I didn't use terms like 'moral' and 'ought'. I was mostly saying 'this version of bitcoin is not worth anything, this other one is' and saying, it's good that people are speaking up.
I think 'no rulers' is a good high level framing, and your 'rough consensus' I don't like; this is not the IETF. But maybe the best framing is 'consensus, but not rough - only mathematical'.
Still I think you make a valid point - framing it as a "property right" can lead to a misunderstanding. Even though it's a negative right, the point still stands. As the old saying goes, "privacy is not a right, it has to be taken": an interesting comparison, because *my* privacy is by nature a personal thing, but my allocation of btc only has meaning in the context of consensus on a global state.
All I'm really advocating is that others do not choose to coordinate destructively. I can't force them not to, I can only try to persuade. Which was my starting paragraph was the thesis 'that coordination will destroy value, not protect it'.
waxwing
npub1va…knuu7
2026-04-18 01:58:31 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…529s
Author Public Key
npub1vadcfln4ugt2h9ruwsuwu5vu5am4xaka7pw6m7axy79aqyhp6u5q9knuu7Published at
2026-04-18 01:58:31 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "4fab756ed939c239422b30d247ca45b7d6b947292a703055aaf81f8ce49f5c92",
"pubkey": "675b84fe75e216ab947c7438ee519ca7775376ddf05dadfba6278bd012e1d728",
"created_at": 1776477511,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"alt",
"A short note: I didn't use terms like 'moral' and 'ought'. I was..."
],
[
"e",
"9322757eafe30eb8425e3fe9f35020f5564cdf8b2de68ea95d8c2fbf76fedc8c",
"wss://nostr.wine/",
"root",
"675b84fe75e216ab947c7438ee519ca7775376ddf05dadfba6278bd012e1d728"
],
[
"e",
"376d9d74f46f8e47e86d1474ca3b2e21ff79c86784df2d09745f6c2e6dc3bf1f",
"wss://search.nos.today/",
"reply",
"5ea4648045bb1ff222655ddd36e6dceddc43590c26090c486bef38ef450da5bd"
],
[
"p",
"675b84fe75e216ab947c7438ee519ca7775376ddf05dadfba6278bd012e1d728",
"wss://nostr.wine/"
],
[
"p",
"5ea4648045bb1ff222655ddd36e6dceddc43590c26090c486bef38ef450da5bd",
"wss://nos.lol/"
]
],
"content": "I didn't use terms like 'moral' and 'ought'. I was mostly saying 'this version of bitcoin is not worth anything, this other one is' and saying, it's good that people are speaking up.\n\nI think 'no rulers' is a good high level framing, and your 'rough consensus' I don't like; this is not the IETF. But maybe the best framing is 'consensus, but not rough - only mathematical'.\n\n\nStill I think you make a valid point - framing it as a \"property right\" can lead to a misunderstanding. Even though it's a negative right, the point still stands. As the old saying goes, \"privacy is not a right, it has to be taken\": an interesting comparison, because *my* privacy is by nature a personal thing, but my allocation of btc only has meaning in the context of consensus on a global state.\n\nAll I'm really advocating is that others do not choose to coordinate destructively. I can't force them not to, I can only try to persuade. Which was my starting paragraph was the thesis 'that coordination will destroy value, not protect it'.\n",
"sig": "f758f2a7d25d6d239ac2ac9a77098a4b60ebe75a6c83446ac0f9ddfeace0a5d66fc32324c8e3254b064af3009a6185ee5ba0f27f9f06b9f06623a4f4a683b6dd"
}