Author: linkteam

In a significant move showcasing dedication to the broader Bitcoin ecosystem, VanEck, a notable investment management firm, has pledged to allocate 5% of profits generated from their Spot Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF), if approved by the SEC, towards supporting Bitcoin Core developers for a period exceeding a decade. 

VanEck has already started this initiative by making an initial $10,000 donation to Brink, an independent nonprofit to support open-source development for Bitcoin.

The announcement underscores the company’s commitment to nurturing and fortifying the fundamental infrastructure of Bitcoin. This initiative aims to provide sustainable support to the developers contributing to the ongoing enhancement and maintenance of the Bitcoin Core protocol. It’s important to note that VanEck is now incentivized to make contributions like this to further Bitcoin development, as the network and asset grow stronger, it could help the sell the appeal for buying their ETF to potential customers.

“We’re not Bitcoin tourists at VanEck. We’re in it for the long haul,” VanEck stated. “That’s why we made an initial $10k donation and signed a pledge to donate 5% of our Bitcoin ETF profits (if approved) to support Bitcoin Core devs @bitcoinbrink for at least 10 years. Your tireless dedication to decentralization and innovation is the cornerstone of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and we’re here to support it—more details to come.”

By dedicating a portion of their ETF profits, VanEck aims for developers to continue fostering innovation, security, and resilience within the Bitcoin network. The pledge not only signifies a financial commitment but also reflects a long-term vision in contributing to the evolution and longevity of Bitcoin.

The move has garnered some praise within the Bitcoin community for its proactive stance in acknowledging the critical role played by Bitcoin Core developers. These individuals contribute significantly to the open-source development of the protocol, ensuring its robustness and adaptability in the face of technological advancements and potential threats.

VanEck’s commitment to allocating a portion of profits towards supporting Bitcoin Core developers illustrates a growing trend of corporate entities recognizing the importance of investing in the sustainability and growth of Bitcoin. As the company positions itself for a potential spot Bitcoin ETF approval, where large amounts of institutional and retail capital can flow into BTC, this pledge could have a profound and enduring impact on the Bitcoin development landscape for years to come.

I have a feeling that I am going to be writing a lot on this topic in general for the foreseeable future, but the philosophical and existential crisis currently confronting the Bitcoin space over what constitutes “spam” is starting to have massive second order effects and consequences in all of the different Bitcoin communities.

I want to specifically focus on the reaction to this debate spilling over into what charitably can be construed as debating with Core developers, but in reality in most cases has taken the form of what can only be called harassment. This can be a very nuanced and subtle aspect of how Bitcoin works, as the relationship between “customers” that actually utilize Bitcoin and the developers that work to maintain, improve, and optimize the protocol and tools built on top of it is not a clear cut category separation. Many people who use Bitcoin are developers, and many developers are users of Bitcoin. There is no hard line distinguishing between the two, and someone who is one or the other can over time become both. In the same regard people who fall into both categories could cease to do so, and simply become solely a developer or solely a user. That is the first thing to understand, the line between users and developers is totally arbitrary, with constant overlap and the potential for that overlap to grow and shrink at any time.

That said, what about the users who are not developers? What is their relationship with the people actually writing and maintaining the software? There is no real black and white clear answer, but I can tell you what the relationship is not: an employer/employee relationship.

Developers do not work for us. Full stop. They are not our employees. We do not pay their bills, we do not fund their work, they do not have any contractual or legal obligations to us whatsoever. We are not product managers, we do not provide them with a project roadmap and dictate what pieces they work on, how they work on them, in what order, or what those pieces should even be or how they should function.

Disabuse yourself of any notion that this ecosystem functions in any way remotely like that. It does not. Developers freely choose to contribute their time to an open source protocol completely on their own terms. They decide how much time to spend, what to spend it on, and the way they actually implement what they chose to work on. Full stop. They have complete and unfettered autonomy in every way regarding how they interact with Bitcoin as a project.

Now turn that around to look at users. Users of Bitcoin are under no obligation whatsoever to adopt a change or tool that developers produce. Nothing is forcing users to change the software they run, or adopt a new tool developers build on top of Bitcoin. Having a Netflix subscription does not obligate you to watch a single piece of content they produce, it does not obligate you to consume any specific volume of content. You can watch as much or as little as you choose to, you can even cancel your subscription if you want. Netflix has literally no control over how you interact with it whatsoever except purely through the power of voluntary persuasion.

