You are signal in a lot of noise. Thank you. Keep pushing

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.

Thanks mate. Got 2 more Bitcoin articles to release today/tomorrow 1) Your favorite influencers don't understand Bitcoin (how to understand it) 2) Does Bitcoin fail if it's used only as a Store-of-Value (and not MoE) The first article includes all the information one needs to understand Bitcoin. Then I'm mostly done with Bitcoin research for now, but I've already published all the required information.

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.

Thank you! 😉

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.

That's why I believe Bitcoin was in fact being attacked from both sides (by banks) from 2014-2017. On one side small blockers permanently freezing the Bitcoin state (development lock) on the other hand side giga blockers that wanted to repurpose the monetary use to an everything data storage in a few data centres. The voices in the middle got drained out. BCH split from BTC to preserve a chain state before SegWit bloat. Then it had to go through another split with giga blockers lead by fraud CW (BSV). Then another fork over introduction of PoS and a dev tax. It still preserved a rather original Bitcoin state that still works but the market is not recognising it as an option anymore as two more things got into the spotlight. Privacy and fungibility. So by now most people looking for the monetary use case switched to Monero. Monero also fixed long-term security with tail emisson. Monero fixed mining decentralisation with ASIC resistance (1 CPU 1 vote) and P2P mining pools. Monero fixed long-term growth with dynamic block sizes. Monero is not compromising the monetary use case with data storage (ordinals).

It's all a matter of trade-offs. I agree that there is a place for a privacy-oriented alternative and Monero seems to be the only option. I'll have to spend a day to do at least some surface-level research because I know very little and I'm interested what I'd find. I am on the side of ossification unless existential threat. W/e developers want to do, they can do on L2/3. You let developers fuck around for long enough and they'll fuck every project up. After every update ossification becomes less of an option just because developers have fucked the protocol so much.

this isn't wrong but #Bitcoin made several design mistakes. they didn't get Segwit right, the hard cap is a mistake, failing to encourage different implementations of the protocol, not designing towards privacy, if it ossifies under its current design, its fucked as freedom money. so we have to pick our poison.

Everything depends on education about how public/private key encryption works.

Maximalism mentality is the opposite of freemarkets. It is about monopoly and control.

More than 2,000 years of gold says that's not quite true. Sound money definitely does need to be hard, but apparently it does not need to be 100% fixed. Some small growth in the money supply over time is apparently acceptable.