THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
ššš¤š¤
If simps didnāt give in to OF hoes they wouldnāt exist. Another non controversial statement
Iām not afraid
Killed deals? Deets?
Get your boy Peter to push him on this when he has him on next.
A 1-man band keeping us coming back to the nostr š«”
I've one of the few bitcoiners that have spoken against Michael saylor, he's bad for bitcoin and bad for open source development
NO ONE IS SCARED, THERE IS NO NEED TO BE
No fear here. I called him out as soon as I saw your note.
Would be nice if you provided details regarding the last paragraph
Second post in an hour where he's just teasing us. Come on nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
MAJOR ETF WAS GOING TO SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
COMPETITION WAS TIGHT PRE LAUNCH.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO ANGER SAYLOR SO THEY PULLED OUT.
LEARN HOW TO READ.
Name your sources. Which ETF should we hate now and why exactly? This is the claim you made in the other post nobody got an answer when asking for details.
But yeah, your teasing keeps being good as long as nobody spills the beans.
so some of saylorās bitcoin is ETF bitcoin?
So like Blackrock was afraid of little Saylor? š More and clear explanation is needed, this is not a telenovela come on spill the beans already!
Any insight on this? @npub1jpvsahpy0vgq7gu8nfqjkeskce0gwjk8jpss590xkvjh5xxe4epsruqgsz
Why would Saylor see that as a threat?
That doesnāt sound right. Only competition that matters is for clients and whatās your marketing proposition?
āwE DoNāt SupPort OpeNSouuRceā?
lol
You even have Cathie āIāll-get-your-401kā Woods sponsoring Bitcoin developers, whoever they are are new to the game and/or very small.
Didn't want to anger Saylor? Why the fuck would they care what Saylor thinks/feels? He's not that important.
Nostr is no place for all caps bro
Little known phenomenaā¦ Bitcoin is also a pedestal transmutation machine
"STOP SIMPING" ODELL
MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR BOSS š«”
I ASSUME THIS IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BITCOIN TO CHANGE AT ALL BUT EVEN THEN HE SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE SECURITY......
Did you get hacked? Saylor may be a spook but this just sounds like a baseless accusation.
š«
lol iām so glad iām not the only one that thinks saylor is kind of sus
Sounds like you are not afraidā¦ just remember Bitcoin is for your friends and your frenemies. The important part is knowing who is who and at what block height it isā¦an enemy at block 800,000 might be a frenemy at block 800,001???
Careful, you might not get invited on his yacht now, the most coveted event for a blue check
NAILED IT. BITCOINERS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, SAD SHIT.
IN BITCOIN WE KILL OUR HEREOS
Heās not the only one
Tbh, I have not seen Swan or most Swan-sponsored influencers on Nostr, and that's a red flag for me.
I have not seen Saylor on Nostr posting anything besides his reposted AI art, and that's probably a bot. And his nip05 recently became invalid.
If Nostr is my web of trust, they're not on it.
swan gets on nostr to run defense when they look real bad. aside from that, theyāre not here.
yes most of them are
Or his island š«£
What is his incentive to kill support for devs?
I think the working thesis is that if Iām Saylor, the longer I can keep the Bitcoin the way it is, the longer I can keep the Government looking over āhereā (Bitcoin is digital gold, nothing more, nothing to see), and the longer I can stack, unencumbered by regulators.
If Bitcoin scales as a medium of exchange, getting into more hands of the people around the world who truly need freedom: thatās a problem for Governments, and itās a problem for MSTR when folks realize holding Bitcoin is better than holding exposure to one companyās Bitcoin treasury.
I could be way off. Either way, with Governments involved, millions of new Bitcoiners, corporations coming in, dev stand-offs: itās going to be a bloody few years in Bitcoin and Iām here for it.
I think you are somehow right in your speculation, if Saylor is behaving that way is probably because if too many grants get assigned to core devs, then those devs might feel the need to perform all types of changes and start thinking of roadmaps, etc. Justify their grants sort of!
Plus it will attract other devs like flies. Do we really want to have devs who are there only/mainly for the money? Itās a dilemma! Some food for thought nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
This is something I would love to see @odell openly discuss and address. it would give me much more confidence in him.
IMA be devils advocate here.
MAYBE he doesnt care about Dev funding because he wants bitcoin to stay as is. Having looked at the recent updates which had unintended consequences (nfts etc) ...
he think nope, no "devving" needed here.
Seems careless of him to reject supporting devs when he has so much bitcoin. Stupid.
Saylor also advocates for protocol ossification.
Please stop simping.
I donāt get it. Whatās his incentive to scuttle these deals?
My thoughts:
- Heās already FUDing MoE, doesnāt want to fight against the USD system
- He wants BTC ossification
- The longer it takes for BTC to be more widely spread the more he benefits as it becomes more difficult to catch his first mover advantage
- Saylor benefits most from HODLers, not from people on a Bitcoin Standard
Think through his incentives. Listen to his statements. Heās not here to smash central banks and fiat - heās in it for himself.