This is how Bitcoin works. Harassing developers on GitHub will not change that. It will not magically turn your relationship with developers into one of an employee/employer. Not only will crying on GitHub accomplish nothing whatsoever to create or bring about that power dynamic that many Bitcoiners seem to want to bring into existence, but it accomplishes nothing productive whatsoever. I say that as someone who has personally debated numerous issues with developers over the years, asserted numerous times that developers are incorrect about some issue or plan of action they think is the most appropriate one to take.

GitHub is not the place for arguing what the existential purpose or reason for Bitcoin existing is. It’s a place for narrow concept and implementation debate and criticism, for the express purpose of improving whatever technical proposal is being made. Whether that leads to a proposal being incorporated into Bitcoin, or rejected from Bitcoin, should be entirely up to the outcome of purely rational and logical discussion.

Even in the case where you do have a truly rational argument or piece of input, are you going to actually stick around and contribute or participate in the development process consistently? Or are you just essentially doing a drive by review or input on a specific issue to bikeshed it? Yes? Then even with a rational argument in hand, GitHub is not the appropriate place for those discussions. We have Twitter, we have Reddit, we have Spaces, we have numerous other places to debate and work towards consensus on things without actively interjecting nonsense and philosophical debates about semantics into the development process.

And I reiterate that I am a person who has spent a massive amount of time in this space making arguments about why a specific direction of development is or isn’t a good idea, bolstering those arguments with actual reasoning and logical rationale. I probably never will in any meaningful and consistent way contribute to the development of Bitcoin, so I do not attempt to inject my arguments, opinions, and ideas directly into that development process itself.

I make those arguments to the wider community, or when making them to developers, in other forums or mediums besides GitHub or platforms whose specific purpose and function is for developers to coordinate the development process. If my arguments actually hold merit, they will convince users. They will convince developers out of band from places like GitHub. Eventually, an argument with merit will grow and create consensus around it to the point that it presents a meaningful public signal that developers can choose, if they want, to incorporate into their own reasoning around Bitcoin and what they choose to spend their time and efforts doing to improve it.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether you look at these issues and this dynamic from the lens of developers or the lens of users: you have no power or influence whatsoever except the power of persuasion.

If developers produce something that the overwhelming majority of users do not want or find no value in, they can simply ignore it. If developers find an overwhelming majority of users demanding something that is completely irrational in terms of incentive alignment, engineering realities, or anything of that nature, they can simply ignore them.

Bitcoin is a self regulating system. Bad tools produced by developers will not be adopted. Users demanding incoherent or damaging things cannot make developers build that for them, but they can step up and build it themselves if they really want that thing. No one works for anyone else here in this dynamic, it is a completely voluntary process regulated by market forces. So either step up and actually try to be persuasive, do it yourself, or cry harder. You are not going to succeed in trying to force anyone to do something they don’t want to do. 

You can find the fork button in the top right corner right here. 

In a significant stride towards the potential approval of Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) in the United States, applicants have overcome a pivotal hurdle, marking a crucial milestone in their quest for regulatory approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

As reported by Bloomberg, the applicants seeking approval for the eagerly anticipated spot Bitcoin ETFs have successfully navigated a critical stage in their regulatory journey. Sources close to the matter revealed that the applicants have addressed and resolved key concerns raised by the SEC, signaling progress in addressing the regulatory queries central to the approval process.

“Securities and Exchange Commission staff told several exchanges and issuers seeking to list the ETFs that they should submit a final version of a key document as soon as Friday, according to four people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the discussions are private,” Bloomberg reported. “The staff had no additional feedback on the paperwork for several of the firms after the latest amendments, two of the people said.”

The clearance of this significant hurdle indicates that the applicants have finished addressing regulatory concerns and aligning their proposals with the SEC’s guidelines. The successful resolution of these issues bodes well for the prospects of the spot Bitcoin ETFs, potentially paving the way for their introduction into traditional financial markets.

Applicants are seemingly getting closer to obtaining SEC approval, potentially marking a significant milestone in the integration of Bitcoin into conventional investment avenues through regulated ETFs. The deadline for ARK 21Shares spot Bitcoin ETF application is January 10, leaving the SEC only just a few more days to approve or deny the funds.

