pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 5 Oct \ on: Every [] argument [] has [] been articulated [] on BitcoinTalk [] bitcoin
clean link
I think for me this revealed that this debate cuts to the heart of Bitcoin and is in fact irreconcilable, yet is not terminal.
Exactly. This is how it's always been and why it is so cringe to watch the polarization that is now so prominent in the increasingly toxic internet culture to leap over into Bitcoin discussions. There is absolutely no need for it and all it brings is bad decisions, for example:
  1. Exploring hardforks
  2. Intense moderation
  3. Attacking people based on their gender/race/religion
  4. Forming private echo chambers
  5. Writing hit pieces on your colleagues (or providing "journalists" with ammo for it.)
The challenge is not at all whether you run Knots or Core or something else. Whether you filter or not. Instead: can you make your decisions without being influenced by misguided or dishonest actors?
write
preview
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @fourrules OP 5 Oct
On the contrary, I think it's a war that needs to be waged forever, perpetually renewed for the evolving context.
Blockchain is war without violence.
I agree that ad funded social media makes it less efficient and incendiary that it needs to be. Twitter is brain damage.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 5 Oct
I think that we actually baseline agree, though I view tension as good but war as bad. conflict is okay, but the endless ad hominem and trolling is counter-productive.
reply