Oddbean new post about login | logout THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS. HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
I’m not afraid
A 1-man band keeping us coming back to the nostr 🫡
I've one of the few bitcoiners that have spoken against Michael saylor, he's bad for bitcoin and bad for open source development
I feel like this is kind of a bad time, but it's there a place you publish ahead of time when the next RHR or Citadel Dispatch will go live?
No fear here. I called him out as soon as I saw your note.
Would be nice if you provided details regarding the last paragraph
Second post in an hour where he's just teasing us. Come on @ODELL
MAJOR ETF WAS GOING TO SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS. COMPETITION WAS TIGHT PRE LAUNCH. THEY DID NOT WANT TO ANGER SAYLOR SO THEY PULLED OUT. LEARN HOW TO READ.
Name your sources. Which ETF should we hate now and why exactly? This is the claim you made in the other post nobody got an answer when asking for details. But yeah, your teasing keeps being good as long as nobody spills the beans.
That doesn’t sound right. Only competition that matters is for clients and what’s your marketing proposition? “wE DoN’t SupPort OpeNSouuRce”? lol You even have Cathie “I’ll-get-your-401k” Woods sponsoring Bitcoin developers, whoever they are are new to the game and/or very small.
Nostr is no place for all caps bro
"STOP SIMPING" ODELL MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR BOSS 🫡 https://i.nostr.build/3PYxY.gif I ASSUME THIS IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BITCOIN TO CHANGE AT ALL BUT EVEN THEN HE SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE SECURITY......
Did you get hacked? Saylor may be a spook but this just sounds like a baseless accusation.
Sounds like you are not afraid… just remember Bitcoin is for your friends and your frenemies. The important part is knowing who is who and at what block height it is…an enemy at block 800,000 might be a frenemy at block 800,001???
Careful, you might not get invited on his yacht now, the most coveted event for a blue check
NAILED IT. BITCOINERS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, SAD SHIT.
He’s not the only one
Tbh, I have not seen Swan or most Swan-sponsored influencers on Nostr, and that's a red flag for me. I have not seen Saylor on Nostr posting anything besides his reposted AI art, and that's probably a bot. And his nip05 recently became invalid. If Nostr is my web of trust, they're not on it.
yes most of them are
What is his incentive to kill support for devs?
I think the working thesis is that if I’m Saylor, the longer I can keep the Bitcoin the way it is, the longer I can keep the Government looking over “here” (Bitcoin is digital gold, nothing more, nothing to see), and the longer I can stack, unencumbered by regulators. If Bitcoin scales as a medium of exchange, getting into more hands of the people around the world who truly need freedom: that’s a problem for Governments, and it’s a problem for MSTR when folks realize holding Bitcoin is better than holding exposure to one company’s Bitcoin treasury. I could be way off. Either way, with Governments involved, millions of new Bitcoiners, corporations coming in, dev stand-offs: it’s going to be a bloody few years in Bitcoin and I’m here for it.
I think you are somehow right in your speculation, if Saylor is behaving that way is probably because if too many grants get assigned to core devs, then those devs might feel the need to perform all types of changes and start thinking of roadmaps, etc. Justify their grants sort of! Plus it will attract other devs like flies. Do we really want to have devs who are there only/mainly for the money? It’s a dilemma! Some food for thought @ODELL
IMA be devils advocate here. MAYBE he doesnt care about Dev funding because he wants bitcoin to stay as is. Having looked at the recent updates which had unintended consequences (nfts etc) ... he think nope, no "devving" needed here.
Saylor also advocates for protocol ossification. Please stop simping. nostr:nevent1qqsfw5g7dp7ef6q8y0unnzlvwrwdztpenld2eaeqv6m3yyaastey64cpr3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt4w35ku7thv9kxcet59e3k7mgzyqzvj9w6alhrsvtl5u6ygjkwuwg2sf5lukqskgjpuhnd6dpal0kvjqcyqqqqqqg6cfyp3
I don’t get it. What’s his incentive to scuttle these deals?
My thoughts: - He’s already FUDing MoE, doesn’t want to fight against the USD system - He wants BTC ossification - The longer it takes for BTC to be more widely spread the more he benefits as it becomes more difficult to catch his first mover advantage - Saylor benefits most from HODLers, not from people on a Bitcoin Standard Think through his incentives. Listen to his statements. He’s not here to smash central banks and fiat - he’s in it for himself.
So long as it remains the best store of value will almost certainly become the primary MoE. Ossification is a reasonable position to take. More changes could absolutely introduce more problems than benefits. Most of the tools built into bitcoin have not even been put to use yet. And the last thing we want is for legacy finance people to come in with trillions of dollars & millions of retarded newbs that they can mislead, thinking it is their job to change bitcoin or to influence how bitcoin changes. Make no mistake. This is a war. The easiest way to win it is to let incentives do the work without the people who have everything to lose realizing it's a war. It's good to stay vigilant & pure & principled, but we should be cautious of friendly fire when we have people doing good things.