The Nasdaq has submitted an amendment for BlackRock and Valkyrie’s Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) 19b-4 filings, inching closer to the looming approval deadline this coming Wednesday. The amendment filing comes was the next step forward in the regulatory process, indicating progress in the bid to secure approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The Nasdaq’s latest amendment filing for the BlackRock and Valkyrie Spot Bitcoin ETF signals an intensified effort to address regulatory queries and concerns within the specified timeframe. As the approval deadline approaches, the amendment filing underscores Nasdaq’s commitment to refining and finalizing the proposal, ensuring alignment with SEC standards.

The BlackRock Spot Bitcoin ETF has garnered significant attention within the Bitcoin and financial sectors, representing a potential breakthrough in offering a direct and regulated investment avenue for BTC to institutional and retail investors.

The recent filing by Nasdaq amplifies anticipation within the Bitcoin community, with stakeholders eagerly awaiting updates on the ETF’s progress through the SEC’s evaluation process. The amendment submission stands as a pivotal move, bringing the BlackRock Spot Bitcoin ETF one step closer to regulatory approval, potentially marking a monumental moment in the integration of Bitcoin into traditional financial markets.

All great revolutions encounter resistance as social change moves its way through the people. This can happen gradually then suddenly, but resistance will be there. People do not easily change their world views. We (Americans) are about to experience the next chapter in the great monetary war, by way of a Bitcoin ETF approval. This approval will change the course of Bitcoin adoption for better or worse, and is a good reason to be warned of what is to come.

The Bitcoin ETF approval will send a huge message to money managers around the world, that is that “We, the US Government, deem bitcoin a safe asset for you to invest in”. Now If you’re like me, you could care less what the SEC says or does, this is freedom money. But for millions of people across America, this is a big green flag that it is safe to have BTC exposure.

If you have spent any time on Twitter or have followed financial markets news then you are probably sick and tired of hearing about Bitcoin ETF application form updates, pushed deadlines, insider whispers, and all the nonsense that goes along with this big moment. For good reason this is getting a massive amount of coverage, and for that reason alone you should take a pause to contemplate what is about to happen. The tin foil hat in me is buzzing. Whenever media coverage is in lockstep, this usually means something is being coordinated.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

So what exactly is being coordinated you ask? Good question, I don’t have the answers, only speculation. I expect the ETF approval to send shockwaves through markets in one way or another resulting in both intended and unintended consequences. The part that worries me is that we are well in the crosshairs of the US Government as a threat to the regime. In the words of Gandhi, we are firmly in the “then they fight you” stage of the revolution, the only thing about this fight is that the US Government is likely fighting unconventionally. There is 100% guarantee that they are executing psychological operations on social media and trained talking heads have been running their lines for months. Both of these activities will increase which will set the stage for US Government intervention and a possible confiscation scenario. There are so many things happening right now with the ETF, the halving, the election, the state of the overall macro economy, the war in the East… so how will this play out?

VAGUE TIMELINE

ETF ApprovedNY Banking Cartel start heavy accumulationWaves of new experts enter the scene, spewing fud, they are here to “fix’ bitcoin.US Government raises more flags about the threat of Bitcoin to US sovereigntyNY Banking Cartel accumulation increases as interest soars (Streisand Effect)US Government issues 6102 BitcoinUS Government launches peg of a CBDC aka Stablecoin variant pegged to newly confiscated BTCCriminalization of ethical Bitcoin (KYC-free)Fork war of statecoin and BitcoinUS Government learns the hard way about how Bitcoin the network defends itself

This could all be a delusional fantasy from a conspiracy guy, but it’s worth thinking through to at least consider what we are up against. In the best case scenario, the US Government does nothing to intervene with the markets and Bitcoin will take us to the stars. In another plausible scenario, we could see Mark Goodwin’s Bitcoin dollar thesis come into reality as the US Government discovers that bitcoin is the most pristine asset and instrument to back the infinite US Treasury market. Based on the track record of the US Government, I expect them to intervene in a very negative way, and a lot sooner than anyone could imagine because bitcoin’s value will shoot up like a rocket. “Gradually then suddenly” will make a lot more sense as we enter the “suddenly” stage of the fight.

