Oddbean new post about login | logout It seems to me that a lot of people don't seem to understand the significance of Michael Saylor's statements re Bitcoin Core funding, so I've unpacked my Saylor folder tracking his ties to US intelligence and statements shedding light on what the 'Gigachad' appears to understand by protecting the network's stability: „If Bitcoin diverted all of their energy to make itself private and became known as a network of complete and utter privacy, it probably is counter productive to its own interests, because you don't really want the United States government to say Bitcoin is completely private, because now it becomes the perfect tool for money laundering, now it becomes the enemy, now we're going to shut it down.“ https://m.primal.net/IPAQ.png https://m.primal.net/IPAb.png https://m.primal.net/IPAX.png (Signing out of here for today because the billionaire cope gives me some serious second hand embarrassment – if you have something to say, you can zap me.)
Full text: https://www.therage.co/saylor-privacy/
Thank you
Though I’m new to it, I really like your work and insight and will catch up with your past work, then continue following. This can all be resolved very simply by not treating Saylor like a god, no longer should anyone give him a platform to speak about bitcoin and ask him to do his thing and shut the fuck up. He’s had a god complex that is rolling like a snowball. The avalanche crew often opens the day with planned disruption for skiers safety. My fear is that he is now killing the spirit of the people who built his soapbox. This is a lot to ask. I’m a noob and a nobody in the Bitcoin sphere, but I have been successful in business and have pretty good radar. I felt and saw this coming and began commenting with VERY limited exposure, yet seem to be tracking some of your comments Elton John/Bernie Taupin like (damn I’m old !) I would really appreciate it if you would read what little I’ve written and be brutally honest with me, publically or privately. I’m not getting ANY feedback from anyone. This is the only thing I can point to for a modicum of cred: InveCast.com This business has given me broad exposure to good and bad practices, good and bad people and I’ll soon be done participating in the economy in that manner. I no longer want to feed the beast and have a bullseye on my back for the taxman. I’m pissed. Thanks in advance for any time you give this. OwenG (nym) and you?
Saylor is right, and has done more for bitcoin adoption than you ever will Cope and cringe Bitcoiners just want to be contrarians for the sake of being contrarian, make an enemy just for the sake of it
You really think he's done more for Bitcoin adoption in the last 4 years than everyone else in the last 15 years? Right...
Fuck saylor and what he's done for Bitcoin. Just cause the man bought a shit ton of corn and repeats the same lines mk over and over doesn't mean shit. Hes wrong.
Take your pills.
Appears you haven’t done much research prior making this statement: “Bitcoiners just want to be contrarians for the sake of being contrarian, make an enemy just for the sake of it.” Clueless. There ARE two distinct camps. You need to understand the motives of both. Funny thing about “good and evil,” both are necessary to define the other and the scale is always moving. Focus on the direction to understand the battle.
The new generation of Bitcoiners appears to be very confused and the fanboy-ism is strong.
Most BTC fanboys are Religiots.
Never understood this phenomenon. Well okay, I kind of do, but still. Bitcoin is unfortunately not free of influencers. Strictly, even if Satoshi came back and started preaching bitcoin, shouldn’t we all say „well fuck you Satoshi, your opinion doesn’t matter anymore, bitcoin is free of its creator“?
Once upon a time, along time ago bitcoin was thought to be our chance for private money. A way to get away from the control of the government. That dream died. Monero is what bitcoin was meant to be. Monero is real private money.
Truth! Most Bitcoiners will only realize that when they are forced to attach their digital ID to their transactions.
Also, is BTC really Bitcoin?
Bitcoin was never meant to be private, hence the fully open public blockchain.
