Who sold you the nonsense idea that Bitcoin was made to "bank the unbanked?" - NO, that's not why it was created. It was to end CENTRAL banking and fiat money.

It's to take it out of the hands of the government in a sly roundabout way, and introduce something they can not stop.

If u try to fuck around with it, and create cheap payments (or easy self custody) for all, then ur gonna fuck this up.

Don't change it and objective 1 will be achieved. That's all that matters. Then humanity will flourish.

Not everyone needs to be their own bank (or dentist)

The purpose of money is to reduce the risk of specialisation, which allows people to be free from the need to barter. They can then focus on what they are good at, and accept money for their efforts. Specialisation maximises human output and prosperity.

If we have money, people don't need to do everything themselves. That's a for barter society, not a money society. This includes not needing to bank yourself, dentist yourself and farm yourself.

The problem is that people are taking "bank the unbanked", as nice as it sounds, as priority #1, instead of accepting it as a CONSEQUENCE of priority #1, which is "end CENTRAL banking" (not "end retail banking").

Then they start trying to get code changes in like CTV, risking #1

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I tell skeptical normie friends, “No, you can’t commonly buy coffee with Bitcoin yet. Buying coffee with Bitcoin might be the most stupid thing a person could do with it.”

Hey Mark. My next blog is about buying coffee with bitcoin and why I think it's important. Do you mind if I add this quote to it? I know we disagree, but I promise I won't be mean.

Sure! Of course, what it means is, like the two pizzas, that cup of coffee might be worth 1,000 cups of coffee in a few years.

I know. I would have more bitcoin if I didn't spend it on junk food in 2015. The problem was that I only bought $50 a month and spent it on whatever.

It's different when you're all in or almost all in. I'll spend $250 on $500 boots because I think they'll last longer than $80 Nikes.

I don't buy coffee outside of my home often, but when I do, I spend bitcoin.

Even fiat-only spenders make must calculate this trade-off. If you buy coffee everyday with a credit card, it is no differemt than not buying bitcoin with the fiat you spent on coffee.

I'm talking about the margin here too. You would have ro be an idiot to sell all yoir bitcoin for a second home or Lambo or something.

Fair point about credit card debt vs Bitcoin purchases. My way out of that mental trap is to have a Bitcoin allocation and an Everything Else allocation, then rebalance on a regular basis. I’ve tried to get all the Bitcoin and related stocks into Roth IRAs so that I can rebalance without tax implications.

The Everything Else bucket can be cash that one lives on. It gets replenished during annual rebalancing.

My current thinking about the future, anyway, if it is as bright as it appears.

hehe now we have a thread for this. I said in the other thread that I disagreed, BUT that referencing it as "bank the unbanked" is perhaps where things go wrong.

Let's say that this unstoppable sly money HAS to be accessible to all. That is a core requirement in its being. All arguments can then fork from that statement...

btw if you want people to come over to Nostr, screenshot this sizzling debate, post to Twitter but disallow replies.

Then see if anyone can join Nostr to join the debate!! :D

I don't get it

Accessible to all is anticipated, but not necessarily layer 1.

I'm also comming around to the idea that being your own bank isn't all that it's cracked up to be. 🤫

The social justice set always wants to take good things over and ruin them in the name of equity.

If majority has to use custodians, the government can enforce the custodians to comply with central bank regulations. That is why to end central banking it is essential to provide an affordable and easy path for masses to self-custody their sats.

Old bitcoiners don't seem to care enough about nocoiners who won't be able to own an utxo soon, even if they want, unless Bitcoin scales better. They think "I can pay the onchain fees, my wealth goes up together with the fees". They should think twice, because Bitcoin is more valuable if it is not controlled by governments, which is only possible if the majority of users self-custody coins. Otherwise even rich bitcoiners will have to pass KYC and AML processes to spend Bitcoin, because a seller of goods is likely to use some custodian, which is likely to be controlled by the state.

So even for old egoist bitcoiners it is rational to support some safe scaling solutions, which do not undermine the core properties of Bitcoin.