His argument is relatively well made but Conza ripped the praxeology of it already. Bitcoin as speech is the better argument and already has legal precedent in the US (the only place this stuff matters) - Lowery is effectively making the same arguments the US Gov did when they wanted to ban encryption.
>>>Lowery made the argument about gunpowder originally being medicine then it was used as a weapon (still the same gunpowder).
And that’s why I’d be careful of him. Bitcoin started as money and now has 3D gun blueprints on the timechain alongside monkey JPEGs; a matter of time til someone puts child porn or a manifesto or some shit on there and this exact reasoning gets used as to why Bitcoin is weaponised and dangerous to us all and hence must be banned.
Bitcoin isn’t going to win because the US Government finally sees sense, ends The Fed and adopts Bitcoin. There is no peaceful timeline where that sequence of event occurs.
If it is going to win it’s because the US Government have fucked themselves and the rest of us playing world police, debasing their currency and causing sovereign debt crises that only Bitcoin can save people from.
Lowery has no part to play in that story. At best his thesis is an interesting distraction and at worst it’s the statist justification for attempts to kill bitcoin. He and his thesis should be treated with caution.
👏👏👏👏👏
Thread collapsed
