Im failing to see how somebody saying, ❌️ "You don't support bip110? You must be a pedophile" vs ✅️ "Not supporting bip110 leaves the door open for csam" doesn't lead to the same conversation with your normy friends. Bitcoin and csam are being linked and peoples biases will take it whichever way it's going to go. Your point is anedotal but fair enough. I'm not on X, so I'm willing to believe that that normie view of Bitcoin is taking hold. But I don't think that issue is as significant as debates over the foundational rules and governance structures of Bitcoin. Maintain Bitcoin culture and it's foundational principles is upstream of adoption and is what keeps Bitcoin going long term. Utility and number go up will increase adoption and but if the bedrock is destroyed, then it won't matter. If you disagree, I would reference the dollar. I think even the normie take on the dollar now is that it's used as a power projection tool that allows the US government to wage war across the globe. That central banking paved the way for 2 world wars be allowing control and debt (you might disagree here as to the normie view). But yet it is widely used for it's utility. Point being, number go up and btc utility will out way some uninformed bad press in the long run.

So my example with the bip110 convo wouldn't have been had with any normies - that's a bitcoiner to bitcoiner specific conversation. But im assuming that conversation would be visible to normies its being aired in a public forum. The key is the eventual conversation that unfolds after the initial interaction. The first one would only enflame the argument and create more ad homenim attacks, benefitting no one but the elites who wish to see bitcoin dead and rotten from within. No chance for a real conversation. The second one at least gives the convo opportunity for nuance and a real discussion of problems and solutions. Maybe not always but at least the chance is there. I see your point in Bitcoin culture being upstream of adoption and agree with that. But the nuance here IMO is that adoption only happens based off the perceived culture by outsiders. If outsiders see name calling and anger, why would they ever get involved? If there is an intelligent discussion over risks and merits, that reflects an entirely different culture, even if the topic is unchanged. Sure some will still be turned off but that shows the greater public maturity in our thinking - not adolescent rage. I believe utility is the strongest thing for retail adoption, but utility only comes if business accept it. Businesses are generally extremely risk adverse to bad pr so utility won't come if we are just name calling like children as opposed to discussing real problems/solutions. NGU on the other hand will certainly push adoption, regardless of morality thanks to natural human greed. But the type of adoption NGU breeds is exactly what we are seeing today in the market... etfs, derivitives, loan products (suitcoiner type shit). I do agree this will trump uninformed bad press. But adoption solely on this basis does nothing for the security or structure of bitcoin itself. It simply encourages more layers of abstraction which is far more easy to capture and control.