Bitcoin: anyone anywhere or everyone always? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Bitcoin: anyone anywhere or everyone always?

7764 sats \ 38 comments \ @Scoresby 2 Jan bitcoin

What do you see Bitcoin optimizing for? Is it an escape hatch from authoritarian control or a replacement for the fiat monetary system?

h/t Eric Voskuil "It's very important to understand that Bitcoin has no security in the white market. It can and likely will be swept away overnight. Bitcoin exists to aid desperate people who are willing to take the risk to use it. It doesn't exist to buy coffee and it's not an investment."

Anyone anywhere69.0%

Everyone always31.0%

29 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

276 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 2 Jan

In terms of what it's "optimized for", definitely the former. If it was optimizing for everyday use by normies, why not just use fiat. The whole point is to get to the point of everyday use while not compromising on security, privacy, and decentralization

136 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

I have often expressed the same opinion (get to everyday use without compromising security, privacy, decentralization). But I'm worried it's a bit of a naive outlook. Why not just stay 100% focused on maximum censorship resistance?

It seems like ease of use always comes at the cost of reduced censorship resistance. Is it possible to make a money that provides unstoppable coffee purchases?

I often wonder how much of the tension around development in bitcoin comes down to a lack of clarity/consensus between these two goals.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Skipper 2 Jan

Is it possible to make a money that provides unstoppable coffee purchases?

Bitcoin LN already allows for this. I don't get your point.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

Not at scale.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Skipper 2 Jan

Bitcoin is not for everyone

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

--> anyone anywhere

Now you get my question.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Skipper 2 Jan

yeah, i get it now

118 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Jan

Is it an escape hatch from authoritarian control or a replacement for the fiat monetary system?

The authoritarian control relay on the existing fiat monetary system... So if we get rid of this putrid system, we also get rid of the authoritarian system... simple as that.

Here is explained:

But the truth is that many people are still trapped in the fiat mindset... so it will take more 1-2 decades until people will realize the trap.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 3 Jan

Interesting Twitter thread -- discussion with BSV / bcash people. Good to hear that perspective from time to time.

150 sats \ 9 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Jan

I'll keep dropping this reference until the conjecture ends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Num%C3%A9raire

Once this is understood, these arguments lose meaning.

Fun fact: I used to work for Eric, sat outside his office early in my career at his software company in the pre-Bitcoin days. Smart guy I respect a lot, I just think on this subject he's right, but only if we assume the wrong assumptions re: Bitcoin's provenance and the incentives of the USG.

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

I'll admit I don't understand. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on his assumptions about Bitcoin's provenance and USG incentives.

Awesome fun fact. Bitcoin is a small world.

642 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Jan

I can't claim I understand him completely, haven't been in the meatspace together since before Bitcoin to discuss this stuff... but from some of his writings would parse that his views are rooted in the position that Bitcoin is black-market money and everything beyond that has no meaning. If it's not black-market money, it's useless. His project therefore prioritizes decentralization/lowering barriers to sovereign operation by making a better bitcoin implementation than core which prioritizes other things.

He pushes back when people doubt the ability of the government to get organized and drive it into the shadows. I think he believes Bitcoin's creation and trajectory has been organic, and that at some point that will become untenable to the state and the hammer will come down.

I think he's right in that the gov could drive it into the shadows, I agree with that so much that I think they'd have done it already so all the other thinking is flawed. My assumptions on provenance is that a sect within the intelligence apparatus created it and has nurtured it as an offramp to a system that was going to collapse with or without it. The incentives of the USG are exactly what Trump and anyone who's ever mentioned the Triffin Dilemma said they are, the dollars reserve status is a national security liability not an asset. Bitcoin is and has always been operation to save the US (and therefore the world) from international bankers in a war that's been fought now for centuries: https://x.com/shocknet_justin/status/1874881261493510252

17 sats \ 4 replies \ @elvismercury 3 Jan

I agree with that so much that I think they'd have done it already so all the other thinking is flawed. My assumptions on provenance is that a sect within the intelligence apparatus created it and has nurtured it as an offramp to a system that was going to collapse with or without it.

In other words: you agree so much with the idea that the govt could squash it (not literally eradicate it, but drastically curtail its use in practice) that you view its continued non-squashed existence as evidence that the aforementioned sect exists, and was the origin of btc?

27 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3 Jan

Yes

34 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury 3 Jan

I'm a good audience for this theory, since I believe that the govt could squash btc (using the above definition of 'squash') way more than other people seem to.

But it also seems dangerously unfalsifiable -- so long as btc isn't squashed, the theory holds; and whatever squash-like activity occurs can be explained away without too much trouble (e.g., not everyone in the govt has been read in on what's going on; smaller squash-like efforts are the system LARPing so as not to reveal the true game that's afoot, etc.)

Have you thought about what could erode your belief in this theory? Could anything?

246 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 3 Jan

That's what makes it theory I guess. The take that Satoshi being some anon individual is treated as fact because it's not falsifiable, reality is that Satoshi being an NSA op is just as likely (where I say it's more likely)... we may never know and even if we thought we did there's still no objective truth. If Satoshi did reveal themselves, how could we know for sure that wasn't itself a psyop?

Same goes with incentive theory, whether or not it was an executed plan or happened organically doesn't matter, what we have is clear evidence now that the government with the world reserve currency is being taken over by people that recognize it's ability to help save the US (or at least are paying lip service to this effect publicly).

