Ok, I can see how a technology can change things. Since 2011 we have progressed 13 years in this technology, and bitcoin has been superseded left and right.

Initially,m it was mean to be a payment system OUTSIDE the FED without the means to identify the participants. Today we know better.

1. Bitcoin is transparent.
2. Bitcoin is slow.
3. Bitcoin is expensive in operation
4. File size of the ledger is such that it is cost prohibitive to operate: think disk-size and download size.
5. Miners from China are predominant, meaning they are close at controlling the coin.
6. In terms of gaining access to a reasonable rate of return on effort in order to secure the network and make it more democratic,Bitcoin needs a price of about 350.000 dollars. 7.Bitcoin no longer is living up to its design-meaning, as it is a form of speculation. The moment futures and options were instituted for bitcoin, it was the death of the idea. Hence, the growth of other coins.

The most amazing one: Monero.

And before one would try to counteract that., think about what Monero represents, and how it lives up to its ideal. Despite being shoved in the ditch by Binance, it took a short lived hit of 60% and within a week regained its position. Any so called privacy coin being pushed on central exchanges does not pass the sniff test.

That said, these 7 issues is not only an issue with Bitcoin, but many coins. Nevertheless, it is a god idea to have payment system outside of the FED system.

Then there is the ongoing digitization. The question of desirability is a question of how you look at it. Personally, I shudder at the idea that government in any way shape or form would gain control of such a technology.

So, yes, in a way it is a counter insurgency AS A COIN, medium of exchange.

In relation to the video: I agree with Kwast. The items we need to be successful. Basically, any means at our disposal and what we can think of should be deployed in the service of freedom.

Fun part: this is the message of the Oera Linda book. It is an issue as old as man, especially for those who comprehend what freedom is.

definition can be dangerous

Indeed. DE - FINIT - ion. => moving away from the finite. de = negation. Anything goes, the lines between what is A or B blurres. You could talk out of your ass and still be right. That is definition for you. However, we mean and intent the opposite. We want to finite things so we can see what is A and what is B. This helps the mind in solving puzzles.

So, what is it that is being put into motion when using this word? speech is energy, speech can captivate a mind. Speech = spell.