Replies (129)
What does he get out of that?
I've one of the few bitcoiners that have spoken against Michael saylor, he's bad for bitcoin and bad for open source development
NO ONE IS SCARED, THERE IS NO NEED TO BE
I feel like this is kind of a bad time, but it's there a place you publish ahead of time when the next RHR or Citadel Dispatch will go live?
DISPATCH WITH MUTINY BOYS TOMORROW AT 1700 UTC.
Would be nice if you provided details regarding the last paragraph
Second post in an hour where he's just teasing us. Come on
@ODELLMAJOR ETF WAS GOING TO SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
COMPETITION WAS TIGHT PRE LAUNCH.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO ANGER SAYLOR SO THEY PULLED OUT.
LEARN HOW TO READ.
Little known phenomena… Bitcoin is also a pedestal transmutation machine
"STOP SIMPING" ODELL
MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR BOSS 🫡
I ASSUME THIS IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BITCOIN TO CHANGE AT ALL BUT EVEN THEN HE SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE SECURITY......
Did you get hacked? Saylor may be a spook but this just sounds like a baseless accusation.
Name your sources. Which ETF should we hate now and why exactly? This is the claim you made in the other post nobody got an answer when asking for details.
But yeah, your teasing keeps being good as long as nobody spills the beans.
Careful, you might not get invited on his yacht now, the most coveted event for a blue check
NAILED IT. BITCOINERS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, SAD SHIT.
Or his island 🫣
IMA be devils advocate here.
MAYBE he doesnt care about Dev funding because he wants bitcoin to stay as is. Having looked at the recent updates which had unintended consequences (nfts etc) ...
he think nope, no "devving" needed here.
Saylor also advocates for protocol ossification.
Please stop simping.
ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
Tbh, I have not seen Swan or most Swan-sponsored influencers on Nostr, and that's a red flag for me.
I have not seen Saylor on Nostr posting anything besides his reposted AI art, and that's probably a bot. And his nip05 recently became invalid.
If Nostr is my web of trust, they're not on it.
I don’t get it. What’s his incentive to scuttle these deals?
No one said it was controversial. It just doesn’t make sense.
Label him what he is - a BitcoinBug
View quoted note →so some of saylor’s bitcoin is ETF bitcoin?
My thoughts:
- He’s already FUDing MoE, doesn’t want to fight against the USD system
- He wants BTC ossification
- The longer it takes for BTC to be more widely spread the more he benefits as it becomes more difficult to catch his first mover advantage
- Saylor benefits most from HODLers, not from people on a Bitcoin Standard
Think through his incentives. Listen to his statements. He’s not here to smash central banks and fiat - he’s in it for himself.
I don't know what it is, but my BS meter goes through the roof every time I see a clip of him.
Seems you know something we don't. Would be great to see what that is, so we could call him out on it.
I don't know Saylor or his work very well; though I'm unsure how to be for Bitcoin, but not interested in supporting open source developers.
Personally I'm confused by him...he doesn't really explain what BTC is very well
yes most of them are
Conflicts of interests arising with a software (lots of patents) publicly traded company ?
is this the hill?
Thank you for saying it! It needs to be known.
saylor's a spook. microstrategy are bad actors.
I guess he thinks he is playing it safe with his stack. I’m no expert but seems there is work to do for mass adoption and he is happy with it only being an asset not currency.
So long as it remains the best store of value will almost certainly become the primary MoE.
Ossification is a reasonable position to take. More changes could absolutely introduce more problems than benefits. Most of the tools built into bitcoin have not even been put to use yet. And the last thing we want is for legacy finance people to come in with trillions of dollars & millions of retarded newbs that they can mislead, thinking it is their job to change bitcoin or to influence how bitcoin changes.
Make no mistake. This is a war. The easiest way to win it is to let incentives do the work without the people who have everything to lose realizing it's a war.
