❤️️ Sign Up ©2025 NetHappenings News Email List
https://cyberplayground.org
©2025 Follow@CyberPlayGround
©1998-©2025 *Educational CyberPlayGround®
©2025 https://k12playground.com
©2025 https://RichAsHell.com
©1993 – ©2025 https://edu-cyberpg.com
No Justice No Peace
When Corrupt Politicians Start Going To Jail, Then We Can Start Trusting The Government Again.
Bitcoin is a weapons system
“SOFTWAR” by Major Jason Lowery
@LSaillans
His book has been banned by the Us governement in 2023.
A US Space Force officer wrote a thesis at MIT arguing Bitcoin is a weapons system.
The Pentagon ordered him to take it down.
The book is called SOFTWAR, written by Major Jason Lowery.
I managed to get my hands on an original, pre-takedown version.
Here are the ideas that apparently made the DoD nervous:
→ Bitcoin is not a financial technology, it’s a weapons system.
It is an electro-cyber power projection system, in the same category as armies, navies, and air forces, but for the domain of cyberspace.
→ The “Power Projection Theory” framework
Every military branch exists to secure a domain by imposing severe physical costs on anyone who threatens it. Armies secure land, navies secure sea, air forces secure the sky. Bitcoin, Lowery argues, does this for cyberspace. It imposes real physical cost (energy/watts) on attackers, which no prior cybersecurity system could do.
→ Every military branch secures a domain by making attacks physically costly. Bitcoin does exactly this for cyberspace, imposing real energy costs on attackers for the first time in history.
→ Lowery draws on 5,000 years of history to argue that any system based purely on trust and rules eventually gets captured by bad actors. Physical cost is the only reliable constraint.
→ He calls this new paradigm “softwar”: non-lethal, machine-vs-machine energy competition in cyberspace. Tesla predicted something like it in 1900.
→ His most striking claim: a soft, electro-cyber WW III war may have already started.
World leaders do not recognise it because they are expecting the next war to look like the last one.
Five concrete policy recommendations for the US government:
1. Stop letting economists set Bitcoin policy.
2. Treat Bitcoin as a cybersecurity asset first.
3. Consider strategic Bitcoin reserves.
4. Protect proof-of-work under the Second Amendment.
5. Recognise that proof-of-stake is a centralised fraud, not a viable alternative.
Because the nations that figure this out first will have an asymmetric advantage over those that do not.
The book was pulled in July 2023 by DoD.
Physical copies now sell for over $300.
Documenting Saylor @saylordocs Mar 9
I like to imagine a future where the CIA sits on the fact they invented Bitcoin until one BTC is worth $100M, at which point they sell Satoshi’s stash ($110T) to clear out the national debt and cement their place in history as the greatest deep state known to man.
BANKS
Banks just REVEALED where crypto’s REAL ENDGAME is!
Caitlin Long, CEO of Custodia Bank, says the REAL PRIZE isn’t today’s $313 BILLION in Stablecoins — it’s the $5.7 TRILLION in U.S Demand Deposits that are about to be turned into “Tokenized Bank Deposits”
The Fed is readying to punish banks for holding Bitcoin as US crypto tensions boil over
Basel’s thresholds and punitive risk weights can make direct Bitcoin exposure prohibitively expensive even when it’s legally permitted.
https://cryptoslate.com/fed-capital-rules-ready-to-punish-banks-for-holding-bitcoin-as-us-crypto-tensions-boil-over/
The next big Bitcoin policy fight may have nothing to do with ETFs or government legislation, but with a dry Federal Reserve capital proposal that most investors will never read.
The landscape is simple: will big banks continue to treat Bitcoin as a balance sheet hazard, or will US capital rules begin to leave room for more serious bank intermediation around it?
With the Fed expected to vote next week on a revised Basel proposal and then open a 90-day comment window, this little-noticed rulemaking could become one of the most important banking decisions for Bitcoin in years.
Reuters reported on Mar. 12 that the Fed plans to vote next week on a revised Basel proposal for large banks and then open a 90-day public comment period.
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman said the same day that proposals covering Basel III and the G-SIB surcharge would be published in the coming week.
