💯 I do hope that self-custody remains a viable alternative despite recent transactions costs peaks, as i care about self-sovereignty deeply, but institutions are here to stay. It would be great if people could moderate their appetite for destruction of what they disagree with and concentrate on building and including people instead.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

we don't need to be inclusive about backdoor fractional reserve banking

Who is “we”… fortunately Bitcoin is permissionsless protocol with no authoritarian entity deciding what “we” should be or do, because it amazes me how many people interested in freedom turn into tyrants the minute things do not go their way

you are free to get rugged by custodians

Too many assumptions

If Bitcoin's value does not come from its utility as a medium of exchange, it is essentially a Ponzi scheme. At least with gold you can use the gold as a decoration. No such property is present for Bitcoin. As long as some people somewhere can use Bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash, it will be valuable to them, and on this basis custodians, institutions, and governments can hold it without a contradiction. On the other hand, if Bitcoin is exclusively the property of custodians, institutions, and governments, who do not seek to use it as a medium exchange, and who bar everyday people from using it as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin's value should be roughly zero in the long run. It lost its utility. I want Bitcoin or something like it to become money along with gold and silver. Fiat currencies are the problem and Bitcoin is a potential solution. I think if you are in Bitcoin for a buck you're just scamming the folks who buy it from you in the future.

I should qualify the "in Bitcoin for a buck" with "AND are OK with it becoming exclusively the property of gatekeepers" because it really is nice to make a buck and there's nothing wrong with that.