No offense but you just saying “he does not make the argument” doesn’t give anyone any value without saying why.
I listened to a podcast interview with him on TFTC and, if I understood correctly, he was using the phrase “bitcoin is violence” to mean that bitcoin replaces violence as a means to settle disputes, which would mean bitcoin is leading the world to be less violent, and to encourage militaries to buy more bitcoin.
Nailed it. Early bitcoin tech adopters are failing horribly to understand the axiom here.
None taken 🤙 I haven’t read the softwar thing and might never, but my point is he basically shifted his diction from “violence” to “power projection” after people got way too hung up on the word violence iirc. And that includes the deterrence of attacks by means of being beefy af. Like would a 5’ tall teenage girl try to attack kimbo slice (rest his soul)? Noh
Bitcoin be hashin like crazy. To attack it is to fail. This makes sense to me and seeing people continue to hammer home the wrong point about violence is just getting annoying.
Yeah he mentioned that in the podcast too - I think misunderstood the intent of your note in hindsight, thanks for taking the time to elaborate