It's good to stay vigilant & pure & principled, but we should be cautious of friendly fire when we have people doing good things.
SOME PEOPLE ARE SIMPING FOR SAYLOR, OTHERS FOR BUKELE. FUCK BOTH OF THEM, BITCOIN DOESN'T NEED THEM.
Good thing Bitcoin is for enemies.
what are you talkin about? I'm lost
And no-one has asked him why he's done it?
"HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS."
Really? Can you give example/s please.
how many simping for odell in exactly the same way? I've been guilty of it too but I'm remembering no heroes means no heroes
good q
Could you expand on how/which deals he killed and how?
I'm genuinely curious and want to know.
AGREE. KILL YOUR HEROES. LOOK WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY. SO FAR ODELL HAS PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS. HOPEFULLY HE'LL KEEP STAYING HUMBLE.
I think the working thesis is that if I’m Saylor, the longer I can keep the Bitcoin the way it is, the longer I can keep the Government looking over “here” (Bitcoin is digital gold, nothing more, nothing to see), and the longer I can stack, unencumbered by regulators.
If Bitcoin scales as a medium of exchange, getting into more hands of the people around the world who truly need freedom: that’s a problem for Governments, and it’s a problem for MSTR when folks realize holding Bitcoin is better than holding exposure to one company’s Bitcoin treasury.
I could be way off. Either way, with Governments involved, millions of new Bitcoiners, corporations coming in, dev stand-offs: it’s going to be a bloody few years in Bitcoin and I’m here for it.
Deving is always needed, even if you don't change the consensus rules. Everyone that has worked on a software project knows that
This is good signal, but my 80 IQ eyes hurt when I have to read caps lock.. I bet I'm not the only one
Yeah, when ever I watched Saylor talk, (only twice so far managed to get myself to do it) I literally fell asleep about the whole corporate economics talk about “assetization”, I can’t listen to it and stay awake at the same time, it is so uninteresting, nothing new absolutely nothing new he can bring to the table. I’m not sure how people can just consume it?
So like Blackrock was afraid of little Saylor? 😂 More and clear explanation is needed, this is not a telenovela come on spill the beans already!
We finally agree on something.
I think you are somehow right in your speculation, if Saylor is behaving that way is probably because if too many grants get assigned to core devs, then those devs might feel the need to perform all types of changes and start thinking of roadmaps, etc. Justify their grants sort of!
Plus it will attract other devs like flies. Do we really want to have devs who are there only/mainly for the money? It’s a dilemma! Some food for thought
@ODELLDid you approach him directly about this?that would be right first step before opening a conversation to nostr nation(I’m not saying you didn’t)
Any insight on this? @npub1jpvsahpy0vgq7gu8nfqjkeskce0gwjk8jpss590xkvjh5xxe4epsruqgsz
Hey, how do we verify this message?
Shoulda ask Bitwise if they indeed cancelled the grant, and why
Who does? Nobody.
You mean he's not one of us?
Genuinely curious what is Saylor’s beef with open source software… Mf dropped billions on an open source protocol I thought he liked open source?😂
I've learned these last 5 years that bitcoin is attractive to many different types of people.
I met saylor and talked to him for a bit, he has his opinions and self interests like we all do.
I disagree with his opinions, but he is allowed to have them. I don't want to speak for him but I get the sense that he's a "store of value" above everything else, and is very pro regulation.
I don't think an individual holding that narrative would appreciate the open source community and hearing his lack of support doesn't come as being out of character, just disappointing.
Hopefully it's just a misunderstanding or if not, he will have a change of heart in the future.
The protectionism in the long run takes its toll
When did he do that?
Can anyone provide details on this allegation?
Not that I've seen. Absolutely beyond the pale if true, but uh, need some receipts.
I have never once simped saylor, he obviously has his own motivations (making money) which seems incongruous with this. I can construct an explanation why he might have done this, but it would seem implausible or at least unlikely.
God no drama? I take it you don't follow @odell ?
ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
Source?
This sounds like a riddle on an ice pop stick
Spook. He'll show his true colors soon enough.
I interpreted that to be a placating of regulators but you’re not wrong & we need to be paying close attention here.
Regarding MoE, you might consider that sometimes people's words are meant for some specific ears and don't necessarily represent one's actual interests.
I other words, it might be opportune, at least for now, for certain people to not considers Bitcoin to be a competitor.
"This large wooden horse is a gift!"
Best next move for competition/rivals of Microstrategy is to begin allocating a large portion of their annual donations to non-profit #Bitcoin FOSS orgs like
@npub10pen...n34f, Brink, and HRF.
This is something I would love to see @odell openly discuss and address. it would give me much more confidence in him.
100% the path bitcoiners need to be on.
Michael Saylor, Chairman and CEO of MicroStrategy, adds, “Bitcoin is the most important innovation since the advent of the internet, and it is our responsibility to invest not only in the asset, but also in the underlying infrastructure that is maintained and improved by open-source developers and nonprofit institutions like MIT’s DCI.”
Source:
MIT Digital Currency Initiative
Bitcoin Security Initiative — MIT Digital Currency Initiative
I'll say shit,
@ODELL. Saylor is not here for freedom maximalism, has attacked the idea of Bitcoin as a MoE, and, based on what you're saying, doesn't support Bitcoin development.
End the hero worship. It's never a good look.
ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
Yup
Good Q
I like when you say things, everyone else is thinking, but what I don’t like is they pretend you didn’t say it.
STAHP IT
Dude talks sense but everyone is afraid to say, "stop yelling in ALL CAPS, man"
ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
Then support the only developer that matters, yourself 🥳
Trying to steelman Saylor’s possible perspective … funding devs could be dangerous because they don’t know when to stop building. Recent changes expanded the block size in a obscure way and we got ordinals and network spam. Chances are extremely dangerous because they likely require an (almost) impossible hardfork to remove. Better to slow down development and really think things through before adding any other major features. Fewer, more experienced devs can take care of maintenance while major changes are baked longer. 🤷♂️
This sounds like nonsense, but it’s definitely going to bring some engagement over to nostr from Twitter.
I mean, if you’re Fidelity and you want to donate to open source, are you the slightest bit scared of Saylor? How would he “crush” you? Why would he care?
From his POV, this makes sense, and it’s consistent with what others hypothesized. It’s difficult, but not impossible, to imagine what a man would do to protect that much wealth.
Sounds like a good thing lol why have ppl pay devs… unless hurts your pocket
Ge
ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
Been waiting for some Saylor beef
This is good for #NOSTR engagement
IMHO, devs are focused on adding new technologies to the protocol when they instead should be adding limited specific features.
Technologies are increased capabilities that can be used in multiple ways for multiple features. They also have a higher likelihood of being misused in a way that wasn’t intended.
We should instead develop for a specific feature and make the most limited code changes to enable that one feature.
For example, devs should have made a very limited change just to enable Lightning, but instead they rolled out SegWit technology with a hidden 4x blocksize increase and we got network spam. Have devs learned the lesson?
Ossification should be the default and we should add specific limited features when they’ve had sufficient time to bake.
We have to acknowledge that with more devs, comes more risk. Devs don’t know when to stop. More code means more bugs. To see what happens when too many devs get involved, we can watch ETH. 🍿
Bitcoin isn’t a shitcoin. We don’t need to compete on “innovations”. We also can’t “move fast and break things”.
Everyone is too afraid to say shit, because we don't say bad things about friends and people that pumps our bags. So... wen Jack?
View quoted note →This is plain to see. I don’t think anyone questions this. Some of us might just agree with the ossification perspective.
Ser, this goes against what Odell Jesus is saying, so you will be ignored.
-Sauces
Seriously. Whatever happened to the follow up on the accusations levied on Swan, while we're at it.
