As a christian I am a monotheist. The goal isn't to be a monotheist. The goal is to know God. The issue would be if Christians were wrong and there were multiple gods. Some believe that. Its not an issue as long as we accept each other's difference and live in peace with one another. Humanities issues are the flaws with human nature. Not fundamentalism. Just wanted to say that first.

Here's the issue with maximalism.

We need people that hold the line. That have beliefs grounded in knowledge and facts. People that will not budge. People of principle. People like this help us avoid becoming deluded by compromise.

We also need pragmatic people. People that understand the tradeoffs and are able to see where a compromise is a win for everyone.

We also need people that are open and do not hold to dogma. These people can be the ones pushing back on us. Keeping all of us in balance.

I never worry about maximalists. Honestly all the talk by them and about them gets old. I don't call myself a maximalist but I just don't like labels. Labels are for lazy minded people. In the end this obsession with maximalism has nothing to do with bitcoin. I've said it before, its about psychology. I recommend reading "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. His research and book are helpful in understanding people that do not think like you think.

By all accounts the term Bitcoin maximalist was first termed by Vitalik Buterin, which begins to tell something within itself.

I’m not going to try to agree or disagree with Balaji directly - it’s somewhat over my head.

For me though, it comes down to the question- does Bitcoin have meaningful digital scarcity? I think it does, so am a Bitcoin maxi almost by definition. Since nothing else will match that meaningful digital scarcity- or the digital scarcity wouldn’t have even existed in the first place. Knut Svanholm nails this best.

So call me a maxi- if you like - but bitcoiner probably an easier term. I’m not sure it needs devotion to take this stance and purely to think that Bitcoin might be a better form of money than we’ve had before.

well he doesn't say it's wrong :P

Rereading the quote. He says "in particular is similar to Woke Capital in its fundamentalism. The main difference is that maximalism is a zealous mononumism"

Mononumism is a new word to me. But he's comparing apples and oranges. "Woke Capital" is an investment based on ideological grounds. The commonality between the two is belief. Not what the two groups believe.

Is his point that maximalists are ideological? I mean... OK. So what? Does anyone think that when bitcoin expands to broader adoption maximalists will be in the majority? I guess I really don't get the point of all this.

Honestly, this quote sounds like someone trying to sound smarter than they are. Granted, this person is probably much smarter than myself. I don't think maximalists are people that have something wrong with them. They simply believe that bitcoin is the best. That it was something that can't really be copied. That there is no second best. That it will eat all the competition. That all the shitcoins are scams. I share this view. Maybe that makes me a maximalist. Ok. So what. My belief will not change reality. The fact that I hold this view will not change bitcoin. It will not stop Eth. I'm either right, or wrong.

Like a lot of people here I struggle to define exactly what Bitcoin maximalism even is, although I might self identify as a maximalist.

Where I would disagree with his quote is that I don't deny the existence of other cryptocurrencies. They are there, there's no doubt. I just haven't found any that solve the particular use case of 'money' better than Bitcoin.

I also accept the fact that fiat currencies exist and they are also a form of money. They are currently the most widely accepted medium of exchange. But just because something is widely used or accepted doesn't make it better. There are many examples of this in history. At the turn of the 20th century horses where the most widely accepted mode of transport. We all know how that turned out.

I can see why someone might compare maximalism to religion but at the same time I find it very strange to liken a technology to a god. My belief in Bitcoin is not because I have faith, but because I put in the work to build up conviction from first principles. I've listened to every argument against it and why it might fail. I'm under no delusions that there are still risks, but I haven't found anything better that even comes close.

i dont know what bitcoin maximalism is. i think its supposed to insinuate a group or a person using force to make someone adopt Bitcoin without using force. So you are supposed to not like this group or person because he is forcing you to adopt bitcoin without forcing you to adopt bitcoin. its just nonesense.

But there are probably people who feel coerced into adopting bitcoin without actually being coerced into adopting it. i dont know what to do about that

Balaji says some interesting things but ultimately he's a shitcoiner and a troll. He likes being fiat rich and getting attention. A bit like Arthur Hayes in that respect. Best to file them under entertainment imo. Worth a read/listen but take it all with a grain of salt.

Maximalism is fine as long as that they don't make their identity more important than the reasons for becoming a maxi in the first place. That means discarding the label if the majority of people who identify as Bitcoin maxis make a decision that goes against the principles of self-sovereignty, privacy, etc.

I'm a 9.8 m/s² gravity maximalist.

9.8 m/s² is not a God, it's simply that other acceleration rates are inaccurate, unstable and break things.