Despite my doomer outlook on what I expect from the US Government, I am very optimistic on the individual. I have seen more building in the Bitcoin space over the past halving epoch than I could imagine. This war will not be easy and I know for certain that we will enter the “then you win” stage soon enough.

Today Breez announces FiatLink, an open API standard for the integration of on and off ramps directly inside of Lightning wallets and applications. Currently there are many issues with seamless integration of Bitcoin to fiat exchanges inside of applications, chief among them being lack of Lightning support by many brokerages. In addition to that, each brokerage service in the market builds proprietary APIs for integration with their services, increasing the overhead of integration of multiple options by application and wallet developers. Breez SDK’s support for the FiatLink API can facilitate a single solution to both problems.

FiatLink, as an open interface standard, would also allow seamless integration of multiple brokerage options inside a Lightning application or wallet. Rather than have to independently integrate each option’s individual API, any brokerage service that has integrated FiatLink would be usable within an application with no extra development overhead. This can help foster an interoperable ecosystem of multiple brokers and multiple applications all seeking the optimal price point in order matching between users needing to acquire fiat or Bitcoin. Swiss Bitcoin operations, such as Relai and Pocket Bitcoin, were consulted in tailoring the API design to meet the needs of existing brokerage services.

Multiple payment options (SEPA, credit cards, and bank transfers) are supported. API providers allow users to request price and cost estimates, final quotes, and then finally confirm a specific order quote and finalize it by inputting their payment information. In Switzerland, users are able to make transactions up to 1000 CHF (Swiss Franc) in value per transaction between Swiss brokerages and regulated non-Swiss banks without requiring additional KYC beyond the payment method.

Withdrawals from a brokerage service to the users wallet is processed through LNURL-Withdraw. This is a function in the LNURL protocol that allows a static QR code to be saved and scanned by the user at their leisure, negotiating in the background over HTTP providing an actual Lighting invoice to receive their Bitcoin. It allows an optional on-chain address to be included to facilitate withdrawal on-chain if it fails to process over Lightning for any reason.

The API does support Address Ownership Proof Protocol (AOPP) required by some jurisdictions under the Travel Rule, but in the case of Lightning wallet and applications can generate a random Lightning node pubkey to use for a single withdrawal.

FiatLink, if widely adopted, could offer a competitive and streamlined solution to integrating fiat to Bitcoin transfers for wallet and application developers to integrate. 

A bold statement has emerged from a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Jay Clayton, suggesting that the approval of a Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is inevitable, stating that “there’s nothing left to decide,” in an interview with CNBC today.

The former SEC Chair’s confident proclamation hints at an imminent breakthrough in the regulatory landscape for Bitcoin-related financial products. This assertion aligns with the growing sentiment within the Bitcoin community, eagerly anticipating the approval of a Spot Bitcoin ETF.

“I think approval is inevitable, there’s nothing left to decide,” Clayton said. “Is the Bitcoin underlying trading market something that is robust enough, efficacious enough, where you can rely on it? It is much better today than it was five years ago.”

These statements imply that key concerns or considerations previously hindering the approval process have been sufficiently addressed, paving the way for an inevitable green light from the SEC.

This bold declaration underscores the evolving sentiment within regulatory circles, reflecting a growing acceptance and understanding of Bitcoin. The potential approval of a spot Bitcoin ETF is anticipated to mark a watershed moment in the financial sphere, enabling broader access for traditional investors seeking exposure to BTC through regulated investment vehicles.

“The last thing, and I think this is missed, is the technology to actually provide the product,” the former SEC Chair continued. “The custodying, the create, the redeem. This is a big step, not just for Bitcoin but for finance generally.”

The SEC is expected to approve spot Bitcoin ETFs by the end of day Wednesday. Bloomberg reported yesterday that if approved, the ETFs could be listed and starting to trade as soon as the next business day.

Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) could potentially commence live trading as early as Thursday or Friday, with approval happening this Wednesday, sources close to the matter told CNBC. 

This news comes amid intense anticipation for the launch of Spot Bitcoin ETFs, a significant milestone anticipated to provide mainstream investors with a regulated avenue to gain direct exposure to Bitcoin.

“Two sources close to the process now telling me it’s looking like Wednesday, which is also the deadline for Cathie Wood’s ARK and 21Shares bid,” said CNBC anchor Kate Rooney. “Then I’m told trading would happen Thursday or Friday, but it has been a moving target here on dates.”

