172 sats \ 12 replies \ @DarthCoin 14h \ on: Bitcoin cold war bitcoin
Guys please stop with these aberrations about "states that stack BTC". Do you really forget why we are here? Bitcoin is to dismantle the states. Bitcoin is for individuals not for the states.
Just a simple question: if all states stack BTC and not use it, what are you going to use? The tokens they will give you ? Are you out of your mind with this bullshit?
write
preview
260 sats \ 5 replies \ @alt 10h
Bitcoin is permissionless, so it doesn't matter who it's "for", anybody and everybody can use it, which necessarily includes state actors.
The thing is that even if nation states capture large Bitcoin reserves and hence capture large amounts of wealth, they still don't get to control Bitcoin. However, in gaining wealth through Bitcoin, they will lose their ability to extract wealth from their productive citizenry via inflation.
A nation state adopting Bitcoin will only have access to the finite amount of wealth that they themselves control, instead of the near infinite "wealth" that they can currently access by inflating their money. A bitcoin state must then either operate at profit or they will soon find that they have no Bitcoin left to spend. The conclusion is that Bitcoin will force states to operate efficiently, and I believe that the only way they can do that is to downsize massively.
A state adopting Bitcoin may be wealthy but it will necessarily be small.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @javier 9h
Let's make an analogy:
For thousands of years, states have used gold. For thousands of years, thieves and mafia have used gold. If we consider gold to be a good thing (at least before Bitcoin), does that mean that thieves, mafia and states are good?
Obviously they aren't. This is a fallacy.
It doesn't matter if states use Bitcoin. That doesn't make them good at all. They are just using a good thing for (very) bad purposes, as usual.
reply
120 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 10h
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @alt 9h
"Nation states will buy Bitcoin because it's permissionless, but this won't give them any more control over the network, and will in fact accelerate their downfall by removing their ability to extract wealth via inflation. A state that ends up operating on Bitcoin will necessarily be much smaller and constrained than it is today."
"STATIST"
I still can't work out if you're a troll or if you're just a bit dense, Darth.
reply
125 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 9h
Please answer this simple question: If a state have the control of a BTC wallet keys, who really OWNS those BTC? How that state will help YOU just by keeping the keys of that BTC wallet? WHO is "the state" ?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @alt 9h
  1. Depends on the arrangement, multi-sig and so on could place ownership in the hands of a group or committee. I don't see how it's relevant.
  2. I never said the state would help me by virtue of holding Bitcoin. Rather, by the development of a Bitcoin standard the state will necessarily shrink. This does help me, it stops hindering me, because I don't believe the state is actively helpful.
  3. Again, not sure how this is relevant to the point.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @CheezeGrater 10h
He is stating a likely reality, Bitcoin is for Everyone with a capital E... that means states as well.
Please share how you propose stopping states from stacking?
reply
1011 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 10h
how you propose stopping states from stacking?
Individuals stacking more and stop using fiat. That's it.
Bitcoin is for Everyone
Nope...
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @CheezeGrater 10h
That's the beauty of states stacking, they will accelerate the devaluation of their own currencies.
States having sats does not equal states controlling Bitcoin, it does however shift incentives away from fighting Bitcoin, especially if they are competing with each other in order to have some.
We might need to speed up layer 2 improvements if we want to keep decentralization up though, if states do start stacking hard it's going to become very expensive to manage channels.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02a9a61fdc 13h
I read this as a thought experiment. What if states start to stack and is it likely? Not necessarily supporting or liking the idea, just observing.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @crrdlx OP 10h
I don't think it's realistic to think that states will be dismantled. Maybe that's an aspiration for some, but then there's reality.
reply
130 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9h
What is a state? Let's go back to basics...
Saying that is not realistic it means you love slavery...
reply