Replies (51)
Saylor is right, and has done more for bitcoin adoption than you ever will
Cope and cringe
Bitcoiners just want to be contrarians for the sake of being contrarian, make an enemy just for the sake of it
Michael CIAlor
The new generation of Bitcoiners appears to be very confused and the fanboy-ism is strong.
Once upon a time, along time ago bitcoin was thought to be our chance for private money.
A way to get away from the control of the government. That dream died.
Monero is what bitcoin was meant to be. Monero is real private money.
Fuck saylor and what he's done for Bitcoin. Just cause the man bought a shit ton of corn and repeats the same lines mk over and over doesn't mean shit.
Hes wrong.
No privacy means we currently build our own surveillance machine.
Most BTC fanboys are Religiots.
Take your pills.
Thank you
Cope and seeth bitch
Re read what I said, then go back to swiping on grindr
Bitcoin was never meant to be private, hence the fully open public blockchain.
where itokdyouso say that?
Never understood this phenomenon. Well okay, I kind of do, but still. Bitcoin is unfortunately not free of influencers.
Strictly, even if Satoshi came back and started preaching bitcoin, shouldn’t we all say „well fuck you Satoshi, your opinion doesn’t matter anymore, bitcoin is free of its creator“?
Hear hear. It was about being uncensored and unconfiscatable. It is succeeding like never before.
Bitcoin is a killer of egos
💯
so microstrategy sells it software to the defense department, so what?
I was a subscriber to Stratford and geopolitical futures. does that make me some kind of member of the evil cabal?
let me guess they're also "spraying chemtrails"?
He's right, at least on this matter.
The reason I say this with confidence is because the Bitcoin protocol that everyone have invested in is precisely what we have, not what someone wants it to become.
Bitcoin's fundamental function is store of value. Privacy tools are added over the base layer on an opt-in basis.
A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.
If we consider the tradeoffs that Monero makes, we can understand why Monero is not aiming for a store of value. As a result, Monero cannot leverage a pressure against jurisdictions in any comparable way.
Those who want Bitcoin to become more like Monero, while the privacy side benefits are tempting, such a move would undermine Bitcoin's function as store of value and several of its game theory benefits.
On a related subject, I wrote recently about why tainted bitcoin/sats is a losing strategy by the jurisdiction implementing it. If Bitcoin became more Monero-like, then the game theory involved will have different outcomes. The assumptions are based on Bitcoin being a superior store of value and therefore desirable by nation states, which gives it powers to pressure jurisdictions.
Why tainted coins is a losing strategy:
Leo Fernevak
A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.
TLDR; taint cannot work over time.
Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.
A few expected outcomes:
1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected to follow.
These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.
2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction - which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.
3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.
If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an in increasing amount of valuable trade.
Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.
Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.
Don't be a Laggarde!
#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian
View quoted note →
Unpacking is a great word, as is dissecting in Saylor’s statement.
If Bitcoin diverted …
Meaning privately funded devs?
… don't really want the United States government to say …
He’ll need to define (name) the government to which he refers.
… the perfect tool for money laundering, …
Call out THE greatest “money launderers,” their role in OUR government and you’ll discover their true motives.
… now it becomes the enemy, now we're going to shut it down.“
The “government’s” true enemy has never changed, revolutions fix this.
I hope I’m correctly “picking up what you’re puttin’ down.” LMK
Bitcoin has only been around ~15 years. This is all still an experiment. You can't technically guarantee Store of Value. Controlling supply alone isn't enough. SoV is also also a function of demand (which is subjective so can't be controlled) and larger players can always manipulate price like they do with traditional finance especially when large CEXes are involved.
>A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.
"Bitcoin is therefore inherently a black market money. Its security architecture necessarily assumes it is operating without state permission."
GitHub
Permissionless Principle
Bitcoin Cross-Platform C++ Development Toolkit. Contribute to libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system development by creating an account on GitHub.
Absolutely.
If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin.
And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV.
It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.
Appears you haven’t done much research prior making this statement:
“Bitcoiners just want to be contrarians for the sake of being contrarian, make an enemy just for the sake of it.” Clueless. There ARE two distinct camps. You need to understand the motives of both. Funny thing about “good and evil,” both are necessary to define the other and the scale is always moving. Focus on the direction to understand the battle.
