Not everyone is able to recover from the mental disease of statism.

“You have to understand that most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it”

Truth in its essence is at the same time a criticism of falsehood. Truth reveals and denounces it’s opposite. Falsehood is not a private matter. Bitcoin shines a light on their defects and their hatred blinds them.

Thoughts? Ai cleans up what I'm worried about with bitcoin: * "Reserves" and Distribution: Your analogy of personal cold wallets as individual reserves is insightful. It highlights the concentration of Bitcoin ownership. You're concerned that by the time mass adoption occurs, most Bitcoin will be held by governments, corporations, and early adopters, leaving less for the general public. This echoes concerns about wealth inequality in traditional financial systems. * The Role of Governments and Corporations: You correctly point out that these entities are now heavily involved in Bitcoin. Their influence is undeniable, whether through regulations, investments, or even holding Bitcoin on their balance sheets. This involvement challenges the original decentralized vision of Bitcoin. * Scarcity and the Hard Cap: You argue that Bitcoin's hard cap, while intended to create scarcity, could backfire. It might allow those who accumulate Bitcoin early on to exert undue influence, effectively replicating the centralized control of traditional finance. This is a valid concern. If a small group controls a significant portion of the Bitcoin supply, they could manipulate the market or restrict access for others. * The Missed Opportunity for Change: Your reference to Occupy Wall Street and the pursuit of Bitcoin ETFs highlights the tension between systemic change and mainstream adoption. While ETFs can increase accessibility, they also integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system, potentially diluting its revolutionary potential. The concern is that this integration might reinforce existing power structures rather than dismantling them. * The Future You Foresee: You paint a dystopian picture where the current financial elite simply start to transition their power to the Bitcoin network. They would control the majority of the supply in the future and ordinary people would still be subject to their financial dominance, albeit within a new technological framework.

Original and inspiring thoughts were never born from minds like these.

Apathy is the biggest threat to Bitcoin. If no one cares about any of the cypherpunk and sound money ethos from which it was born, Bitcoin will be co-opted; it's rules will be changed and it's immutability will be called into question. Maybe this takes 4 generations, maybe 8 or 16, but it will be an ever present threat to Bitcoin that we, the people, will need to remain vigilant to protect.

Indeed, cypherpunks are the revolutionary vanguard of the Bitcoin movement. Without them, they whole thing is a giant LARP for fiat NGU and becoming a high-powered banker tool and CBDC.

We are still early Sometimes we can do nothing really Sorry but to say HFSP

There are no educated skeptics.

💯🧡✌🏼

a hard cap is a design flaw. because a network that gets security from a subset of users will fail. holding is not "using Bitcoin" because you dont pay for network security.

assuming inevitably is how we lose

i think the only reasonable argument is people don't care to use it in a self sovereign manner and it is only used as a paper IOU custodied by financial institutions. at that point, it just becomes another gold, which is largely useless.

Agreed. IMHO the risk is the greatest right now.

We NEED the darkness. It’s what makes the recognition of light possible 👁️💓😉

we got here by adversarial thinking. i just take every opportunity to remind the youngsters of that. they think its the blackpill. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Disagree, and happy that there is an alternative to market compete to see which thesis is right. This is one of the things I always thought was important about Monero was with the tail emission to see which model works out the best over time.

Adversarial thinking is good, Pointing to monero isn't adversarial thinking, it's missing core first principles so derangement syndromes come into play & used to deflect from obvious first principles that detonate your ideology. Hence, black pill. IMHO it's brown pill bc it's a dogshit mentality.

Admitting Bitcoin’s significance requires dismantling everything you thought you knew about money, power, and trust. Most aren’t ready to confront that it’s easier to dismiss than to do the work. Keep fighting the good fight.

The great thing is that we have the market to help us with this. Looking at the long-term charts, I would have to agree with you, but if people want to bleed out on the XMR/BTC ratio by taking that bet (Or any other asset on the planet for that matter) they are free to do it.

Yes, it is a true ‘dark night of the soul’ of which many are unwilling to face—at least for now.

It’s the only way we can understand the shadows on the wall are just that, projections of darkness and nothing more.

point to fiat charts and you're playing fiat games. charts that measure speculative interest by Cantillionaires dont impress cypherpunks.

