pull down to refresh

I say it over and over again. They aren't sending their best. I'm referring to the Gary Gensler interview on MSNBC's SquawkBox. It was interesting to listen to his criticisms of Bitcoin. It's especially interesting when you realize that this man taught a course at MIT on Bitcoin. Many Bitcoiners are familiar with the course, and have called out his nonsense, his lies, and misrepresentation of Bitcoin since his time at MIT. I thought I would jot down some of my thoughts. Most Bitcoiners could write this but I wanted to get this out of my system. It seems pretty clear to me that Gary decided long ago to say what he needs to say to get into the positions he wants to get into. He's a shill for fiat plain and simple. He's a political animal. A bureaucrat who is doing the bidding of his overlords. With that out of the way, here are a few of the issues Gary Gensler seems to have with Bitcoin. More accurately, most of these are issues with crypto and the human race, not Bitcoin.

Fraud

While SBF wasn't mentioned he's the best example. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin. Fraud exists all over economies. What Gary is really pointing out is the SEC's impotence. They cannot prevent fraud and Bitcoin just exposes their lack of power and control. The populace should not trust the state to keep them safe because it cannot. And if it cannot then why does it exist? Why does it (SEC) have a monopoly. What if we had many watchdogs over markets that one could go to for confirmation that an organization is operating above board. Oh yeah, we do. Its called Bitcoin's block chain.

Bankruptcies

Yet another example of something that isn't about Bitcoin. Its about companies taking risks and failing. Its about companies taking people's money and doing foolish things with it. Its called a free market. When companies fail, people learn lessons. Come on Gary. You know this.

Centralization (Exchanges)

Gary said financial markets tend toward centralization. Gary was talking about crypto exchanges. He says there are only a handful. It is interesting to me to point this out as a weakness of Bitcoin when all fiat currencies are completely centralized. Exchanges are not the currencies. They are not the asset. The reason there are so few exchanges has more to do with Gary than Bitcoin. Bitcoin does have centralization risk. Its with miners but the threat comes from the state. Not the protocol or Bitcoin the asset.

Illegal activity

Gary was asked about the tired line about Bitcoin being used for criminal activity. The host mentioned Jamie Dimon's comment that he would shut it down. As a reminder Dimon's bank was the one used by Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein didn't use Bitcoin. Joe Kernen would have none of it. He rightly pointed out that the criminal activity that uses the dollar far exceeds that done with Bitcoin. But this is really ceding the point. All currencies are used to do good and bad things. Always have been and always will be. The idea that someone like a banker could complain about this is laughable. Gary points out that Bitcoin is the leading token used by ransomeware. I do not know if that is accurate but it doesn't matter. This is like pointing out that we should not use the Internet because it is used for bad things. This debate gets us off topic. The fact that Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange by criminals is a strong case for its utility. One could even make the case that ransomeware is the ONLY thing that is forcing companies to improve their security. Those of us in the tech field have been pushing for greater security for years and have largely been ignored. Ransomeware threats have changed that.

Just an Accounting System

The one that really got me though was Gary saying "How many times do you have someone on this show saying they want to invest in something because of how the books and records are kept?". Gary knows this is BS. What Gary is trying to do here is categorize Bitcoin as an asset only and not as peer to peer cash system. Its both and he knows it. Gary describes currencies as mediums of exchange that are used in an economic area such as the United States, the European Union, or China. While this isn't wrong, Bitcoin breaks this model by making a currency that knows no borders, knows no managers, and has no centralized control mechanism. It is freedom money. Internet money. Anyone can use it and no one can stop you from using it.
Then Gary asked Joe Kernen if he trusted Bitcoin more than an Oracle database. That one took the cake. Bitcoin has a ledger that anyone can audit, which has thousands of instances (nodes) across the globe. Anyone can use their node to confirm their transactions. Bitcoin is open source. Anyone can audit the code. Anyone can use their node to audit the supply of currency in the system at any point in time. This has never existed in the history of humankind and to compare it to the dollar Is ridiculous on that face. He knows this. I believe he doesn't want the masses to know what Bitcoin is. This is the real threat. The masses understanding the status quo and that there already exists a better system. The value of Bitcoin is not only that the supply is capped but that the network is secure and you do not have to trust third parties. You can directly transact with anyone using any amount over any distance. The accounting system and network are key to the value prop of Bitcoin. Gary says, "Its just an accounting ledger". You know what. He makes a good point. This is what most shit coins are. Just an accounting ledger with no network affect, not decentralization, and no proof of work network protecting the ledger. But he wasn't talking about crypto. He was talking about Bitcoin. Come on Gary.

