I asked nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m the question nobody asked him before…
Here is his answer:
Discussion
spoken like a true engineer. solving problems, to make life better.
Really good 💯
That's a good question. Very cool. Michael is a smart guy. I enjoyed his reaction and his answer. Thanks Max! I hope all is well, brother 🫂🫂💜
Yes. Watching the gears turn in his head as he considers the question is very pleasing. He’s so thoughtful. He is my modern-day hero.
Engineer a Better World 🌎
I wonder whether michael has hepatitis.
😉
nostr:note1f8zy4nl2w4fcge9zstgzwsppc6fvn7t9fpvxhu8jq8khhv3k6mnq6zv7y0 ENGINEER A BETTER WORLD:
I love Michael, but he's a bit cheeky in his answer, because he did not have a part in engineering Bitcoin, and I don't think he has one now either. Not from the strictly engineering point of view.
Don't take me wrong, I think he has a brilliant mind, so I wish he did have a part. But where are his engineered bitcoin products and solutions?
final engineering
*financial engineering
Not even.
he’s managed to turn his software company into a bitcoin hedge fund with other people’s money
That is meritorious to his company management skills, not really to "bitcoin engineering".
He runs his own node. So there’s that.
That's quite a low bar to be considered "a bitcoin engineer".
Read what Adam Back said about re-engineering BTC or engineering a better BTC.
It always made it worse.
Smart people know to stay out of the way. MSTR as a financial instrument has done more for BTC adoption/education than most would give him credit for.
I'm not saying we have to "re-engineer" BTC. I'm saying Michael Saylor didn't have a part in engineering it in the first place, and that he is not a bitcoin engineer.
What he is doing for MSTR is good for the company and indirectly for BTC. But it doesn't constitute "engineering". Otherwise any CEO who decides to put XYZ asset on his books is an "engineer" too, so in the end nobody is one.
Hal, Adam & Satoshi are the only ones I can think of that played a part in engineering BTC.
BTC was almost perfect, if not perfect, at inception.
That’s the point I was making about Adams quote from his time trying to make it “better”.
MSTR & Nostr are no different in the overall scheme of things.
Underlying BTC remains unchanged and is better for that. IMO
I get all that and I agree -- I lean conservative as far as BTC "development" goes. I don't even think we need Lightning (unless it is as a means to enable anonymous transactions, as it seems to do with Cashu) because I don't think we need to add any "features" to what Bitcoin does very well -- store of value and unalterable timechain.
I do think though that there's a big difference between developing ON Bitcoin and just using BTC the asset.
Let's make the world a better place... some by engineering, some by educating,... Everybody can take part in this revolution.
BIIIIIITTTTTCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIINNNNN
✅ Better World 🌎
He really thought deep on that
The answer will shock you!