pull down to refresh

I'm not sure if this counts as a rage quit, but it might be. The article is mostly a bid for attention, but it's interesting as an artifact, nonetheless.
Mike Brock kinda lost it when Trump II happened, maybe even in the lead up. For a while he was one of the rare very liberal bitcoiners running around, and I enjoyed his takes because they gave me something to think about.
He is heavy on the polemic statements, light on details, but it's worth a read if you want to hear what a Bitcoiner who has given up sounds like.
I'd feel better about dismissing his frustration if it weren't for meager adoption of self-custody, people worried about jpegs in the blockchain, and a culture dominated by treasury company CEOs who post shit ai-pictures of themselves.
But here’s the trick: if you build systems premised on the assumption that everyone is your enemy, you create the very conditions where everyone becomes your enemy. The prophecy fulfills itself. Trust becomes impossible not because humans are inherently untrustworthy, but because you’ve built an architecture that punishes trust and rewards defection. And then you point to the wreckage and say, “See? I told you humans can’t cooperate. Good thing we have Bitcoin.”
This is Austrian economics. The fever dream that animated Mises and Rothbard, that Ron Paul spread like gospel, that the crypto faithful have absorbed as metaphysical truth. The claim that inflation is theft, that fiat currency is government tyranny, that “hard money” restores natural order, that the market—if just left alone—would produce spontaneous harmony.
424 sats \ 1 reply \ @jimmysong 6h
I sat down with Mike and talked to him for several hours back in 2022. From that conversation, I concluded that his priority is always his politics, and at a more fundamental level, his confidence in his own worldview.
We talked about a lot of things in those few hours, including libertarianism, COVID lockdowns, Bitcoin, Austrian economics. His take was consistently progressive, though he claimed to have been libertarian at some point. He defended the lockdowns, thought libertarian principles were BS, that Austrian economics was bad.
So for someone like that, I was surprised to hear that he was into Bitcoin, but then I learned that he worked for Jack Dorsey and it was actually Jack that convinced him over a number of weeks (interestingly, there was very little actual argument, just exposure to Bitcoin and its ideas). I'm guessing that once he left Dorsey's orbit (I don't know that he has, this is my speculation), his loyalty to Bitcoin disappeared with it.
It's really hard for progressive BItcoiners. Not only do they have their own political tribe against Bitcoin because of Trump, but their worldview is increasingly us vs them, which doesn't allow for much dissension in anything. I've seen a lot of progressive Bitcoiners drop one of the two labels. Mike obviously dropped the latter.
reply
well said, and interesting tidbit... had no idea that was his background.
Inevitable... sad to see, but still inevitable
reply
196 sats \ 10 replies \ @optimism 15h
But here’s the trick: if you build systems premised on the assumption that everyone is your enemy, you create the very conditions where everyone becomes your enemy.
He completely misses the meaning of "Bitcoin is for enemies", but that makes sense if you're neck-deep in politics. He should have read #1254359!
reply
100 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek 12h
Yeah, the beginning is already a great example of just reading into something what you want to read:
Bitcoin is for enemies. They say this. Seriously. Look it up.
It's an article for a specific audience. I feel bad for the little attention I paid to it. Even though I guess we should be aware of how bitcoin is portrayed by our "enemies."
reply
50 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 12h
Propagandists be propagating.
reply
121 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 12h
At least his bio is funny:
Ex-tech exec, now a reluctant Cassandra. Deeply unfashionable. Penning dispatches from democracy's peril at notesfromthecircus.com. 2+2=4, even when power insists otherwise.
And it reminded me why I don't describe myself in my bio or here. I’ve read so many bios I can’t take seriously that I feel like, no matter what I write in my own bio, other people will feel the same about it.
I’m probably overthinking it, but that is definitely me.
reply
218 sats \ 4 replies \ @Taj 11h
I remember Jack D saying on Nostr in the early days that the bigger the bio, the less trustworthy the npub, or something along those lines
reply
268 sats \ 1 reply \ @jimmysong 7h
Funny because Brock worked for Jack D. Actually was in charge of adding Bitcoin purchasing to Cash App IIRC.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taj 4h
reply
70 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
If only the reverse were true lol
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 10h
Interesting
reply
175 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 8h
you aren't overthinking. I've always liked your about page.
bios are hard. The temptation to be self-important is real.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 8h
Thank you, my insecurity appreciates you.
Now I think we’re both overthinking haha
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 3h
yeah, my god I had fun reading this.
