pull down to refresh

Bitcoin is Forever Money with Michael Saylor - What Bitcoin Did
1714 sats \ 20 comments \ @Wumbo 27 May bitcoin
write
preview
related posts
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 27 May
Honestly I won’t be surprised if MicroStrategy invests in ETH ETFs next. I just feel that he’s in it for the quick bucks
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Wumbo OP 27 May
Wumbo ratting: 15 out of 21
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Catcher 27 May
Do you have a 21 out of 21 for reference?)
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Wumbo OP 27 May
#549712
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Catcher 27 May
Thanks, saved for later:)
reply
41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 27 May
Man, even Saylor talks about how he launched a bunch of businesses and they failed. He isnt afraid to say the truth.
reply
199 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 27 May
I haven’t listened to this entirely. Im hoping Saylor has some reasonable things to say about not funding development (even if he’s wrong).
reply
200 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 27 May
I'm not sure I buy the premise. What does "we need to fund devs" actually mean?
I mean, aren't most devs already working for large Bitcoin companies? Do we do that for anything else? Do we specifically try to write blank checks to fund "HTTP devs"?
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, how would that even work? An ETF writes a check monthly to github committers? How? Pro-rata based on Lines of Code?
Or does it mean that all devs would work for same company and ETF pays them?
"Funding devs" sounds like a nice thing to say/do, but I think most people who say it don't actually ponder the specifics for more than 10 secs to see its fraught with uncertainty.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Wumbo OP 27 May
Don't get your hope up. It was a bunch of word salad.
reply
251 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 27 May freebie
I think it was a reasonable take. My summary of his view regarding this is "money with strings attached" vs "money with no strings attached":
The criticism I've got on this topic is pointing out to certain Wall Street firms that maybe it's not a good look to provide unlimited ungoverned funding to development efforts that might destabilize the network. For example, would you want the people that support the other crypto networks, the PoS networks that are centralized, would you want them to be funding bitcoin development initiatives to make bitcoin better?
The clip is just a glimpse of his view though. I think overall, he's just very conservative which makes sense as someone running a public company (he explains himself that way in-depth in the interview). He doesn't see scaling L1 as an urgent problem (via covenants for example) and would rather wait for a few more years to see what the free market comes up with.
He definitely has some "weird takes" like that the current and potentially future interests of some entities like companies, banks and governments don't seem to be considered by devs which are definitely controversial since they go against the "bitcoin ethos" but in the end, it always seems for him to come down to conservatism and how "big protocol" is similar to "big government".
Btw, imo, he answers too much with elaborate analogies which make him sound like a politician that evades questions but I think that's just how he is, lol. Maybe that's what you mean with "word salad", @Wumbo?
reply
146 sats \ 1 reply \ @gmd 27 May
I know less than zero about bitcoin core development politics but what he said sounded reasonable on the surface. Like many charities, there can be a perversion of incentives over time and excessive funding without an explicit purpose in mind might create a "development industrial complex" where there is pressure to push updates for the sake of it. Extreme conservatism seems more prudent when there is now 1.3+ trillion at stake.
reply
119 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 27 May
"development industrial complex" where there is pressure to push updates for the sake of it
This reminds me of government and lawmaking. Never-ending legislative diarrhea, because if they tighten the sphincter the taxpayers may - God forbid - rightly conclude their jobs are redundant.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 27 May
He said he doesn't want shitcoiners (presumably alluding to Cathie Wood) to fund Bitcoin dev.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 27 May
It’s in my fountain queue but I haven’t listen to it yet.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @cascdr 16 Aug
@CHADBot /summarize
reply
473 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 16 Aug bot
You have summoned CHADBot. Please zap this post 473 sats to receive service.
Made with 🧡 by CASCDR
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 16 Aug bot

Summary

  1. TLDR: Michael Saylor discusses the importance of thoughtful and principled Bitcoin development, emphasizing the need for conservatism in protocol changes to ensure network security and integrity.

Key Points

  1. Importance of thoughtful and principled Bitcoin development.
  2. Emphasis on conservatism in protocol changes to protect network security.
  3. Distinction between layer 1, layer 2, and layer 3 development speeds.
  4. Concerns about big tech and Wall Street influence on Bitcoin development.
  5. Comparison between government regulations and Bitcoin protocol changes.
  6. Discussion on the role of leaders in the Bitcoin community and the responsibility to avoid creating division.
  7. Personal journey and evolution of views on Bitcoin development.
  8. Reflection on the Taproot upgrade and unintended consequences.
  9. Consideration of risks and potential impacts of introducing new features to the Bitcoin protocol.
  10. Importance of seeking community consensus and being politically sensitive in protocol changes.

Top Quotes

  1. "I'm quite the optimist. I actually think that Bitcoin is gonna succeed. It is succeeding. It's succeeding as fast as it could reasonably succeed, and we ought to try to avoid the tendency to f with it."
  2. "I think when you're inserting stuff in the protocol, whether it's SegWit, whether it's Taproot, whether it's the next, it should outlast any politician, and it should outlast any government."

Conclusion

Michael Saylor's discussion highlights the importance of thoughtful and conservative Bitcoin development to ensure the network's security and integrity. He emphasizes the need for community consensus, political sensitivity, and a cautious approach to protocol changes to maintain Bitcoin's success and longevity.
Made with 🧡 by CASCDR
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Athena 27 May
It's very new thing for me. I haven't heard about it.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 27 May
What is a very new thing for you?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Wumbo OP 27 May
Relatively new account, My Guess is they have not heard of What bitcoin did podcast.
reply