Some people will say I'm spreading FUD or shitposting. Thats okay. I just like to look at things from every possible angle. Thats what a realist does.

But what if we're wrong on bitcoin? As in, in the end, it just doesnt work out, gets "banned" or co-opted, or people just get lazy and stop caring?

I see the issue of people turning their brains off being the most concerning. Getting comfortable with being surveilled, getting cozy with digital dollars. "Just watch netflix and dont pay attention to complex things like money and financial systems, pal. Heres a $10,000 stimi."

Another concern is hopping onto the next thing. Everyone had a radio, then they bought walkmans, and then ipods. Or more applicable to the internet space, people started off with friendster, then myspace, then facebook. What is "beyond" bitcoin?

I'm personally in this community for the long run. I'm just not sure what direction other people will go. Or if we're just waiting until the next big thing comes along.


I'm just not sure what direction other people will go.

Given that El Salvador made Bitcoin legal tender, and that central banks are trying to make CBDCs, it means that we're not wrong.

Even BIS ("Central bank of Central Banks") recently allowed central banks around the world to have up to 2% of their reserves in Bitcoin from 2025.

Valid worries.

I share your doubts, for one main reason: adoption. After almost 15 years, less than 200M Bitcoin users, which is terribly low. And I consider that the majority of them are not really "users", but mostly day-traders who don't give a dam about Bitcoin.

That's a very bad result. We, bitcoiners, failed to convince the people of this planet of the benefits of Bitcoin. And considering how much energy is used to make Bitcoin fail (by those who have much power and control), we have reasons to be worried.

I would say that Bitcoin has a 50% chance to succeed (if we define success as 1B real users, making it a de facto global currency, in the next 2-3 years).

After almost 15 years, less than 200M Bitcoin users, which is terribly low.

You are thinking about Bitcoin wrong. Bitcoin is not an "app" or platform like Facebook. It's a base level technology with the easiest comparison being to the Internet itself. It will stand the test of time for decades, just like the Internet, thanks to the extremely powerful Network Effect with Bitcoin companies coming into existence and falling away regularly.

The Internet uses TCP/IP to transfer information over a global network. Bitcoin uses BP/LN (Bitcoin Protocol / Lightning Network) to transfer value over a global network.

The building of networks, especially organic ones with no marketing department like the Internet or Bitcoin, takes many, many years. Decades in fact. The Internet as we know it started way back in 1973. After ~20 years there was still only about 1M users, so given Bitcoin has amassed 200M in only 14 years, it should indicate that it's actually growing faster than the Internet and doing very well!

Lower your time preference. The next billion Bitcoin users will be adopted as the network grows exponentially over the next 10 or so years.

Source: Engineering degree in Telecommunications and Wiki

The argument is classic, tiring... and wrong.

  1. "The Internet as we know it started in 1973". Absolutely not. The Internet we know started with the Web, the first websites and browsers, in 1994–1995. And 5-6 later there were 500M users.

  2. Bitcoin, like any digital innovation, naturally benefited form the existence of the Internet. Launching Bitcoin in the 1980s would have been a challenge, but Bitcoin really started (and got media attention) in the 2010s, with already billions of Internet users, smartphones, blogs, social media etc.

So yes, 200M Bitcoin users (which is already optimistic) in 15 years, in a context of a fully digital era where half the planet live their lives through digital tools and networks, is a very bad result.

The real question is: considering how many people are digital-savvy and aware of the existence of Bitcoin, why so few are actually using it?

If we imagine that only 1B people know about Bitcoin today, it means that 80% of them *have decided" not to use it. We should ask ourselves why.

64 sats \ 0 replies \ @randy 17 May

He’s not wrong, you’re just missing the point. He didn’t say the web, he said the internet. And the internet as “we” tech people know it as the beginning of the UDP, TCP/IP network.

