Conza

A lesson I learned long ago: "Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings so that you shall come easily by what others have labored hard for." — Socrates📖

# Bisq 1.10.0 is released! This release focuses on security hardening following the recent security incident and includes major improvements to trade protocol validation, network message handling, release verification, and protection against supply chain attacks.

@lungdoge Fat adapted? What hurts the most 😅

I ran a 22km ultra trail half marathon yesterday with zero training. Ask me anything.

Hot take. Foundry, Antpool, Spiderpool, Marathon, and F2Pool won't enable DATUM because they want to keep the real power for themselves: block template construction.

@AdamSimecka @GrassFedBitcoin Respectfully, I have. And you'll never be able to indicate otherwise, because it's true. Show me where he defines inflation properly by his examples. I'll wait. x.com/venorusprime/s…

@Conza @GrassFedBitcoin Respectfully, you haven't done your homework. That's fine. No one needs to understand Saylor to get Bitcoin. It's noise anyway. No offense intended here. Just don't think that's right.

Can we have a new fight please? I'm tired of fighting the same one over and over again.

@Giovann35084111 @focoinvestor Every single insight is BECAUSE of the praxeological method. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself. Again, if you can't state what praxeology is in a simple IF THEN statement, you can't demonstrate you actually know what it is. You should sit this one out

@focoinvestor @Conza We need to get rid of this praxeology stuff. Austrian economics has many good insights but notwithstanding this sophistry. It is really embarrassing otherwise.

Let's apply the praxeology methodology to everything that matters. The science and technology of flight. See how ridiculous it becomes. Praxiodynamics begins from a single self-evident axiom: birds fly. This is undeniable, because any attempt to deny it presupposes a denier capable of observing birds, and the observation of birds in flight is the foundational datum from which all aerial knowledge proceeds. The axiom is apodictically certain — synthetic a priori, true by intellectual apprehension of the nature of avian motion. From this axiom, by careful deduction, the praxiodynamicist derives the entire science of flight. The categories of flight. Implicit in the concept of flight are several necessary preconditions: a flyer (the agent of flight), air (the medium through which flight occurs), wings (the means of flight), and intention (the directedness of flight toward a destination). These categories are not empirical generalizations; they are constitutive of what flight is. To deny any of them is to deny that one is talking about flight at all. The first derivation: lift. Because the flyer rises against gravity, there must exist a force opposing gravity. This force we call lift. Lift is not measured; it is deduced from the fact of flight. Any flyer that flies, by definition, produces sufficient lift. Any flyer that fails to fly was, by definition, not engaged in flight. The second derivation: the primacy of intention. A bird flies toward something — a perch, a mate, a destination. Flight is therefore purposive. Praxiodynamics is concerned not with all aerial behavior but specifically with intentional flight. Falling objects, wind-blown debris, and ballistic projectiles are excluded from the discipline by definition: they are not flying, they are merely moving through the air. This is not a limitation of praxiodynamics; it is a clarification of its proper object. The third derivation: the wing axiom. All flight requires wings, because all known flyers have wings. Wings are not an empirical feature of flyers; they are a category of flight as such. A would-be flyer without wings is, by the conceptual structure of the discipline, not a flyer. The economic application. From these foundations, the praxiodynamicist derives prescriptive recommendations for human aviation. To build a flying machine, one must: Identify a destination (intention) Provide wings (means) Generate lift (the deduced opposing force) Operate in air (the medium) These are presented as necessary truths, derived from the nature of flight itself, requiring no empirical verification. Wind-tunnel experiments are deprecated as belonging to the empirical-positivist tradition, which praxiodynamics has thoroughly refuted. The equations of fluid dynamics are dismissed as a confused attempt to apply quantitative methods to a domain whose laws are properly grasped by intellectual apprehension.

@Giovann35084111 Didn't define the term, dodged the question. In any case, nope - swing & a miss.

