I think this highlights one of the real problems with Bitcoin Maximalists - if you have "one true coin to rule them all", you really don't want Sauron anywhere near it. Any system can be captured and corrupted, real freedom comes from the market place where there are millions of vendors and customers all operating as individuals, self custodying their own stuff not storing it in the official warehouse. We NEED a lot of different coins competing against each other, all with their own proponents and ecospheres. If the controllers true intent is to have only a very limited range of options for their slaves to operate under, then anything that gives us more choice is to be welcomed.
Replies (4)
And you are the noise
I think it's mostly a user base problem, not a technology or optionality problem.
The user base is just going to chase what it thinks are its short-term incentives regardless of how many options they have.
The only way out is educating the user base how a protocol-capped asset (at 21M) reacts when most self-custody their coins and demand rock-solid proof-of-reserves before investing in public companies.
Until then, Bitcoiners are celebrating the State co-opting Bitcoin.
But there is a limited capacity of UTXO ownership of Bitcoin.
50 years to distribute at least one UTXO to every human another 50 years to at least spend that UTXO once.
Bitcoin maximalism made us sacrifice UTXO ownership/self-custody for node running capabilities.
But then 1M blocks in 2010 or 2017 meant somehing different then in comparison to now. We could have easily 4M blocks with better decentralisation assumptions than in 2017. With the benefit of having x4 capacity for self-custody. Which would be actual competition to CEX that favoured 1M Bitcoin in 2017.
Now they fucked us all with their KYC demands and IOU BTC that are not auditable.
Maximalism mentality is the opposite of freemarkets. It is about monopoly and control.