Bitcoin to “we” Bitcoiners know it as a system where transactions are committed onto the base blockchain but who knows what the “web moment” looks like for Bitcoin. One thing is for sure, we can’t scale to global adoption without L2s in place and I’m sure the “web” moment will be some mix between a series of catastrophic financial event and a killer app (running on an L2 under the hood) ready to onboard the next billion users

Another variable that undermines the "Internet did to telecoms what Bitcoin is doing to money" argument is that telecoms were about a century old industry, while money is a civilizationial level technology. Disruption in telecoms naturally should happen much faster than a disruption in the base layer of value transfer.

Im aware our prospects are good. We're early in the adoption s-curve. Exciting to see where itll go from here, or if not, what it will inspire down the road

It took decades for regular people to own cars when they were first invented

After almost 15 years, less than 200M Bitcoin users, which is terribly low.

You come to the conclusion that this is "terribly low" based on what?

200 million is bigger than most countries. Even a meetup group or a few businesses in a city/region who use Bitcoin is helpful.

Parallel economies don't necessarily need mass adoption to succeed, just enough people to trade with (e.g. a landlord, employer, grocery store, marketplace). It matters less what the mainstream is doing, if you can get what you need from the 1% who value free markets.

Cash-in-hand gray markets already operate this way. E.g. 99% of landlords may require government ID, credit check, employment history, etc. but 1% of landlords are just happy to receive cash every month (= the true free market).

For example: Walmart doesn't need to accept Bitcoin, if the local convenience store and farmer's market accept Bitcoin. Corporate mass adoption would probably require KYC like Strike or Bitpay (which is as surveilled and censored as banking, defeating the purpose of permissionless accessible money), while grassroots adoption by small businesses and communities would be KYC-free and peer-to-peer, like Satoshi intended.

More info here:

I don't think adoption is terribly low but yes it should be higher. "Crypto" has done us no favours in this regard. Many people still look at it all as a big scam, quite frankly for good reason.

Bitcoin has a scalability issue. Look, a bit of load from ordinals - and poof, fees skyrocketed. Now imagine what happens if even 1B people try to use it for day-to-day payments? Bitcoin has only 200M users because it can't handle more in its current state. L2s is the only solution, but even Lightning isn't well ready for this, due to the high costs of opening/closing channels.

No problem. Give me all your corn. I will take care of it. No worry. I will be the last man on Earth holding BTC. You can wait for "the next big thing" all you want.

You do realize that isn't what they're saying, right?

What I'm saying is, sorry, Darth, you will not be the last one because I will be there too. So from my point of view, I will happily have all the bitcoin except for what Darth has. Oh wait, might there be another 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 or... But even if it is just Darth and I, I'm good with that.

178 sats \ 1 replies \ @k00b 16 May

We might be wrong about bitcoin succeeding but we aren’t wrong about money needing to be fixed.

Great insight. Thank you!

This is a very good question and something worth asking yourself if you are an inquisitive and critical thinker, "how could I wrong in this situation?" And if so, what could be our blind spot?"

Don't listen to those blindly accusing you of FUD of shitposting. It's worthwhile to seek the truth. We all have our path of self-education.

If we are to spend so much of our time, dollars, and personal attention, isn't this a worthwhile question to ask ourselves?

While severe failures of the network or outright ban's have been handled before - what if due to other forces we just see a plateau of price action? What if Bitcoin plateau's for 20 years? Would a potential 'failure' be sudden? Or gradual, and if so, would be able to identify it ahead of time?

There are some things that I would just point out to help you come to your own conclusion on this.

  1. Behavioral, demographic, and structural trends don't change overnight

While the Bitcoin price can drop 80% over the course of several months, and sentiment along with it, the structural changes underlying the bitcoin thesis don't change as quickly. Bitcoin protocol adoption, network security, the macro and monetary environments, and investments in bitcoin ecosystem are larger generational "waves" influencing the (creation of) and adoption of BTC. And over the past 5 years, we've only seen an increase in all of these areas: greater news coverage, greater mining investment, network security, network adoption, government support, and so forth. For your own research, I would try to understand and stay abreast of these themes to know for yourself. Bitcoin adoption metrics are a simple place to start.

