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.