All he’s saying is, Bitcoin works because it’s relatively simple code. We don’t need every feature some dev dreams up. An army of random Bitcoin devs getting creative results in a spaghetti pile of code, eg Ethereum, and that is risky. If Bitcoin is to last hundreds of years, it needs to be kept simple.
this is the same core philosophy of #golang too and programmers in general are far too quick to make things complex, rob pike has a piece on it https://go.dev/talks/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slide#1 i think he is wrong about what you can use it for though, just like bitcoin is small and simple letting you do Lightning, and #nostr is also extremely simple, there is logistical and psychological and neurological reasons why it is the right approach - the simplicity enables layered, domain bounded architecture which is far more robust than spaghetti with leaky interfaces
No privacy means we currently build our own surveillance machine.
fun fact: the most prolific serial arsonist in American history… was a firefighter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr
BTC is seriously fucked, almost nothing of what was interesting in it at the beginning is left. Sad. https://primal.net/e/note16kgfllap3senly3uyjjc2cyx9khxfldf6y3tz3jydzu39429qy4sqvd4t7
Unpacking is a great word, as is dissecting in Saylor’s statement. If Bitcoin diverted … Meaning privately funded devs? … don't really want the United States government to say … He’ll need to define (name) the government to which he refers. … the perfect tool for money laundering, … Call out THE greatest “money launderers,” their role in OUR government and you’ll discover their true motives. … now it becomes the enemy, now we're going to shut it down.“ The “government’s” true enemy has never changed, revolutions fix this. I hope I’m correctly “picking up what you’re puttin’ down.” LMK
I go back and forth on this. On one hand I really want default privacy and anonymity on bitcoin, but on the other hand if bitcoin would be private from inception, then current adoption would be (imo) much lower since the government would implement legislation like "if you touch it in any way - straight to jail for 21 months" (CSAM style...).
I think this is a question a lot of people ask themselves. I think you should then ask: do you want an investment, or do you want freedom money?
If I answer Freedom money, but everyone using it gets persecuted, then it loses any usefulness - i.e. it stops working as money for me. So I think your question doesn't capture the dilemma well...
If you idea of freedom is what your government allows you may need to re-read your constitution
If you have one...
It’s cringe watching so many people online simp for politicians and billionares whenever they say something positive about bitcoin. A bunch of delusional sheep.
Fuck em all tgey hate us anyway
"tribalism"
You think @saylor is CIA?
I think that the things he is saying are dangerous (privacy is bad for bitcoin, we don't want "ETH features" or "ETH developers"), and I think the things he is doing are dangerous (stopping entities from giving no-strings-attached funding to devs). The article simply serves to inform you on the people MSTR works for, and gives an overview of how intelligence infiltrates open source projects via the embedded FOSDEM Talk. Wether they're related is up to you to decide.
As soon as Breedclout recorded his ‘Saylor’ series it was obvious top table influencers has fallen for the billionaire BS. I much preferred Bitcoin as a quiet Revolution but here we are. Full on billionaire bollox 🤷♂️
He's right, at least on this matter. The reason I say this with confidence is because the Bitcoin protocol that everyone have invested in is precisely what we have, not what someone wants it to become. Bitcoin's fundamental function is store of value. Privacy tools are added over the base layer on an opt-in basis. A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value. If we consider the tradeoffs that Monero makes, we can understand why Monero is not aiming for a store of value. As a result, Monero cannot leverage a pressure against jurisdictions in any comparable way. Those who want Bitcoin to become more like Monero, while the privacy side benefits are tempting, such a move would undermine Bitcoin's function as store of value and several of its game theory benefits. On a related subject, I wrote recently about why tainted bitcoin/sats is a losing strategy by the jurisdiction implementing it. If Bitcoin became more Monero-like, then the game theory involved will have different outcomes. The assumptions are based on Bitcoin being a superior store of value and therefore desirable by nation states, which gives it powers to pressure jurisdictions. Why tainted coins is a losing strategy: nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn
Bitcoin has only been around ~15 years. This is all still an experiment. You can't technically guarantee Store of Value. Controlling supply alone isn't enough. SoV is also also a function of demand (which is subjective so can't be controlled) and larger players can always manipulate price like they do with traditional finance especially when large CEXes are involved. >A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value. "Bitcoin is therefore inherently a black market money. Its security architecture necessarily assumes it is operating without state permission." https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Permissionless-Principle
Absolutely. If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin. And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV. It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.