The imminent possibility of live trading for these ETFs signals a significant leap forward in the integration of Bitcoin into traditional financial markets. CNBC’s report adds to the growing speculation surrounding the imminent introduction of these ETFs, which have been eagerly awaited by both institutional and retail investors.

Should the live trading commence as projected, it would mark a historic moment for the Bitcoin industry, reflecting a seismic shift in the perception and adoption of BTC among traditional investors.

While the specific details and exact launch time remain speculative, the potential realization of Spot Bitcoin ETFs trading live signifies a culmination of rigorous regulatory evaluations and market readiness, bringing Bitcoin one step closer to wider acceptance and legitimacy within the financial landscape.

CommerceBlock is releasing Mercury Layer today, an improved version of their variation of a statechain. You can read a longer form explanation of how their Mercury statechains work here. The upgrade to Mercury Layer represents a massive improvement against the initial statechain implementation, however unlike the initial Mercury Wallet release, this is not packaged as a fully consumer ready wallet. It is being released as a library and CLI tool other wallets can integrate. Here’s a quick summary of how they work:

Statechains are essentially analogous to payment channels in many ways, i.e. they are a collaboratively shared UTXO with a pre-signed transaction as a mechanism of last resort for people to enforce their ownership. The major difference between a Lightning channel and a statechain is the parties involved in collaboratively sharing the UTXO, and how ownership of an enforceable claim against it is transferred to other parties.

Unlike a Lightning channel, which is created and shared between two static participants, a statechain is opened with a facilitator/operator, and can be freely transferred in its entirety between any two participants who are willing to trust the operator to be honest, completely off-chain. Someone wishing to load a statechain collaborates with the operator to create a single public key that the creator and operator both hold a share of the corresponding private key, with neither having a complete copy of the key. From here they pre-sign a transaction allowing the creator to claim their coins back after a timelock unilaterally.

To transfer a statechain the current owner collaborates with the receiver and operator to sign a cryptographic proof with their keyshare that they are transferring the coin, and then the receiver and operator generate a new pair of keyshares that add up to the same private key and sign a timelocked transaction for the new owner with a shorter timelock than the original (to ensure they can use theirs sooner than past owners). This process is repeated for every transfer until the timelock cannot be shortened anymore, at which point the statechain must be closed out on-chain.

Owners transfer the entire historical chain of past states with each transfer so that users can verify timelocks have been properly decremented and the operator timestamps them using Mainstay, a variant of Opentimestamps where each piece of data has its own unique “slot” in the merkle tree to guarantee that only a single version of the data is timestamped. This let’s everyone audit the transfer history of a statechain.

In The Land Of The Blind

The big change Mercury Layer is bringing to the original version of statechains is blinding. The operator of the statechain service will no longer be able to learn anything about what is being transferred: i.e. the TXIDs involved, the public keys involved, even the signatures that it collaborates with users to create for the pre-signed transactions necessary to claim back your funds unilaterally.

Introducing a blinded variant of Schnorr MuSig2, Mercury can facilitate the process of backout transaction signing without learning any of the details of what they are signing. This necessitates some design changes in order to account for the fact the operator can no longer see and publish the entirety of a statechain’s transfer history. They are not even capable of validating the transaction they are signing at all.

In the prior iteration, uniqueness of a current statechain owner/transaction set was attested to by the operator through the publishing of the entire transfer history of the statechain with Mainstay. That is not possible here, as in the blinded version the operator learns no details at all about these transactions. This necessitates a new way of the operator attesting to current ownership of the statechain. All of this data is pushed entirely to a client side validation model. The operator simply keeps track of the number of times it has signed something for a single statechain, and tells a user that number when it is requested. The user then receives the transactions of past statechain state’s from the user sending to them, and verifies entirely client side that the number of transactions match what the operator claimed, and then fully verifies the signatures are all valid and the timelocks decremented by the appropriate amount each time. In lieu of publishing the full statechain transactions and transfer order to Mainstay, because it is designed to be unaware of all of that information, it publishes its share of the public key (not the full aggregate public key) for the current user for each statechain user. This allows any user receiving a statechain to verify the transfer history and current state is legitimate against the transaction data sent by the sender.

