Nostr Web Client

I think he is brilliant because he logically constructed an argument from first principles in the WiM Lowery series.

He went layer by layer through his argument and arrived at conclusions. He did it in detail and consulted a great many people.

Not many can do that.

Anyone may not agree with his conclusions, that is any person's right, however his argument is very reasoned and I have enjoyed his perspectives.. I've learnt a great deal fore about many subjects in the process.

I feel his series on WiM is the equal of the Saylor series, and that is a great compliment .. thats why.

StackSats.IO 2y ago

#[5] has pulled his argument apart and I find that far more compelling than Lowery’s “weapon” line.

If I were a statist and wanted to defend fiat against Bitcoin, I’d seed the notion that it’s a weapon and get the Cult of The Current Thing supporters to buy in. Same as I’d attack it from a “climate change” angle on PoW as Greenpeace have taken money to do - it’s riling up the same idiots who will do the State’s bidding and demand it be banned in future.

Bitcoin is supposed to be the “don’t trust, verify” community and yet this guy making the case that it’s a weapon to the POTUS / rest of the cathedral has been embraced and not questioned nearly enough.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

thinkgreen147ce3cb68e 2y ago

You make some good points. I would agree the biggest risk to bitcoin is misinformation. Cool thing is bitcoin is not restricted to any one nation. Any BS narrative that starts getting spun up can be easily refuted by pointing abroad where adoption is real and helping people survive. It’s a weapon alright. A weapon for freedom and prosperity. Ask people in Nigeria, Lebanon, etc.

They’ll try to disparage it but it’s a losing battle. Bitcoins already working it’s magic bringing power to the plebs. Proof of magic is ever growing.

StackSats.IO 2y ago

The biggest risk is the State. Always, and in all things, but especially with anything that threatens the power of the State.

You can point abroad all you like, doesn’t change anything.

I can point at everyone else being able to play online poker and how no civilisation has ended because of it but the Nanny Statists here in Australia have determined it must be banned, so it is. And sure there are ways around this but it doesn’t unban it, for all intents and purposes online poker is dead here as a result.

Just because it’s impossible to ban Bitcoin doesn’t mean the State won’t do it, or that doing so won’t hurt Bitcoin either.

Inviting the Fox in to the henhouse and praising his brilliant ideas of how he’d like to cook dinner doesn’t seem like a particularly bright thing to do..

Gaz 2y ago

I've seen both sides of the argument and there's merit on both sides IMO. The original question on whether Lowery is brilliant was answered above (my view) and many wont agree with his conclusions, however the argument is still well constructed, requiring serious brainpower.

Bitcoin is such a divisive topic through misinformation, opinions and spin/propaganda. The establishment is already making it hard in the US by choking on/offramps and they haven't even started on the patriotism/anti USD angle yet.

Lowery made the argument about gunpowder originally being medicine then it was used as a weapon (still the same gunpowder).

A society (Constantinople ?) rejected the offer to use gunpowder, while their neighbour embraced it and later re-introduced it to those that rejected it.

US is likely to do the same w Bitcoin if they aren't careful.

StackSats.IO 2y ago

His argument is relatively well made but Conza ripped the praxeology of it already. Bitcoin as speech is the better argument and already has legal precedent in the US (the only place this stuff matters) - Lowery is effectively making the same arguments the US Gov did when they wanted to ban encryption.

>>>Lowery made the argument about gunpowder originally being medicine then it was used as a weapon (still the same gunpowder).

And that’s why I’d be careful of him. Bitcoin started as money and now has 3D gun blueprints on the timechain alongside monkey JPEGs; a matter of time til someone puts child porn or a manifesto or some shit on there and this exact reasoning gets used as to why Bitcoin is weaponised and dangerous to us all and hence must be banned.

Bitcoin isn’t going to win because the US Government finally sees sense, ends The Fed and adopts Bitcoin. There is no peaceful timeline where that sequence of event occurs.

If it is going to win it’s because the US Government have fucked themselves and the rest of us playing world police, debasing their currency and causing sovereign debt crises that only Bitcoin can save people from.

Lowery has no part to play in that story. At best his thesis is an interesting distraction and at worst it’s the statist justification for attempts to kill bitcoin. He and his thesis should be treated with caution.

Doug Brown 2y ago

👏👏👏👏👏

Bitadelic 2y ago

Those are some goodpointss, brother. Weird to see so many statist kissasses around.