sachin

Going to be posting a lot of notes, quotes, excerpts, etc. from Mises' Human Action from this npub for a while.

Public Key

npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrfud256c4pr0qh2elppkyh4dm676slpveg5wxu69vj40usdhre4spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdswyj5gu

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nostr.bitcoiner.social

nos.lol

nostr.wine

Author Public Key

npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-10-27 18:29:21 UTC

- reply

Point being that religion and all the things I mentioned gets in the way of understanding God.

2026-10-27 17:31:00 UTC

It's very easy to believe in God if one dismisses all the rituals and superstitions, disassociates from all religions, avoids all places of worship and distances himself from the preachers, proselytizers and zealots.
These things just get in the way.

2026-10-16 19:51:36 UTC

Any form of state involvement in the realm of education is an atrocious idea if the goal is to develop productive individuals who are aware of the world, can survive effectively and be of service to people around them.
I have so much to say about this but I am way too biased because of my own experiences with education. I can't be value-free about it yet. So much emotion still.
Man fuck these bitch-ass governments.

2026-10-14 10:09:23 UTC

One of my favourite things about Rothbard is that he made Law a fun subject to explore for mw. He keeps his arguments simple and really gets at the foundational principles.
His reasoning is very sophisticated, but the way he presents it is very simple. That's a great skill he had.

2026-10-13 22:26:07 UTC

Descending ordered list of wallets that can do LN payments based how trustless the setup is:
1. LN via self-hosted node and self-managed channels
2. LN via mobile embedded node with LSP choice
3. LN via mobile embedded node but no LSP choice
4. LN via hosted node with VLS
5. Ark with unilateral exits
6. Spark with unilateral exits
7. Liquid wallet with atomic swaps
8. Fedimint ecash with multiple mint operators
9. Cashu ecash or Fedimint ecash with a single mint operator
10. Fully custodial LN
I think there'll be valid disagreement with (2 <> 3 <> 4) and (5 <> 6). No strong opinions from me about their order.
And I'm sure there's a good case to be made for kicking 7 out of this list altogether because of the way the Liquid hack has been handled.

2026-10-13 13:26:37 UTC

'It is ideas that make history, and not history that makes ideas.'
- Mises in Human Action
Neither a fiat money nor a sound money policy program is inevitable. The one that gets widely-accepted by public opinion will eventually be reflected in the laws that are adopted. A major factor is the ability of intellectuals and advocates to convince people of the set of ideas they favour.

2026-10-10 21:45:25 UTC

First got into Bitcoin and got excited about number go up. Then I was like oh yeah fix the world and started getting easily triggered.
A bunch of value-free austro-libertarian insights about the causes and consequences of the state's very existence, I'm back to having fun and sticking to number go up.

2026-10-07 20:39:12 UTC

- reply

I think it's a maybe as well because of those things and many more. Even more of a maybe when you consider that lightning won't always be difficult to use. UI/UX has considerably improved and continues to improve, in my experience at least.
On conversion: it works depending on how chokable the exit ramps are. OTC and peer-to-peer markets are very difficult to choke and suppress from emerging where there's demand for them.

2026-10-07 20:22:23 UTC

I don't see Bitcoin going the way of Gold or Silver as something to be freaking out about, whether it happens or not.
Nearly every single fiat currency in existence including dollars, yen, yuan, rupees, pounds, etc. used to represent units of gold or silver.
Their issuance, movement and uasge was 'captured' by states and their central banks, and turned into fiat. Gold and silver remained as they were. Their properties never changed.
Both metals are still very much relevant, widely-used, frequently traded, highly liquid and held by many. They're just not widely used as money anymore. When priced against fiat, they've gone up by quite a lot in the last few decades. Those who have held them wouldn't be disappointed I'm guessing.
Wanting bitcoin to be used as a widely-accepted monetary good is a wonderful ideal to be working towards realizing. I want it too. I want to take self-custody and pay in bitcoin. If it happens, great!
But if it doesn't happen, I'm not going to be disappointed. I can simply convert to whatever money people accept. No biggie. That's what markets are for.
States are pitiable institutions that are always going to want to steal, coerce, manipulate and surveil. It's in their nature and purpose to do that. They can't help it. They can't know better.
In a world of states imposing legal tender laws; taxes on trades; exchanges and capital gains; foreign exchange controls; trade enbargoes; manipulation of money, interest rates and foreign exchange markets; we're not probably not to going see sound money adopted and used widely.
Maybe if the things listed above don't exist anymore and are scrapped outright, things will be easier. But public opinion in Bitcoin, leave alone the wider world, isn't actively in favour of or advocating for such a state of affairs.
Black markets are bound to emerge if bitcoin does become widely used in such a world, and we'll simply have to learn how to navigate them. It is what it is.

