Seriously, the foundation for a collective hive mind intelligence to build on should be money? Like that's not caused problems for most of us :/
Togetherness and intelligence are better foundations, why help your neighbour for money when you can do it so you are both better for it. Honestly thought you guys were an alternative to capitalism, maybe you are, but a new currency shouldnt be the focus - a system where we all make the decisions as a "hivemind" should be, as most of your content is about.
Bitcoin is just a network tool that already exists. As a weapon against corruption. The similarities are in decentralization. More of a thought experiment for those who truly under what Bitcoin is. But not many people spend the time needed to understand it. Sorry to confuse
No confusion, I know that Bitcoin is decentralised, and that similarity to a post-capitalist society is positive, yet it shouldn't be considered as the most important or foundational to changing for the better.
You make an excellent point, Martin. I agree completely that any transformational shift in socioeconomic systems should place concepts like coherence, cooperation, (real) community, equity, sustainability, and most importantly the appreciation for the potential of human beings at its core.
That said, I also understand the point that Bitcoin can play a critical part of the foundation on which such a system can exist. Such a utopian system (and I use that word non-sarcastically) will require serious technical underpinnings and the use of lots of financial leverage to accomplish. I do not believe it is going to mysteriously manifest through a million people meditating in unison (sarcasm intended — and nothing against meditation, but I think the phrase 'pray and move your feet' is appropriate).
Bottom line: Yes, Bitcoin will be critically important. But unity and peace are primary.
One more thing, any new society will need an economic means for trade.
Wouldn’t government spending itself be the perfect thing for Bitcoin if it is on transparent ledgers we can all see? Seems like if we are to run a government with collective intelligence we would need a transparent and decentralized ledger for the people.
Yes, bitcoin in a transparent decentralised ledger is better than the current corrupted system, but I still think the initial foundation isn't financial based.
Why do we need the money tool to share our collective resources, when we can simply use software to keep track of and delegate them as required for society? That software should of course be decentralised and accessible to all, ensuring that all have what they require and ideally enough to be comfortable with, or better yet more than comfortable.
Of course, the problem myself, the author of this substack, Mentor and countless others on the path to improvement is how to put our better society into place.
Actions speak louder than words, to respond to pray and move your feet above, yet what movements should we take to create a better system for all of us?
Bitcoin is a network built on open-source software called Bitcoin Core. Is there a different kind of software you are referring to?
Also, money is simply a unit of trust between people that is easy to exchange so we can also exchange goods and services. If it is a paper dollar, a gold coin, a bitcoin, or some other unit, doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is trustworthy.
Martin, you are asking the right question when you ask "how to put our better society in place". I see so many people out there analyzing and processing on the issues, and very little actual solutions. But that is what I have been working on for years — an actual solution to the problem. The plan is very well developed. What's lacking is the people to implement the plan.
I'm currently seeking out people who are actually interested in solving the problem instead of just discussing it. If that's you, I would very much like to connect.
True decentralization means complete detachment from any centralized control—whether that’s governments, courts, or financial institutions. If something can be regulated, tracked, or forced into compliance, it was never truly outside the system. Bitcoin and Ethereum may have started with the idea of financial freedom, but as soon as they became subject to legal frameworks and institutional control, that vision started to fade. Real decentralization isn’t just about blockchain—it’s about anonymity, self-custody, and a system that no authority can manipulate. Anything less is just a different version of the same game.
Decentralization and anonymity are not intertwined. Bitcoin can have self custody, and it is decentralized. Where is the main Bitcoin office? Who is the CEO? It requires permission from no one. While your criticisms seem valid, not sure how you are connecting them to Bitcoin. Except anonymity, which is a separate thing and different problem than decentralization is.
You’re right that Bitcoin doesn’t have a central office or CEO, and the network itself operates without permission. But decentralization isn’t just about infrastructure—it’s about control, access, and privacy.
My point is that true decentralization means complete detachment from centralized control. While Bitcoin’s network is decentralized, the moment you interact with it through exchanges, KYC (Know Your Customer) processes, or legal frameworks, you’re back under centralized authority.
For example, if someone declares bankruptcy, the government has the legal authority to inspect your financial records, including any Bitcoin holdings tied to your identity. That alone means the system is still subject to centralized oversight. Yes, miners are spread worldwide, but if your access to Bitcoin is filtered through regulated platforms, the system is effectively centralized at the user level.
Anonymity and decentralization may be separate concepts, but they’re intertwined when it comes to true financial freedom. If every transaction can be tracked back to an owner, and governments can enforce financial disclosures, then the promise of decentralization starts to fade. What we have now is a decentralized network being funneled through centralized controls.
So while Bitcoin offers decentralization in terms of its technical design, the reality is that most users experience it through centralized gateways, making it vulnerable to the same institutional controls it was meant to escape.
What is the solution to this? What system can the government not control that exists?
Also if you cold store Bitcoin and use a privacy-friendly decentralized exchange (DEX) such as Bisq (for Bitcoin), Uniswap with a fresh wallet, or a mixer before interacting with a DEX, you can do a decent job.