Is this the best they can do?

Is Gary really this bad at speaking out against Bitcoin? Or is it that he doesn't believe he needs to counter Bitcoin as a new currency, as a new store of value, as a revolutionary method of exchanging value and transporting it through time and space? My best guess is that Gary is used to going on these shows, like SquawkBox, and getting a bunch of softball questions with no follow-ups. No one usually forces him to prove his points with facts and data. He just depends on the fiat world to support his false claims without reservation. What I really wonder is that if Gary, for some reason, was willing to debate a good Bitcoiner on its merits would he actually come up with anything better than what we've heard from him so far? I really truly wish there were more critics of Bitcoin that would have a good honest debate. A debate on the merits of Bitcoin, its problems, its weaknesses, in an honest forum without stooping to these dumb, arguments that are easily quashed.
We Bitcoiners have these debates. We talk about the struggles and issues that Bitcoin could face, and it currently does face. We talk about its weaknesses as points of vulnerability. We also know that Bitcoin could be destroyed by the dollar if the central bankers would stop printing, would remove the power and ability of their system to inflate the currency. If they would simply go back to a Gold standard, but we know that this will never happen because it would require the central bankers and the politicians to have restraint. To put their well-being behind the rest of us. We know that they do not care about our long term well being. They only care about getting votes and enriching themselves. They are slaves to the fiat system of high time preference behavior.
Over the years of studying Bitcoin, I've come to the position that yes it is not perfect. There are issues, but I am not aware of any issues that make Bitcoin a worse standard to live on than fiat. It is superior in every way that I can see. I have concerns about privacy. I have concerns about mining centralization, but all of these concerns pale in comparison to the threat of fiat. Fiat will collapse, we know that it will happen. All fiat currencies eventually fail. All empires fall. And when the United States empire based on the US dollar fails, the carnage is going to be extreme. I'm thankful we do have an escape hatch. I'm thankful that we can use it today. It's truly a reason for hope.
They are accusing Bitcoin being used mostly in ransomware attacks... But what is gov taxation if not a huge ransomware?
reply
Exactly. The more I think about it, the main reason the shills do not use good arguments against Bitcoin is because it really exposes the state and the criminal activity it perpetrates. Bitcoin brings out the real incentive models at play. It exposes the truth. Bitcoin is a flood light exposing the rats in our society. Those who are rent seekers. Those who are robbing the rest of us. Those that are creating the problems they claim to be solving.
reply
It's also a sleight of hand describing proportions. Sure most ransomware attacks could use bitcoin. But most bitcoin transactions aren't ransomware payments.
Removing bitcoin would do nothing to prevent ransomware attacks.
reply
The most dangerous ransomware is the government...
reply
Amen. State governments are just a mafia organization that has brainwashed enough of the population into believing the plebs run the mob.
reply
I'm pretty sure fiat is still most commonly used in those anyway.
reply
236 sats \ 5 replies \ @pajdo 16 Feb
Here's an interesting debate from 3 weeks ago, focused on Bitcoin vs Gold: Quoth the Raven #329 - The Bitcoin Debate: Peter Schiff vs. Larry Lepard
reply
The real question for Schiff who shares many common beliefs with bitcoiners is if not Bitcoin then what? Gold? Does he really thing the world is going to go back to gold? There's a reason why the world went off gold. At first it was for technical reasons really. In an Internet age you can't send gold. And unless we can convince governments of the world to go back to a gold standard gold will never replace fiat. And even if the currency was backed by gold we would all be using IOUs not gold.
So far this debate is pretty one sided. I agree that Peter is much better than Gary but he's no where near smart bitcoiners. His arguments are pretty weak IMO. Larry Lepard however. Respect for his patience alone.
reply
Ok, I listened to the whole thing. It did get better toward the end. Larry is a patient man. I wish Peter would let go of the weakest of his arguments so they could have focused on the more interesting ones. The biggest issue I have with all of Peter's arguments is the fact that most people do not have custody of their gold. I am sure Peter has some real gold but I would bet a lot of bitcoin that most of his wealth is in paper gold. He used a LOT of straw men arguments against bitcoin that gold could not stand up against.
That said, glad I listened to it. Here's some sats.
reply
LOL, Schiff? Really. You must be kidding about this being a good debate. Don't get me wrong. It should be but I have a hard time believing it actually is.
reply
Well, I should caveat what I said. I think Schiff should get bitcoin. It wasn't until I realized he makes his money selling gold IOUs that I understood why he so adamantly opposes it. Its either that or shear arrogance. Most of the high intelligence opponents have mental blocks that stem from emotion.
reply
arguing with bitcoiners is his marketing schtick for boomers who don't get bitcoin but get sound money. can't stand the guy. he's not an idiot, I think he knows exactly what bitcoin is by now
reply
54 sats \ 1 reply \ @cascdr 17 Feb
Maybe it's just me but I did think his tactic of downplaying Bitcoin as "just a clever new way of doing bookkeeping" was a subtle move to try to establish dominance.
Joe imo did not properly emphasize the fact that it's liquid property that's resistant to inflation. He did do a good job of dismissing the whole ransomware bullshit.
I bet you deep down Gary knows what's up but his job is to lie on behalf of the empire.
reply
Yeah, I agree it was an attempt at dominance. You can see that in his tone of voice. I'm sure that was rehearsed or not the first time he's said that.
reply
I wondered this for a long time. It just seemed they could not come up with a real, and decisive argument. Then, at some point, it became obvious that 2 things tended to happen. First, people would have all kinds of arguments about why it would not work, then if those arguments were applied to fiat it suddenly made fiat appear weak. Second, game theory, and by people spending time finding the weaknesses of Bitcoin, they actually found it had strengths were fiat had weaknesses.
reply
This is pretty much what turned me into a bitcoiner. The more I tried to find the issues the more I saw the need.
reply
🙏 @kepford
reply
Excellent post! Bitcoin is not perfect but it’s certainly not as corrupt as the existing system…
reply
17 sats \ 8 replies \ @Fabs 17 Feb