2026-10-07 02:21:55 UTC

Ch 2 pt11 of Human Action is epic.
LvM explores the limitations of using praxeological concepts in perceiving or understanding God. He's spot on.
Neither rational nor empirical intellectual tools are of much or maybe any use in the pursuit of spiritual knowledge.

2026-10-06 10:52:38 UTC

- reply

Ah man, sounds tiresome. I'm gonna avoid.
I only watch/listen to Bitcoin content from devs and entrepreneurs in the ecosystem nowadays. And only if it's about Bitcoin.
Kinda realized most Bitcoin folks are way off base when it comes to politics, law and economics.

2026-10-06 10:29:32 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/f3727426a9a58a2dbfc8db812c116db4e083ba5dff6a12faf3efe7a4fb87a554.png

2026-10-06 00:10:39 UTC

- reply

What's his deal? Never really got around to listening to what he says.

2026-10-05 21:42:26 UTC

- reply

I love writing them!
Btw I'm waiting for Bolt12 zaps 😂
Fingers crossed LND will add bolt12 in v0.22 this year and we'll have widespread adoption of them soon

2026-10-05 21:38:54 UTC

- reply

Even if they do want to, they tend to assume that companies intentionally want to raise prices and lower the quality.
But then it begs the question: why not raise praises to maximum and lower the quality to the minimum? There's market pressure stopping them from doing that.

2026-10-05 21:34:33 UTC

- reply

This a wonderful compliment, thank you! 🫂

2026-10-05 21:31:03 UTC

- reply

Can you clarify your argument a little more please?
First sentence is implying that the state is anti-thetical to priv ownership and the second says priv ownership is statist
Also, Libertarianism is a broad umbrella so there's many kinds. Rothbard, an American libertarian intellectual, and many from his camp, are definitely not statists.

2026-10-05 17:15:36 UTC

A tricky spot liberatarians can land in is when the opponent uses the 'appeals to evidence technique' of justifying state action.
'Well look at x industry, it's all privately owned and services are shit so socializing everything or partially socializing is a better way to go', the statist says.
And then the burden is on the libertarian to make causal links on why costs and prices are going up while service quality is going down, capital is being destroyed rather than preserved, pull the correct threads to find the regulations and laws which are preventing competitive pressure from existing.
The statist who claims to look at things scientifically and objectively based on evidence is looking at things neither 'scientifically' nor 'objectively' but with a theoretical framework that is arbitrary and biased against entrepreneurs, when he says regulations or socialization can improve quality, bring down prices and costs.
Entrepreneurs, as in the Misesian sense, spot opportunities others have not yet spotted and capitalize on them. And regulations exist to handicap them. Competition exists or *can potentially emerge* to punish them for making the wrong choices and making inefficient decisions about the use of resources. He must always be alert to losing his market share should he keep prices too high and cut costs too much in a way to bring the quality of his offerings down.
The kind of person who sits in an ivory tower and writes regulations based 'on evidence', ie, the bureaucrat, will not want to recognise these opportunities or can't do it because it's not profitable from him. He can't or won't think of ways to solve problems because that's really not his job. His job is to increase the number of regulations and budgetary allocations to his department.
And the fiat component of incentivizing over-production and malinvestment cannot be dismissed.
Looking at evidence is well and good, but because statists have a theoretical framework that looks at and arranges the interpretation of evidence as justification of state action by default, it's difficult to tackle the things they say.

