202 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury 11 Jan \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
Isn't this -- the part you quoted -- basically true, though? I mean, we could debate "attack" I guess.
I will indeed debate "attack" alongside the hysterical comparison to Jan 6th lol
To me, "attack" represents the use of violence to undermine an opponent, whereas with Bitcoin we simply have people peacefully exiting the incumbent system for something better. If Bitcoin is an attack, then so is basically every new development in the free market. If you opened a wildly successful coffee shop, I wouldn't consider it an attack on Starbucks.
reply
Starbucks might, though.
And one must consider the larger btc cultural context, e.g., this. Whatever we might think about it, if you tune in to the dominant btc ethos for the last decade, and the cypherpunk ethos that it sprung from, the most prominent self-presentation is extremely adversarial to the state.
They literally, say it, repeatedly. Some of the sacred cows also moo it. So I can't blame a person for taking it seriously.
reply
Interesting point. Perhaps now we're making the distinction between Bitcoin the protocol and the information warfare conducted by many of its users, which I'll concede is a reasonable application of "attack".
It's commendable that you managed to get me to think deeply about a shitpost.
reply