59 sats \ 14 replies \ @phygit 19 Apr 2023 \ on: Is The US Government Going to Support and Promote Eth? bitcoin
The debate about securities/commodities is a laughable fake. It's very naive to think that governments (U.S. or elsewhere), and even more more central banks, will "choose" a camp. That they will accept ETH and try to ban BTC, or the other way around.
That's something maximalists seem to have difficulty to understand: to the eyes of those in power, "crypto", blockchain, BTC, ETH or any altcoin are all one single problem. They all represent a single "thing" that is trying to diminish their power.
It's all about decentralization. And governments and banks will fight to death to avoid it. Whether this decentralization happens with BTC or anything else is irrelevant to them. They will try to ban anything going in this direction.
That's why maximalism is so counter-productive. Instead of joining forces and acting as a single voice with other projects aiming at the same goal (decentralization), BTC maxis are increasing division in the crypto industry, weakening it for the sole benefit of those who want to destroy all cryptos, including Bitcoin.
Stop saying nonsense, Bitcoin and Shitcoins are NOT the same. If people in power think they are the same just proves how lost they are on the subject. Only bitcoin is decentralized. Only bitcoin has a vibrant community and industry, truth worthy and genuine with a very coherent message behind. Shitcoiners are envious of how successful Bitcoin is and would like to have it on their side, but that wont happen. Bitcoin is unstoppable, Crypto is just a joke. You are always in time to change sides.
reply
Putting aside your argument against "bitcoin maxis", I agree that decentralization is the issue here.
Do you consider eth decentralized? I don't.
reply
It's not about the network being decentralized within itself, it can be completely centralized with just a single mining entity. The point is, that even such, such a network is "decentralized" in the eyes of the governments because it is not controlled by any government. However, of course if such a network was really fully controlled by just one entity then it would be highly debatable if it was really independent from governments' influence.
reply
If something is centralized, it can easily be controlled by governments, no?
reply
That's pretty much what I meant in the last sentence of my comment above.
reply
Exactly.
reply
I use the word "decentralization" as a simplification. Use "loss of control" if you prefer. Bottom line is the same: any crypto or public blockchain will be seen as something going against fiat, central banks, and the associated power/control.
reply
It's certainly not decentralized anymore. Regardless of one's position on if it ever truly was, the switch from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake effectively killed any validity to claims of decentralization.
reply
you are so wrong: the fragmentation is so counter-productive and weakening us (BTC maxis only fight againts it)
even BIS can confirm this simple truth:
"fragmentation means that crypto [i.e. Bitcoin] cannot fulfil the social role of money."
https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull56.pdf
reply
Nonesense. “Crypto” isn’t decentralized. It’s decentralized in name only.
Bitcoin is decentralized. Most of crypto is a scam. Maxis aren’t confused on this.
reply
Sorry I will not become an immoral idiot and join forces with "crypto". Bitcoin will succeed on its own merits or it won't.
reply
reply
Yes, on this specific case, from a specific agency (SEC). But then they will find something else against ETH (or against DeFI, or against NFTs, which is the same). Their agenda is to stop cryptos — all of them.
reply
Interesting. The guy from Bitcoin University youtube channel argued that this was the reason this morning:
I'm happy to be proven wrong!
reply