F***ng hell.
Can Lopp get any more patronising?
He's on the Bitcoin Conference live stream, discussing the quantum threat to Bitcoin.
He says (patronisingly):
"I won't explain cryptography to you, your eyes would glaze over".
"Hi, I'm Mike, I won't explain condescension to you, your brain would glaze over" π π π
We're too Stoopid to understand.
I bet he didn't learn hashing by watching TV shows about TJ Maxx fashion clothes rails π
whoever cracks the satoshi's stash ... good for them. everyone else will switch to s new cypher.
This is incomprehensible to the Bitcoiners mind π
How very dare you not take the knee. He's totally legit and never shills shit. I mean the FBI almost killed him, why he is now the most secret, secret squirrel not even Woody Woodpecker could find him. Oh, he's on stage but still...
Itβs almost like he owns a company that offers custody solutions and needs to scare up new customers. Almost, right?
Isn't he too smart to talk Bitcoin to Bitcoiners at a Bitcoin conference. They totally wouldn't get it 
π
It's not patronizing to point out that cryptography is boring and ill suited for a 20 minute discussion with a mainstream audience.
Thanks for watching!
Hi James,
I appreciate you engaging with me.
I also appreciate you feel entirely right and that you've earned your place at the top table, which you have with Bitcoin, no question.
Your achievements, credentials and expertise are not being attacked.
But the second wave of any movement / revolution likes nothing better than to depose the leaders from the first wave.
Right now, I would suggest you try to appear more approachable. For the first few years of your Bitcoin life, you had a hostile audience. I get that, I had it with the early Internet, but we have shifted from attack to accept and are rapidly moving to the adoption phase. You don't need to be defensive or return fire.
There is a difference between not explaining something because it would take too long and telling your audience you're not going to explain something because they are not capable of understanding or disinterested.
For the context of this talk, you could have explained cryptography sufficiently within 30 seconds very comprehensively, but despite this, I too would not have done so in this context.
As a little warning about the pitfalls of over confidence. Bitcoin is my second life, I was at the top of the Electronics, Computer and Internet world and my family owned a group of global public companies.
We were deposed, we didn't see it coming.
You are more fortunate than me, you are watching the attack on you happening in real time. It feels like you are invincible. You are not, nobody is.
You have an image problem right now, if you can't work through this yourself, consider hiring professional help. Either an image coach or a PR firm or both. It may be worth your investment.
Just a suggestion from an old man that's been there and done that in the irrelevant annals of history.
I still prefer you cruise notes
Have you seen all the cruise ship murders and dead captains and container ships parking up on Norwegian Islands recently?
I'm steering clear of cruising for a while π
Are you the cruising serial killer?
"There is a difference between not explaining something because it would take too long and telling your audience you're not going to explain something because they are not capable of understanding or disinterested." - This is the point. People glaze over when you tell them youve made an assumption about what will make them glaze over. It's a meta-glazing.
Ah, I see the issue.
You think I want to be an admired leader and thus I should be concerned about how people perceive my statements.
That would be an incorrect assumption. I don't actually want to be in the public eye and I constantly turn down mainstream media offers in an attempt to reduce my risk profile. I stick my neck out because I think Bitcoin is important enough for me to bear the risk.
Bitcoin is for enemies and I neither expect nor desire for everyone to like me or agree with me.
No I don't.
I get that it is almost impossible for you to believe that an unknown nobody knows more than you think. I've been there and made those same assumptions myself.
I have no desire to "poke the bear", I'm just an old fucker that has been there and done it and know more than you think I do.
I genuinely wish you well and good luck in the future.
Everyone proposing quantum forks are acting on a trust, donβt verify ethos towards physicists.
Bitcoin would like to know who their observer is, and why should we trust them?
Go and fork Bitcoin!
Do you know what, I didn't watch it after he said that remark. I have difficulty listening to anybody when they patronise the audience.
I didnβt attend and only watched one talk from 2025. But I will make a stand towards the quantum FUD.
I am extremely skeptical towards anyone proposing forks for quantum. Especially when people want to fork bitcoin and/or confiscate old coins due to a threat that has not been verified, only trusted.
If Bitcoin was THE quantum computer, what would that mean?