2026-10-05 16:42:45 UTC

The Economist published an article about the Indian government selling state assets:
https://archive.ph/4LovK
Privatisation of government entities seemed like one of the easiest 'wins' towards a more libertarian situation of affairs.
But it's a bit complex and very challenging to pull off, even if the party in power has a somewhat libertarian leaning.
Right from the get go, there'll be extreme opposition from labour/employee unions. The narrative of being pro-crony will be attached to the ruling disposition. This means loss of votes. No politician would want that if he wants to remain in power.
Thing is, if privatisation is also not accompanied by deregulation and thus getting out of the way of potential competing firms from emerging, it would be tantamount to a transfer of monopoly privileges from bureaucrats to cronies.
So union folks would then think they were justified in opposing privatisation outright.
There is also the challenge of convincing potential private buyers that the assets being sold are worth buying in the first place after years of being mismanaged. Finding buyers would be very difficult.
Otoh, if the entity is performing well on paper through mergers, subsidies and infusions from the state exchequer, there'll be arguments that they need not be privatised and that the industry need not be liberalised at all.
Even if the privatisation goes through, prices might not come down, since they have to be brought back to what is economical by the new owners whereas previously it was kept below market rates by the government to satisfy voters or whatever political goals they had.
Not to mention the upward pressure on prices due to fiat money, making it harder to convince civilians that privatisation is the way to go.
Essentially, if the goal is to bring prices down, make the industry more efficient overall, improve the quality of services and reduce capital consumption, privatisation would need to be accompanied by deregulation and a rewrite of the laws governing the industry. And a shift to a sound money system as well.

2026-10-04 09:27:36 UTC

- reply

Oh okay!
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know

2026-10-03 09:43:36 UTC

New product trend:
Interest paid in sats on fiat deposits
River's been doing it for a while:
https://river.com/bitcoin-interest
Cash app started a week ago:
https://x.com/CashApp/status/2103207687127466307
21bitcoin in Europe started the day before yesterday:
https://x.com/21bitcoinApp/status/2105665124535074886
Strike announcing soon it seems like:
https://x.com/Strike/status/2106103556013252970

2026-10-01 23:57:43 UTC

Alby's 'Buzz' series gets most or maybe all of their stuff from Bitcoin Breakdown and credit us also. If you'd like to sift through the updates we curate in a Twitter article format, this one's a good follow:
https://x.com/getAlby/status/2105642974830903650

2026-09-30 00:55:55 UTC

Part one of 'Human Action' is to economics what numerals, addition, subtraction, etc. are to mathematics

2026-09-29 21:25:33 UTC

- reply

Yep. And the 'perfect' can be a guiding ideal that's always held aloft as the destination for those who advocate for these reductions. Celebrate small wins but never forget the big fight essentially.
But my point was that it's possible to take a non-advocate stance about these things as well. Like for eg, one doesn't have to call himself a libertarian to understand that calculation is not possible under socialism or that price controls can cause shortages or surpluses.
That's what makes economics such a powerful intellectual tool for freedom.

2026-09-29 20:32:26 UTC

One can for sure consider ancap as a fantasy, because it is. It's a value-laden position about what ought to be. Intentionally so.
But one can still apply basic economic principles like the calculation problem, effects of price controls, monopoly vs competition, etc. on all possibile services provided by a government monopoly and understand what is, and why it is the way it is.

2026-09-29 19:14:54 UTC

Heads up
I'm probably going to be posting a lot of notes, quotes, excerpts from Mises' Human Action for a while.
There's a lot from the book that's worth sharing. It's awesome.

2026-09-29 19:11:02 UTC

'Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.'
- Mises in Human Action

2026-09-28 21:12:09 UTC

'There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible.'
- Mises in Human Action.
Point being that truths in social sciences and human action are purely qualitative, not quantitative.

2026-09-28 21:05:31 UTC

- reply

My favourite part is where he acknowledges the limits of both rational and empirical sciences.
Absolute banger of a quote:
"Both principles of cognition—causality and teleology—are, owing to the limitations of human reason, imperfect and do not convey ultimate knowledge. Causality leads to a regressus in infinitum which reason can never exhaust. Teleology is found wanting as soon as the question is raised of what moves the prime mover. Either method stops short at an ultimate given which cannot be analyzed and interpreted. Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks this must apply to faith and try to quiet his conscience by embracing a creed or a metaphysical doctrine."

2026-09-28 20:53:31 UTC

I don't get the chatter about the first part of Mises' human action.
It's difficult to grasp but magnificent intellectual work.
Anyone interested in any branch of social sciences would find a lot of benefit in reading it patiently.

