Duck and cover!

US is a corporation. America is the country.

Nothing would ever grow there again.

I have this theory that the 1MB limit is actually a poison pill that will eventually destroy BTC once the block reward is not enough to sustain miners and fees are so high no one can afford to transact. If its not worth it to mine and hashrate drops significantly, it could cause a crisis like in 2017 where no blocks get mined for a long time and confidence drops, but this time much bigger and now institutional money is the only thing propping it up. If the crash happens at the right moment it could bring down all of the institutions that are deeply invested.

I suspect BlockStream would try to solve this crisis by forking BTC to a proof of stake model like they did with ETH and cut out miners completely, but if they did that the miners would just switch to mine BCH and BTC maxis would have to grapple with that.

Yes, Roger and other BCH people have said they were naive back then about the power of censorship and how subversive the attacks on Bitcoin would be. The BCH Podcast has an episode from a while back where they talked about the history and forks that happened later, BSV and XEC, and how those were likely attempts to divide the community further, but ended up weeding out the bad actors, and now it looks like smooth sailing ahead for BCH.

Earlier this year BCH solved the block size problem for good. Its now an algorithmic block size determined purely by network demand.

Thank you. I couldn't believe they (on DPH) would actually support the government going after someone for TAXES of all things! Just because they heard from GMoney that he was a shady guy.

For how much they talk about psyops and narrative warfare its amazing they can't grasp this one. I usually say imagine the censorship that went on during covid but applied toward Bitcoin, and for a technical niche community about a topic almost no one understood or cared about. And we didn't have too many alternative platforms back then.

I was so frustrated listening to that segment I posted a comment to correct some of their points and BurningBright mocked me as he read it. I met him at one of their GART events a few months ago and tried to explain the Bitcoin Cash thing to him to his face and even then he just mocked me and couldn't get it. Almost everyone at Badlands has bought into the BTC maximalist narrative and label anyone who talks about other coins a "shitcoiner." GMoney can do nothing but insult people who try to point out BTC's flaws. Whenever I catch his show he rarely talks about anything interesting or teaches anything about the actual tech. Its just a big BTC circlejerk.

He didn't even really support BCH either until after the SegWit2x agreement fell thru due to the commie faction reneging on their deal as u/lash described in another comment.

A recent guest on Joe Rogan was talking about picking the name for SEAL team 6. Somebody said to him, "why 6 when there's only 3?"

He replied, "because I want them to think there's 3 more they don't know about."

That's getting eliminated.

Lt Colonel

How do you think this would play out if it happened? How is that move at all within Trump's power to act on?

Can someone explain why they are choosing a new majority leader now, before the newly elected senators get sworn in?

I was surprised to see him drinking a coke.

I knew there was a difference but couldn't think of how to explain it so I asked chatgpt:

The terms "legal" and "lawful" are often used interchangeably, but they do have subtle differences in meaning. Here's a breakdown of each term:

1. Legal: Something is considered legal if it is permitted by law or not forbidden by law. It refers to the status of something under the law, whether it's an action, a document, or a process. For example, when someone says that a contract is legal, they mean that the contract is valid and binding under the law. It doesn't necessarily mean that all the terms of the contract are fair or moral, just that they are permissible under the law.

2. Lawful: When something is lawful, it means that it is not only permitted by law but also right and just according to the law. It implies a moral component, suggesting that the thing in question is not just allowed by law but also aligns with the spirit of the law and principles of justice. For example, a lawful order from a police officer is one that is not just legal but also fair, justified, and in accordance with the individual's rights.

In summary, "legal" refers to the letter of the law, while "lawful" refers to both the letter and the spirit of the law, including principles of fairness and justice.

I don't think anyone directed Trump to pick Vance and just because he's Trump's VP doesn't mean he's gonna be next (though I wouldn't mind if he was). But if some hidden hand is still choosing the president then elections still don't matter and wtf is the point of all this?

Do you think Kamala / her donors actually thought she could win? I mean I guess if you surround yourself with sycophants you can start to believe your own bullshit but doesn't it seem like they never intended to win? They made every wrong political move in the book, and probably invented some new ones. They ran the worst possible ticket without even a primary. Did they think their cheating system was really that good?

Part of me wishes that we could have gotten to see Trump go up against an actually formidable opponent. I guess an absolute landslide was necessary to expose the magnitude of the rigging system. The greatest candidate of all time vs the most repulsive fake candidate anyone could dream of.

Agreed. If they try to pull that with a Republican majority in both houses it will fail in 2 seconds.

I'm betting on Kamala refusing to certify and also wondering when the House will move on the Biden impeachment inquiry - maybe after Jan 6 when both houses of Congress will have the support to actually convict? We saw in 2021 how fast they can move on the impeachment process when they really want to, and you can even impeach after they leave office.

Also the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the president. It specifically enumerates representatives, senators, presidential electors, civil officers, meaning those positions the president appoints, and military officers which the president commissions. The president himself isn't specified.

Also, you're supposed to spit out toothpaste, not swallow it. Fluoride in tap water means its in your ice machine, you make drinks with it, cook with it, shower in it, water plants with it, etc.

There is one podcast I listen to regularly where the host is a comedian and he interviews all kinds of people who are into researching Satanism and the occult and things like that. I've heard sooo many of his guests make the case that DJT is a high level occultist, a Freemason, the antichrist, or just another stooge that has pulled the wool over the masses eyes and is using sorcery magic to ascend to the top of the pyramid.

Some other beliefs that are common among these people are that Q was a deep state pacification psyop (which of course never references anything in the drops), Trump is evil because he pushed Operation Warp Speed and promoted the jab, and Elon is a secret transhumanist villain. Generally I think a lot of libertarians and people who have been awake for a really long time but never paid attention to politics fall into this category.

Why not? It's good content otherwise and I already did the research to prove to myself that Trump is a good guy so nothing they say about some random pic of him or something bad he said or did a long time ago is going to convince me otherwise. If I could get on as a guest on one of these shows I would tear those theories apart.

Funny thing is even though they say that, most are still voting for him.

Several podcasters I listen to still believe Trump is a deep state actor and the assassination was staged because "if they wanted him dead he'd be dead". That's the extent of their reasoning, they don't watch any of his rallies or interviews and haven't looked into the forensic analysis of the shooting or any further than the videos of him dancing with Epstein or saying nice things about Israel.

Manager to Trump: "No talking politics on the clock!"

-Things I want to see

The "unthinkable" in the context of this Q post was removing HRC forcibly even though she would be "duly elected" which would be considered treason on paper so those people were prepared to make that sacrifice to prevent the cabal from cementing control over the office of president.

They/We/Patriots needed Trump to get in to lay the legal groundwork for the rest of the plan, which has now played out, I think, exactly as intended.

I don't think that level of sacrifice is necessary now because the stage has been set for all of them to fall and destroy themselves.