Replying to Avatar L0la L33tz

This is a community note proposed to Anita's post, and I think we need to talk about it.

The past years have brought a swarm of new people into Bitcoin, and these posts and comments show how hard we failed them.

First off, to address the majority of commenters in Anita's post that also like to spam my posts with the same nonsense (and then tell me that I'm stupid because I have a vagina (?)), in the Bitcoin network, you do not get to vote for anything. Your node allows you to control the rules that your node runs by. That's it. That's all it does.

There is no voting in Bitcoin.

Second, miners run profit oriented businesses. This means that miners follow the rules adapted by the nodes with the majority of economic activity.

In the event of a hard fork, it does not matter how many nodes you run – if the majority of nodes generating profit for miners apply new rules, those are the rules the miners will follow.

Bitcoin positions do matter to the extent that they generate economic activity.

I understand that the voting analogy can be helpful, so here's one that you can make: in Bitcoin, you vote with your feet.

If a large exchange was to signal for, say, a Bitcoin compliance fork, you can threaten to pull your money out – to the extent that the exchange still allows you to.

Lastly, what Anita is referring to in her post is Bitcoin's social layer.

Bitcoin is run by humans, and humans can be influenced.

Humans can be influenced by setting positive incentives, such as gov subsidies or developer grants, or by applying violence, such as threatening to throw the people running and building Bitcoin in jail.

This is a reality of human nature and should not be controversial - How to prevent such actors from influencing open source development is often discussed in the open source community.

If this topic interests you, look up Operation Orchestra at FOSDEM.

Let's remember that the memes are not always your friends.

Influencers spent the past few years so focused on "hyperbitcoinization" that half-truths about how Bitcoin works are now taken at face value.

Because so many "Bitcoiners" now genuinely believe things like "Bitcoin can't be censored," "one node equals one vote", "Bitcoin is for enemies," or "everything is good for Bitcoin," we have created a culture that believes paying attention to the creation of an adversarial environment is unnecessary.

These memes are mental shortcuts. They are true to some extent, but do not reflect reality.

In the case of my posts, next to the obviously snarky comments here and there, the majority of commenters are not posting these things with bad intentions - they genuinely think that this is how Bitcoin works.

If you are an educator, influencer, or in any other way have the capacity to better explain these things to people, _please_ take the time to do so.

The memes are fine to get people interested, but we all need to do a better job at combating these misconceptions. The future of BTC could depend on it.

You are discounting the fact that Bitcoin is a money that competes against other monies, so the people who hold it and produce it have an incentive to keep it the best money. Why would someone destroy the value-proposition of their own product, when the value of that product is set to go up forever?

Under duress? This would produce obvious nonsense and we would hard-fork away and continue on, without them.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We are talking about two very different concepts here.

In the arguments I am making, I am referring to the success of Bitcoin as the success of a censorship resistant monetary technology, while you seem to be referring to the success of Bitcoin as an arbitrary Dollar number.

I would argue that the majority of Bitcoin holders don't really care about censorship resistance at this point, they care about the Dollar value – meaning that changes undermining Bitcoin's censorship resistance would likely be little opposed by economic actors (many have in fact already spoken out in favor of things like sanctions), therefore *not* reducing the price of BTC.

Your argument therefore should actually go the other way around:

Why should someone decide _against_ keeping their money on the dominant value chain to protect censorship resistance, when a fixed market cap – not censorship resistance – is considered BTC's value proposition by the majority of economic nodes?

No, my argument was the right way around. If they care about the dollar value of the money they produce (which they obviously do, otherwise they would not sell it), then they should care about the destruction of the use cases that make the money attractive to those who hold it.

They don't have to personally care, they just have to worry that we care. Even if only a subset of us abandoned their efforts, the dollar purchasing power of their money would quickly collapse.

Conceptually, yes.

Practically, unless you want to suggest that your node does the same volume as coinbase, no one is going to care what you think, unfortunately.

The content you generate is consistently terrible

Anything that became known as "Coinbase Pseudodollars" would lead to a hard fork. Why would anyone, who is using Bitcoin to diversify away from the USD, then stick with the USD fork?

A Bitcoin that is US government controlled has no value proposition. It's just eDollars. Fedcoin.

That makes more sense, then. I didn't catch on that you were talking about changes in censorship resistance. I agree these are less likely to be opposed than ones that affect other monetary properties. You should make it clear that it was you're referring to because it seems there is some confusion around it 👍

Those Bitcoiners caring about censorship resistant money, left for Monero. Bitcoin is now about NGU.

True to a large extent. And unfortunate that xmr is NGD

This is an important point. Bitcoin holders are not dumb, ETF holders maybe are not as informed. But they would surely take note of the stink kicked up by holders should some large economic nodes (i.e. institutions) start being stupid. ETFs are also businesses. The best ways to go out of business are to loose the confidence of your customer or destroy your product. Trying some softfork stupidity would do both. Miners are also not dumb. They would surely forsee the stupidity of institutional soft fork attempts and the risk they posed to their profits. I'm not saying all this couldn't happen, it just doesn't seem likely imo.

And you can't shut Bitcoiners up, since we have our own communications protocol, now. 😁

Ignoring the fact that governments can just _make_ any miner and institution under their jurisdiction enforce compliance coin...

How much of the network do you believe would be willing to put their Dollar value at risk to ensure that "terrorists and criminals" can continue to use bitcoin?

You are so close to get Monero. I give you one month.

Was thinking on same line, what if govt. buy the miners or make them move some where else. By jurisdictional laws they can do whatever they want. Look at Ross , Assange and others. But I do believe that as humans we have the weapon in the form of Bitcoin if we play well we can win. nostr:npub1yx66n3ea20z5v4rnqpzp67qxs2mxea8wve4uh4vj86caswd9gkmqn9ndt2

Only the parts that matter

You seem ready to be surprised how dumb people are. That's great, but I'm ready to not be surprised if people are dumber than you think.