Or use Monero (XMR) as a bridge – Trade BTC → XMR → BTC to break traceability.
Use Tor or a VPN – Prevents IP tracking.
Avoid centralized on/off ramps – Buying Bitcoin from a KYC exchange (like Coinbase) and sending it to a DEX can still link back to you.
For maximum anonymity, combining a DEX, privacy coins (like Monero), and network privacy tools (Tor, VPNs) is the best approach we know.
All these privacy tools—DEXs, Monero, VPNs, mixers—offer temporary solutions, but the core issue remains: governments control the infrastructure, legal frameworks, and enforcement. Blockchain itself is an open ledger, and no matter how private a transaction seems now, enough time and resources can trace it back. The real problem isn’t the tools; it’s that any system relying on regulated internet providers, financial on/off ramps, and legal jurisdictions is always vulnerable. True decentralization isn’t just about tech—it’s about escaping state control entirely, and as long as they hold the keys to enforcement, they’ll always have the last laugh
Don't downplay the problems with the tools. What Josh described is the reason we are still within the grasp of the banking system. The process to actually achieve data and financial sovereignty is so onerous virtually no one is going to do it.
I think the other key that neither of you have touched on is that what is really required is a completely separate sub-economy existing within, but separate from the the host economy. Within that economy people could trade for all the goods and services they need with zero friction in their own native token. This could be completely invisible to the established system. The only time people would need to engage with the established system is when they have to do something that requires USD (or whatever). Then they convert their native coin to Bitcoin, and from that to USD.
The point is, the actual real-world transactions, whether that's cooking a meal for someone, delivering a load of rocks, or building a house, everything is done 'off the books'.
The only thing that reveals this economy are the few transactions where they're converting to cash. The key is that this sub-economy/network state needs to be large enough to support most of its members — not just some cute little barter community.
You’re right that a sub-economy using its own token could reduce friction and limit interaction with the traditional system, but the moment it touches fiat, it’s back under centralized control. Even a large, self-sufficient network state would still rely on government-controlled infrastructure like internet access, utilities, and legal frameworks. The state doesn’t need to see every transaction if they can monitor key entry/exit points and enforce laws. True financial sovereignty isn’t just about creating parallel economies — it’s about removing dependence on state-controlled resources entirely, which is the hardest part. Until that happens, any system remains vulnerable to surveillance and regulation, no matter how well hidden.
Seriously, the foundation for a collective hive mind intelligence to build on should be money? Like that's not caused problems for most of us :/
Togetherness and intelligence are better foundations, why help your neighbour for money when you can do it so you are both better for it. Honestly thought you guys were an alternative to capitalism, maybe you are, but a new currency shouldnt be the focus - a system where we all make the decisions as a "hivemind" should be, as most of your content is about.
Bitcoin is just a network tool that already exists. As a weapon against corruption. The similarities are in decentralization. More of a thought experiment for those who truly under what Bitcoin is. But not many people spend the time needed to understand it. Sorry to confuse
No confusion, I know that Bitcoin is decentralised, and that similarity to a post-capitalist society is positive, yet it shouldn't be considered as the most important or foundational to changing for the better.
You make an excellent point, Martin. I agree completely that any transformational shift in socioeconomic systems should place concepts like coherence, cooperation, (real) community, equity, sustainability, and most importantly the appreciation for the potential of human beings at its core.
That said, I also understand the point that Bitcoin can play a critical part of the foundation on which such a system can exist. Such a utopian system (and I use that word non-sarcastically) will require serious technical underpinnings and the use of lots of financial leverage to accomplish. I do not believe it is going to mysteriously manifest through a million people meditating in unison (sarcasm intended — and nothing against meditation, but I think the phrase 'pray and move your feet' is appropriate).
Bottom line: Yes, Bitcoin will be critically important. But unity and peace are primary.
Check out isitas.org.
One more thing, any new society will need an economic means for trade.
Wouldn’t government spending itself be the perfect thing for Bitcoin if it is on transparent ledgers we can all see? Seems like if we are to run a government with collective intelligence we would need a transparent and decentralized ledger for the people.
Yes, bitcoin in a transparent decentralised ledger is better than the current corrupted system, but I still think the initial foundation isn't financial based.
Why do we need the money tool to share our collective resources, when we can simply use software to keep track of and delegate them as required for society? That software should of course be decentralised and accessible to all, ensuring that all have what they require and ideally enough to be comfortable with, or better yet more than comfortable.
Of course, the problem myself, the author of this substack, Mentor and countless others on the path to improvement is how to put our better society into place.
Actions speak louder than words, to respond to pray and move your feet above, yet what movements should we take to create a better system for all of us?
Bitcoin is a network built on open-source software called Bitcoin Core. Is there a different kind of software you are referring to?
Also, money is simply a unit of trust between people that is easy to exchange so we can also exchange goods and services. If it is a paper dollar, a gold coin, a bitcoin, or some other unit, doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is trustworthy.
