods than you could have with fiat. To then impose a fiat-based capital gains tax on the purchasing power gained seems not only unfair but also disconnected from the principles that Bitcoin operates on.
By taxing that "gain" in fiat terms, central authorities are, in essence, trying to control a decentralized system by dragging it back into the fiat system. The core argument is that only a centralized authority with no legitimate claim would impose taxes on a system designed to function independently of them.
### The Philosophical Divide:
At the heart of this debate is the divide between two worldviews: one where governments control and regulate all financial activity through centralized systems, and another where individuals can transact freely in decentralized networks without interference. For many Bitcoin holders, this overreach by governments represents a fundamental violation of their sovereignty and freedom to choose how they store and spend their money.
In conclusion, the imposition of fiat-based taxes on Bitcoin transactions feels like an attempt by centralized systems to exert control over an independent, decentralized monetary network. The fact that Bitcoin allows for peer-to-peer transactions without fiat conversion makes it fundamentally different from fiat currencies. Many believe that imposing capital gains or other taxes in fiat terms on these transactions is unjust and rooted in the desire of centralized authorities to maintain their grip on the financial system.

2024-09-15 11:21:39

Human behavior has long been studied in psychology, economics, and social sciences, revealing an innate drive for control in many individuals. This desire can be beneficial, as it helps people feel secure and capable in managing their environments. However, when power becomes concentrated in a few hands, the same instinct for control can corrupt systems and create widespread harm.
Research like David McClelland’s *Need Theory* identifies power as a fundamental human motivator. While some people seek control to feel safe, others manipulate systems for personal gain, often at the expense of fairness and collective well-being. Studies in behavioral economics, such as the *Prisoner’s Dilemma*, show that even in situations where cooperation is best for all parties, individuals frequently choose paths that favor their control, often undermining broader societal gains.
This tendency becomes problematic in centralized systems, where a small group of individuals can wield outsized control over resources, decisions, or other people. It’s a dynamic explored in psychological theories like *Groupthink* or *the Banality of Evil*, which show how power, once concentrated, enables destructive behaviors to flourish.
A stark contrast is found in decentralized systems, which spread power across many individuals and prevent control from being concentrated. Take Bitcoin as an example: since its inception in 2009, it has operated without central authority, relying on a distributed network of participants to secure and verify transactions. Decentralized systems like this prevent abuse by removing the centralized control that typically corrupts.
In a world where power dynamics often lead to abuse, decentralized technologies represent a natural counterbalance—limiting opportunities for control-driven corruption and empowering individuals with fairness and transparency.