No. That is the core of the criticism. You can draw that circle around any field whatsoever and declare it "special." Astrology can be quarantined from physics by the same trick. Theology can be quarantined from history. Any tradition that wants immunity from outside scrutiny can simply define itself as occupying a logical compartment where outside scrutiny doesn't apply. The fortress strategy is available to everyone, which is exactly why it confers no authority on anyone. There is nothing special about human action. It is a phenomenon in nature like any other. It is built out of neurons, which are built out of cells, which are built out of molecules, which obey the same physics as everything else. There is no point along that chain where reality switches over to a different set of rules that only the praxeologist's intellectual apprehension can access. Action is not a magical category outside the natural world. It is a particular kind of behavior produced by a particular kind of physical system, and like every other natural phenomenon, it is studied by measuring it, modeling it, and revising the models when they fail. It is not the kind of subject one treats with axioms, because it is not an abstract field standing apart from nature. Even mathematics — the cleanest abstract field we have — is only valid as a description of reality to the extent that it works. We do not use all the mathematics. We use the mathematics that turns out to describe certain phenomena, and even then only as an approximation, because there are no perfect circles in nature, no infinite series in any laboratory, and no Euclidean planes outside the textbook. The mathematics earns its place by application. The same is true of any framework that claims to describe how anything in the world actually behaves. So I want to put the question plainly: Is economics a real phenomenon in nature, or is it something you are making up in a video game of your own design? If economics is a real phenomenon — if it is the study of how actual humans, with actual brains, in actual environments, actually produce, exchange, consume, and decide — then it is subject to the same epistemic discipline as every other natural science. It must measure. It must test. It must be willing to be wrong. It must engage with neuroscience when neuroscience speaks to it, with psychology when psychology speaks to it, with behavioral data when behavioral data speak to it. It does not get to wave these fields away because they belong to a different "hat." If economics is instead a closed deductive game — a self-consistent system of definitions unpacked into conclusions, immune to empirical correction by design — then it is not a science. It is an elaborate piece of conceptual fiction, internally coherent in the way that chess is internally coherent, but with no more privileged claim on reality than any other rule-set someone has chosen to construct. It can be played. It cannot be confused with knowledge of the world. The praxeologist wants the prestige of the first and the immunity of the second. He wants to claim that he is doing science — speaking truths about the real economic behavior of real humans — while reserving the right to never be tested against any of it. This is not a position one can hold simultaneously. You either submit your claims to the world or you admit they are not about the world. Pick one.

@Giovann35084111 You didn't define "axiom". Why are you completely unable to actually answer the simple question posed? Get paragraphs of moronic ai slop (at best).

That is the core of the criticism. You can draw that circle around any field whatsoever and declare it "special." Astrology can be quarantined from physics by the same trick. Theology can be quarantined from history. Any tradition that wants immunity from outside scrutiny can simply define itself as occupying a logical compartment where outside scrutiny doesn't apply. The fortress strategy is available to everyone, which is exactly why it confers no authority on anyone. There is nothing special about human action. It is a phenomenon in nature like any other. It is built out of neurons, which are built out of cells, which are built out of molecules, which obey the same physics as everything else. There is no point along that chain where reality switches over to a different set of rules that only the praxeologist's intellectual apprehension can access. Action is not a magical category outside the natural world. It is a particular kind of behavior produced by a particular kind of physical system, and like every other natural phenomenon, it is studied by measuring it, modeling it, and revising the models when they fail. It is not the kind of subject one treats with axioms, because it is not an abstract field standing apart from nature. Even mathematics — the cleanest abstract field we have — is only valid as a description of reality to the extent that it works. We do not use all the mathematics. We use the mathematics that turns out to describe certain phenomena, and even then only as an approximation, because there are no perfect circles in nature, no infinite series in any laboratory, and no Euclidean planes outside the textbook. The mathematics earns its place by application. The same is true of any framework that claims to describe how anything in the world actually behaves. So I want to put the question plainly: Is economics a real phenomenon in nature, or is it something you are making up in a video game of your own design? If economics is a real phenomenon — if it is the study of how actual humans, with actual brains, in actual environments, actually produce, exchange, consume, and decide — then it is subject to the same epistemic discipline as every other natural science. It must measure. It must test. It must be willing to be wrong. It must engage with neuroscience when neuroscience speaks to it, with psychology when psychology speaks to it, with behavioral data when behavioral data speak to it. It does not get to wave these fields away because they belong to a different "hat." If economics is instead a closed deductive game — a self-consistent system of definitions unpacked into conclusions, immune to empirical correction by design — then it is not a science. It is an elaborate piece of conceptual fiction, internally coherent in the way that chess is internally coherent, but with no more privileged claim on reality than any other rule-set someone has chosen to construct. It can be played. It cannot be confused with knowledge of the world. The praxeologist wants the prestige of the first and the immunity of the second. He wants to claim that he is doing science — speaking truths about the real economic behavior of real humans — while reserving the right to never be tested against any of it. This is not a position one can hold simultaneously. You either submit your claims to the world or you admit they are not about the world. Pick one.