Regarding MoE, you might consider that sometimes people's words are meant for some specific ears and don't necessarily represent one's actual interests. I other words, it might be opportune, at least for now, for certain people to not considers Bitcoin to be a competitor. "This large wooden horse is a gift!"
Trying to steelman Saylor’s possible perspective … funding devs could be dangerous because they don’t know when to stop building. Recent changes expanded the block size in a obscure way and we got ordinals and network spam. Chances are extremely dangerous because they likely require an (almost) impossible hardfork to remove. Better to slow down development and really think things through before adding any other major features. Fewer, more experienced devs can take care of maintenance while major changes are baked longer. 🤷♂️
Label him what he is - a BitcoinBug nostr:note144au605mp6kvgsknnvuxk7stl0yyx0mrjzqhphj2ug94tusgaapsq46a9m
WHAT DID I MISS? PLEASE EDUCATE ME
I don't know what it is, but my BS meter goes through the roof every time I see a clip of him.
Personally I'm confused by him...he doesn't really explain what BTC is very well
It's a block of Manhattan 150 years ago, and a way to store energy, but not a battery. How can you not understand?
We finally agree on something.
I don't know Saylor or his work very well; though I'm unsure how to be for Bitcoin, but not interested in supporting open source developers.
If what they want to develop isn’t a good idea.
Conflicts of interests arising with a software (lots of patents) publicly traded company ?
CAREFUL, MATT - YOU DON'T WANT TO END UP BOATING ACCIDENTED
I guess he thinks he is playing it safe with his stack. I’m no expert but seems there is work to do for mass adoption and he is happy with it only being an asset not currency.
SOME PEOPLE ARE SIMPING FOR SAYLOR, OTHERS FOR BUKELE. FUCK BOTH OF THEM, BITCOIN DOESN'T NEED THEM.
how many simping for odell in exactly the same way? I've been guilty of it too but I'm remembering no heroes means no heroes
AGREE. KILL YOUR HEROES. LOOK WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY. SO FAR ODELL HAS PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS. HOPEFULLY HE'LL KEEP STAYING HUMBLE.
Good thing Bitcoin is for enemies.
what are you talkin about? I'm lost
"HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS." Really? Can you give example/s please.
NEVER FORGET WHO IS BEHIND SAYLOR ! https://m.primal.net/HiKk.jpg and https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSTR/holders?fr=yhssrp_catchall
Really. I'm not really up to date with Bitcoin community news but I've listened to Saifedean Ammous' podcast where he talked with Saylor and my eyebrows raised when he suggested that "Bitcoin should stop trying to be a currency and that it should just be an asset to be held." Of course, he's got his interests first before anything else. But man that made me think twice on listening to what he has to say.
I interpreted that to be a placating of regulators but you’re not wrong & we need to be paying close attention here.
Yeah, when ever I watched Saylor talk, (only twice so far managed to get myself to do it) I literally fell asleep about the whole corporate economics talk about “assetization”, I can’t listen to it and stay awake at the same time, it is so uninteresting, nothing new absolutely nothing new he can bring to the table. I’m not sure how people can just consume it?
You mean he's not one of us?
How do you know that? Did he say why? We need clarification
I've learned these last 5 years that bitcoin is attractive to many different types of people. I met saylor and talked to him for a bit, he has his opinions and self interests like we all do. I disagree with his opinions, but he is allowed to have them. I don't want to speak for him but I get the sense that he's a "store of value" above everything else, and is very pro regulation. I don't think an individual holding that narrative would appreciate the open source community and hearing his lack of support doesn't come as being out of character, just disappointing. Hopefully it's just a misunderstanding or if not, he will have a change of heart in the future.
He's said pretty clearly before that he doesn't want the narrative that it's competing against the dollar and replacing the fed. Says it's much better to frame the conversation as it's just a store of value. I can see that point... Let bitcoin grow larger before "then they fight you" ramps up
When did he do that?
Can anyone provide details on this allegation?
Not that I've seen. Absolutely beyond the pale if true, but uh, need some receipts. I have never once simped saylor, he obviously has his own motivations (making money) which seems incongruous with this. I can construct an explanation why he might have done this, but it would seem implausible or at least unlikely.
How does making money seem incongruous with this? If bitcoin never had another update, would Saylor make less money?
Almost certainly yes. 1. Medium of Exchange usage increases demand for Bitcoin (improving MoE requires development) 2. Software requires maintenance 3. ossificiation means the eventual death of Bitcoin I know some debate 3 (they're wrong), 1 and 2 are self evident. I could see a strategy where Saylor intends to capture Bitcoin and become an intermediary, but that defeats Bitcoin's core value proposition and that would (eventually) destroy it.
