Because those forks didnt gain consensus, so they’re not worth discussing.
It’s like saying we should discuss Calvinism vs Catholicism and which was the more successful religion - well it’s pretty fucking obvious to anyone with eyeballs which did better in the long run, isn’t it?
And what happens when Saylor and Fink team up, or rather the entire Cantor Fitzgerald crew and say to everyone 'we hold the majority and so we are the consensus"
Idk if many people can think long term, but I most certainly can and I see Bitcoin/SATs flowing up to these treasuries from private holders, and in like 10 years time you'll have the new central bankers but instead of gold or other reserves that have this digital sha token
They end up on the SaylorFinkCoin and we burn their coins on BTC, reducing the overall supply making us way richer.
Reducing supply doesn't necessarily mean price goes up. The threat of new market entrants, especially in cryptos, is extremely high.
I suppose it boils down to blind faith
Today I have theoretical share of X/21M
If tomorrow we burn Saylor, Fink et al, I have X/19.5M (or whatever the number is we burn from SaylorFinkCoin).
Yes, burning cunts off the network does basically guarantee we all get richer as our share of the network increases regardless of dollar valuation.
It’s not going to happen to some random individual holding 1.2 BTC, but if the spook Saylor wants to play games, or Zionist Larry, yeah you watch and see.
The main philosophical debate right now in Bitcoin is whether to burn Satoshi’s coins in a quantum upgrade, or not.
That has arguments on both sides.
Suitcoiners try to co-opt #Bitcoin? You watch them get burned within a fucking week.
We are not playing games.
