Sachin on Nostr: It is not a rejection based on a philosophical argument but an economic one. An ...

It is not a rejection based on a philosophical argument but an economic one.

An individual will not want to hold a monetary good that gets confiscated periodically in portions just because they are holding it. I can speak for myself with utmost confidence and say that I certainly will not want to.

It's a rejection based on examining my own incentives and preferences to stick to the current set of rules, after considering the risks and threats of doing so.

If someone else finds such a monetary good desirable, then they are free to run a version of Bitcoin that has those rules. I will not be running that version on my node and will instead stick to the version with the current rules that has no 'holding fees'.

I elaborated further in this note:

quoting nevent1q…ca2h

It comes from him making a base assumption that there is something called 'Bitcoin ethos', interpreting said imaginary ethos in his own way and opining that the code that everyone runs on their node should adhere to these ethos.

This stands contradictory to the fact that there is no 'official' reference implementation or spec that the Bitcoin network adheres to. (Something that Bcashers wanted if I remember correctly)

There is no such thing as 'Bitcoin ethos'. Just code, consensus rules and a database. If he wants to change any of this, he can indeed fork off, run his own version on his node and convince other people to run it.

I won't.