Stumbled upon this podcast title today.
If I wanted to attract a lot of people to learn about Bitcoin I wouldn’t choose that narrative. It turns most people off.
Login to reply
Replies (29)
Why would it turn most people off?
Maybe he's not talking to the masses.
Are the arguments good? I understand your point.
Klickbait works for most people...
Yes please, be precise
Probably because most people are pro state?
People do not view the state as a problem too, so they are unlikely to care either way
Most people are not fans of the state. I think oppositely as you.
Because for the most people outside this space the thought of destroying the state is making them anxious. It seems to them that the purpose of Bitcoin is only to destroy or speculate to get rich to the detriment of the „regular„ people. Most people are not anti-state.
I don’t know. Maybe.
Nobody in his right mind is pro state as a principle. The issue is that the principle is taken for granted.
Laziness creates the inevitable lethargic repetition of the master-slave dialectic 🤭🤣🥴🤣
Thanks for the clarification. Is that the case in Africa as well?
Those people are sheep and they might as well stick with fiat, then.
I enjoyed this podcast, a good reminder that you can just say things
Just add after the State, "of California" and most will be in immediately LOL
Depends on where you go, but mostly yes, as people get the same European education, and the same nation state systems like fiat currency are used to extract value (much more as in Western countries) and people often fear disobeying their autocratic leaders (understandably).
Most people don't make a lucid difference between the separation of money and state and the destruction of the state. The separation doesn't mean the disappearance of the state, but it's functional limitation.
True. The state could use bitcoin as money too instead of fiat and it would not mean that the state falls. The state couldn’t tax people through inflation anymore, but can still coerce them to pay income tax etc.
What if BTC is captured?
You should file a complaint with Bitcoin’s marketing department. Seriously, it is refreshing to hear @Erik Cason instead of the usual bitcoin treasury slop.
I think it’s more interesting to work with and listen to people who are using bitcoin for payments to escape financial oppression. Instead of the usual.
But hey it’s great that you and I can enjoy different aspects of Bitcoin. I don’t tell you what you should do, so don’t tell me.
I value both. You are the one complaining about wrong “narratives”, not me.
It will in big parts for a long time. On- and off ramps, regulations for business payments, chain surveillance…there is a non KYC P2P market now and it will grow. I don’t believe that it will be fully captured. At least I’m trying to help further the grassroots adoption.
Not complaining. Noticing and making suggestions.
I'm afraid that will remain an uphill challenge as increasing accumulation will diminish the volume of bottom up liquidity.
Seems like most people like it in your replies.
Don’t think the intention of the episode was to attract lots of people to learn about bitcoin. Moral clarity and clear serious arguments are more important than namby-pamby titles about bitcoin being an “interesting technology” inside the fiat welfare-warfare state.
So when I said people are pro state, I guess what I really meant is they're just going along with the default setting. Which might actually be more concerning than principled statism would be. On the other hand, humans are creatures of habit — it's just easier to accept what's already there than to question fundamental assumptions.
(Late reply — the notifications on noStrudel don't notify me)