0 sats \ 7 replies \ @demitasse 30 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Can a Statist also be a Bitcoin Maxi?? bitcoin
so when they do it to censor ordinals transactions it's fine? but when jihan wu was doing it to raise fees with empty blocks to incentivize people to use bcash it wasn't fine?
so when they do it to censor ordinals transactions it's fine?
Yes. Everyone is free to do whatever they want.
but when jihan wu was doing it to raise fees with empty blocks to incentivize people to use bcash it wasn't fine?
It was fine. Of course it was. Everyone can do whatever they want. Bitcoin is made in a way that incentivizes itself instead of forcing it with an authoritarian central party.
I think you don't get it yet.
reply
Lol, you said people arguing to censor ordinals are not real bitcoiners, I showed you adam back making the argument to censor ordinals, and now you're saying I don't get it, hahahaha. More maximalism larping
reply
Nah, it's actually very easy: Everyone can do whatever they want.
That's it. That's all. If a miner wants to censor he can do so. If other people don't want to build on top of these blocks they can do so. If other people refuse to build on the blocks they can do so too. Where is the problem?
reply
the problem is by anyone's definition adam back is a real bitcoiner, and you saying that people arguing for censorship are not real bitcoiners, then backpedalling on it and saying anyone can do what they want when shown that real bitcoiners are arguing for censorship. i agree anyone can do what they want, but censorship of transactions which don't break consensus is not very freedom minded or aligned with bitcoin's freedom philosophy. You don't see a problem with bitcoiners getting butthurt and trying to gain support to censor transactions they don't like when the transactions are paying for blockspace and within the consensus rules?
reply
The OP question is not about labels. It is about aligning principles in a consistent manner.
I will state a very clear example which is certain to ruffle some feathers:
I am a huge fan of Michael Saylor's contributions toward Bitcoin. He is also a self-described Bitcoin maxi. This is not intended to be an attack on him when I say that - his comments about statism are INCOMPATIBLE with Liberty, and, incompatible with his own genuine self-described maximalism.
Why? How?
Because all of the "regulations" he says are necessary and important, are CONTRARY to the principles of Liberty. I would also suggest that those exceptions that he makes, are incompatible with Satoshi's stated intent of creating Bitcoin. If true, then the fundamental principles of why Bitcoin was created are also compatible with the principles of Liberty, and incompatible with statism.
Truth does not make exceptions for fan-bois and celebrity. Again, I am very grateful that someone of his intellect and visibility has a megaphone. But I literally CRINGE every time he compromises via making statements about regulation being a good thing.
Moreover, when someone suggests making regulations etc., they are in-fact proposing the initiation of force AGAINST ME. That makes them my enemy!
So... Rather than name calling and pointing fingers, my hope is to draw discussion so that people who call themselves maxi's will start to think about what they are doing AGAINST themself (and their fellow man), when they encourage shit like that.
reply
I did not backpaddle, I always said the same and always will say the same: everyone can do whatever they want.
I don't know who this person is you're talking about. But everyone can do whatever they want and if this person wants to say that he wants to censor Bitcoin he can do so. Whatever. Who cares? Bitcoin certainly does not care
reply
if you don't know who adam back is, or his contributions to bitcoin, then you're simply not qualified to have this conversation
reply