KompassFrei

https://kompass-frei.com/what-comes-after-understanding-bitcoin/

How does Bitcoin move from being understood to being embodied?

Exploring practical adoption, local settlement networks and sovereignty-based living from Antioquia, Colombia.

Documenting the experiment as it unfolds.

Public Key

npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspvn8fs3el0qvrewwh2vxg6ntnczhshy2js38vv9kt5xphws0m5pcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d529fjqv

Publishing to

nostr.bitcoiner.social

Author Public Key

npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a

Show more details

Published at

2026-07-22T16:41:04Z

Kind type

0 Metadata

Event JSON

{ "id": "91ea02090de716e0162a04c6d5588ce935777e6bba0eb29cf84a6943fe575c88", "pubkey": "164ce98473f78183cb9d7530c8d4d73c0af0b9152844ec616cba1837741fba07", "created_at": 1784738464, "kind": 0, "tags": [ [ "alt", "User profile for KompassFrei" ], [ "name", "KompassFrei" ], [ "display_name", "KompassFrei" ], [ "website", "https://kompass-frei.com/what-comes-after-understanding-bitcoin/" ], [ "about", "How does Bitcoin move from being understood to being embodied?\n\nExploring practical adoption, local settlement networks and sovereignty-based living from Antioquia, Colombia.\n\nDocumenting the experiment as it unfolds." ], [ "picture", "https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/a0bafe8b7daff3d18d6c41c268941e5c7275f7c133895f0c4b5d622a58492409.jpg" ], [ "banner", "https://image.nostr.build/13f550d9b485631c32a81e3cd67a2e61ae1a7c2e28356433bb4690b0c5034476.jpg" ], [ "lud16", "snugglyhubcap20@walletofsatoshi.com" ], [ "client", "Amethyst" ] ], "content": "{\"name\":\"KompassFrei\",\"display_name\":\"KompassFrei\",\"website\":\"https://kompass-frei.com/what-comes-after-understanding-bitcoin/\",\"about\":\"How does Bitcoin move from being understood to being embodied?\\n\\nExploring practical adoption, local settlement networks and sovereignty-based living from Antioquia, Colombia.\\n\\nDocumenting the experiment as it unfolds.\",\"picture\":\"https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/a0bafe8b7daff3d18d6c41c268941e5c7275f7c133895f0c4b5d622a58492409.jpg\",\"banner\":\"https://image.nostr.build/13f550d9b485631c32a81e3cd67a2e61ae1a7c2e28356433bb4690b0c5034476.jpg\",\"lud16\":\"snugglyhubcap20@walletofsatoshi.com\"}", "sig": "fa89f7624f6c80214bf459602d6592edde9b19cc4d1027a9dcdcbd9e71593fe04c92bbd54612c64580966ccf4f08af2023484ecfd82a7152d63bcf6a24d54d08" }

Last Notes

2026-10-16 17:19:29 UTC

- reply

This is part of a local initiative I'm developing in Colombia within a broader strategic exploration.
The idea is to go beyond merchant acceptance and explore whether financial mentorship, self-custody and independent verification can become mutually reinforcing parts of a Bitcoin economy.
I'm approaching it less as a checklist for adoption than as an experiment in the conditions under which people voluntarily become more independent participants in the network.
Your experience with merchant acceptance would make your perspective particularly valuable. I'd be interested to hear how you see this approach.
https://blossom.primal.net/e850d6d44aeea86b7104b256ef124d4d9b5410e80ce448e82f87d8f0301c5081.png

2026-10-16 16:32:44 UTC

- reply

I hadn't come across Umbrel, so thanks for bringing it up.
My thinking comes less from a technical onboarding perspective than from Austrian economics, my work on The Measure of Value, and Santostasi's power-law thesis.
I'm wondering whether the organic growth of Bitcoin depends partly on economic incentives that lead participants to strengthen the network through their own choices, rather than on adoption numbers alone.
Self-custody and independent verification may be two different steps in that process. But I'm equally interested in whether the economic benefits become tangible enough for people to choose both voluntarily.
Perhaps the question isn't how to get every merchant to run a node, but under what conditions doing so becomes a natural extension of participating in a Bitcoin economy.

