> You misunderstand. I'm giving a warning and trying to encourage caution when building these things. Ah, I see. I was quick to judge. I'm aware of these problems but thank you for highlighting them anyway. Theres two approaches, one that is commonly taken, and one that is often overlooked: 1. The all-or-nothing model (AoN) 2. The continuous multiple fronts model. (CFM) In the *aon*, which is the default approach for most people, the thinking and discussion revolves around *this one way is the correct way! No my way is the correct way, heres why! No mine.* and so on. Each focuses on the problems that the others present, and the benefits that their own approach provides. Each anticipates an *ultimate* problem that has to be overcome before the other solutions could possibly work at all. But we have to ask, is that really the case? Is no success, no goals reached, better than some goals reached. This leads to the continuous multiple fronts model: Success doesn't become reaching some ultimate end state. Instead we define an acceptable cut off. In mass politics for example, in order to attract raw man power, the goal doesn't become the ultimate overthrow of the state (in the case of the communists), but instead becomes risk reduction for the individual: "attract anyone willing to do *something*, anything at all, for the cause, because thats infinitely more valuable than turning people away." In the same way, CMF says "whatever it is, go do it, as long as some part of the goal is realistic." Because success is often compounding and increases the resources available for bootstrapping further operations. Look at lavabit for example. Today, most people who might fight the state, but are stuck in all-or-nothing, would say *that could never work again because the state shut lavabit down and replaced it with a controlled competitor e.x. protonmail!* But I see lavabit and say *that would be a good front, and when they offered to buy it out or demanded it be shut down or compromised, I would sell it or compromise it* because the value of that proposition means the money allows me to build *new* services with *less* dependence on outsiders. And maybe next time I build service, I can now afford to build in outside countries, like Iceland, where service providers are more independent. They may be more barebones, but I'd also be able to hire programmers who will help me build faster than I could otherwise, so it evens out in the wash. And as result, each subsequent project is more secure, independent, and larger than the last. CMF is just basically pragmatism. Don't anticipate problems. Anticipate future opportunities. And build or manufacture lots of them so all your work isn't invested into one final solution that *will* be co-opted or fail.