pull down to refresh
255 sats \ 3 replies \ @nullcount 11 Jun \ on: Will Bitcoin Follow the Internet's Path to Practical Centralization? AskSN
The term "sovereign" implies having the highest power within a specific domain or territory. The Bitcoin protocol gives sovereignty to anyone who manages to sign a transaction with a private key and include that tx into a block using their own node and hashrate to mine the block.
How sovereign are you really when you don't have at least an exahash worth of ASICs to ensure your transactions are mined in a timely manner?
How sovereign are you really if your wallet isn't using your own node to broadcast your txns?
How sovereign do YOU really want to become with respect to your money?
Maybe you care about sovereignty and go all the way, self-custody, run a node, start a mining farm, etc. That's great!
Now, consider how sovereign are you really when your Tor node is unreachable at the checkout line in Steak and Shake? Or your mining farm is making you poor because your electricity isn't free. Or, Satoshi forbid, you lost your private keys!
Just because you HAD the highest power attainable by using BTC, does not mean you get to actually keep that power, or even exercise that power. There is tremendous responsibility associated with holding this power and wielding it practically in your everyday dealings.
Most of us have a job and responsibilities already and don't want to (or can't afford to) become the "highest power" with respect to the infrastructure that backs our money. And frankly, nobody should have to take on additional responsibilities to start using better money. The best money should "just work". The more you need to understand to use the money, the worse it is at truly being a medium of exchange.
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
I think sovereignty is gradual, not binary.
Same as it happens on the internet. You don't need to run your own email server. What's important is that you can.
If Gmail had been like Proton Mail from the beginning, Proton Mail wouldn't exist and there would be less self hosted servers.
Enshittification in centralized systems is necessary and has a severe negative impact (e.g., democratic systems). But in open protocols, such as the internet, closing the doors to Twitter/X just results in Nostr getting more popular.
So even without an exahash you can get transactions through easily. And centralization and censorship from large pools just push Bitcoiners to create better pools (braiins, ocean) and get some more hashrate.
How sovereign do YOU really want to become with respect to your money?
This is the right question. Most don’t want full sovereignty they want just enough to escape inflation or censorship, but not enough to feel the weight of responsibility. But that’s fine. Bitcoin doesn’t need mass sovereignty it just needs a critical minority that insists on it. The rest will free ride on the work of node runners, devs, miners, and plebs who care more about freedom than convenience. Sovereignty isn’t all or nothing it’s an asymmetric weapon. Even if 99% use custodial wallets, the 1% who don’t still define the credible threat that keeps the whole system honest. Bitcoin gives us power. Most won’t use it, but the point is they can.
reply