₿en Stiller 🏳️ +21m/btc is the block on Nostr: nostr:note1ftsqae3mq3xnpn5k45jkggchw9tpqw58f2rmweur6jltctqmet4qfj4sj5 ...

quoting note1fts…4sj5

Good afternoon.

The Bitcoin conference currently has a lot of political theater, and the Trump headliner is front and center much to everyone’s joy or frustration depending on where you stand on that, but I’ll take a moment to highlight something that’ll get lost in the shuffle.

Today on the main stage, Jason Maier (author A Progressive’s Case for Bitcoin) interviewed progressive congressman Rho Khanna. They talked about a lot of stuff but the TLDR headline takeaway statement from Khanna was “Bitcoin is about freedom. Bitcoin is about human rights.”

And around the same time, a bunch of Democrat Congress people sent a letter to the DNC chair saying the party needs to embrace this industry better, and basically that the Warren wing of the party isn’t the way to go here anymore. Whether it’s polling data, sheer numbers about how many Americans own this stuff, or more knowledge conversations about bitcoin’s energy impact and other things, being anti-bitcoin is a losing strategy.

Yes, a lot of this will be forgotten after the election, both from Republicans and Democrats. Politicians gonna politic. And there will be shitcoinery. Politicians are currently in their pandering phase. But when I began writing about this industry nearly seven years ago, I would not have expected to see this much explicit support by 2024.

The builders, the educators, the advocates- all of your work does matter. At least when it comes to protecting Americans and others against some of the most potentially hostile government positions, the narrative war is working. We need more work on the right to privacy, and that imo is the harder battle, but given how successful things have been on other fronts, I think that front is workable too.

Immutable money. Unstoppable voice. Endless memes.

quoting note1n24…te0r

Bitcoin doesn't need governments to win. It doesn't need governments to stack it. It doesn't need to ask for help.

Instead, the bar is much lower. Bitcoiners, in their preferred jurisdiction, would benefit by not being hassled by their government. They'd like to be able to buy it without problems. They'd like to be able to pay for energy and equipment and mine it in peace. They'd like be able to write open source code without facing legal problems. They'd like to be able to operate reputable businesses related to it. If they can't, then some of them will move as necessary.

It's helpful for the ecosystem to have non-hostile jurisdictions in the world. And for those that can't move without great sacrifice (i.e. most people), it's helpful for them that whatever jurisdiction they are in, is non-hostile.

So it's good that bitcoin is getting into the Overton window. The industry has some power now. Bitcoin benefits from builders and educators and advocates. It benefits from those who do their best to prevent the worst legislative outcomes against self-custody, against privacy, against running a business, against mining, etc.

But Bitcoin doesn't need to pander to them to proactively support us, and bitcoiners should recognize the sliminess of politician incentives when they come to pander to us. While it's in their best interest to build national reserves if they actually figure this thing out, we don't need them to build reserves.

I think that's the helpful line. That's where the signal is. To the extent that we minimize how much we are tread on, and build multi-national accepting footholds to pivot around, we gradually build what we want to exist.

We ask to be treated fairly, we use our resources to help ensure that we are, and to the extent that we are not then we adjust as necessary.