Yes of course, I believe everything exists to provide us with choices. Without choices there is no relative comparison & that is the mode in which humans deliberate. Without shitcoins, Bitcoin would take longer to accumulate users, let alone maximal users.

It’s a lonely journey, but we’re not alone in it. Grateful for voices like yours that remind us to keep going, even when it’s hard. Who’s been your light during tough times.

share when people are curious, but don’t worry about the incurious. each person has to be ready when the time is right for them to receive a new message

I don't use the price chart, we went over this already... Bitcoin TX volume has increased steadily yoy & that's with LN offloading. Your only spike on XMR in the last few years came due to a spam attack 🤣.

Ugh, I hate responding the AI drivel as it doesn’t start with first principals, but here goes. 1. Bitcoin is infinitely divisable and nodes, not coin count controls the network 2. UASF proved we can blow them out, and ossification is a real option 3. Hard money argument with POW means it’s really about energy put into the system. Radu’s paper on this covers it well. 4. ETFs are part of the trojan horse strategy, similar to strategy’s strategy. It makes the destruction of the fiat system on a subjective value bases possible. 5. The trojan horse strategy means we have made strange bedfellows, of whom will be made subservient in the final throws of fiat when the state turns on them. When the statist-bitcoiners are about to be ate by global communism, they will turn to the cypherpunks to solve the problem. This will be done by FOSS pretty much everything and stripping state-bankers of the power of the purse and making for a new class of elites which will be cypherpunk ethos folks.

i know what you mean and it's a fair point. all I'm saying is if you buy a car and drive it home and leave it there and never use it it's generally considered unused. and you're not considered a "user" of the roads and infrastructure either. how many times a year do you have to move the car to be considered "a user?"

don't think you want to start comparing spikes and why they happened homie oh yeah and why is LN getting *smaller* over the last year?

Not here to try to correct you, as I’m no expert in the arguments here, but this is food for thought maybe:

I tent to agree on that view. I think facilitating trade and store of value are the two key functions of money. I can't really see those separated as some see to do ?

A lot of people just need time to understand it. Our economic system is not set up to give most the time to do it. The only reason I came to try to understand bitcoin is by being in-between jobs for a month, and I was at a crossroads of what exactly to do investment wise moving forward. It really gave me the time to finally think outside the box. I had heard of bitcoin, but had dismissed it as missing out on the pump that would eventually fizzle out with nothing actually underlying it. Had I not tried to learn about bitcoin, I’d still just be plowing every extra dollar into the sp500 through a 401k or Roth IRA primarily. Not the worse way to live life, but you’re still locking yourself in til retirement and then guesstimating end of life expenses the longer you live and the less fiat gets you. That’s the life the government wants you to live. I want to live my own life.

I’ve been trying to actively seek out the arguments against Palladium...

Spikes are noise, run a regression & masturbate to your hobby coin.

The whole thread is pretty good imo. Pretty sure there’s a “famous” article on “hodling is using” but couldn’t find it. Like was said earlier, guess time will tell

Hodling is not free riding

There are a few arguments against the ultimate success of Bitcoin. 1. It can fail on the Social Layer just like the ideals of Freedom fail on the Social Layer in communism, collectivism or totalitarianism. Despite Bitcoin existence, North Korea and China became only more powerful and more tyrannical in the recent years. The western countries are marching rapidly towards totalitarianism where private property and privacy may be gradually outlawed, along with Bitcoin. It may continue to exist in the underground, but choked off in the majority of the countries still operating under old fiat regimes. The Bitcoiners might be stuck between the tyrannical governments and the criminals hunting Bitcoiners down and robbing them of their Bitcoin. No place to hide. 2. Bitcoin transfers can be KYCed to death. It may split the network into the Compliant market coins, circulating only with tx kyc records approved by some compliance department and the Free market coins which may never touch any company or individual interacting with the Fiat world. You can hold your kyc free coins, but you can't purchase anything still attached to the fiat world. No house, no land, no air ticket. Just like cash is being gradually outlawed and limited to small purchases only. There are some ways around it, but it may be difficult for a few decades. 3. The 2nd or 3rd layer solutions are not easy to use in a self custodial manner, while base layer is extremely expensive. So only a small minority of people can afford to transact truly permisionlessly, while all the rest have to rely on custodial solutions. This will essentially mirror and recreate the current system - the small corrupt elite controlling majority of the supply and the powerless plebs controlling nothing. We may be stuck again in the same social/political structure as we are living in today. The nature of money may change, but the human nature stays the same. Bitcoin is technology and yes, technologies have a tendency to improve the world, but that's not a guarantee. Despite wonderful technologies existing already for decades, they might not be adopted in some countries or regions, just because the local governments will prefer to starve the population to death rather than losing control over that population. Nikola Tesla's technologies haven't been adopted. More efficient hydrogen and electrical car motors invented a century ago haven't been adopted. Many technologies have been patented away and suppressed. Half of the world still doesn't have access to electricity, although it was invented 2 centuries ago. The arguments against Bitcoin success that concern me the most are related to our Social Layer, because it cannot be fixed with code. Our Social Layer is our weakness as peoples minds are easier to corrupt than the distributed piece of tech code. Don't know if these arguments have been already discussed, but I'll be happy to hear your responses and counter arguments.