2026-10-16 16:06:19 UTC

- reply

Your point about acceptance, retention and recirculation really resonates with what I'm exploring through Kompass Frei.
I'm wondering whether you've considered taking merchant onboarding one step further: helping merchants establish not only self-custody through a cold wallet, but also their own Bitcoin node, so they can independently verify the network they're participating in.
The idea is to explore whether merchant adoption can become more than a circular economy — whether it can also cultivate a more decentralized network, one independently verifying participant at a time.
Have you explored anything along those lines?

2026-10-15 20:34:25 UTC

- reply

By the way, that line about the flag stayed with me. Interestingly, I initially read ‘No flag issues it’ as ‘No flag issues’ — which, given Beyer's work on the patterns through which we perceive reality, felt like a little demonstration of the very thing we're discussing. Sometimes the mind reveals its assumptions before we even notice them.

2026-10-15 20:29:56 UTC

- reply

It's a line I wrote down from one of those rare interviews you come across on social media.
The other one is priceless:
“We mustn't forget that our present system is always so obstructed that in fact we probably can keep it going only by inflation.
So we must:
First, free the price mechanism.
And then, restore sound currency.”
(The Levin Interviews. Broadcast: 31st May 1980 at the University of Freiburg)
Love The Road to Serfdom.

2026-10-15 16:46:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…ra2f
Thank you for taking the time to engage with the idea so thoughtfully. And I'm delighted you're reading Christian's book already!
My wife is a therapist, and together we first met Christian in Mexico while attending one of his training courses. We grew close and have continued exchanging ideas around psychoneurodontology ever since. It's one of those encounters that stays with you and keeps unfolding in unexpected ways.
What first drew me to Beyer's work was probably the way he describes mental patterns that permeate our every thought. Much later, his work helped me see that economics is about far more than money, markets or the allocation of resources. It touches the very foundations of how we relate to one another, how we understand value, and what kind of world our choices help bring into being.
As Hayek put it, learning about economics teaches about freedom (or shows the conditions in which awareness of freedom is possible, and those where it could never be…) I think I'm discovering something similar through Bitcoin: the more I understand its monetary principles, the more questions emerge about human action, sovereignty and the conditions under which people can truly cooperate.
Perhaps that's why your reflection resonates so much. Life is indeed full of blessings, not least the unexpected connections that emerge when we follow an idea far enough.

2026-10-12 04:08:59 UTC

- reply

I'm curious about the numbers. Where does the estimate of 100 million Bitcoin owners come from, and how are the 100,000 people interacting without trusted third parties being counted?
Are these based on separate datasets, or is the latter inferred from node counts?

2026-10-12 04:07:11 UTC

- reply

Tauri's post catches my attention because it reflects something highly valuable: a curious mind looking for patterns that might help Bitcoin grow.
The question matters, even though some of its technical implications are beyond my current understanding. But the figures themselves made me wonder. If roughly 100 million people own Bitcoin, while only around 100,000 are said to interact with the network without trusted third parties, what exactly are we measuring? Ownership? Independent verification? The degree to which people actually participate in the network?
And what would have to change for Bitcoin ownership to evolve into a genuinely self-sustaining economic ecosystem? If these figures are even approximately accurate, they suggest that ownership alone tells us relatively little about how far we have come.
Running a node, holding bitcoin, transacting, building businesses and accepting payments are all different forms of participation. They are not interchangeable, but they may reinforce one another. Clearly, the maturity of Bitcoin cannot be measured by ownership alone, or even by the number of nodes.
Therefore the central distinction, to me, is between economic activity that happens around Bitcoin and economic activity that strengthens Bitcoin itself.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin, financial products built around it, and businesses profiting from its price may generate enormous economic value. But that does not necessarily mean they strengthen Bitcoin's role as a monetary network.
The deeper question is how much economic activity actively reinforces the network by creating genuine demand for its monetary properties, expanding its use in voluntary exchange, deepening its liquidity, and supporting the infrastructure and participation that allow it to endure.
In other words, does the economy emerging around Bitcoin merely benefit from the network, or does it also help sustain and strengthen the network on which it depends? What kind of economy does Bitcoin need in order for its own foundations to efficiently grow through its use?
This is where the exploration is leading: beyond Bitcoin as an asset, towards the conditions under which a healthy ecosystem, integrated by decentralized nodes operating under one protocol, can continuously and coherently adapt to change.
#nevent1q…dk9x

