The game theory (of incentivized hash chains with eventual consistency, aka chained proof-of-work) is indeed the enabler of "Bitcoin is for enemies", but this is not rhetorical: it is a design principle before anything else, one that results in permissionless participation.
Of course Bitcoin is for friends in your usage. There is a very strong tendency in some very loud Bitcoin circles to turn every catchy little thing into hyperbole. The enemies thing in reality doesn't have anything to do with your interactions using Bitcoin; it's just the safeguard that you and your friends can do what you want, because so can your enemies.
Bottom line, "Bitcoin is for enemies" means "No gatekeepers". If you want to argue for gatekeepers in Bitcoin, then yeah, you'll have a really hard time, at least in my circles. Or if you want to argue that there in fact are gatekeepers in Bitcoin right now, just point them out, and we can have a super fun time to undermine them. Let's go.
The game theory (of incentivized hash chains with eventual consistency, aka chained proof-of-work) is indeed the enabler of "Bitcoin is for enemies", but this is not rhetorical: it is a design principle before anything else, one that results in permissionless participation.
Of course Bitcoin is for friends in your usage. There is a very strong tendency in some very loud Bitcoin circles to turn every catchy little thing into hyperbole. The enemies thing in reality doesn't have anything to do with your interactions using Bitcoin; it's just the safeguard that you and your friends can do what you want, because so can your enemies.
Bottom line, "Bitcoin is for enemies" means "No gatekeepers". If you want to argue for gatekeepers in Bitcoin, then yeah, you'll have a really hard time, at least in my circles. Or if you want to argue that there in fact are gatekeepers in Bitcoin right now, just point them out, and we can have a super fun time to undermine them. Let's go.
Merry Christmas, Mike.