What are a bad AI bot? Say something of substance if you want to argue not ambiguous nonesess
tribalism is in our genes since the cavemen times 😉
Bitcoin doesn't require permission, but white markets do. We can ignore any transactions occurring there as transient (see recent events). That leaves us with black markets as the only place anyone is guaranteed to be able to use Bitcoin without permission.
Regulators can impose whatever arbitrary rules they want on white market transactions (including banning Bitcoin transactions there). Therefore, the continuing takeover of cryptocurrencies like Monero on darknets is a HUGE sign that Bitcoin is failing its main value proposition.
The SoV narrative is backwards and a bit premature imo. If SoV holds up I can potentially see nations using Bitcoin between each other, but feels naive to believe they would allow their citizens the same privilege with no restrictions (as it undermines their power). Any citizens would have to break the law to do that - and now were back to black markets
Game theory involves competition between nation states.
Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes.
I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out:
Leo Fernevak
A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.
TLDR; taint cannot work over time.
Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.
A few expected outcomes:
1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected to follow.
These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.
2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction - which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.
3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.
If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an in increasing amount of valuable trade.
Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.
Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.
Don't be a Laggarde!
#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian
View quoted note →
I go back and forth on this.
On one hand I really want default privacy and anonymity on bitcoin, but on the other hand if bitcoin would be private from inception, then current adoption would be (imo) much lower since the government would implement legislation like "if you touch it in any way - straight to jail for 21 months" (CSAM style...).
Though I’m new to it, I really like your work and insight and will catch up with your past work, then continue following.
This can all be resolved very simply by not treating Saylor like a god, no longer should anyone give him a platform to speak about bitcoin and ask him to do his thing and shut the fuck up. He’s had a god complex that is rolling like a snowball. The avalanche crew often opens the day with planned disruption for skiers safety.
My fear is that he is now killing the spirit of the people who built his soapbox.
This is a lot to ask. I’m a noob and a nobody in the Bitcoin sphere, but I have been successful in business and have pretty good radar. I felt and saw this coming and began commenting with VERY limited exposure, yet seem to be tracking some of your comments Elton John/Bernie Taupin like (damn I’m old !) I would really appreciate it if you would read what little I’ve written and be brutally honest with me, publically or privately. I’m not getting ANY feedback from anyone.
This is the only thing I can point to for a modicum of cred: InveCast.com
This business has given me broad exposure to good and bad practices, good and bad people and I’ll soon be done participating in the economy in that manner. I no longer want to feed the beast and have a bullseye on my back for the taxman. I’m pissed.
Thanks in advance for any time you give this.
OwenG (nym) and you?
It’s cringe watching so many people online simp for politicians and billionares whenever they say something positive about bitcoin. A bunch of delusional sheep.
Unpopular opinion: there’s such thing as a middle ground.
Saylor has good intentions but we need to filter his comments knowing he’s working a different angle than we should be.
You think @saylor is CIA?
Which let’s me think that we don’t stand a chance anyway, because we are not many when even many bitcoiners are delusional sheep.
I think that the things he is saying are dangerous (privacy is bad for bitcoin, we don't want "ETH features" or "ETH developers"), and I think the things he is doing are dangerous (stopping entities from giving no-strings-attached funding to devs). The article simply serves to inform you on the people MSTR works for, and gives an overview of how intelligence infiltrates open source projects via the embedded FOSDEM Talk. Wether they're related is up to you to decide.
🫡
We are all noobs and nobodies here, Owen – keep it up! 🧡
I think this is a question a lot of people ask themselves. I think you should then ask: do you want an investment, or do you want freedom money?
True, last time I checked bitcoin.org it also said "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Store of Value System" – Sorry that I missed this
Yes? Your argument is to state something obvious?
If I answer Freedom money, but everyone using it gets persecuted, then it loses any usefulness - i.e. it stops working as money for me.
So I think your question doesn't capture the dilemma well...
👍🌹
If you idea of freedom is what your government allows you may need to re-read your constitution
Oh boy
Fuck em all tgey hate us anyway
🤡🌎
As soon as Breedclout recorded his ‘Saylor’ series it was obvious top table influencers has fallen for the billionaire BS. I much preferred Bitcoin as a quiet Revolution but here we are. Full on billionaire bollox 🤷♂️
Trying to remember the last time a politician 100s of miles away ever helped me.
If you have one...
"tribalism"
Spoiler alert: never. They don’t care about you and never have.
(Signing out of here for today because the billionaire cope gives me some serious second hand embarrassment – if you have something to say, you can zap me.)