2026-10-10 13:45:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…ra2f @nprofile…rwg7 @nprofile…2jpv
I have reflected on this whole subject time and time again. When I first shared the post attached below, it found little engagement. I genuinely wonder: was the assumption totally erroneous, or did it hit a raw nerve that the market isn't ready to face?
Money is primarily a medium of exchange, yet we haven't been able to establish widespread adoption around daily, physical peer-to-peer transactions. Instead, we are witnessing massive institutional adoption—which effectively shifts Bitcoin into centralized custody wrappers under the old fiat paradigm.
Seen through the lens of Physics, this fundamentally mutates the network risk. It alters the very nature of the nodes, dampening the organic, scale-free network dynamics driven by sovereign individual users aligning with the protocol's core rules.
The type of adoption absolutely matters. Institutional custody fundamentally changes the structural matrix of the network, replacing a high-entropy, distributed topology with centralized hubs of low entropy. If the price goes up but the underlying architecture flattens into a legacy hub-and-spoke system, have we actually won, or have we allowed the closed thermodynamic properties of the protocol to be stripped away?
Your thoughts on this are warmly appreciated.
#nevent1q…meax

2026-10-07 12:26:43 UTC

- reply

Perhaps the deeper question is: what are we actually trying to preserve?
Once preservation–as opposed to extraction or an extraction-based economy– comes first, the question becomes one of optionality, infrastructure, and ultimately jurisdiction. Different forms of property (both physical and digital) may serve different parts of that equation.
The form matters less than the principles it "embodies".

2026-10-07 11:19:57 UTC

- reply

Neither morally nor physically is there another way.
The justification of Bitcoin's ledger—and the increasing energy cost required to secure it—testifies to a well-described physical law: the conservation of energy.
As G. Santostasi explores in The Physics of Bitcoin, Bitcoin doesn't make the cost of monetary integrity disappear. It makes the cost explicit.

2026-10-07 11:09:07 UTC

- reply

The interesting question isn't simply where the price is going. It's what people are doing with their scarce capital—and what those actions reveal about their expectations, and ultimately, about how we measure value.

2026-10-06 18:51:55 UTC

- reply

I'd be curious to hear what you make of it.

2026-10-06 00:07:02 UTC

- reply

Government still falls into the realm the limitations of which need to be transcended by exercising the power of our sentiment beyond ideologies (nation) and physical boundaries (countries). One stands for an extended archetype of the father, the other stands for mother or materialization, both on the same level, both needing to be integrated as one.
(Image: Pattern of the subconscious mind as inspired and conveyed beautifully in The Spirit Cycle: A Life Matrix, by Christian Beyer)
https://blossom.primal.net/edf4ae67220ed21e84172f89c6a11ee95480a2dae4d8466815986d1a0f645615.png

2026-09-10 17:34:40 UTC

- reply

So perhaps the deeper question isn't whether Bitcoin can survive disagreement, but whether it can accommodate genuinely different understandings of what the ecosystem is for without those differences becoming grounds for exit?
Less of a 'consensus mechanics' issue and more of an 'ecosystem cohesion' topic.

2026-09-07 17:48:19 UTC

Six weeks ago, we documented the first transaction of our pilot.
Since then, the merchant has continued saving sats.
She does not convert back to fiat.
No grand strategy. Just a small change in how value is perceived and held.
The story is continuity.
A first transaction is an event. A repeated choice is the beginning of an economy.
Growth Event #009
Oriente Antioqueño, Colombia
https://blossom.primal.net/756fb77cadcf4d135bf90e6590d7cc79304722238b74288d921703b224c8e2ee.png

2026-09-03 20:11:11 UTC

- reply

Debían worked. Got the correct seedphrase. Entering the perfect 24-word phrase should now unlock the script's final payload instead of throwing a checksum suggestion. If that is not the case, what do I need to do in order to cross-check Root key and Fingerprint?