  1. Stimi's and not caring

This is the premise of A Brave New World! One of the finest sci-fi books of all-time. Could our populace sleepwalk into a blissful existence and not care about the values Bitcoin stands for? Is Instagram the new Soma? I find a few issues with this (so did Huxley)

First, one thing that will not change is human behavior, which is that humans desire to be free, self-express, and act in their self-interests. Policies which censor, ban, or in generally impinge on human rights will find opponents, just look throughout history. I have faith in humanity in this regard. This is why we are here.

Two, math. Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources. While there are scarce resources there are unmet human needs. My belief is that governments, through the printing of money, are unable to provide this perfect utopian society resulting in a subservient populace. In fact, any policy or ideology attempting this only seem to make things worse. While we in the West could possibly imagine this scenario, plugged into our VR sets, just ask our compatriots in the global south, who's living standard erodes at each new printing of a peso or a lira. Unless we unleash unimaginable wealth creation through AI or free energy, we'd still need a neutral reserve asset to ensure the the productivity gains hit society. If not, more printing, more inequality, more strife, more upset people looking for a way out.

  1. "The new thing"

I believe, just as others have pointed out, that Bitcoin isn't "the app". Bitcoin is the technology and the protocol that enables people to build those shiny new things. It's worthwhile to revisit the first principles of Bitcoin and imagine not just the implications for society, but the applications we can build were we to fully scale Bitcoin through scaling applications like Lightning!

These "shiny new things" which you consider bearish for Bitcoin are the exact things that make everyone so bullish. I'd try to pick a few sources of information (podcasts, twitter) and stay updated on the absolute rad things being built with Bitcoin (this site!). I personally feel we are approaching an inflection point of embedding lightning into the web, which unlocks an embedded user experience missing for widespread bitcoin adoption. Your mom won't own a hardware wallet. But she might 'zap' her nephews post on nostr using her 'internet wallet'.

Also, I'd think about all the varied areas of expertise continually being sucked into the Bitcoin universe: not just tech bros and zerohedgers, but humanitarians, energy experts, the defense industry, public policy makers and so forth.

  1. It's already succeeded

Lastly, I'd find it acceptable to challenge your assertion that we haven't already succeeded. Is it actually true we are still in the "who knows" phase and waiting for some magical moment to arrive that indicates Bitcoin has 'won'? It's considered a commodity by the SEC, it has Senators and Congressmen stating they are "HODLing", it is legal tender in several countries, it's being mined by Bhutan (and possibly more), generally accepted by the institutional finance, and has recently decoupled from growth stocks. How do you know we haven't won?

I hope this helps and have fun stacking!

  1. There is no “requirement” of adoption. 1sat = 1sat.

  2. There is no “beyond Bitcoin” myspace-facebook progression: Bitcoin is a technological innovation similar to the WHEEL or FIRE.

  3. There is no such thing as “1 billion” needed. Revolutions throughout history were affected by 5-10% of the population.

  4. Bitcoin already succeeded where gold and government money continues to fail.

  5. You cannot “ban bitcoin” you can only ban yourself from using it.

238 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bashy 16 May

you can't ban bitcoin, the same way china can't stop users to access facebook if they really want to.

Your government can say it's illegal, what prevents you to cross the border?

If you study enough and know how to manage your private keys, Bitcoin is the only asset that you can really own, no one can take it from you, no one can prevent you send it to someone else, or receive from someone else, even if some gov want to have their piece of cake when you sell it, you may take your own decision to do the best for you.

You can acquire bitcoin without kyc on bisq, robosats, and other options, and slowly but surely, more and more shops/coffee/bar accept bitcoin as mean of payment (at least here in EU)

A worldwide ban is virtually impossible, and I don't see it getting co-opted, but you never can overestimate the capacity of humans to get complacent and lazy.

But what if we're wrong on bitcoin? As in, in the end, it just doesnt work out, gets "banned" or co-opted, or people just get lazy and stop caring?

"But what if we're wrong on bitcoin? ...gets banned or co-opted," - that would make me right, cos I fully expect this to happen on the "west". "people just get lazy and stop caring" - have you talked to Argentinian or Russian abroad, or Turk, or Nigerian? They care.

"What is "beyond" bitcoin?" - something new, but wont be money. AGI perhaps.