@JP_Technology No intellectually honesty JP. Didn't answer the question. Which still applies. The folks who supported the 2010 inflation bug fix, you'd be screaming: "why are you so hell bent in intervention"? 😂🤡

@Conza Why are you so hell bent on intervention when the free market is doing exactly what Libertarians believe free markets are supposed to do? You are not a Libertarian, you're a LARP. Don't lecture me on "principles" 🤡

The irony in Kratter celebrating this is that spammers are losing & ord.io died, WITHOUT Knots or #BIP-110 pushers meddling with the protocol. They are failing at the hands of the FREE MARKET, just as those not afflicted with Core Derangement Syndrome predicted!

@Giovann35084111 conza.tumblr.com/post/186108183… you don't understand any of this and it shows.

Mises's passage contains one real insight wrapped around a serious confusion. The insight is genuine: entrepreneurial action faces irreducible uncertainty about future consumer preferences, technology, and policy that no engineering competence can eliminate. True, and worth saying. The confusion is the move he builds on top of it. Watch the structure: he waves away the question of how physics achieves reliability ("not the task of praxeology to investigate"), then borrows physics' authority for his example of working machines, then introduces future uncertainty as if it were unique to economics, then implies — without arguing — that this uncertainty means economic theory must be aprioristic rather than empirical. Every step is doing protective work. The wave-off prevents scrutiny of the double standard. The borrowing lets praxeology stand next to physics in the reader's mind. The uncertainty point sounds reasonable. And the conclusion is never quite stated, only implied — which is how the trick works. The core equivocation is between two different uses of "certainty." Physics is empirically certain because its predictions reliably hold across repeated tests. Praxeology claims apodictic certainty — truth by definition, requiring no testing. Mises uses both senses within the same passage, borrowing the prestige of the first for claims he wants to make about the second. The deeper confusion is conflating two unrelated uncertainties: the entrepreneur's first-person uncertainty about whether his particular venture will succeed, and the economist's third-person ability to study patterns of human decision-making across many cases. The first is real and unavoidable. The second is completely unaffected by the first. Behavioral economics, experimental economics, and the entire empirical literature on how humans actually decide under uncertainty exist and produce knowledge. Mises's framework cannot accommodate them because it has defined empirical knowledge of action out of economics. Apply the same passage to flight and the trick becomes obvious. Every flight refers to an unknown future; airlines may fail; passenger preferences shift; therefore the theory of flight must be aprioristic. The Wright brothers' wind tunnel still works. The lift coefficient is still measurable. The airline's commercial uncertainty has zero bearing on whether the airfoil generates lift. Mises is doing exactly this slide — using uncertainty at the venture level to evade empirical accountability at the theory level. The honest version would say: entrepreneurs face genuine uncertainty about outcomes; this is important; it does not exempt economic theory from empirical investigation, and the empirical study of human decision-making is one of the most productive areas of modern research. Mises won't say this, because saying it concedes that praxeology's claim to be the foundation of economics is overstated.