Education is very important. The cypherpunk mentality is easy to agree with, but difficult to implement because people just don't know how to actually do electronics and coding. But I'm not criticizing - I think we're doing great - I'm just saying, we have to keep education in mind. I would very much like to see practical electronics workshops for homesteaders and classes in elementary level schooling.

1)While divisibility is a technical feature, it doesn't address the core issue of distribution. Yes, you can own a fraction of a Bitcoin, but if the vast majority of Bitcoin is concentrated in the hands of a few, those few still wield disproportionate influence. They can manipulate the market, influence development decisions (even if nodes validate), and ultimately control access for smaller holders. Nodes are important for network integrity, but they don't negate the power imbalance created by unequal distribution. Think of it like owning a tiny share of a company – you technically have ownership, but you have little to no say compared to the majority shareholders. 2: The UASF demonstrated that the community can exert influence, but it was a specific event in a specific context. It doesn't guarantee future success against well-funded and powerful entities, including governments and large corporations, who have far more resources and lobbying power than a decentralized group of users. "Ossification" (making the protocol rigid and difficult to change) can be a double-edged sword. While it provides stability, it also makes it harder to adapt to future challenges or correct imbalances in power. It can also entrench the positions of those who already hold a large share of Bitcoin. 3: The energy expenditure in Proof-of-Work is a cost, not a guarantee of decentralization or equitable distribution. Large mining farms, often operated by corporations, have an advantage due to economies of scale. They can afford the massive energy consumption and specialized hardware required for mining, further concentrating the power within the system. While the "hard money" argument is appealing, it doesn't address the fact that the initial distribution of Bitcoin was highly concentrated, and the PoW system perpetuates a degree of centralization in mining power. Radu's paper might explain the energy dynamics, but it doesn't necessarily solve the distribution problem. 4: ETFs, while increasing accessibility, integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system. This integration gives traditional financial institutions a foothold in the Bitcoin market, allowing them to exert influence and potentially manipulate the price. It's not "destroying" the fiat system; it's potentially reinforcing it by giving it a new asset class to control. The idea of a "Trojan horse" implies a hidden subversion, but in reality, ETFs bring Bitcoin further under the umbrella of traditional finance, which is the very system you're concerned about. 5: This scenario is highly speculative and relies on a very specific, almost utopian, vision of how things will play out. It assumes that cypherpunks will magically gain control and dismantle existing power structures. However, history suggests that power vacuums are often filled by new elites, who may or may not share the original cypherpunk ideals. There's no guarantee that a shift to Bitcoin will automatically lead to a more equitable or decentralized society. The existing power structures could simply adapt and leverage their resources to control the new system. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is crucial, but it's not a silver bullet. Technical solutions alone cannot solve deeply rooted social and economic problems. The "stripping state-bankers of the power of the purse" is a complex political and economic challenge, not something that can be easily achieved through technological means alone. I have concerns about centralization and the potential for Bitcoin to possibly replicate the inequalities of traditional finance given its current trajectory.

would love to see an argument against this @Erik Cason

Also actively seeking arguments against bitcoin trying to debate against my orange pilled bias.😅 What are your thoughts? Or concept you believe important to ask ourselves?