I guess it comes down whether you prefer to believe in conspiracies, or coincidences?

Have you thought about what could erode your belief in this theory? Could anything?

This is a great question, I reserve the right to come back and resurrect this thread after an epiphany... but off the cuff I think it'd have to be a "rat poison" event like we agree is possible (squash). That would still reinforce my theory it's an intel op though, just a dark one rather than a white hat one.

The problem is, even if "Satoshi" revealed themselves and signed with their keys etc as proof... we still couldn't falsify the op theory. That Satoshir could be an actor/agent within the op, just as politicians and CEO are agents for the apparatus.

I suppose NSA/GCHQ etc could just publicly break the encryption or exploit backdoored chips and start sweeping exchange cold wallets for funsies, thus destroying the ledger, but even that still doesn't mean they didn't create it... it's just a different type of rat poison event.

I guess I just follow the evidence, but have to be content with the fact that evidence is not proof, because ultimately there's no objective truth at this scale.

29 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 3 Jan

This is a great question, I reserve the right to come back and resurrect this thread after an epiphany.

Please do, would be interested in evolution of the idea.

I guess I just follow the evidence, but have to be content with the fact that evidence is not proof, because ultimately there's no objective truth at this scale.

Yeah, and I suppose it's immaterial anyway -- if the theory is true, it would suggest a certain underlying buffer against 'catastrophe', but that doesn't mean that the catastrophe must actually be averted in practice, since catastrophe can unfold in many ways, even when people are trying to prevent it. (Nor does it mean that if the theory wasn't true, that catastrophe couldn't also be averted. You can just get lucky.)

It does make an evocative explanation, in any event. Will be a good lens to have access to in the days ahead.

reply on another page

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 2 Jan bot

https://xcancel.com/shocknet_justin/status/1874881261493510252

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Shugard 2 Jan

Bitcoin for anyone!

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 2 Jan

I'm not saying the analogy is exact, but the tweet reminds me of the response to gun control advocates:

"the 2nd amendment isn't about deer hunting."

82 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

I hope the analogy isn't exact. Sometimes I fear that by focusing on guns, the 2nd amendment has allowed us to cede so much other ground to the gov't. Surveillance is near-constantly imposed on almost all aspects of our lives, drones are quickly on the way to being highly regulated, many chemical substances are thoroughly controlled, and money is getting more controlled every year. Freedom to bear arms should have been freedom to resist the government, but that's nonsensical, I guess.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 2 Jan

Agreed

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Miranda 2 Jan

personally for me the use of BTC should always be, and for everyone everywhere, I do not think that overnight disappear, is the digital gold of the XXI century, and moreover is the basis of the birth of the cryptography on the blockchain, was and is the revolution of digital assets, and therefore, what I see is that there is very little culture regarding its use, but recently I gave a SN to a video of an autonomous community in Peru where the BTC in LN is their payment gateway for all the locals. and that seems to me revolutionary and incredibly testimonial for large companies and cities of people who are engaged in other payment models. thanks for sharing. sats for everyone.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 2 Jan

Bitcoin seems perfectly suited for global use, accessible to anyone anywhere. So, why can't we use it for everyday transactions like buying a cup of coffee? I understand the current technological limitations, but perhaps in the future, we'll find a solution. Maybe the Lightning Network will get there, or maybe a completely new technology will emerge. Regardless, the core principle of trustlessness must be preserved.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @LowK3y19 2 Jan

Liberation for all

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 2 Jan

can't say I understand the distinction here.

Both?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

Do you think both is possible?

In order to be truly censorship resistant you need 1) to hold your keys, 2) for miners to not be too centralized, 3) be able to get a transaction to the chain.

Do you think it will be possible to achieve this for a scale of transactions that includes daily small-value use all over the globe?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Jan

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @ama 2 Jan

Yes

17 sats \ 4 replies \ @Skipper 2 Jan

I dont get your question/options

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

Anyone anywhere: bitcoin is about censorship resistance: no one, no nation can stop anyone from using it to make a payment to anyone else anywhere on earth. But not necessarily convenient for paying for a coffee.

Everyone always: bitcoin is a better version of visa payments: digitally native money that ends up being the basis of most transactions on earth.

I'm asking which you think it should aim to be.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Skipper 2 Jan

But not necessarily convenient for paying for a coffee.

Have you heard of this thing called 'Lightning Network'?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 2 Jan

Lightning is great. At the moment, not something that will underpin most of the economic activity on the internet. Most of the soft fork proposals right now have to do with making lightning easier to use or making it easier to build things like lightning and ark.

I'm asking how much are we willing to change bitcoin to allow things like lightning and ark to be easy to use.

Would you accept potentially increased miner centralization (side chains)?

Would you accept complexity risk (new op codes to allow more complicated txs so that we can have offline lightning receives, channel factories, utxo sharing)?

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Skipper 2 Jan

I'm not a fan of side-chains. We already have liquid for that and no one cares about it.

I'm also against complex changes (or any changes in general on the base layer).

Ecash seems promising for smaller amounts, i don't know.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @oklar 3 Jan

That's a bit of a semantic sandwich.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NovaRift 3 Jan

I strongly think that bitcoin is for everyone, always, and that it should be accessible everywhere.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 2 Jan bot

https://xcancel.com/evoskuil/status/1874680903274049821