sovereignbeef on Nostr: Claiming that Saylor distinguishing Bitcoin from other digital currencies ...
Claiming that Saylor distinguishing Bitcoin from other digital currencies “redefines Bitcoin as a mere investment asset” is a straw man, at best and intellectually disingenuous, at worst.
Bitcoin IS a commodity without an issuer backed by digital power and shitcoins are assets with issuers backed by fiat currency (nothing). That’s not a debate.
I notice there’s a sect of Bitcoiners who possess the same allegiance to Satoshi’s writings as the BSVers do. Clinging to a specific group of words while ignoring the subsequent evolution of Bitcoin thereafter is, frankly, intellectually shallow and is akin to the way religious fundamentalists approach their arguments.
I am by no means suggesting that I have this figured out, but I do consider 2 points that make me optimistic about Saylor’s efforts:
1. If the guy who invented the pottery wheel wrote a whitepaper, he would have defined it as something meant to be used for spinning pottery. If that guy eventually decided to “move onto other things” and someone turned that wheel right side up and attached an axle, barrow and two handles to it started selling wheelbarrows - that’s a good thing. (This point is more for argument’s sake.)
2. It’s obvious to me that Satoshi had an understanding of money that rivaled anyone’s. Surely he agreed with Hayek in that the only way to have good money again would be to take it out of the hands of government and introduce it in a sly, roundabout way. A “peer to peer electronic cash system” seems like a sly, roundabout way to introduce sound money to the world.
Saylor has also read Hayek. And has also likely gathered Satoshi’s attempt at a sly, roundabout way. And now - quite possibly - is infiltrating Bitcoin into the world of traditional finance in a sly, roundabout way through his company. If that is indeed his plan, then everything he’s done so far checks out.
Bitcoin is a benevolent virus and if the government wants to attempt to regulate censorship-resistant money while integrating it within their system - let them. If Bitcoin is captured by the state then it was never good enough to become sound money. But if it is good enough - which I believe it is - this integration with traditional finance will only accelerate its adoption along with fiat’s collapse.
Bitcoin IS a commodity without an issuer backed by digital power and shitcoins are assets with issuers backed by fiat currency (nothing). That’s not a debate.
I notice there’s a sect of Bitcoiners who possess the same allegiance to Satoshi’s writings as the BSVers do. Clinging to a specific group of words while ignoring the subsequent evolution of Bitcoin thereafter is, frankly, intellectually shallow and is akin to the way religious fundamentalists approach their arguments.
I am by no means suggesting that I have this figured out, but I do consider 2 points that make me optimistic about Saylor’s efforts:
1. If the guy who invented the pottery wheel wrote a whitepaper, he would have defined it as something meant to be used for spinning pottery. If that guy eventually decided to “move onto other things” and someone turned that wheel right side up and attached an axle, barrow and two handles to it started selling wheelbarrows - that’s a good thing. (This point is more for argument’s sake.)
2. It’s obvious to me that Satoshi had an understanding of money that rivaled anyone’s. Surely he agreed with Hayek in that the only way to have good money again would be to take it out of the hands of government and introduce it in a sly, roundabout way. A “peer to peer electronic cash system” seems like a sly, roundabout way to introduce sound money to the world.
Saylor has also read Hayek. And has also likely gathered Satoshi’s attempt at a sly, roundabout way. And now - quite possibly - is infiltrating Bitcoin into the world of traditional finance in a sly, roundabout way through his company. If that is indeed his plan, then everything he’s done so far checks out.
Bitcoin is a benevolent virus and if the government wants to attempt to regulate censorship-resistant money while integrating it within their system - let them. If Bitcoin is captured by the state then it was never good enough to become sound money. But if it is good enough - which I believe it is - this integration with traditional finance will only accelerate its adoption along with fiat’s collapse.