Just as Bitcoin-only is a massive assumption and attempt to shut down debate, so is "PoW is mandatory in a digital currency". I wonder if there is any appetite amongst Bitcoiners for rigorous debate on these two counts. I hope so, open source should mean open to challenge. #asknostr
With respect, misogyny is not the main problem here, I think it is just a tactic to move the discussion to different levels, and increase noise and nervous reactions.
The main point, the culprit of misinformation, is obviously that they have not yet understood, or rather deliberately concealed, why PoW is mandatory in a digital currency.
Can we produce a counter pro-pow campaign to make people aware? Let us exploit their media power, and also their sexist slip, to Bitcoin advantage.
/cc nostr:npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc nostr:npub1cn4t4cd78nm900qc2hhqte5aa8c9njm6qkfzw95tszufwcwtcnsq7g3vle
Discussion
Of course, I am open to any different opening that might improve the possibility of a decentralised, non-governmental, non-inflationary money.
At present, this point seems quite solid to me:
Do you have any other ideas?
Thanks for engaging! Personally, I wasn't convinced by nostr:npub1cn4t4cd78nm900qc2hhqte5aa8c9njm6qkfzw95tszufwcwtcnsq7g3vle presentation.
I wonder if it would be possible to have an adversarial debate at a Bitcoin conference, e.g. Bitcoin vs shitcoin, PoW vs PoS? Also, let's pick the cryptos to compare and contrast with #Bitcoin based on rigorous technical criteria, not just market cap.
Personally, I am all in on Bitcoin + Nimiq, the latter of which is transitioning to Proof of Stake. The depth of research being done on blockchains is too substantial just to be sniggered at! Here is something from the Nimiq team, the third metric concerns mitigation against centralisation under Proof of Stake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djTHvlIWJGs&t=17s