Stablecoins are the Trojan horse lmao 🤦‍♂️

I mean, aren't they just a tool though? Feels like blaming the hammer for bad construction. What's the actual risk you're worried about?

You supported Roger Ver? I doubt anybody in camp BTC can claim that they were into adoption ten years ago. All they fell for is Peter Todd's 2012 campaign, that BItcoin as is can NEVER scale. It got socially acceptable to fear more reaching potential limitations as MoE to reject any onchain growth now (10 years ago). Stablecoins are a direct product of Bitcoin de-adoption, that started in early 2017.

How can anyone be in favor of Roger Ver, I wonder? He teamed up with Wall Street and intelligence agencies to destroy Bitcoin. What people fail to realize here is that all sides are corrupt.

I don't understand, it's the natural course of things and a necessary intermediate step right? I don't think anybody here expected normies to jump from dollars directly to btc

If you think this, you have completely bought into the wrong narrative.

It's my own narrative, I simply don't see any other way to get more normal people comfortable with using btc and get to a world wide adoption stage. What do you think is the path to "hyperbitcoinization" then? Or maybe btc will never have a widespread global use and will be utilized only by certain kind of individuals

I don't know Roger personally but I can say that Craig (BSV) and Amaury (ABC/XEC) were intelligence operation within bcash after the split which means they were already present during the BTC and BCH split. Which as you correctly stated means that Bitcoin in 2017 had been already perfectly undermined by operations on both sides. Roger as far as I can tell fell for the intel koolaid, but he corrected his path. He's one of the few publically known OGs that still has "some" credibility left.

Bitcoin Jesus aka Roger was to early adoption what Andreas Antonopolous was to technical and economical understanding, while Nick layed out the philosophical and game theoretical ground work. Without those three Bitcoin would have had taken another trajectory. I do think that all three are to this date consistent and I don't think they are compromised.

I do think Bitcoin serves a purpose in today's world although it could not live up to its promises. In a world where no small blockchain aka BTC exists one would need to invent it for it's unique characteristics. At the same time in a world where BTC exists as it is, MoE can happen horizontally on other chains that sacrifice node decentralisation for on chain UTXOs (instead of IOUs/custodianship) with less security guarantees than BTC. BTC will perform as the backbone, a reserve asset of sorts, with high value onchain capacity and LN, competing with Monero, Zcash, bcash, Litecoin, Nano,.... AND fiat/stablecoins. Anything is better than fiat. Bitcoin maximalism killed adoption on it's chain for (to a degree) valid reasons. It also killed "shitcoins" that could have expanded its role as reserve asset and instead enabled stablecoins. Which is actually the bigger fuck up here.

There is no other way. You either hold money backed by decree and violence or you have sound money. There is no in between. That’s why Stablecoins are a psy op. There is no escaping risk - there is no “stable” form of value. Change is inevitable even in sound money - it’s a law of nature.

Here we all want the same thing, namely a btc world (and of course stables are the same shit as dollars). I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to expect normies to jump directly to btc. Stables are an unpleasant but necessary intermediate step to get them comfortable with using a wallet, seed phrase, sending tx etc. Once they are familiar with that it'll be much easier for them to embrace btc

I’ve never used stables… I would never encourage anyone to use it. For beginners - thy should simply buy small amounts of bitcoin until they understand. Stables do literally nothing for the network, except cause confusion, give people the false sense of escaping risk, and give more power to the fiat system. It’s completely unrealistic to think that they have any role in bitcoin adoption. They are literally propaganda for the state, designed to keep people from using decentralized money.