2026-09-28 19:41:22 UTC

What's happening in English Football with Manchester City and their 114 charges is huge.
Most discourse is centered around punishments, but even though I support Arsenal, current title rivals of the charged club, the more interesting question for me is if these financial rules should continue to exist in the first place, because of the consequences they result in.
Like any set of regulations that deal with more than basic property tights violations like fraud and aggression, they end up making it difficult for smaller entities, football clubs in this context, to compete.
Besides, because of financial regulations, more money is prevented from entering the system, which means wages, salaries, facilities and investments don't grow as much.
They create a cartelizing effect where the bigger ones keep getting bigger in terms of finances.
All this reflects on the pitch as well.
I've also thought about a bigger and even more interesting question of a given league's monopoly within a sport.
The entire industry of sports is dominated by a monopolistic mindset.
New enterpreneurs across industries often succeed, usurp the old guard and take the industry to new heights by changing the way the game is played. Currently, there's no room for something like that in any popular sport. There are no competing leagues with different rules, so the sport tends to become drab, boring and overly obsessed with rules and regulations.
Clubs or players in existent leagues decide against exiting because most sports are monopolized in each country due to the obsession of fans and spectators to maintain existing monopolies.
Sports fans are generally hell-bent on demanding a level playing field and the means to achieve this end is considered to be even more rules and stricter oversight and punishment. They have a tendency to get angry at big money owners because according to them, they ruin the essence of the game they love so much.
Sports would be more exciting if it's about pushing the limits rather than imposing them.

2026-09-27 18:20:00 UTC

- reply

Below is my attempt at making a value-free, praxeological case to a privacy advocate that a stance in support of taxation is contradictory to their goals of enabling privacy for everyone.
Whether one is for or against either, governments and privacy cannot co-exist in peace.
#nevent1q…v7jh