So long as it remains the best store of value will almost certainly become the primary MoE.
Ossification is a reasonable position to take. More changes could absolutely introduce more problems than benefits. Most of the tools built into bitcoin have not even been put to use yet. And the last thing we want is for legacy finance people to come in with trillions of dollars & millions of retarded newbs that they can mislead, thinking it is their job to change bitcoin or to influence how bitcoin changes.
Make no mistake. This is a war. The easiest way to win it is to let incentives do the work without the people who have everything to lose realizing it's a war.
It's good to stay vigilant & pure & principled, but we should be cautious of friendly fire when we have people doing good things.
100% the path bitcoiners need to be on.
Regarding MoE, you might consider that sometimes people's words are meant for some specific ears and don't necessarily represent one's actual interests.
I other words, it might be opportune, at least for now, for certain people to not considers Bitcoin to be a competitor.
"This large wooden horse is a gift!"
Trying to steelman Saylorās possible perspective ā¦ funding devs could be dangerous because they donāt know when to stop building. Recent changes expanded the block size in a obscure way and we got ordinals and network spam. Chances are extremely dangerous because they likely require an (almost) impossible hardfork to remove. Better to slow down development and really think things through before adding any other major features. Fewer, more experienced devs can take care of maintenance while major changes are baked longer. š¤·āāļø
From his POV, this makes sense, and itās consistent with what others hypothesized. Itās difficult, but not impossible, to imagine what a man would do to protect that much wealth.
No one said it was controversial. It just doesnāt make sense.
Label him what he is - a BitcoinBug
nostr:note144au605mp6kvgsknnvuxk7stl0yyx0mrjzqhphj2ug94tusgaapsq46a9m
WHAT DID I MISS? PLEASE EDUCATE ME
Seems you know something we don't. Would be great to see what that is, so we could call him out on it.
I don't know Saylor or his work very well; though I'm unsure how to be for Bitcoin, but not interested in supporting open source developers.
Conflicts of interests arising with a software (lots of patents) publicly traded company ?
is this the hill?
Thank you for saying it! It needs to be known.
saylor's a spook. microstrategy are bad actors.
I guess he thinks he is playing it safe with his stack. Iām no expert but seems there is work to do for mass adoption and he is happy with it only being an asset not currency.
SOME PEOPLE ARE SIMPING FOR SAYLOR, OTHERS FOR BUKELE. FUCK BOTH OF THEM, BITCOIN DOESN'T NEED THEM.
Good thing Bitcoin is for enemies.
what are you talkin about? I'm lost
And no-one has asked him why he's done it?
"HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS."
Really? Can you give example/s please.
Could you expand on how/which deals he killed and how?
I'm genuinely curious and want to know.
NEVER FORGET WHO IS BEHIND SAYLOR !
and
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSTR/holders?fr=yhssrp_catchall
This is good signal, but my 80 IQ eyes hurt when I have to read caps lock.. I bet I'm not the only one
STAHP IT
Yeah, when ever I watched Saylor talk, (only twice so far managed to get myself to do it) I literally fell asleep about the whole corporate economics talk about āassetizationā, I canāt listen to it and stay awake at the same time, it is so uninteresting, nothing new absolutely nothing new he can bring to the table. Iām not sure how people can just consume it?
Did you approach him directly about this?that would be right first step before opening a conversation to nostr nation(Iām not saying you didnāt)
You mean he's not one of us?
Genuinely curious what is Saylorās beef with open source softwareā¦ Mf dropped billions on an open source protocol I thought he liked open source?š
I've learned these last 5 years that bitcoin is attractive to many different types of people.
I met saylor and talked to him for a bit, he has his opinions and self interests like we all do.
I disagree with his opinions, but he is allowed to have them. I don't want to speak for him but I get the sense that he's a "store of value" above everything else, and is very pro regulation.
I don't think an individual holding that narrative would appreciate the open source community and hearing his lack of support doesn't come as being out of character, just disappointing.
Hopefully it's just a misunderstanding or if not, he will have a change of heart in the future.
He's said pretty clearly before that he doesn't want the narrative that it's competing against the dollar and replacing the fed. Says it's much better to frame the conversation as it's just a store of value. I can see that point... Let bitcoin grow larger before "then they fight you" ramps up
The protectionism in the long run takes its toll
When did he do that?
Can anyone provide details on this allegation?
Not that I've seen. Absolutely beyond the pale if true, but uh, need some receipts.
I have never once simped saylor, he obviously has his own motivations (making money) which seems incongruous with this. I can construct an explanation why he might have done this, but it would seem implausible or at least unlikely.
How does making money seem incongruous with this? If bitcoin never had another update, would Saylor make less money?
Almost certainly yes.
1. Medium of Exchange usage increases demand for Bitcoin (improving MoE requires development)
2. Software requires maintenance
3. ossificiation means the eventual death of Bitcoin
I know some debate 3 (they're wrong), 1 and 2 are self evident.