Most crypto investors do not care about prudential terminology, but they do care about whether their bank will eventually offer better Bitcoin services, whether crypto firms can more easily secure bank relationships, and whether Wall Street integration expands beyond ETFs.
The current Basel framework is restrictive enough to make those questions materially harder for banks to answer.
This all comes amid increasing tension between the US crypto industry and banks as they continue to clash over the stalled Clarity Act. The President chose a side this month by directly blaming banks for the delay.
What Basel says now
Under the Basel crypto framework, banks’ crypto exposures are split into Group 1 and Group 2, with the latter being the tougher bucket.
A Group 2 cryptoasset is treated as Group 2b unless a bank demonstrates to its supervisor that it meets Group 2a hedging recognition criteria. Group 2b exposures carry a 1250% risk weight, and Basel says that treatment is calibrated so that banks hold minimum risk-based capital equal to the value of those exposures.
Basel also says total Group 2 exposure is built around 1% and 2% of Tier 1 capital thresholds: banks are expected to stay under 1%, excess over 1% gets the harsher Group 2b treatment, and if exposure exceeds 2%, all Group 2 exposure gets the Group 2b treatment.
A bank with $100 billion in Tier 1 capital is expected to keep total Group 2 crypto exposure below roughly $1 billion. If it exceeded $2 billion, all Group 2 exposure would be subject to the harsher Group 2b treatment.
For the largest banks, that is enough room to experiment, but not enough to make Bitcoin a normal balance-sheet asset under the current framework.
Basel’s framework allows a Group 2a path for cryptoassets that meet hedging recognition criteria, including the existence of regulated exchange-traded derivatives or ETFs/ETNs, as well as minimum liquidity thresholds.
For Group 2a, the framework uses a modified market risk treatment with a 100% risk weight on the net position, rather than the 1250% treatment for Group 2b.
Basel’s default treatment of unbacked crypto is punitive, and unless banks qualify for the narrower 2a path, direct exposure remains extremely expensive. ………
EPSTEIN SURVIVORS — BlackBetty @BabyD1111229
She Called The FBI In 1996. They Opened A File. Then They Told Her It Never Existed. She Spent 29 Years Being Called A Liar.
https://usstories.mstfootball.com/lam/twelve-women-are-suing-the-fbi-not-epstein-the-agency-received-its-first-warning-in-1996-and-waited-23-years/
September 3, 1996.
A file is opened inside FBI headquarters.
Classification: child pornography.
The woman who made the call is identified only as “a professional artist.”
She described photos she had seen inside a Manhattan mansion. She described the man who owned those photos. She described what she witnessed being done to young girls.
She gave them everything.
Then she waited.
Nobody called back.
Nine years later, a local detective in Palm Beach knocked on a different door. Found forty victims. Handed the FBI photographs, videos, and documented evidence of child trafficking across multiple states.
The FBI opened a formal investigation.
Two years later — they closed it.
One plea deal. Thirteen months. Out by noon every day on work release.
The trafficking continued. The FBI kept receiving tips. For eleven more years, women were brought to his island, his Manhattan townhouse, his private ranch.
For eleven more years — the file sat there.
It took a newspaper reporter to force the arrest in 2019.
Thirty-three days later, he was dead.
Now twelve women — listed only as Doe 1 through Doe 12 — are standing in federal court.
They’re not suing his estate.
They’re suing the FBI.
They want $100 million. And they want every internal document, every memo, every email showing exactly who received each tip — and made the decision to do nothing.
But here’s the part that changes everything.
When the FBI’s own internal review was published in 2020 — it didn’t mention the 1996 complaint. Not once.
For another five years, the woman who made that call was told: your report doesn’t exist.
In December 2025, the DOJ confirmed it did.
One page. Dated September 3, 1996.
Which means someone inside the FBI knew that file existed — and chose not to include it in their own review.
The question isn’t whether the file was real.
The question is: who decided to make it disappear?
https://usstories.mstfootball.com/lam/twelve-women-are-suing-the-fbi-not-epstein-the-agency-received-its-first-warning-in-1996-and-waited-23-years/
▓▓▓—▓▓▓—▓▓▓