@Giovann35084111 More Ai slop. Let me know what model needs further assistance. Again: state a praxeological law in an IF THEN statement to demonstrate you actually know that is being put forward. x.com/Conza/status/1…

You can use DATUM and ocean with Core, but Knots is preferred and here is why. Template control is very limited in Core so most spam makes it in the block. Here is a comparison of templates available.

Adam Back is a liar and not a serious person. He has NOT debunked my articles. You can’t debunk meticulously sourced material. @adam3us is not to be trusted anymore.

@Giovann35084111 x.com/i/status/20554… we can discuss once it's clear you actually understand what praxeology is. If you can't do this, you're certifiably a coward/crank/arrogantly ignorant charlatan.

@Conza Humans are machines. Humans obey the laws of physics. So according to you the laws of physic are violated by humans? At which level? At which precise point?

@Giovann35084111 "You couldn't clearly state the praxeological method if your life depended on it... Go on, do so in a IF THEN statement." 😂! You can't... Try again #2

@Conza There is no arguing with sophistry. This is all what this is. Again, this is why nobody takes this seriously. Do you realize that people cannot be described by axioms?

@_huahua0413_ @Giovann35084111 He can't even get the basics right. Let's not have him anymore confused than he already is 😅 conza.tumblr.com/post/240121368…

@Conza @Giovann35084111 It’s worth noting that Mises and Rothbard have different opinions on the self-evident nature of the action axiom (i.e, Kantian vs. Aristotelian).

