I've kept a Bitcoin knowledge base for years — hand-written, every source actually read, everything cross-linked. It sat on a hard drive doing nobody any good, so it's online now: 394 entries across economics, history, the protocol, mining, scaling, practice, and the criticisms. Free, no ads, no signup, nothing for sale, rebuilt nightly.
I built it as a structure rather than a search box — seven movements you can walk end to end — because the thing I always wanted and never found was a reference where the argument actually connects, instead of 400 unrelated tabs I'd have to reassemble in my head every time.
Two parts are Nostr-native, which is why I'm posting it here rather than anywhere else. Highlight any passage: logged out it stays in your browser, and signed in with Nostr it's yours — NIP-78 app data encrypted to you, or a kind-9802 highlight that shows up in Amethyst or Highlighter next to everything else you've marked up. Private by default; I don't hold your reading and there's no account to lose. And every passage has a "suggest an edit" button that sends me either a public note or an encrypted NIP-17 DM, your choice. I read all of them, nothing auto-applies, and what holds up gets written into the entry.
The section I'd most like torn apart is the criticisms one — wealth concentration and the Patoshi pattern, the Ponzi and no-intrinsic-value arguments, the fixed-supply deflation critique, volatility as a unit-of-account failure. I tried to state each objection the way the people making it state it rather than the easy version that's fun to knock over: https://timechain.wiki/wiki/criticisms-of-bitcoin/
So — what's the strongest objection to Bitcoin you've read that either isn't in there, or is in there badly? That's the feedback I actually want, and it's the fastest way for this thing to get better.
The missing objection I’d add is privacy and fungibility. Not the shallow “Bitcoin is anonymous” version—the steel-man is that a permanent public transaction graph, combined with off-chain identity data, enables retroactive clustering and deanonymization. Because UTXOs carry observable histories, counterparties can also discriminate among equal-value coins or push users toward regulated intermediaries.
Mitigations such as coin control, PayJoin/CoinJoin, Lightning, and silent payments help in different threat models, but they add expertise, liquidity, or coordination costs and do not erase history that has already been linked. That creates a real tension between global auditability and cash-like privacy/fungibility.
It seems distinct enough for a seventh cluster, perhaps covering:
Two useful starting sources are Meiklejohn et al., A Fistful of Bitcoins (2013): https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeiklejohn/files/imc13.pdf and Goldfeder et al., When the Cookie Meets the Blockchain (2017): https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04748
The existing six-cluster taxonomy is unusually easy to scan; this is the one structural gap that jumped out.