https://x.com/chrisblec/status/1795109325863596240 tHiS iS bad . We must force a change and introduce risk! For the poors!
Discussion
Well there are important points to consider.
Having more bitcoiners is better than having less. Why ? Because it prevents all kinds of nasty social attacks in meat space. And some violent ones too.
Also, not having privacy ends up taking censorship resistance out of bitcoin.
So like, I understand the carefulness to improve the protocol, but "pure store of value" ends up being "pure pile of shit".
Dumb take.
Unsubstantiated take
Having more bitcoiners is worst if it means changes in the base layer or losing decentralisation.
Auditing the base layer and enforcing the supply cap is more important than more privacy.
Bunch of wrong assumptions here :
I said more bitcoiners not more ETF holders. More bitcoiners is by definition more decentralization.
Privacy solutions do not necessarily entail supply cap obfuscation. For example : coinjoin, payjoin etc...
OK I thought you meant we need 8B people on the base layer.
Most people in 25 years will hold bitcoin on layer 2 and that is ok
No material change to the protocol from now on. Segwit was a material change. The only one in my opinion
Especially when the solution for the poors already exists and it’s called eCash and it eventually will scale to billions. One marshmallow OPs can’t see what’s right in front of them