Get comfortable with the idea majority wont make it. Majority of your friends even are not gonna make it. You cant change someones mind, you can at most inspire them by example. Save your closest family and people who ask, but dont expect hyperbitcoinisation and happitimes for all. Its gonna get way worse before it gets better.

I believe you are right

10 sats \ 1 replies \ @brxyz 16 May

In the near term, I think it's next to (but not completely) a lost cause to try to orange pill the western economies. Most people we know don't see any benefit to Bitcoin because they benefit from the relative comfort their country's economic hegemony provides. To them, all the rhetoric around flawed financial systems is just more "sky is falling" noise.

Bitcoin's value proposition doesn't speak to them (yet). It does however resonate with billions of people who suffer under those hegemonies (primarily in the Global South). They're not entrenched in financial institutions and their country's money is either unreliable or inaccessible.

That's where the next billion users needs to come from. I know that's not lost on many here, and there are groups working on this, but if the Bitcoin community at large could really rally behind that effort, it could potentially save Bitcoin from any future irrelevancy.

Hmmm true, but most BTC is already held by westerners, because of their headstart in understanding of IT. But that doesnt dispute the fact some fiats are collapsing faster than the other and some people need Bitcoin much more than westerners.

Sadly not everyone will be able to be a keyholder. Given food or onchain fees you always choose food. Therefore its important the custodians to be as small as possible and as many as possible. Local communities.

Bitcoin is more like TCP/IP rather than a Western Union that should be supplanted by a Venmo or whatever. At this point I think the only thing that could "kill" Bitcoin is ignoring it. I find it very telling that the most convincing bear scenarios are from bitcoiners. In any case, I'm aligned with the principles within Bitcoin, and if we're wrong, at least we tried to change the money. That's more than what most other people can say for themselves who instead choose to succumb to fatalism

I agree. "At least we tried." Its not easy to build a brand new economy. It feels like american revolution kinda shit. BUT I think itll work out in the end. 😊

If we're wrong, we're wrong. Since you're on SN though, I'd assume you've done your research and made the educated prediction that Bitcoin will pay out in terms of adoption. So, if we're wrong and this crashes and burns, you made the rational decision and a million to one event played out.

172 sats \ 1 replies \ @kenn_b 16 May

Well, it is like gambling. You bet on a horse and hope it is the fastest, but you do not bet all your wealth on one horse, do you? Some people bet only for fun, some people research and make more sophisticated bets with more wealth, but at the end of the day, it is a gamble.

We are very early in the cycle of Bitcoin and adoption takes time, so this is more of a one of a lifetime type of gamble. Lose or win, you are a part of something that has the potential to be great.

It’s not a gamble. 1btc = 1btc forever. Stop thinking in fiat terms

227 sats \ 0 replies \ @Majjin 16 May

Here's how I see it playing out. If we're wrong, it just means that new forms of currency can't gain enough momentum to out-compete large, hegemonic currencies. The bright side is that those large, hegemonic fiat currencies will inevitably collapse. I believe this will happen even if they become CDBCs. The fiat collapse will be like a forest fire. The large trees get cleared out and the ashes provide ample ground for something new to flourish. Unfortunately, just like a forest fire, it will destroy and it will be extremely painful. In this scenario, we were wrong about Bitcoin being a tree or even a sapling. It was a seed whole time.

However, not every seed will become an ancient, full grown tree. I think it has a very good chance with little competition, but its not a guarantee. If it fails even after the forest fire, then MAYBE it will be just like HashCash or B-Money and serve as the foundation for another Satoshi Nakamoto. Don't hold your breath for this "new Bitcoin" or bet on it. I think we should stick to this as far as it will go and resist our cultural urge for immediate novelty.

172 sats \ 0 replies \ @LDDV88 16 May

IF…. A 50/50 thought about bitcoin, not so sure of the future. But the thing is we are doing it now, using bitcoin, talking about bitcoin, learning about bitcoin, yet it still surpises me rather wonder how it works. It is beyond my imagination how the developers or founders of bitcoin had conceived to make bitcoin out of no where. And here we are, just like a Satoshi… a denomination.

