You could appreciate it when bitcoiners disagree on topics, this ensures we will never agree on changing the issuance protocol
#asknostr
Does anyone else goes with nostr:nprofile1qqsz5u5fmyvum57jnd7jvp6a2pesuh3fhvnxq2vff7wn95x0l65gg0cpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qzxthwden5te0wfjkccte9eeks6t5vehhycm99ehkuegprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezucm0d9hxvatwvshxzursfgl5gv in the point, that it feels very strange #Bitcoin ers opt for telegram? Since it is kind of an antithesis to all values of crypto.
Decentralisation, opensource, strong encryption
Discussion
I would appriciate if there were more bitcoiners that actually argue based on facts instead based only on feelings.
Since I would state that any discussion that tries to use objective measures to argue on why a hypothesis is true can help advancing society, where exchanging loose feelings does not lead to constant improvement.
For example: "It is problematic Pavel Durov gets arrested and therefore France is autocratic."
Is a quiet meaningless statement which does not educate.
Where "If Pavel Durov is arrested for encrypting messages and not serve them to authorities would show a tendency to authoritarian governance in France." is a much more powerful statement, since it is agil to disqualify France based on a measurable truth, what the court will base its case on.
Sure who wouldn’t encourage arguments based on facts.. But the point I’m making is that we shouldn’t have to agree on all topics. By not agreeing, we ensure the protocol will not be changed; ergo guarantee we don’t change issuance protocol (21 million).
I would argue against. Since opensource projectshas Bitcoin areubased on consensus, it is as stronger as more people understand decisions and argue to have a strong consensus.
Opinion differences do not inforcema better consensus. I would rather argue that they weaken the consensus. Since it leads to conclusions with ilogical premises or no premises at all.
Strong consensus needs strong premises that are logically true and understood by a majority.
For example there will be a very high consens, that speed is the change of position related to time.
It’s a matter of how the factual arguments x and y are valued. That does not automatically increase consensus.