Praxeology is the worst part of Austrian Economics and truly its downfall. There are few good ideas that are salvageable but not this part. Let me discuss the below description of it. The passage commits a series of empirical and logical errors that the last hundred years of social science and neuroscience genuinely have settled, and conflates "axiomatic style" with "epistemic certainty" in a way that doesn't survive contact with how axiomatic systems actually work. The "humans aren't predictable like physical systems" claim is empirically false at the aggregate level — that's the central finding of half a century of quantitative social science. Geoffrey West and the Santa Fe group showed that cities obey remarkably tight scaling laws: wages, GDP, patents, crime, walking speed, and infrastructure all scale with population to powers that cluster around 0.85 (infrastructure) or 1.15 (socioeconomic output), across countries and centuries, with R² values often above 0.95. If human action were as irreducibly unpredictable as Mises claimed, you would not get power laws this clean on data covering billions of people. Gravity models of trade and migration predict bilateral flows from population and distance with accuracy that would embarrass most physical-science predictions. Hägerstrand's diffusion models, Schelling's segregation model, and the entire field of econophysics produce quantitative regularities in human collective behavior that are not explainable as coincidence. The insurance industry is the cleanest counter-example imaginable. Actuarial science is a multi-trillion-dollar industry whose entire existence is predicated on the falsifiable, statistical predictability of human behavior — mortality, accidents, lapse rates, fraud, claim frequency. Life tables forecast cohort death rates within fractions of a percent decades out. Auto insurers price risk by zip code, credit score, and driving telematics with enough accuracy to run sustained profit margins on hundreds of millions of policies. If praxeology's claim that human action cannot be statistically modeled were true, the entire reinsurance market — Lloyd's, Munich Re, Swiss Re — would be a four-century-running accidental Ponzi scheme. It isn't. Neuroscience and behavioral economics have falsified, not merely "illustrated against," several core praxeological claims. The "action axiom" assumes purposeful pursuit of subjectively ordered ends. Kahneman and Tversky's work, replicated thousands of times, shows preferences are not stable orderings but are constructed at the moment of choice and depend systematically on framing — same gamble, opposite preference depending on whether you describe it in terms of gains or losses. This isn't a quibble; it directly contradicts the consistency assumption needed to derive a "law" of diminishing marginal utility from introspection. Dual-process research (Evans, Stanovich), hyperbolic discounting (Laibson), the neuroscience of reward prediction error (Schultz, Glimcher), and the entire field of neuroeconomics all show that humans systematically violate the kind of unified-purposive-agent model the action axiom requires. Addicts pursuing the next hit while wanting to quit are not edge cases — they are a window into the fact that "the acting individual" is a coalition of competing neural systems, not the unified will the axiom presumes. The deductive-purity claim misunderstands axiomatic systems. A deduction from an axiom inherits the truth value of that axiom — not certainty, but conditional truth. "Humans act purposefully" is not self-evident; it's an empirical generalization smuggled in as a definition. Even if we grant it, "purposefully" is doing enormous unstated work: are habits purposeful? Reflexes? Choices under cognitive load? The conclusions Mises derives — diminishing marginal utility, the impossibility theorem for socialist calculation, Austrian business cycle theory — do not actually follow from "humans act" alone. They require many additional assumptions about preference structure, information, time preference, and aggregation, each of which is empirically contestable and several of which have been empirically contested with results unfriendly to the conclusions. You can verify this by trying to formalize the derivations: when people have, the missing premises become visible. The business cycle claim is the easiest empirical test, and Austrian theory has not done well on it. ABCT predicts that credit expansions cause systematic malinvestment concentrated in higher-order capital goods, leading to predictable bust patterns. Empirical work testing this — Selgin, White, even sympathetic researchers — has not found the predicted sectoral patterns reliably. The Austrian prediction that QE post-2008 would produce runaway inflation was held by many prominent Austrians and was wrong by an order of magnitude for over a decade. "Data can illustrate but not falsify" becomes a convenient shield only after the predictions don't pan out. The Mises socialist calculation argument is the strongest piece in the passage and is partially right, but for empirical reasons, not deductive ones. Hayek's later reformulation made this explicit — the problem with central planning is an information and computation problem, which is fundamentally an empirical claim about cognitive limits, communication bandwidth, and the informational role of prices. That's a great argument. It's not a praxeological deduction; it's an applied epistemology claim that depends on facts about how information is distributed in economies. Hayek essentially conceded this by moving the argument onto empirical-cognitive ground. The deeper issue is the move "data can only illustrate, never falsify." Any system that adopts that rule has exited the domain of science and entered the domain of theology — not as an insult, just as a description of what epistemology looks like when you place propositions beyond empirical reach. A framework whose adherents declare in advance that no evidence could count against it has bought certainty at the price of content. Euclidean geometry felt apodictically certain too, until non-Euclidean geometries showed that the parallel postulate was an assumption rather than a necessity, and general relativity showed that the universe runs on the non-Euclidean version. The lesson is that deductive systems are only as secure as their axioms, and axioms about the empirical world are themselves empirical. None of this requires defending mainstream economics, which has its own deep problems — overfitting, identification crises, model-uber-alles theorism. But the answer to "mainstream econ is too confident in its mathematical models" is not "let's adopt a framework that declares itself immune to evidence." It's better empirics, better theory, and humility about both.

@JP_Technology You couldn't tell me what the "free market" is actually based on if your life depended on it JP. The only larp here is you. Go on. You don't have any. Keep trying to (inadvertently) simp for scammers/spammers so you can remain on the Bailey💩conf circuit x.com/i/status/20168…

He doesn't even understand inflation properly, nor accurately communicate it. He read a few books and can talk most of the talk and folks who haven't done the work themselves lap it up. Then there's the non monetary data bullshit he/mstr supported, ID shit, not even mentioning recent stuff

@Conza @GrassFedBitcoin I am, in no way, justifying his actions. I don't believe in this, and I don't doublespeak. I just think that might be what is happening. I will always speak the truth. Bitcoin IS money. I don't care who doesn't want to hear it.

@AdamSimecka @GrassFedBitcoin He doesn't think Bitcoin is money (a good sui generis), he thinks its a capital good. Used to give him the benefit of the doubt, his attempt to not poke the USG. But other 🚩's indicates he actually thinks it is true. He supports Bitcoins reduction in quality as money.

@GrassFedBitcoin Genuinely curious, do you believe this to be True about Saylor?

CAPTURE An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended. Article One: The Network citadel21.com/the-network

CAPTURE An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended. Article Two: The Lever citadel21.com/the-lever