As it stands, bitcoin is much better digital property than it is a currency competing with the dollar for global reserve status. That's right in line with his thesis. Bitcoin devs focusing on scaling and privacy have the goal of making it better currency. A lot of speculation on my part though 🤷
God no drama? I take it you don't follow @odell ? nostr:nevent1qqsfw5g7dp7ef6q8y0unnzlvwrwdztpenld2eaeqv6m3yyaastey64cpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqpxfzhdwlm3cx9l6wdzyft8w8y9gy607tqgtyfq7tekaxs7lhmxfqvzqqqqqqyw340ga
Source?
Michael Saylor, Chairman and CEO of MicroStrategy, adds, “Bitcoin is the most important innovation since the advent of the internet, and it is our responsibility to invest not only in the asset, but also in the underlying infrastructure that is maintained and improved by open-source developers and nonprofit institutions like MIT’s DCI.” Source: https://dci.mit.edu/bitcoin-security-initiative
I'll say shit, @ODELL. Saylor is not here for freedom maximalism, has attacked the idea of Bitcoin as a MoE, and, based on what you're saying, doesn't support Bitcoin development. End the hero worship. It's never a good look. nostr:nevent1qqsfw5g7dp7ef6q8y0unnzlvwrwdztpenld2eaeqv6m3yyaastey64cpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygqyey2a4mlw8qchlfe5g39vacus4qnflevppv3yre0xm56rm7lveypsgqqqqqqsar9mf8
Dude talks sense but everyone is afraid to say, "stop yelling in ALL CAPS, man" nostr:nevent1qqsfw5g7dp7ef6q8y0unnzlvwrwdztpenld2eaeqv6m3yyaastey64cpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqzyqzvj9w6alhrsvtl5u6ygjkwuwg2sf5lukqskgjpuhnd6dpal0kvjqcyqqqqqqgyx8vu5
This sounds like nonsense, but it’s definitely going to bring some engagement over to nostr from Twitter. I mean, if you’re Fidelity and you want to donate to open source, are you the slightest bit scared of Saylor? How would he “crush” you? Why would he care?
Sounds like a good thing lol why have ppl pay devs… unless hurts your pocket
IMHO, devs are focused on adding new technologies to the protocol when they instead should be adding limited specific features. Technologies are increased capabilities that can be used in multiple ways for multiple features. They also have a higher likelihood of being misused in a way that wasn’t intended. We should instead develop for a specific feature and make the most limited code changes to enable that one feature. For example, devs should have made a very limited change just to enable Lightning, but instead they rolled out SegWit technology with a hidden 4x blocksize increase and we got network spam. Have devs learned the lesson? Ossification should be the default and we should add specific limited features when they’ve had sufficient time to bake. We have to acknowledge that with more devs, comes more risk. Devs don’t know when to stop. More code means more bugs. To see what happens when too many devs get involved, we can watch ETH. 🍿 Bitcoin isn’t a shitcoin. We don’t need to compete on “innovations”. We also can’t “move fast and break things”.
Everyone is too afraid to say shit, because we don't say bad things about friends and people that pumps our bags. So... wen Jack? nostr:note1jag3u6rajn5qwgle8x97cuxu6ykrn8764nmjqe4hzgfmmqhjf4tsh6dyqq
He has as much right to advocate for his position as anyone else, but he admittedly has more influence. Anyway, do you really want corporate and ETF dev sponsors? I don’t.
Saylor is just a compliant suit who wants to see Bitcoin stay in government’s good graces. I’d bet he’s a hater of privacy tech.
What r u doing? Is this an attention grab?
It's like when your mum and dad are going through a divorce 😔 nostr:nevent1qqsfw5g7dp7ef6q8y0unnzlvwrwdztpenld2eaeqv6m3yyaastey64cprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnrdakjuct4qgsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgrqsqqqqqpx9q2wr
@ODELL , I thought about you calling out @saylor for not investing in open-source development. Bitcoin is freedom money, implying that I am free to do with it as I please (including donating to OpenSats, HRF, etc.). For Bitcoin to be generational wealth, must I not demonstrate to my heirs and everybody else that I can and will withstand public attacks like yours on Saylor? It is only natural that Bitcoin owners will be bullied into parting with their coins for this reason or that. I am sure you know this; perhaps you are trolling and testing the space. I much respect your work. nostr:note1jag3u6rajn5qwgle8x97cuxu6ykrn8764nmjqe4hzgfmmqhjf4tsh6dyqq
Why would he do this? I can’t understand the motives.
@Whitney Webb any thoughts on this?
Would you want to run nodes and protocols sponsored by suits/ETF corporations? Why? (I am trying to open a discussion and not suggesting an answer).