2026-09-27 18:03:46 UTC

- reply

When taken to its logical conclusion, your arguments imply that all your bitcoin along with your body, standing room, labour, devices, house, resources, land, etc. are all *collectively* and *democratically* owned by your government, and not you.
Leading to the stance that surveillance of your bitcoin transactions is permitted since the government rightfully owns your bitcoin and deserves to know about the coins they own.
If you have the time to read, I can explain why your arguments lead to such a conclusion. I'll leave out my own value judgements from this as much as I can.
The basic arguments from this post and your other replies, as I understand it, are as follows:
1. Taxation is the same as rent paid to a landlord, except that it's compulsory.
2. Which means governments are the same as landlords. They own *everything* within their jurisdiction, and can extract rent for its usage.
3. Not wanting to pay rent means you want something for free. Communists oppose rent and want free stuff, ergo libertarians also want free stuff because they oppose taxes, which are basically rents.
I'll address these directly and make my case for why they lead to the conclusions mentioned above.
1. Taxation is the same as rent paid to a landlord, except that it's compulsory.
A rental agreement involves a renter permitting the rentee to use a property he owns for a particular duration in certain ways under certain conditions. A rent is what the owner of the property gets in exchange for letting the rentee use his property for his own ends.
At any point in time, either party can exit the agreement and cancel the contract. When this happens, the rentee is no longer permitted to use the property that the renter owns.
If taxation is rent, then
- An income tax implies that your income is owned by the government, or in your definition, the renter/landlord.
-A goods and services tax implies that your goods and services are owned by the government.
- A property tax implies that your property is owned by the government.
- A capital gains tax on bitcoin implies that any value that bitcoin goes up by is owned by the government.
Thus, when you fail to pay rent/taxes, and want to exit the government's jurisdiction, you must hand over everything you've paid taxes on, since it was all rent paid for temporary use of what is owned by the government, rightfully so, according to you.
It's either this or we agree that a tax 'law' is different from a rental 'agreement'.
And if the government is indeed like that landlord, it will of course want to know whatever there is to know about the resources it owns. Surveillance, in such a rental agreement, is similar to the landlord collecting information about what he owns. It is totally justified and privacy becomes a criminal offence.
2. Governments are the same as landlords. They own *everything* within their jurisdiction, and can extract rent for its usage.
Ownership of a scarce resource exists so that conflict between multiple people over who uses that scarce resource and for what purposes can be resolved.
Ownership can be acquired either through (i) proof-of-work or (ii) fiat
(i) Proof of work: This means that the first person who puts a scarce unowned resource into use (first-use owner) or acquires that resource from another first-use owner (contractual owner) is the rightful owner.
(ii) Fiat: This means that a person who arbitrarily declares that a particular scarce resource is his or acquires that resource through the use of force from a first-use or contractual owner, is the rightful owner.
Governments always and everywhere come to own a set of scarce resources based on fiat or a maintenance or creation of fiat. Under such ownership conditions, aggression and force is implicitly permitted, and conflict will always ensue without resolution. The fiat owner will always look to maximise his income and will use the means of aggression, force and recently, surveillance to do it. He will not stop with a 'fair' or 'just' amount of taxation because there are no such things to him.
A state of fiat ownership means that whatever exists within the fiat owner's 'jurisdiction' is permitted to be exploited. Rent on everything, including your bitcoin, is thus permitted. This necessitates surveillance because how else is the renter supposed to know how much rent he is owed without it?
Of course, checks and balances, separation of powers, democratic governance, constitutional limits can all be proposed as counters to prevent this or put limits on this, but realistic incentives do exist for such legal concepts to be overrided through emergencies, wars, crisis, threats, etc. Governments are comprised of people and people do tend to want to maximise their income.
3. 'Not wanting to pay rent means you want something for free. Communists oppose rent and want free stuff, ergo libertarians also want free stuff because they oppose taxes.'
Communists do not necessarily want everything to be obtained free of cost. They want everything to be unowned, because they think all ownership is derived from violence and exploitation, i.e, by fiat. For them, charging rent is a form of exploitation, which is a no-go.
This is understandable if one looks at history and present and sees no evidence of resources being acquired through proof-of-work, but only sees fiat means applied. Add this to their own definitions of economic value, exchange, profits, exploitation, etc. and you'll be able to get where they're coming from. The solution for them to such a state of affairs is to abolish all forms of ownership.
In the question of ownership and rent, they actually want everyone to own everything or nobody to own anything. That way, rent does not get charged at all. 'Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' as they say.
This of course means conflict over the use of scarce resources will ensue without resolution, since nobody will be able to do anything with anything if such a system is actually implemented. Eventually an entity will emerge to resolve such conflicts, who will then charge rent. But they believe this entity can eventually bring in a communist society without any ownership or rent, in the future.
Libertarians are okay with rent as long as the owner of the scarce resource they want to use acquired it through first-use or contractual means. Their definition of theft and exploitation is limited to the action of using fiat means to acquire ownership or income. So for them, an entity which claims ownership through fiat is a thieving one.
So it's understandable that they do not want governments to exist or to charge taxes.
It's not that they do not want the services provided by the government or that they want it free of cost. They want those services to be provided by competing entities and want to be able to enter and exit relationships contractually. They advocate against non-contractual and fiat means of acquring income or ownership. They advocate against a monopoly provider as they believe that such a provider will always provide substandard services that will not be improved. They want privatization, deregulation, sound money, etc. as well.
How realistic either communism or libertarianism are in practice, is a different question for which different people will give different answers based on their own biases and social, legal and political theories of their and worldviews they have chosen for themselves.
But one set of ideas do lead to a world where privacy and rent remains a choice and the other lead to a world where surveillance and rent become a necessity.
They are aware of what the world is. Not like either are totally ignorant of the realities of the world we live in.
They are arguing for what ought to be, which you don't seem to like. So I can understand why you are annoyed at them.
But what can be said with certainty is that as long as governments exist as territorial monopolies on violence and keep charging taxes, or 'rent' in your definition, for everything they own right now, which is, according to your definition, everything that exists within what the government considers as its 'jurisdiction', ownership of anything by any individual cannot co-exist as time goes by.
Which is to say that governments are socialisic/communistic entities, in practice.
The 'landlord' will want to maximise his income and will want to have full insight into what he owns.
It's only realistic to expect, based on both reason and evidence, that said landlord will look to charge as much rent as possible over time and ignore any notions of 'fair' or 'just' or 'limited' taxation.
And that said landlord will criminalize the action of hiding what he rightfully owns, making privacy a crime.

2026-09-26 16:03:26 UTC

- reply

I can imagine that she's enjoying all the attention she's getting

2026-09-26 08:11:50 UTC

- reply

The post was about the idea that taxes are levied to pay interest to bankers. I don't think they'll hold so much govt bonds if they weren't mandated to. It's not like bonds are great investments or anything.
The overall point I was trying to make is that Govts make banking they way it is today. Things we generally hate banks for, like being insolvent, printing so much money and lending easy credit have more to do with the laws and regulations they are dealing with rather than how they inherently work. I don't think the core functions they do are necessarily evil. It's just satisfying market demand, albeit ineffectively because there is no competitive pressure for them to be effective. Bitcoin can potentially change this.