Yep
Why would Saylor see that as a threat?
He has as much right to advocate for his position as anyone else, but he admittedly has more influence.
Anyway, do you really want corporate and ETF dev sponsors?
I don’t.
That doesn’t sound right. Only competition that matters is for clients and what’s your marketing proposition?
“wE DoN’t SupPort OpeNSouuRce”?
lol
You even have Cathie “I’ll-get-your-401k” Woods sponsoring Bitcoin developers, whoever they are are new to the game and/or very small.
Saylor is just a compliant suit who wants to see Bitcoin stay in government’s good graces. I’d bet he’s a hater of privacy tech.
FUCKI TOO RIGHT MUCKER. THAT SHORT ARSED BILLIONAIRE IS A SPOOK
Bullshit. But, in case I'm wrong. Someone ask Saylor.
stop simping, stay humble, stack sats
I bet the DEVs who are dedicating their time would disagree. Work is not free.
If what they want to develop isn’t a good idea.
Absolutely!
That's fair! Lots of poor open source ideas out there
It doesn’t make any sense. Matt’s reaction, however, is starting to make a lot of sense.
What r u doing? Is this an attention grab?
How does making money seem incongruous with this? If bitcoin never had another update, would Saylor make less money?
As it stands, bitcoin is much better digital property than it is a currency competing with the dollar for global reserve status. That's right in line with his thesis. Bitcoin devs focusing on scaling and privacy have the goal of making it better currency. A lot of speculation on my part though 🤷
He's said pretty clearly before that he doesn't want the narrative that it's competing against the dollar and replacing the fed. Says it's much better to frame the conversation as it's just a store of value. I can see that point... Let bitcoin grow larger before "then they fight you" ramps up
👀
It's like when your mum and dad are going through a divorce 😔
ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
@ODELL , I thought about you calling out
@Michael Saylor for not investing in open-source development. Bitcoin is freedom money, implying that I am free to do with it as I please (including donating to OpenSats, HRF, etc.). For Bitcoin to be generational wealth, must I not demonstrate to my heirs and everybody else that I can and will withstand public attacks like yours on Saylor? It is only natural that Bitcoin owners will be bullied into parting with their coins for this reason or that. I am sure you know this; perhaps you are trolling and testing the space. I much respect your work.
View quoted note →
CATHIE WOOD LOOKS LIKE A BLOOD SUCKER AND SO DOES SAYLOR. VAMPIRES NOT TO BE TRUSTED
Didn't want to anger Saylor? Why the fuck would they care what Saylor thinks/feels? He's not that important.
Why would he do this? I can’t understand the motives.
Your like that grumpy old dude everyone has at their workplace 😂😂
Nostr is no place for all caps bro
I thought he was humble.
Almost certainly yes.
1. Medium of Exchange usage increases demand for Bitcoin (improving MoE requires development)
2. Software requires maintenance
3. ossificiation means the eventual death of Bitcoin
I know some debate 3 (they're wrong), 1 and 2 are self evident.
I could see a strategy where Saylor intends to capture Bitcoin and become an intermediary, but that defeats Bitcoin's core value proposition and that would (eventually) destroy it.
If Saylor disagrees with 1 I don't know what to say, he's wrong, unless it's part of a larger strategy like I posited.
I think we're largely in agreement. The question is, does devs making Bitcoin a better medium of exchange increase or decrease the value of Saylor's stash? Given it will increase demand, it must increase the value.
Thats right. But i still want not influenced developers. Most probably the devs also.
@Whitney Webb any thoughts on this?
Can i donate you to unstuck your caps lock key?
Specifics please. Accusations without backing up with facts is so very fiat.
Would you want to run nodes and protocols sponsored by suits/ETF corporations? Why? (I am trying to open a discussion and not suggesting an answer).
![[ARCHIVED] Jay's avatar](https://i.nostr.build/9NquibWjyPXiz2Q4.png)
and