I could see a strategy where Saylor intends to capture Bitcoin and become an intermediary, but that defeats Bitcoin's core value proposition and that would (eventually) destroy it.
If Saylor disagrees with 1 I don't know what to say, he's wrong, unless it's part of a larger strategy like I posited.
As it stands, bitcoin is much better digital property than it is a currency competing with the dollar for global reserve status. That's right in line with his thesis. Bitcoin devs focusing on scaling and privacy have the goal of making it better currency. A lot of speculation on my part though š¤·
I think we're largely in agreement. The question is, does devs making Bitcoin a better medium of exchange increase or decrease the value of Saylor's stash? Given it will increase demand, it must increase the value.
God no drama? I take it you don't follow @odell ?
Source?
Spook. He'll show his true colors soon enough.
Best next move for competition/rivals of Microstrategy is to begin allocating a large portion of their annual donations to non-profit #Bitcoin FOSS orgs like nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f, Brink, and HRF.
Michael Saylor, Chairman and CEO of MicroStrategy, adds, āBitcoin is the most important innovation since the advent of the internet, and it is our responsibility to invest not only in the asset, but also in the underlying infrastructure that is maintained and improved by open-source developers and nonprofit institutions like MITās DCI.ā
I'll say shit, nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx. Saylor is not here for freedom maximalism, has attacked the idea of Bitcoin as a MoE, and, based on what you're saying, doesn't support Bitcoin development.
End the hero worship. It's never a good look.
Yup
I like when you say things, everyone else is thinking, but what I donāt like is they pretend you didnāt say it.
Dude talks sense but everyone is afraid to say, "stop yelling in ALL CAPS, man"
This sounds like nonsense, but itās definitely going to bring some engagement over to nostr from Twitter.
I mean, if youāre Fidelity and you want to donate to open source, are you the slightest bit scared of Saylor? How would he ācrushā you? Why would he care?
Sounds like a good thing lol why have ppl pay devsā¦ unless hurts your pocket
Been waiting for some Saylor beef
This is good for #NOSTR engagement
IMHO, devs are focused on adding new technologies to the protocol when they instead should be adding limited specific features.
Technologies are increased capabilities that can be used in multiple ways for multiple features. They also have a higher likelihood of being misused in a way that wasnāt intended.
We should instead develop for a specific feature and make the most limited code changes to enable that one feature.
For example, devs should have made a very limited change just to enable Lightning, but instead they rolled out SegWit technology with a hidden 4x blocksize increase and we got network spam. Have devs learned the lesson?
Ossification should be the default and we should add specific limited features when theyāve had sufficient time to bake.
We have to acknowledge that with more devs, comes more risk. Devs donāt know when to stop. More code means more bugs. To see what happens when too many devs get involved, we can watch ETH. šæ
Bitcoin isnāt a shitcoin. We donāt need to compete on āinnovationsā. We also canāt āmove fast and break thingsā.
Everyone is too afraid to say shit, because we don't say bad things about friends and people that pumps our bags. So... wen Jack?
nostr:note1jag3u6rajn5qwgle8x97cuxu6ykrn8764nmjqe4hzgfmmqhjf4tsh6dyqq
This is plain to see. I donāt think anyone questions this. Some of us might just agree with the ossification perspective.
He has as much right to advocate for his position as anyone else, but he admittedly has more influence.
Anyway, do you really want corporate and ETF dev sponsors?
I donāt.
Saylor is just a compliant suit who wants to see Bitcoin stay in governmentās good graces. Iād bet heās a hater of privacy tech.
FUCKI TOO RIGHT MUCKER. THAT SHORT ARSED BILLIONAIRE IS A SPOOK
stop simping, stay humble, stack sats
What r u doing? Is this an attention grab?
š
It's like when your mum and dad are going through a divorce š
nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx , I thought about you calling out nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m for not investing in open-source development. Bitcoin is freedom money, implying that I am free to do with it as I please (including donating to OpenSats, HRF, etc.). For Bitcoin to be generational wealth, must I not demonstrate to my heirs and everybody else that I can and will withstand public attacks like yours on Saylor? It is only natural that Bitcoin owners will be bullied into parting with their coins for this reason or that. I am sure you know this; perhaps you are trolling and testing the space. I much respect your work.
nostr:note1jag3u6rajn5qwgle8x97cuxu6ykrn8764nmjqe4hzgfmmqhjf4tsh6dyqq
Your like that grumpy old dude everyone has at their workplace šš
nostr:npub1g0587hzzckcncxfm78n0996qe2s58nspy29wf02tqcj5sdzcpj4q6j40hv any thoughts on this?
Can i donate you to unstuck your caps lock key?
Specifics please. Accusations without backing up with facts is so very fiat.
Would you want to run nodes and protocols sponsored by suits/ETF corporations? Why? (I am trying to open a discussion and not suggesting an answer).
