Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
hh | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 I'm not saying we have to "re-engineer" BTC. I'm saying Michael Saylor didn't have a part in engineering it in the first place, and that he is not a bitcoin engineer.

What he is doing for MSTR is good for the company and indirectly for BTC. But it doesn't constitute "engineering". Otherwise any CEO who decides to put XYZ asset on his books is an "engineer" too, so in the end nobody is one.
▲ ▼
nobody | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Hal, Adam & Satoshi are the only ones I can think of that played a part in engineering BTC. 
BTC was almost perfect, if not perfect, at inception. 
That’s the point I was making about Adams quote from his time trying to make it “better”. 
MSTR & Nostr are no different in the overall scheme of things. 
Underlying BTC remains unchanged and is better for that. IMO
▲ ▼
hh | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I get all that and I agree -- I lean conservative as far as BTC "development" goes. I don't even think we need Lightning (unless it is as a means to enable anonymous transactions, as it seems to do with Cashu) because I don't think we need to add any "features" to what Bitcoin does very well -- store of value and unalterable timechain.

I do think though that there's a big difference between developing ON Bitcoin and just using BTC the asset.
▲ ▼
nobody | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 🤝
▲ ▼
nobody | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Also, I’d argue that running a node is the most important thing anyone can do to help BTC. 
Nodes are the only thing protecting BTC from centralization. I’d take 1 node runner over any “BTC engineer” trying to finagle lightning. Any day of the week. 
Again, IMO.