Tell me you hate Bitcoin, but love the FIAT it can get for you, without saying that directly.
I could post an example, but instead of making something you can argue with, I'll let you imagine what that would look like to see if you can figure it out for yourself.
Tell them to deposit them into your custodial service (rehypothecation)
I think it realistically means that not everyone will have a UTXO, not that everyone can't self-custody.
Most people will ideally be in some n-of-n multi-sig arrangement with layers of peoples they can choose from to cooperate with while still being sovereign enough to be able to change groups or exit entirely when those peoples become less than cooperative.
For money to be useful it needs to be accepted by other people anyway, so the cooperation (but not the trust) of other people I think is a reasonable scaling solution.
Imma be real with you all. This is my red line.
If custodians become normalized because of a technical failing, and the Bitcoin culture continues to reject anything that might fix it (good technical reasons to reject are fine, but not nontechnical "just use a custodian" reasons)
These are the conditions under which I would hard fork.
but I'm patient though
but fuck you if this is your vision of the future.
River is perfectly fine to buy your Bitcoin from, but self custody what you've bought
"We don't do that here"
Proton of course for most games, but I've had to run a few non-Steam games through bottles.
It was no accident. The FSF was working on a libre software OS for years, but they were taking a while to release their kernal (Hurd) when people found like Linux kernal they ported all that work to it.
I really am under the impression that Wall Street views Bitcoin as a phantom to blow wind into right now.
Can't sign software with them (Probably. Send guide if you can)
Vigilance is still necessary to maintain Bitcoin's status quo. Even though it's properties allow the vigilant to maintain a strong position with ease, if that ease results in relaxation, the ever persistent games of subversion (of the majority SHA256 hashrate chain).
At present I would judge the current Bitcoin community at large to be decently vigilant with a major failing in being way to lax about ETFs and custodial Bitcoin that I believe stems from ignorance of the systemic risks they pose.
This is typically an ebb and flow of newbies believing some nonsense that gets corrected by a slap in the face by a rugpull (a rugpull is a less concerning risk among the risks that custodial Bitcoin presents btw), but there is a growing corperate interest in propagandizing and maintaining this belief in growing a lax custodial Bitcoin userbase.
The vigilance required here is with maintaining culture basically. It should be the case that people will all self custody eventually because Bitcoin is literally the easiest thing in existence to self custody in bulk, but only so long as it stays easy to self custody (another thing that requires vigilance. Wallet design that empowers users and even sensible soft fork discussion that achieves that end)
But both censorship resistance and spending use cases are not the desirable reason that micro-strategy, ETFs, and those that buy ETFs care about. They may in fact believe their Bitcoin to be "cleaner" and therefore more valuable in their eyes.
But the point comes down to, don't be too relaxed. It takes vigilance to maintain what we have here.
Oh you know why? I limited my imagination to 2-of-2. This will probably be pretty great for multi-party channels