2026-08-31 18:47:35 UTC

- reply

Changing the subject for a moment: what’s your take on the BIP-110 conflict—and, more importantly, on what the attempted split and its outcome tell us about Bitcoin’s consensus process?
The network ultimately did not converge around BIP-110, and the minority chain stalled almost immediately. Do you see that as the system working exactly as intended, or as a warning that we may be entering a period where disagreements over Bitcoin’s economic purpose can threaten network coherence?
@nprofile…nv40 @nprofile…rwg7

2026-08-08 18:34:27 UTC

- reply

That's an important distinction: the technical barrier then may be lower than I thought; the real barrier is the discipline to understand, test and take responsibility for the process. Perhaps self-custody is less a technical problem than a question of agency. A question of being operationally disciplined.
@nprofile…ky9k Excellent practical advice. Thank you

2026-08-08 18:02:56 UTC

- reply

How sophisticated needs a person technically be to master self-custody?

2026-08-08 13:29:46 UTC

Time ago someone came up with the notion that each and everybody somehow fosters poverty whenever we indulge in the use of fiat money as the medium of exchange. In the ongoing process of exchanging with one another, fiat quietly introduces compromise between peers, whereas a sound medium of exchange recognizes and reinforces each other's agency. No matter whether we are in favor or against, the process of exchange itself either loosens the chains or makes them tighter. The decision for one medium or another becomes a vote.
By the very act of interacting, we either subsidize growth through voluntary cooperation or subsidize the gradual loss of agency through inflation. That is each person's free—yet inescapable—responsibility.
The chosen medium of exchange quietly seals the relationship. No compromise is possible in this.

2026-07-30 02:51:39 UTC

- reply

Influence isn't the same as control.
If Bitcoin's future were shaped only by large institutions, there would be little reason for developers, node operators, entrepreneurs, merchants or educators to invest years of their lives in building around it.
Yet that's precisely how Bitcoin has evolved so far. Heads up!

2026-07-29 17:32:03 UTC

- reply

Tauri raises an important question:
who shapes Bitcoin's future?
It made me wonder whether there's another dimension to this.
Bitcoin's block space still isn't being competed for by a mature global monetary economy.
If Bitcoin were already settling trillions of dollars daily for millions of users, wouldn't the fee market itself increasingly determine what belongs on-chain?
Which leaves me wondering:
How much of Bitcoin's future will ultimately be shaped by relay policy, and how much by the economy we succeed in building on top of it?
#nevent1q…5jp0

2026-07-23 17:50:45 UTC

- reply

Is it possible that both Michael Saylor and Adam Back are against BIP-110, but for very different reasons?

2026-07-23 17:43:29 UTC

- reply

If Bitcoin were already settling trillions of dollars daily for millions of users, arbitrary data might simply be priced out by the fee market.
The market for block space isn't yet dominated by global monetary demand.

2026-07-23 17:41:44 UTC

- reply

Institutional adoption may be changing the economics of the base layer.

2026-07-23 17:41:21 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin was originally expected to become money from the bottom up.

2026-07-22 23:31:55 UTC

Relay test

2026-07-22 19:24:19 UTC

- reply

...human effort is redirected away from creating value and toward maintaining the monetary system itself.
What kind of monetary system does my day-to-day behavior sustain?
https://blossom.primal.net/847c3570f00b929951c45821ce82ece9477725454b094085be27113cc8992afb.png

2026-07-22 18:18:28 UTC

- reply

The first step isn't onboarding as many people as possible.
It's designing a transition where the first participant can enter with a downside they understand and accept.
In our case, that starts with capital.
The entrepreneur commits tangible collateral first, so trust isn't requested—it begins with aligned incentives.
If that works, the same principle can extend to merchants, suppliers and eventually customers.

2026-07-22 17:56:27 UTC

- reply

That's actually a fair question.
What, in your view, would distinguish a genuine experiment from just another narrative?