"Bitcoin is for fascists!" is definitely a new FUD, not gonna lie
reply
just like racist and sexist before it, the word fascist is quickly losing all meaning
reply
133 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 5h
This guy seems seriously confused. He can HFSP.
reply
He sounds hysterical. If this is what he thinks about Bitcoin, why on earth did he like it to begin with? To 180 on Bitcoin like this means you were either extremely stupid, extremely delusional, or extremely disingenuous. Take your pick.
reply
But strip away the economic mysticism and here’s what “hard money” actually means: it systematically advantages existing wealth holders and disadvantages workers and debtors. It makes wealth accumulation easier and wage earning harder. It turns the economy into a game where those who already have capital watch it appreciate while those who work for wages watch their purchasing power erode.
This isn’t accidental. This is the point. “Hard money” is oligarchy with a white paper.
Also, this is just wrong. Fiat money empowers capital holders (holders of real assets) over wage earners (whose wages are denominated in nominal fiat).
Seems like if he was ever a real bitcoiner he would've understood this. So I'm wondering what he ever saw in bitcoin to begin with. Maybe he never really understood the monetary theory of Bitcoin and just liked it because of its associations (with Wikileaks and the like).
That would be consistent with this current piece, where he seems to form his opinions about Bitcoin based on the people who associate with it, rather than based on the properties of the thing itself.
reply
203 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 17h
I thought he was a pretty smart guy until his podcast with Peter McCormack during the election campaign. Dude said so many contradictory things and said he was apolitical but essentially ran a 2 hour campaign ad for Kamala. I don't care who you vote for but I am not interested in listening to crazed partisans who pretend to be apolitical.
reply
329 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 15h
I agree. That podcast was bad. I remember listening and thinking: who took the jelly out of his donut?
reply
Hahaha
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 16h
not interested in listening to crazed partisans who pretend to be apolitical.
That is tiresome.
reply
I interviewed Mike Brock about Bitcoin recently - What Happens When Money Becomes Morality?
It was an interesting talk, but I lost count of the number of times he said "fascist".
reply
Thanks for sharing the link. I'll check it out.
reply
336 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13h
I think money should be permissionless, and I wish everyone who disagrees would have their bank accounts closed.
Is this an asshole thing to say? Because some people called me out for that when they made fun of bitcoin and I told them, “I hope your bank accounts get closed.” Then they were outraged.
If bitcoin is useless, why is it a problem if your bank accounts get closed?
reply
177 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9h
reply
What does "Bitcoin is for enemies" mean? #1254359
reply
163 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 18h
He has a tendency to create big strawmen from small real ones. To his credit it’s a lot more fun to read about big strawmen and maybe that’s what takes to make change?
reply
314 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules 13h
Champagne socialist complaining on behalf of wage earners. If inflation benefits the wealthy how come it erodes the purchasing power of workers whose salaries are denominated in the currency?
Government is an instrument of special interest groups, normal people don't have the same level of incentive to engage in it at the level of detail that would be required to compete with such coordinated minorities. The only solution for a regular person is to defect. They have been doing this with real estate, which has led to a housing crisis. Bitcoin just moves the store of value from a collectible that has a utility value that is unbounded to a neutral asset with no utility value at all, that is easier to secure.
reply
Fantastic comment!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 54m
I approve this comment well said.
reply
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @Entrep 14h
The critique of Austrian economics is on point. The ideology can be overly simplistic and neglects the complexities of real world economies.
It's interesting to see how this influences the Bitcoin community and its views on trust, cooperation, and the role of government
reply
Another whine about inclusion and diversity actually meaning inclusion and diversity from someone who wants freedom for others to do what the "progressive" thinks is best.
And when it isn't what they want, it's a lie.
Sad, but we can't stop people having their own views, or should we, the righteous?
reply
thank you for sharing this
reply
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @brent 12h
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @unboiled 14h
But here’s the trick: if you build systems premised on the assumption that everyone is your enemy, you create the very conditions where everyone becomes your enemy.
That feels like a cheap rhetorical sleight-of-hand trick being employed. I'd first need to understand a few questions before even being in a position to understand or critically think about it.
Which specific systems have been built on that premise? Where is proof or at least a logical thought process that such a system, where it exists, will lead to that outcome? Is that outcome inevitable, likely, or merely a possible one?
It's this type of handwavey assertion followed by "The prophecy fulfills itself" as a poor man's stand-in for "q.e.d." that makes it hard to take anything else written in this context seriously.
reply
i concluded that it isn't really worth taking any of his arguments seriously... he was clearly on a rant and not really interested in a serious examination of the facts
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 16h
Trump will be gone in a few years.
I didn't see much substance in this article. Does he have a solution?
reply
as @SimpleStacker said before me..
he sounds hysterical
he also seems to have it backward
reply