The operator server keeps track of unique statechains to count past signatures by assigning each statechain a random identifier at creation, stored with its denomination and its private key and public key shares (not the entire aggregate public key). The new coordination scheme for sharding and re-sharding the key is done in a way where the server passes its share of the key to the user, and the data necessary for a resharding is blinded so the server is incapable of ever learning the user’s full public key share, allowing it to create the full aggregate public key and identify the coin on-chain.

The design doesn’t even allow for the operator to know when it has signed a cooperative closure with the current owner rather than a pre-signed transaction for a new off-chain owner; it doesn’t see any details to distinguish the two cases from each other. This is safe however for users who could be attacked by someone trying to “double spend” a statechain off-chain providing a fake transaction that couldn’t be settled. Firstly, that user would see on-chain that the UTXO backing that statechain was spent. Secondly the transaction history, because the operator must sign all state updates, would only have a clear cooperative closure in the chain of past transactions. Both of these things would allow the user to refuse the transaction knowing it was not legitimate.

Statechains also allow Lightning channels to be “put on top” of the statechain by having the statechain pay out to a multisig address between two people, and the two of them negotiating a conventional set of Lightning commitment transactions on top of it. It would need to close the statechain on-chain before closing the Lightning channel so would need to use longer timelock lengths for Lightning payments, but otherwise would function perfectly normally.

Overall with the massive privacy improvements of the new iteration of statechains, and the composability with Lightning, this opens many doors for the economic viability and flexibility of second layer transactional mechanisms on Bitcoin. Especially in light of the recent radical changes in mempool dynamics and the resulting fee pressure.

It offers the same type of liquidity benefits of Ark, i.e. being able to be freely transferable without needing receiving liquidity, but unlike Ark is live and functional today. It is undeniably a different trust model than something like Lightning alone, but for the massive gains in flexibility and scalability, it is definitely a possibility to explore. 

This article is featured in Bitcoin Magazine’s “The Primary Issue”. Click here to get your Annual Bitcoin Magazine Subscription.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Click the image above to subscribe!

Freedom is not granted; it is taken and defended. Our freedom is being eroded on nearly every front yet few push back, blinded by greed and lust. Most with influence in our society shepherd us toward darkness for more power and more money. The incentives are designed by massive, corrupt institutions and billion-dollar companies focused on squeezing out as much money as possible from billions of digital slaves.

Tracked. Manipulated. Censored. Sold. This is our reality.

Can you see it? Can you see where this leads? “Everything I do is tracked. It is already a lost cause” is a common narrative, disappointing and frustrating. Millions see the problems, but most have given up hope.

How did we end up here? Humans have relied on trust since the dawn of time. We built families. We built communities. We built businesses. We built new technologies. We built governments. Trust is how humans have improved our standing in the world. Trust will always be essential, but at scale it remains vulnerable. Systems that require trust are easily corrupted. In the modern age, this vulnerability is amplified due to the scale of these systems, controlled by a powerful few whose incentives are at odds with the millions who trust and rely on them blindly.

I was once a Twitter power user — my only social media for the past decade. It was not without fault, but it was an incredibly powerful tool. It held the promise of billions being able to communicate freely and build off of each other’s thoughts and ideas. Then censorship escalated. Then identity checks began. Refusing to comply effectively shadowbanned you. In retrospect, it was inevitable. Trust does not scale. The systems we rely on are too easily corrupted.

The massive centralized institutions that govern so much of our lives are broken. What has worked in the past is not sufficient for the future. We can do better. We must do better. Nobody is coming to save us. We have to save ourselves.

We have the tools — the tools that empower individuals and minimize trust. Protocols such as Bitcoin and Nostr that are not controlled by any entity enable us to communicate and interact freely and without permission. Freedom tech is our hope, but real change will require millions to stand up and take responsibility for our future. Say no to TikTok, Google, WeChat, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter/X, and the countless digital slavery companies that join their ranks. Their incentive is to control you and they are winning. Build, support, and utilize freedom tech tools instead.

If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

We will not live in a pod.

We will not eat the bugs.

We will not get the blue check.

We will not use CBDCs.

Use Freedom Tech.

Live Free or Die.

– – ODELL (https://primal.net/odell)

Click the image above to download a PDF of the article. 

This article is featured in Bitcoin Magazine’s “The Primary Issue”. Click here to get your Annual Bitcoin Magazine Subscription.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.