Why can't we stop with these unnecessary posts?!

Oh, did person XY say something stupid about that thing you are especially fond of? So what?!

Let. Them. Be.

Let them jerk eachother off on how "in-the-know" they are by holding onto their narrative of Bitcoin going to zero, Bitcoin being a global Ponzi yada yada, its totally fine, they'll take themselves out.
I've been trying to show these sceptics and idiots the light for years now, they simply don't want to. That's it.
No matter how waterproof your arguments are, they simply can't- or want to get it.
Some listen and pick-up on advice, some will have to learn it the hard way, we chose the first, they choose the latter.

Stop feeding them and stop giving them attention.

reply
Because it is a good exercise to counter arguments that we will likely hear from prospective new coiners in the coming bull run. It will not be long before people start asking me again about bitcoin. There are going to be debates and one way bitcoin adoption will grow is with rational answers to common and dumb questions.
Another reason I posted this was to get people to share better arguments against bitcoin. Better debates.
Gary isn't on SN. I don't see how this is feeding him. I get it is of no interest to you. That's fine.
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fabs 17 Feb
It's not about Gary specifically, it's the general back-and-forth between camps.
People that are new will listen to both sides and decide for themselves what seems more rational for them, these debates mostly lead to nowhere in my experience; one side gets pissy at the other and in turn comes up with a point that pisses off the other side again and so forth... Hence why toxic and bitcoiner often find themselves mentioned in the same sentence.
I mean fuck, how did you and I end up on the pro-bitcoin side?! By devouring some goofy debates, or by reading-up and piecing the puzzle together ourselves?
I get that these debates have been valuable and important, but (again, imo) there'll have to be a time where we stop "defending" Bitcoin like some addicts and simply let it speak for itself; there's no better point one can make than having Bitcoin simply succeed.
There's no arguing against it.
reply
how did you and I end up on the pro-bitcoin side?! By devouring some goofy debates, or by reading-up and piecing the puzzle together ourselves?
For me it was both honestly. I listened to MANY people debating between bitcoin and shitcoins and fiat. But everyone is different. When I start diving into something I look for dissenting positions. Steelmanning arguments, weaknesses, and tradeoffs.
I hear what you are saying and I agree with it to a point. But, my wife who is all in on bitcoin asked me the other day. What are the weaknesses or things that concern you about bitcoin. I haven't done a great job of writing about these types of things and writing is one of the best ways for me to form my thoughts about something. Gary's appearance was just a good opportunity to write out some responses to common objections. And as I say, are these really the best arguments against bitcoin? Of course not. Bitcoiners come up with better ones but these bad ones will not go away. I think to many bitcoiners actually just hand wave away many objections largely due to coming from a different world view from the beginning.
Enjoy the feedback and your perspective. I think I know what you mean and I for sure think that being reactive can be a waste of energy. It didn't feel like that for me. I'm sure others found value. I'm also sure many didn't or wouldn't.
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fabs 17 Feb
Alrighty then, sweet, I also think that you get what I'm trying to say.
reply
I'd like to hear your best arguments against Bitcoin, though, honestly curious.
reply
I'm stilling trying to think them through and have been for some time but here are a few.
  1. Its not ready for world wide adoption as money. We will have to have L2s for it to truly be used as a replacement in our day to day lives. I'm not sure Lightning is the solution. It works but I'm not sure if it scales to world wide adoption. I believe bitcoin will get there but it isn't yet and for many people this is a big flaw.
  2. Miner centralization is a big threat.
  3. Irrelevance. It is possible that people just lose interest in bitcoin if the fiat system slugs along long enough. I do have concern that development and focus on it will wane over time and it will ossify.
I can't think of all of my concerns right now but those are a few. That said, I do not think they are likely to kill bitcoin.
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fabs 17 Feb