Help me to get started please!

Well first, we could be wrong. There could be some great flaw in Bitcoin’s code somewhere, and simply being open to ‘new’ criticism. With that being said, there have been very few new arguments made against it in the last decade that haven’t been thoroughly debunked.

Susan is a prominent investor in the cryptocurrency space, known for her insightful strategies and deep understanding of the rapidly evolving digital asset market. With a strong focus on Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies, she navigates the complexities of blockchain technology, market cycles, and regulatory landscapes to make informed trading decisions. Susan approach combines technical analysis with a keen eye on macroeconomic trends, allowing her to identify long-term opportunities while managing risk in the volatile crypto market. Her trading style emphasizes patience and adaptability, helping her capitalize on both bullish trends and market corrections. Investors following her moves are often drawn to her disciplined yet forward-thinking approach to crypto trading... Inbox 👍 Susan on WhatsApp: +13184079133 For more guide 🙏💯

Susan is a prominent investor in the cryptocurrency space, known for her insightful strategies and deep understanding of the rapidly evolving digital asset market. With a strong focus on Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies, she navigates the complexities of blockchain technology, market cycles, and regulatory landscapes to make informed trading decisions. Susan approach combines technical analysis with a keen eye on macroeconomic trends, allowing her to identify long-term opportunities while managing risk in the volatile crypto market. Her trading style emphasizes patience and adaptability, helping her capitalize on both bullish trends and market corrections. Investors following her moves are often drawn to her disciplined yet forward-thinking approach to crypto trading... Inbox 👍 Susan on WhatsApp: +13184079133 For more guide 🙏💯

Susan is a prominent investor in the cryptocurrency space, known for her insightful strategies and deep understanding of the rapidly evolving digital asset market. With a strong focus on Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies, she navigates the complexities of blockchain technology, market cycles, and regulatory landscapes to make informed trading decisions. Susan approach combines technical analysis with a keen eye on macroeconomic trends, allowing her to identify long-term opportunities while managing risk in the volatile crypto market. Her trading style emphasizes patience and adaptability, helping her capitalize on both bullish trends and market corrections. Investors following her moves are often drawn to her disciplined yet forward-thinking approach to crypto trading... Inbox 👍 Susan on WhatsApp: +13184079133 For more guide 🙏💯

1. An argument against bitcoin as a viable currency 2. An argument against the assertion that bitcoin "changes everything" Need to be clear which you're after.

No one buys bitcoin once and never uses it again. Seriously how many ppl have one UTXO and just never touch it again?

its undeniable that demand for BTC bootstrapped the network. That demand was certainly largely hodlers. So there is an argument that "hodling is using bc it creates demand" unfortunately things aren't static. with every halving it becomes more and more important that MoE use increases. its hard to see how that would EVER happen if the dominant view is that the purchasing power of each sat will only increase. I'd suggest those conditions incentivize fiat loans and other services that enable hodlers to keep their capital but still reap the benefits of having it. it just a theory but are we also going to call taking out a USD loan against a utxo "using bitcoin?"

ok a bunch of cars. you buy a new car every sunday and park it somewhere. not a user if you dont sometimes drive them.

I smell a trap in your question 🤔 Honestly don’t know, inclined to say no but maybe yes in some complicated way that’s not immediately clear (or tasteful to the e purists to consider). Activity that increases the usefulness arguably increases value of asset —> NGU —> less sats needed per block for miners. I dunno.

When you buy you pay the fee for tx isn’t that “paying for network security” ?

This theory makes sense until you realize if the buyer has that much conviction in the asset, then it’s likely the seller will as well. Why would a seller with a similar conviction be ok with accepting an iou for their goods and services?

in the most absolute minimal way

Ok since you don't want or can go there, I will try to give some insight to my own question: With 8 billion people, let's assume 4 billion using #Bitcoin in some decades, even single person can only transact once every ~ 10 thousand year, and every block will be completely filled. So that is some pretty BOLD HODLING to me !

Thanks for the prophecy, very insightful

anxiously waiting for any indication that people will learn to self custody en masse

Best Bitcoin critic is Eric Voskuil.