2026-07-16 15:51:14 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…9n82 I wonder whether "speed" is simply how people experience efficiency. People rarely optimize for efficiency consciously—they just notice that one path gets them where they're going with less friction.
Makes me wonder how often we choose the path of least friction first, and only understand the monetary implications afterwards.

2026-07-16 12:29:29 UTC

- reply

Exactly. Acceptance starts the transaction, saving starts the transition.

2026-07-16 00:24:44 UTC

- reply

https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/f0ec9794f16a4e87026702fb5b9a0da1273f63293f17eba88ae552dccc5d79c1.jpg
Every economic system eventually becomes statistics.
Before that...
it is simply people exchanging value.

2026-07-16 00:03:15 UTC

https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/e5ac37127b19b7f11e66b161d0bf0e9b77d7610c89b75ede987c30bc4dc16a66.jpg
Today the first merchant in our local pilot accepted Bitcoin for real goods.
More importantly, she chose not to convert the sats back into fiat.
A payment settled.
A saver emerged.
The experiment continues.

2026-07-02 17:47:40 UTC

- reply

https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/18c59243fc03dc293937f0d5c3156ee3cce602a2548ab980d3f844bf29e880c2.jpg
Each cycle appears to require less correction than the previous one.
Perhaps efficiency is emerging faster than we realize.

2026-07-02 17:39:11 UTC

Bitcoin reduces the need to trust centralized monetary infrastructure.
It does not reduce the importance of trusting one another.
Perhaps it increases it. https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/105e0ee3310a188de8e32887384f7ded5cd4df12e0b41a4dab1221e1ba1cd75a.jpg

2026-06-25 22:03:18 UTC

- reply

Hi #shadowbip,
Our conversation a while back stuck with me.
The more I've looked into it locally, the more it seems you were right: the bottleneck isn't merchant adoption. It's supply-chain depth.
I've started mapping businesses around me that already accept Bitcoin, and it turns out there are more than I initially thought. The interesting part now is understanding whether settlement can actually continue beyond the point of sale.
That has gradually become the focus of what I'm building.
Your comments helped redirect the project in a meaningful way.
Thanks again.
https://satsmedellin.com/

2026-06-17 15:52:54 UTC

- reply

Agreed.
Perhaps the most relevant challenge now is ensuring that Bitcoin adoption strengthens voluntary coordination rather than simply reproducing existing dependency structures under a different monetary standard.
The protocol solves the monetary layer.
How economic relationships form around it remains an open question.

2026-06-16 13:34:42 UTC

- reply

In fact, Bitcoin may be one of the strongest examples ever created of large-scale voluntary coordination.

2026-06-16 13:33:21 UTC

- reply

The alternative to central planning is not the absence of coordination.
It is voluntary coordination.
Hayek's insight was that order emerges when individuals act on knowledge unavailable to any central authority.
Bitcoin does not eliminate coordination.
It simply allows it to emerge from the edges rather than from the center, within a monetary protocol whose rules apply equally to all participants.

2026-06-15 19:59:26 UTC

- reply

That makes sense.
So perhaps the limiting factor isn't merchant adoption at all, but the density of economic relationships that can already settle natively.
Which raises another question:
Does supply-chain depth emerge organically from enough individual actors choosing BTC, or does it require deliberate coordination at some point to reach escape velocity?

2026-06-15 19:40:14 UTC

- reply

I'm not referring to holding BTC back.
I'm referring to whether economic flows remain Bitcoin-native once they enter the system.
"Retention" in the sense of "settlement continuity".
If a merchant receives BTC and pays a supplier in BTC, nothing has been retained.
The sats are moving.
The question is simply:
What conditions make economic actors voluntarily choose BTC for settlement rather than terminating every flow in fiat?
Somewhere between payment acceptance and settlement, a decision is being made.
What drives it?

2026-06-09 19:28:59 UTC

- reply

When every concept is translated into the same narrative, communication becomes remarkably efficient.
Understanding, less so.

2026-06-09 16:43:08 UTC

- reply

Efficiency is often mistaken for speed.
Nature suggests otherwise.
The most efficient systems are those requiring the least correction.