1, with you on that. 2, hearing differing opinions about this from the community. 3, might be, although I think that we have somewhat "made it" with the ETF-approvals- at least as an investment-asset.
reply
I do appreciate the feedback and perspective.
reply
Let the fools and our money remain parted.
reply
Totally agree with your points. Gensler is just another corrupt bureaucrat saying what he needs to say to keep his stupid job. To me all his bullshit is just damage control, since the most "powerful" government on Earth can't stop BTC despite trying so hard.
Now the suits are hungry and it's going to the moon, while their fiat house of cards collapses. I think they finally approved the spot ETFs not only because of the greedy pressure of Wall Street, but because they're so desperate and delusional that they seriously think this is how they will keep it under control, just like gold. So let them play with paper Bitcoin and will see eventually who wins.
I couldn't care less about that spineless worm of Gensler. The interesting part of that interview was Joe Kernen's reaction. Just like many of us, you could see that he's sick and tired of all their bullshit and wasn't afraid to let him know. This is how we win. Little by little people wake up and call their bullshit right in their face.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @KLT 17 Feb
It was hard to watch. I was embarrassed for Gary and the nonsense responses he was pulling out of his ass. His discussion points will age so poorly and I hope he’s alive to see how wrong he ends up being.
reply
Antonopoulos would destroy Gary Gensler and Elizabeth Warren together or separately in a debate. Andreas just has a much firmer grasp of the history of money, the deep problems with fiat (it is theft), and very few know more about Bitcoin and how it was fundamentally designed to counter the unconstrained printing press of our fiat money system.
reply
Maybe their best is just all they got. The smart ones are on the winning team
reply
I like that.
reply
reply
Can't wait for the day the worthless yellow metal gets destroyed when we double the gold supply over night through asteroid mining. Just smash any of the Kuiper Belt asteroids into the desert like Jeff Bezos and Elon try to do.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 17 Feb
Great summary. Bitcoin is still a huge blind spot for those who are deeply entrenched in the legacy system. Gary is one of the best examples of this.
reply
People in power have realized that they don't have to win a logical argument for their statements to be effective because most of the people don't think reasonably. It doesn't matter much if we can refute all of Gensler's statements because most of the people that hear Gensler will never hear or even seek out our refutation.
reply
Yep. This is one of many flaws with democracy.
reply
They Aren't Sending Their Best to Fight Bitcoin. Right?
Is this the best they can do?
Do you want to know the truth?
The real truth behind it all?
The real truth is that there is no "they". Gery Gensler isn't sent by a secret plot agains Bitcoin. Nobody is in control. The anti-Bitcoin movement isn't organized or structured. And nobody is secretly behind the scenes.
It's just old people being ignorant. They are being fearful of any change. They probably haven't even tried to think Bitcoin through. Not have spent any time considering it or being open minded enough to let go of their fiat-prejudices. Gensler has no capability to think outside the box he's used to.
reply
The best will take Bitcoin only, for work that promotes freedom one way or another!!
With a bit of luck the CBDCs will ultimately fail due to this :-)
reply
221 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 16 Feb
This is the meme I think of.
reply
Why would they send their best? They are overconfident and it's paying them off. Bitcoin is far more superior to Gensler and co.'s understanding. They are actually the followers of shitpapers and nullcoins...
reply
The smarter opponents are on social media playing their cognitive warfare games.
reply
I disagree. The best arguments I've every heard against bitcoin are from bitcoiners. The critics on social media are only marginally better than Gensler. The difference is that they don't have as much skin in the fiat game.
I'd love to see an example of what you mean though. Maybe I'm missing something.
reply
Bankruptcy is the biggest problem
reply
deleted by author
reply
Absolutely. Some of the words he was saying sounded like they came directly out of Senator Warren's mouth.
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author