Bitcoin doesn't require permission, but white markets do. We can ignore any transactions occurring there as transient (see recent events). That leaves us with black markets as the only place anyone is guaranteed to be able to use Bitcoin without permission. Regulators can impose whatever arbitrary rules they want on white market transactions (including banning Bitcoin transactions there). Therefore, the continuing takeover of cryptocurrencies like Monero on darknets is a HUGE sign that Bitcoin is failing its main value proposition. The SoV narrative is backwards and a bit premature imo. If SoV holds up I can potentially see nations using Bitcoin between each other, but feels naive to believe they would allow their citizens the same privilege with no restrictions (as it undermines their power). Any citizens would have to break the law to do that - and now were back to black markets
Game theory involves competition between nation states. Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes. I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out: nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn
True, last time I checked bitcoin.org it also said "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Store of Value System" – Sorry that I missed this
Yes? Your argument is to state something obvious?
Oh boy
🤡🌎
Bitcoin has only been around ~15 years. This is all still an experiment. You can't technically guarantee Store of Value. Controlling supply alone isn't enough. SoV is also also a function of demand (which is subjective so can't be controlled) and larger players can always manipulate price like they do with traditional finance especially when large CEXes are involved. >A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value. "Bitcoin is therefore inherently a black market money. Its security architecture necessarily assumes it is operating without state permission." https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Permissionless-Principle
Absolutely. If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin. And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV. It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.
Bitcoin doesn't require permission, but white markets do. We can ignore any transactions occurring there as transient (see recent events). That leaves us with black markets as the only place anyone is guaranteed to be able to use Bitcoin without permission. Regulators can impose whatever arbitrary rules they want on white market transactions (including banning Bitcoin transactions there). Therefore, the continuing takeover of cryptocurrencies like Monero on darknets is a HUGE sign that Bitcoin is failing its main value proposition. The SoV narrative is backwards and a bit premature imo. If SoV holds up I can potentially see nations using Bitcoin between each other, but feels naive to believe they would allow their citizens the same privilege with no restrictions (as it undermines their power). Any citizens would have to break the law to do that - and now were back to black markets
Game theory involves competition between nation states. Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes. I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out: nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn
Absolutely. If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin. And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV. It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.
Bitcoin doesn't require permission, but white markets do. We can ignore any transactions occurring there as transient (see recent events). That leaves us with black markets as the only place anyone is guaranteed to be able to use Bitcoin without permission. Regulators can impose whatever arbitrary rules they want on white market transactions (including banning Bitcoin transactions there). Therefore, the continuing takeover of cryptocurrencies like Monero on darknets is a HUGE sign that Bitcoin is failing its main value proposition. The SoV narrative is backwards and a bit premature imo. If SoV holds up I can potentially see nations using Bitcoin between each other, but feels naive to believe they would allow their citizens the same privilege with no restrictions (as it undermines their power). Any citizens would have to break the law to do that - and now were back to black markets
Game theory involves competition between nation states. Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes. I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out: nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn
Bitcoin doesn't require permission, but white markets do. We can ignore any transactions occurring there as transient (see recent events). That leaves us with black markets as the only place anyone is guaranteed to be able to use Bitcoin without permission. Regulators can impose whatever arbitrary rules they want on white market transactions (including banning Bitcoin transactions there). Therefore, the continuing takeover of cryptocurrencies like Monero on darknets is a HUGE sign that Bitcoin is failing its main value proposition. The SoV narrative is backwards and a bit premature imo. If SoV holds up I can potentially see nations using Bitcoin between each other, but feels naive to believe they would allow their citizens the same privilege with no restrictions (as it undermines their power). Any citizens would have to break the law to do that - and now were back to black markets
Game theory involves competition between nation states. Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes. I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out: nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn
Yes? Your argument is to state something obvious?
Oh boy
🤡🌎