2026-09-26 07:58:48 UTC

- reply

For a popular example, I'd prefer watching Spiderman going through tough shit and becoming a better person than watching Beatrix Kiddo from Kill Bill striking off names from her vengeance list
It's a personal preference of course

2026-09-26 07:49:26 UTC

- reply

You know shit's really bad when a hot woman doing hot things is considered controversial 😂

2026-09-26 01:49:57 UTC

Stories of characters with 'unrealistic' personalities and traits, with insane redemption arcs, are fun to watch or read. The ones that try to be edgy are tiresome, depressing and dreary.
A protagonist who is an annoying prick, gets angry at everything like a bitch, treats people like shit, lets himself consumed by vengeance and gives in meekly to his emotions is boring and dull. Anyone can be like that with very little effort or no effort at all.
On the other hand, one who aims at higher ideals like mercy, grace, self-realization, redemption and actually achieves even one of them is rare. It's not easy in any day and age, and give something to aspire to. How this person gets there is far more interesting, difficult and impactful.

2026-09-25 16:46:27 UTC

- reply

I agree. I don't think it's that deep as well. She's just making a living. And she looks damn good 😂
These culture wars feel very American, no? I've seen it spill over to Bitcoin as well, with all these progressives trying to actively push it to 'left-leaning' people. It's weird.

2026-09-25 12:15:49 UTC

- reply

Damn idk how my client missed this reply. Just seeing this.
I meant Sydney knows how to trigger everybody. She's become like a cultural phenom where everything she does seems to spark heated cultural conversations and memes.

2026-09-25 07:58:35 UTC

- reply

I wrote that note when I was quite sleepy so I'll have to think about it 😂
I'll get back to you when I figure out what I was trying to get at

2026-09-25 02:57:33 UTC

Many of us have been brainwashed into hating banks so much that we rarely stop to think that a portion of our bank deposits are forcefully taken by the government in the form of bonds.
There's a lot of risk in using Bitcoin yes. But fiat also has tons of risks normal folks like us can't comprehend.

2026-09-23 10:42:36 UTC

I'm in the camp of Austrian boomers who believe that things related human action cannot be 'scientifically' predicted using historical patterns, stats or equations.
One can and has to make 'entrepreneurial' predictions and adjust their positions regarding how other people will act in order meet their various ends, but it cannot be considered scientific. For a proposition to be 'scientific', it has to aim at universal truth and certainty irrespective of time and place.

2026-09-22 21:05:20 UTC

I understand the incentives for covering clarity, ai, govt debt, 'macro', oil, us politics, data centers, geopolitics, left-right tribalism, etc. by Bitcoin publications. No judgement there. Gotta get engagement, clicks and all by whatever means lead to sponsors.
But I'm wondering if the audience of such publications actually prefers majority coverage dedicated to the above, like say 70% of articles/posts/media, while Bitcoin-native news get 30% of coverage.

2026-09-22 19:36:11 UTC

Ibis wallet (which I haven't tried out yet) has added support for Ark via Second's Bark, unilateral exits on its existing Spark integration and full support silent payments in v5.0.
Already has support for proper on-chain features, watch-only, hardware signing, Liquid, remote connection to LN nodes as well.
This mobile wallet, on paper, seems promising. Has anyone tried it? Thoughts?
https://github.com/aeonBTC/IbisWallet

2026-09-21 08:56:07 UTC

Do you believe that the 4-year cycle in price is still intact?
If no, what makes you think it's been invalidated?
If yes, what needs to happen for you to change your mind?

2026-09-16 23:28:16 UTC

The latest Strikes newsletter is very good for keeping up with Lightning
https://lateststrikes.com/s/2026-36-37
By Fanis Michalakis:
https://x.com/FanisMichalakis

2026-09-16 22:07:48 UTC

Suits, traders, degens, DCA stackers, bankers, normies, p2p exchangers are all a crucial part of the adoption story because liquidity is foundational.
It is foundational because more liquidity enables easier buying and selling through any means, in any context, for any type of economic actor. Bitcoin becomes easier to get in and out of, hence easier to accept or adopt. Its saleability improves, which means its quality as money improves.

2026-09-15 16:47:58 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/830c67bac307b43f75c9936253e0bf71cd95708fefca3ee926cbc68327462e30.jpg

2026-09-13 22:01:32 UTC

Adam Back has been tracking the journey of Bitcoin price’s 200 week Simple Moving Average since October 2024 when it crossed $40,000. It recently crossed $65,000. He thinks it is Bitcoin’s ‘floor price’.
200 week SMA is calculated by taking an average of Bitcoin’s price recorded at the close of each of the last 200 weeks. For Bitcoin markets, each week opens at 12:00 AM GMT on each Sunday.
Link:
https://x.com/adam3us/status/2099119687124615314

2026-09-12 03:11:34 UTC

- reply

Seems to know exactly how to trigger the people who are easily triggered 😂
Cultural phenomenon