What Happened To Bitcoin? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

What Happened To Bitcoin?www.zerohedge.com/crypto/what-happened-bitcoin

2002 sats \ 23 comments \ @siggy47 19 Apr bitcoin

Gone is the talk of separating money and state, of a market-based means of exchange, of genuine revolution that would extend from money to the whole of politics the world over. And gone is the talk of changing the operation of money as a means of changing the prospects for freedom itself.

The article starts off well. I thought it was a critique of NGU that culminated in the ETF craze.

Unfortunately, it's not. Rather, it's a puff piece supporting Ver's book from the guy who wrote the forward.

Still, some of the criticism is valid, although not any having to do with block size. At a minimum, this gives an insight into some criticisms that bitcoin will confront when it becomes more mainstream.

view all related items

149 sats \ 13 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Apr

I was honored to write the foreword, which follows:

So Jeffrey Tucker has fallen... to the dark side of forkers. Sad to see him falling into Roger's trap. The whole thing with this book is that Roger wants again to be in the news, to make noise. Do not give him that privilege. He's a scammer that already done a lot of damage to Bitcoin. FUCK ROGER AND ALL HIS ACCOLITES!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 19 Apr

I agree.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

deleted by author

69 sats \ 8 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Apr

Bad move. Jeffrey must reject that invitation to write the foreword if he really wants to be a bitcoiner. Supporting scammers like Roger, is like playing with shit. Stay away from any shit if you do not want to smell like shit.

I am really disappointed by Jeffrey by doing this.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

What is this guy's history?

48 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Apr

Jeffrey Tucker is an OG in Bitcoin. He always was a defender of Bitcoin and know quite well the technical aspects of it, not just economics. He wrote this famous article about Bitcoin too and had a lot of talks about bitcoin: https://fee.org/articles/what-gave-bitcoin-its-value/

He's a prominent writer on mises.org too. He's a well respected libertarian with quite clear mind and visions.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

Can I ask you two questions? I trust your knowledge and honesty. The block size wars were a little before my time, but I read the book. I squarely fall on the small block side, mainly because I consider the security of the main chain primary, and believe speed can be achieved on level 2s when needed, and I like that any little pleb can run his own node cheaply. Putting block size aside, I know you and I agree about Saylor and ETFs.

What do you think is causing this progression to pure NGU philosophy?
Do you think Tucker has a point with this statement?

Does this story seem familiar? Indeed it does. We’ve seen this trajectory in sector after sector. Institutions born and built by ideals are later converted by various forces of power, access, and nefarious intent into something else entirely. We’ve seen this happen to digital tech in particular and the Internet generally, not to mention medicine, public health, science, liberalism, and so much else. The story of Bitcoin follows the same trajectory, a seemingly immaculate conception turned toward a different purpose, and serving again as a reminder that on this side of heaven, there will never be an institution or idea immune to compromise and corruption.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 19 Apr

Always keep in mind this:

What do you think is causing this progression to pure NGU philosophy?

This "NgU idea" didn't happen only after Saylor entrance... It was here long before from the beginning. I do not deny it. Is a natural course of action in a free market.

But let's not forget WHY we are here: we are not here for NgU, we are here to destroy the fiat system and get free from debt slavery, having "fuck you" money.

People always forget the essence of Bitcoin:

People that will follow the NgU idea, will be totally REKT.

Do you think Tucker has a point with this statement?

I think Tucker is quite confused now. I always admired him for his clear mind, but now I think his mind is clouded by obscure events that we do not know it.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

I really like that meme. I find it ridiculous that Ver now looks to make it a David v Goliath battle with the small blockers as Goliath! Coinbase, all the big miners, etc were on his side. As if he wants to go back to mere peer to peer payments.

reply on another page

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @javier 19 Apr

He cannot know technicals well if he doesn't understand that big blocks would produce centralization and would kill Bitcoin spirit of uncensorable money.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

Thanks for that link. This was all before my time. I really like finding good articles about bitcoin from the "old days".

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Apr

I have saved a ton of them... old years were the best.

