Great episode #[2]
Discussion
Been thinking quite a bit about the "ideology" critique of bitcoiners. Have seen some others make this point too (e.g. Taleb, Hunt).
Are bitcoiners ideological about Bitcoin? And if so, is that a problem or weakness in our arguments?
Was Galileo ideological in claiming the earth revolved around the sun? That's the reality he saw, but it must have seemed ideological to those who already accepted the view of the Catholic church. He was so "ideological" that he ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest for this "belief", which he defended.
Maybe we come across as ideogical because we make both normative and positive claims about Bitcoin's current and future state, and others only see the normative claims. Yes, we think Bitcoin _should_ be the world's money, but we make that claim based on the observations of what Bitcoin _is_. But also money is a special case because it relies on collective delusion or belief too, so therefore any claims about it being ideological are begging the question (a fallacy even the smartest people are susceptible to).
Would love it if folks like #[4] or #[5] had thoughts to add?
“I’M NOT IDEOLOGICAL, YOU’RE IDEOLOGICAL!!!” - every ideologue, ever 😂
you are correct that I’ve thought a lot about it. I’ll try to keep the answer short(ish) rather than writing you a book.
whether you really are ideological or not, you will inevitably seem that way to others for a handful of related reasons. what you are proposing, even is solely positive terms, is so absurdly outside the Overton window most have trouble interpreting it at face value and think there must be something else going on here, you must be kinda crazy, etc.,
since you are implicitly (or explicitly!) rejecting enormous swathes of contemporary culture, politics, and economics, it’s difficult for people to see that as *anything other than* ideological. of course they don’t realise they are living and participating in a competing ideology, but its dominance is such that their attention is never drawn to it. having their attention drawn in that way is unpleasant and they’d usually rather pathologies the pest rather than genuinely introspect.
for what it’s worth I try to tap into this in how I communicate in public. as much as I see the place of the tribalism, memes, lore, etc., and hence am not at all knocking anybody who focuses on that kind of thing, I am wary of this coming across as overtly ideological and unnecessarily unpersuasive. I tend to focus my commentary on how stupid and evil the fiat system is, often veering into outright mockery and humiliation of those who believe in and propagate it. the goal is to make *them* look crazy, not us.
when I talk about bitcoin itself my tone is usually dry and the content purely factual. where possible, I play up the technical challenges both to be honest about the material and to fake my own humility to try to strike a contrast with fiat propaganda.
so something like, “bitcoin is the fastest and most secure value settlement mechanism ever created and lightning offers nearly free and instant simulation of “payments” by swapping cryptographically enforceable deferred settlement in this layer. contrary to every other fiat payment method in existence, it is a true debit. there is no counterparty risk and no credit extension, although maintaining adequate channel liquidity and protecting against malevolent channel partners are both novel and challenging … etc.”
rather than: “lightning can do a trillion transactions per second and is going to DESTROY card networks and bitcoinize the dollar.”
the latter is probably true but the former is how I’d prefer to communicate. so back to your question: I don’t think it’s a good or a bad thing about the arguments themselves, and it’s not even necessarily true - it’s just an unfortunate reality of how they are likely to be perceived by most. but depending on what you want to achieve, you can certainly affect that perception.
(sorry for the novella)
Ah, now I understand why your articles are so long 😜
Fantastic response, thank you.
Reframing the fiat status quo as absurd and foolish 👌
Insert meme: _We_ are the Catholic Church now
“This is our meme world. Everyone else is just living in it.”
- Gandhi
Well, I mean what isn't a collect delusion? From where did these ideas originate if not in the minds of other's, who in turn, interpreted reality based on their best estimate of truth. In the end all is an act of faith. Do you believe you are right? Do you believe in your ability to reason? Has your model predicted reality? Are you flexible enough to change your view? You must leap.
Just finished it also, Fantastic episode. I especially liked the comparison of it being “Ukraine’s 1776 moment”