pull down to refresh
86 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 9 Mar freebie \ on: AGREE/DISAGREE: Everyone will eventually be able to self-custody bitcoin bitcoin
It's a mathematical impossibility. If you cannot afford your own UTXO, you have to trust someone who can.
Solutions that suggest otherwise are advocated for by either clowns that can't decipher Bitcoin from shitcoin, or outright frauds using class-warfare tactics wrt UTXO affordability that advance their agenda.
Solutions that suggest otherwise are advocated for by either clowns that can't decipher Bitcoin from shitcoin, or outright frauds using class-warfare tactics wrt UTXO affordability that advance their agenda.
I think people would give you more credit if you don't ignore nuances and don't speak in absolutes against things you disagree with. It makes you look biased.
reply
I am biased, towards my version of the truth. Anyone who believes anything should be. Who learns from milquetoast takes?
Being incendiary at times serves to provoke debate or reflection, because if I base my positions on sound reasoning, those who disagree must therefore be unreasonable. Gentle persuasion is futile if someone isn't reasonable or consistent.
If someone thinks I'm wrong, that's great:
They either can stew about it until they realize better, or put me in place, in which case I learn something. That's still a win to me.
In the best case, and oh so common, is their emotions show and can be disected in public... This is important because narratives are a weapon of mass manipulation.
reply
I was thinking about your exchange with @supertestnet on twitter when I wrote this.
I wonder if there is a way to predict the cost of "affording your own utxo"? It does change the conversation if holding your own utxo becomes expensive enough that only corporations, governments, and family office types can do it.
reply
if there is a way to predict the cost of "affording your own utxo"
That's at the crux of the problem I think when people propose solutions, they're implying they've been able to make this prediction, which is impossible.
And without an accurate prediction, it's impossible to evaluate trade-offs of any alleged solution, or if it's even a solution at all.
This is not a new conversation, it's how BCashers misinterpreted "Peer 2 Peer" to such an extreme that they ended up with "Poor 2 Poor".
There is an emotional trigger here, the same that has been used in class-warfare since the beginning of mankind. The urge to signal ones own virtues about equality and equity makes people willing to believe the impossible.
These feels based narratives are why the questioning of fork use-cases trigger proponents so. It's a threat to their fragile reality, as illustrated by the many angry and denalist responses as seen elsewhere* in that thread.
- not implicating @super_testnet, I know that he is thoughtful and truly seeks understanding
It's also a bit of the weak men create hard times meme. There's no reason to believe that owning of real Bitcoin will be any less attainable than owning a home, so a hyperfixation on that just shows that you didn't understand what you had, which always leads to ruin.
BCashers were created to serve as a warning to others.
reply
reply
A lot of people (myself included) want bitcoin to be "money you can send to anyone anywhere anytime and no one can stop you." And conversations about the technical limits of bitcoin challenge this.
If the only way I can get the "no one can stop you" part is hitting the chain and that costs $1000, then I it isn't really "money I can send to anyone anywhere."
And if it doesn't have the "no one can stop you" part, it's not even bitcoin is it?
It feels like I am just hoping that with the right little tweak and the right innovations, we can have both.
reply
I know, history repeats. We already went through this with the big blockers, and will probably have to forever and ever in various forms.
Nature finds a way to create a two party system.
reply