Until Roger start his bullshit move and destroyed everything. That's why I am so pissed off every time I see his name. You cannot imagine how much damage he did to Bitcoin and he still want to do. Even this book, that is not a real book, is just spitting lies and propaganda, is his last try to fool people's minds, especially the new ones coming to Bitcoin. That is the danger!

FUCK ROGER VER ! Do not be fooled by his words. Check the facts from bitcoin history!

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nym 19 Apr

The author must have bought shitcoins and is now feeling regret.

56 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Apr

I HAVE NO REMORSE FOR SHITCOINERS !

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 19 Apr

Jesus, I am almost never a "this is a black and white situation" kind of guy, but this article reveals that this dude has somehow almost entirely missed the point of the actual forces in play behind btc. It's fucking breathtaking, in fact, to be so ignorant of the technical, political, and economic implications of big-blocking, given how much ink has been spilled on the topic over the years.

I came to btc awareness around the time of the blocksize wars and admit to starting out a big blocker, bc it makes basic intuitive sense if you don't actually understand the situation. If you learn more and pay a bit of attention, the case for small blocks becomes inexorable.

I can't really process the level of insularity and blindness that it would take to write this op-ed in 2024.

27 sats \ 1 reply \ @zapdrsurge 19 Apr

the revolution won't be televised

the real bitcoinization will become apparent as people quietly start stepping out of the fiat matrix, and start using Bitcoin on a daily basis without much regard for fiat world, aside from avoiding it at all cost.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

Gil Scott. I agree, or at least hope to hell that's the case.

27 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 19 Apr

I shared a review of this book from another long time libertarian and friend of Jeffrey Tucker. Does a pretty good job pointing out flaws in logic.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 19 Apr

Thanks for sharing.

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @rtr 19 Apr

I could not have known it at the time, but those were in fact the last days of the ideal and just before the protocol came to be controlled by a consolidated group of developers who jettisoned entirely the idea of peer-to-peer cash to turn it into a high-earning digital security, not a competitor with state-based money but rather an asset designed not to use but hold with third-party intermediaries controlling access.

Huh? I can pay for stuff on L1 and L2 fine. Some people want to hodl it, it's fine. People who buy Bitcoin ETFs are suckers and we should caution them on doing so. Not your keys, not your coins.

The forking of Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash occurred two years later, in 2017, and it was accompanied by great cries and screams as if something horrible was happening. In fact, all that was happening was a mere restoration of the original vision of the founder Satoshi Nakamoto. He believed with the monetary historians of the past that the key to turning any commodity into widespread money was adoption and use. It’s impossible to even imagine conditions under which any commodity could take on the form of money without a viable and marketable use case. Bitcoin Cash was an attempt to restore that.

Huh? Bitcoin Cash is a deviation from the original idea and would've centralized the nodes. Doesn't he know what happened to Ethereum?

Roger Ver does not blow his own trumpet in this book, but he truly is a hero of this saga, not only deeply knowledgeable of the technologies but also a man who has clung to an emancipatory vision of Bitcoin from the earliest days through the present. I share his commitment to the idea of peer-to-peer currency for the masses, alongside a competitive marketplace for free-enterprise monies. This is a hugely important documentary history, and the polemic alone will challenge anyone who believes himself to be on the other side. Regardless, this book had to exist, however painful. It’s a gift to the world.

???

Should I link that video here?

The story of Bitcoin follows the same trajectory, a seemingly immaculate conception turned toward a different purpose, and serving again as a reminder that on this side of heaven, there will never be an institution or idea immune to compromise and corruption.

Are you kidding me.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kingzing131 20 Apr

Zerohedge articles have always been fairly meh, almost edgy even. No surprise it doesn't quite understand what's happening

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 20 Apr

Zero Hedge has some original content, but it's mainly an aggregator. In this case Jeffrey Tucker published the article on The Brownstone Institute site. Tucker is an OG bitcoiner.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 19 Apr

This is the book that had to be written. It is a story of a missed opportunity to change the world, a tragic tale of subversion and betrayal.

That seemed to me merely a piece of exaggerated nonsense. I stopped reading it even before I started reading.