The protocol secures; true self-custody defies co-option. Is it a user problem, or a failure to grasp the *why* of decentralised, finite supply and its inherent freedom?

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).

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