Martin, you are asking the right question when you ask "how to put our better society in place". I see so many people out there analyzing and processing on the issues, and very little actual solutions. But that is what I have been working on for years — an actual solution to the problem. The plan is very well developed. What's lacking is the people to implement the plan.
I'm currently seeking out people who are actually interested in solving the problem instead of just discussing it. If that's you, I would very much like to connect.
True decentralization means complete detachment from any centralized control—whether that’s governments, courts, or financial institutions. If something can be regulated, tracked, or forced into compliance, it was never truly outside the system. Bitcoin and Ethereum may have started with the idea of financial freedom, but as soon as they became subject to legal frameworks and institutional control, that vision started to fade. Real decentralization isn’t just about blockchain—it’s about anonymity, self-custody, and a system that no authority can manipulate. Anything less is just a different version of the same game.
Decentralization and anonymity are not intertwined. Bitcoin can have self custody, and it is decentralized. Where is the main Bitcoin office? Who is the CEO? It requires permission from no one. While your criticisms seem valid, not sure how you are connecting them to Bitcoin. Except anonymity, which is a separate thing and different problem than decentralization is.
You’re right that Bitcoin doesn’t have a central office or CEO, and the network itself operates without permission. But decentralization isn’t just about infrastructure—it’s about control, access, and privacy.
My point is that true decentralization means complete detachment from centralized control. While Bitcoin’s network is decentralized, the moment you interact with it through exchanges, KYC (Know Your Customer) processes, or legal frameworks, you’re back under centralized authority.
For example, if someone declares bankruptcy, the government has the legal authority to inspect your financial records, including any Bitcoin holdings tied to your identity. That alone means the system is still subject to centralized oversight. Yes, miners are spread worldwide, but if your access to Bitcoin is filtered through regulated platforms, the system is effectively centralized at the user level.
Anonymity and decentralization may be separate concepts, but they’re intertwined when it comes to true financial freedom. If every transaction can be tracked back to an owner, and governments can enforce financial disclosures, then the promise of decentralization starts to fade. What we have now is a decentralized network being funneled through centralized controls.
So while Bitcoin offers decentralization in terms of its technical design, the reality is that most users experience it through centralized gateways, making it vulnerable to the same institutional controls it was meant to escape.
What is the solution to this? What system can the government not control that exists?
Also if you cold store Bitcoin and use a privacy-friendly decentralized exchange (DEX) such as Bisq (for Bitcoin), Uniswap with a fresh wallet, or a mixer before interacting with a DEX, you can do a decent job.
Or use Monero (XMR) as a bridge – Trade BTC → XMR → BTC to break traceability.
Use Tor or a VPN – Prevents IP tracking.
Avoid centralized on/off ramps – Buying Bitcoin from a KYC exchange (like Coinbase) and sending it to a DEX can still link back to you.
For maximum anonymity, combining a DEX, privacy coins (like Monero), and network privacy tools (Tor, VPNs) is the best approach we know.
What else would you add to this?
All these privacy tools—DEXs, Monero, VPNs, mixers—offer temporary solutions, but the core issue remains: governments control the infrastructure, legal frameworks, and enforcement. Blockchain itself is an open ledger, and no matter how private a transaction seems now, enough time and resources can trace it back. The real problem isn’t the tools; it’s that any system relying on regulated internet providers, financial on/off ramps, and legal jurisdictions is always vulnerable. True decentralization isn’t just about tech—it’s about escaping state control entirely, and as long as they hold the keys to enforcement, they’ll always have the last laugh
Don't downplay the problems with the tools. What Josh described is the reason we are still within the grasp of the banking system. The process to actually achieve data and financial sovereignty is so onerous virtually no one is going to do it.
I think the other key that neither of you have touched on is that what is really required is a completely separate sub-economy existing within, but separate from the the host economy. Within that economy people could trade for all the goods and services they need with zero friction in their own native token. This could be completely invisible to the established system. The only time people would need to engage with the established system is when they have to do something that requires USD (or whatever). Then they convert their native coin to Bitcoin, and from that to USD.
The point is, the actual real-world transactions, whether that's cooking a meal for someone, delivering a load of rocks, or building a house, everything is done 'off the books'.
The only thing that reveals this economy are the few transactions where they're converting to cash. The key is that this sub-economy/network state needs to be large enough to support most of its members — not just some cute little barter community.
You’re right that a sub-economy using its own token could reduce friction and limit interaction with the traditional system, but the moment it touches fiat, it’s back under centralized control. Even a large, self-sufficient network state would still rely on government-controlled infrastructure like internet access, utilities, and legal frameworks. The state doesn’t need to see every transaction if they can monitor key entry/exit points and enforce laws. True financial sovereignty isn’t just about creating parallel economies — it’s about removing dependence on state-controlled resources entirely, which is the hardest part. Until that happens, any system remains vulnerable to surveillance and regulation, no matter how well hidden.