pull down to refresh

132 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 12h \ parent \ on: What is your understanding of the process to change Bitcoin Core? bitcoin
If there'd be a fork then there'd inevitably be a shitcoin. The question then becomes, which one is the shitcoin, anon? Decisions, decisions.
write
preview
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @jakoyoh629 12h
I thought it was just coins on Bitcoin, not tokens.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 12h
I think that the term "coin" doesn't distinguish much versus token, similarities in naming are only a vehicle for association scammers: if something is called a coin, it doesn't mean that it is good or bad, yet that is what scammers will argue.
reply
222 sats \ 1 reply \ @jakoyoh629 11h
concepts are always shifting, but in my book, any token is just a shitcoin, even if it's stamped on Bitcoin.
reply
32 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
Yes, but what I mean is this: if someone would create a concept in which you'd stamp a coin on the bitcoin blockchain rather than a token, does that make it credible? I'd say no.
There is a weakness in thinking that coin > token instead of saying bitcoin > coin/token. That weakness is that shitcoiners will exploit your narrative because you've generalized, and why, after some years of watching all the abuse, the idea has become "if it isn't bitcoin, then it's a shitcoin". And even then, some will pitch their paper bitcoin, be it FTX, Saylor, BitGo-backed-bridges-to-shitchains or your favorite sidechain/misnomered-L2, as Bitcoin. And people fall for this shit, which is awful.
This is why there is no benefit to weakening this part of the maxi narrative, at all.
reply