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