https://primal.net/e/note1mhf5yuuepphwh938kftx5lvntrtam35jvpz907fjndt4kjq2wzast273n8
nostr:note1zkgctq5n6mervh8w9hgtamlec4regmdxndn4zw83caf2c0a2kyvsa3u9pu
Listened to Michael Saylor on the nostr:npub1r8l06leee9kjlam0slmky7h8j9zme9ca32erypgqtyu6t2gnhshs3jx5dk podcast. It's 3 months old, but sheds some light on the ARK funding story.
TL;DW: Saylor strongly believes in *OSSIFICATION NOW*. From that POV, protocol development is a liability.
Some quotes (and thoughts)👇
"You only get to play God once. And Satoshi played God. And you can say 'well Satoshi got to do it, why can't I?' Well the answer is Satoshi did it, the reason we're talking about Satoshi is 'cause the other 100,000 would-be Satoshis failed. If you read the history of the world, work your way through 10,000 pages of Western history, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of episodes of 'alpha male thinks he was put on this earth, you know, to change everything', full of hubris [...] he's gotta do more, change more, etcetera.'" (53:34) "Bitcoin Core developers, or protocol developers, they want to fix something, or they want to make a contribution, because it's in their DNA, but developers are just the lawyers of cyberspace. When a lawyer shows up at the capital, they gotta make a law to save you from yourself, and the more laws they make, the more they cripple the economy, until eventually there's so many laws that the entire civilization collapses under its own weight." (58:06) "The world is full of people that need something to do. I would say, the real key to wisdom, channel your energy constructively. If you're gonna do something, improve Lightning, build an application, persuade someone to adopt Bitcoin as a reserve asset, educate someone… these are all constructive things. Destructive, dilutive, distractive things are: fight with random people 'cause they want to fight with you, attack the core network and make it confusing and introduce anxiety, and confusion and fear, uncertainty and doubt into the base layer. Right? And then attempt to imprint your ego, you know, on the base protocol, you know? Like, 'I gotta introduce this so my name will go down in history forever'." (2:38:55) My view: it's understandable to want Bitcoin to behave like the granite under Manhattan (his analogy); a solid bedrock that never changes. Especially if you truly believe Bitcoin will take over the world as SoV-only and "there is no second best". But IMO this is wishful thinking. While I agree it's near-impossible for an alt to overtake Bitcoin, I do think adoption could stall.
Luckily, Bitcoin isn't really a natural element. It's spontaneous order, more like language. Hard to change and no one can dictate changes, but if market wants it to change, it can.
Furthermore, despite Stephan asking a few questions in that direction, Saylor mostly failed to distinguish between protocol upgrades and general software maintenance.
Arguing against any hard/soft forks is one thing, but Bitcoin Core 26.0 can obviously not last for centuries...
Having said that, Saylor is of course free to not upgrade anymore and stick to Bitcoin Core 26.0 for as long as he lives.
I agree with you. If we assume bitcoin is a better payment protocol than fiat, the success of bitcoin isn't guaranteed just from that. It still takes people to think through the consequences for themselves, and adopt it for themselves, both as a recipient and by paying others in it. If people don't do this then it will still fail, since it is just numbers in a ledger unless it eventually has value as e-cash, which is fundamentally it's only use case. If there was absolute certainty that it had no value as a medium of exchange then it also has no value as a store of value, because you can't extract value from something which only exists to have value extracted from it, without serving some other purpose. Zaps are a good start but the adoption of bitcoin as payment has to outstrip all the threats to bitcoin. Increased bitcoin users per se does not guarantee bitcoin is winning this race.
Who is dan
I
feel
lonely
😡
I
feel
lonely
😟
$86 billion sounds like a lot until you realise the annual value of trading in yuan is over 100 trillion usd. So bitcoin is around 0.07% of that. But estimates are about 55 billion usd traded in gold so bitcoin is doing well relative to that.
I will help you for sats
A government that can't maintain a stable currency doesn't deserve to exist.
It can be used for many things. Will it be?
The 'Bitcoin is a Miracle that Will Save Us All' crowd don't really help bitcoin. How can you improve something or have people trust you to reccomend it to them if you refuse to see its weaknesses?
Money isn't pain unless you offer it and attach with it a request of pain. Money itself is inert, like technology.
I actually think you've got this one backwards.
The builders are despondent that bitcoin has gained very little mainstream traction as a global cashless payment system, and with base layer fees and l2 problems that seems to be further away than ever.
Meanwhile, the early adopters and maxi peddlers have gained exit liquidity from ETFs that give bitcoin nothing by way of increased useability or value.
I think anyone who espouses the virtues of Bitcoin to a non-bitcoiner (freedom money, decentralised, separate and fortressed from government coersion, confiscation or control) and then refers that person to a KYC exchange is a fraud.
Imagine selling someone a gold bar, after convincing them of the necessity for sound money, real currency and soverign ownership, and that the money they are handing over in exchange is worth little, but not telling them there is a government tracking device inside the bar that alerts the government when it is aquired, and how much the bar is worth when it is. But this person selling is holding gold bars the government doesn't know about, and wants cash for them. That's what's happening.
No, my arguments apply. Bitcoiners advertise it as a way out from government surveillance but then direct people to kyc exchanges
And how do you suggest people buy it? Your friend again?
What is a legal way to remove kyc? Not that your coins can't be traced to you, but your purchase can't be
It is to get it anonymously, or else too difficult or risky for 99.9% of people
I think that's you