2026-06-06 12:29:03 UTC

- reply

There is no one to convince either.
Inefficient systems eventually convince themselves.
Fiat consumes increasing effort to preserve decreasing certainty.
Bitcoin does the opposite.
The point is:
Do we understand efficiency?

2026-05-20 14:50:41 UTC

- reply

You are in time for the upcoming one.
https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/02b8ebf84b6f5f8bc01f8b8a343c20dd787a43bb233d435a4b892ff998844b48.jpg

2026-05-20 14:43:36 UTC

- reply

Since the beginning of this year.

2026-05-18 13:06:54 UTC

- reply

https://icarocasaencuentro.my.canva.site/#page-1

2026-05-11 13:25:48 UTC

- reply

Central planning and voluntary exchange are nearly opposite principles.
The experiment stands or falls on free participation alone.

2026-05-10 02:49:46 UTC

- reply

The ETF paradox is that in that scenario, people do not truly own the monetary network:
they own claims to exposure through custodians.
Without circular economies, self-custody, and real-world BTC exchange between people, Bitcoin risks becoming digital gold trapped inside the architecture of fiat finance.
The irony is: Bitcoin can "win" financially while partially losing philosophically.
No paradigm shift.

2026-05-10 02:27:54 UTC

- reply

Strong point. Thanks for sharing the article. Took my time to go through thoroughly...
Institutional flows may very well accelerate Bitcoin’s monetary stabilization phase.
What still intrigues me though is whether adoption driven primarily by financial exposure produces the same societal effects as adoption driven by actual economic use.
Holding BTC and living through BTC may ultimately shape two very different civilizations.

2026-05-10 02:17:50 UTC

- reply

Fair point to raise publicly.
The last thing I’d want is recreating fiat dependency under Bitcoin branding.
That tension is precisely part of the experiment.

2026-05-09 22:11:24 UTC

- reply

CBDCs centralize behavior.
This attempts to decentralize exchange.
Very different direction.
The real estate backing is simply a bridge of trust between worlds — not the product itself.

2026-05-06 17:30:38 UTC

- reply

That’s exactly what we’re trying to observe in practice.
We’re setting up a small circular economy where people use BTC in real interactions — not just wallets, but actual exchanges.
It’s interesting to see where friction really shows up vs where it’s assumed.
In the end adoption will depend less on macro conditions and more on actual usage environments, based on the profound understanding of what money is for.
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”

2026-05-06 17:16:03 UTC

📍Rionegro, Antioquia 🇨🇴
Even in a local mechanic shop, you can feel the shift of a new era.
Between motor oil, spare parts, and car screens, there’s a symbol appearing more and more outside the internet: ₿
Bitcoin is no longer just for traders or tech people.
It’s slowly making its way into real businesses, everyday economies, and places where people work with their hands every single day.
Adoption doesn’t come from the top down.
It grows from the streets. ⚡
https://npub1zexwnprn77qc8juaw5cv34xh8s90pwg49pzwcctvhgvrwaqlhgrszzrg9a.blossom.band/ce390acb6da2c3823b13e8e6749a82391acadbc30fd87c7d04bdbcddcd1684d5.jpg #Bitcoin #Nostr #Colombia #Antioquia #BTC #Rionegro #BitcoinAdoption

2026-05-04 16:39:50 UTC

- reply

As in everything the choice is between "power over" or "power with". As always only the latter leads to Peace. It can't 🫴🏽 and won't ever come from a non disciplined warlike mentality.
"Power with" needs be practiced though... Exchanging among fellows via sound money is a pragmatic approach to reach that purpose.

2026-04-25 11:54:42 UTC

- reply

As opposed to capital good.
Network good = 'the binding thread that silently weaves the entire economic fabric together'

2026-03-06 13:03:17 UTC

FAQ
8. Is it legally possible to acquire property in Colombia using Bitcoin?
Yes.
While not common, Colombian law allows parties to agree on payment methods freely.
https://kompass-frei.com/faq/

2026-02-24 18:33:13 UTC

- reply

No clue where to find such an environment?
Let us re-create it then.
No thing comes from nothing.