Bitcoin is money / a store of value, people are not going to abandon their wealth only to jump onto a hypothetical better money / SoV just because a better technology has come along. If there are technological innovations that allow for a better money, they will be implemented as a layer on top of Bitcoin rather than creating a new unit of account from scratch.

Bitcoin may be a 'dinosaur', but it's a bit like wine, the older the better. It has stood the test of time, it's decentralized etc. The base layer's sluggishness is its advantage. Also, decentralization is a process, you may create a better technology but to make it decentralized takes time. And the network effect comes into play.

Look at TCP/IP. It's not the best protocol we could possibly come up with for the purpose it serves, but the entire internet runs on it and no one is proposing to move away from it; we just build on top of it, because "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". And it's not even a fair comparison, because it's easier to switch to a different network protocol than it is to switch to a new SoV, as there is no generational wealth at stake. It would be very difficult to replace Bitcoin, much harder than it is for Bitcoin to replace fiat, because Bitcoin is a huge milestone that solves many problems in a grand, monumental way; something slightly better than Bitcoin wouldn't be a huge milestone and yet you'd still have the hurdles of initial insufficient centralization, lack of adoption, lack of battle-testedness etc. to overcome. Bitcoin has gone through hacks, blocksize wars, splits within the community, regulatory attacks etc. and withstood them, which makes it stronger. Any successor of it would have to do the same; so it would have to be better not only as a technology, but also as a network, which is hard to achieve, because generally a better technology is more complex, but Bitcoin's strength also comes from its simplicity.

deleted by author

You can probably write this off to bear market burn out but of course there is a non zero chance that bitcoin fails, gets banned, co-opted, usurped by an inferior better promoted or politically favoured competitor.

I also get frustrated at times at how little attention "normies" are paying to what is going in the world. The obscene debt levels, the manipulation of money and information. Most people don't want to think about this stuff but they will have to think about this stuff when something breaks, which it will.

All we can do is put one foot in front of the other and try to enlighten as many people as possible. Slowly then all at once.

Gradually then suddenly 🤣

The answer is simple: if we’re wrong, we will lose money.

Don’t get yourself in a position where the loss of that money could ruin your life.

218 sats \ 0 replies \ @pillar 16 May

On one hand, I find your concerns valid. I guess there is a point on reflecting about these kind of doubts and it helps us somehow do a better job at being Bitcoiners. The only bit where I would challenge you is that life isn't black or white. It's not either conquer the world and the universe or disappear completely. We will probably land somewhere in between.

Now, in practical terms: be stoic. Care about you can do. Be the Bitcoiner you think is right to be. And then, let the rest of the world do whatever it has to. If the world hyperbitcoinizes, that's nice. If not: you did the right thing.

At some point you realize that a happy life is achieved by simply living in accordance to your principles. It's the journey, not the destination.

The more governments implement policies that make peoples lives worse off, the more incentive to adopt Bitcoin. The way things are going it seems the incentive is only going to increase over the years.

Even if BTC doesn't reach some sort of critical mass, it will be there when it's needed.

For sure it will be banned in some slow countries, but by the time they notice their economies are going away to those others states which are more friendly, they would have to step back. One thing sure at all is that bitcoin will be attacked soon, if not already started, by those who aren't interest of its adoption. Our mision is to make it reachable to everyone, delete from their minds that this is for tradding. Btc is the new standard and what comes behind has to take its value reference of it. We should take care of our developers, help eachother and teach.

I was a trader in 2021. Got wrecked. Now im a steady holder, dca kyc free, and spend it when i can.

If you feel you're doing wrong using bitcoin, just go back to fiat and g'luck with that. No one force you to use bitcoin

Nostr is what will bring bitcoin to the masses and not only for its twitter-like applications. Massively underestimated.

10 sats \ 1 replies \ @joda 17 May

What applications do you think will be killers?

Not sure but the compounded network effects will incentivize replacements for all sorts of legacy social apps that keep data in silos.

With sats as native currency the circular economy will keep growing with the network, so demanding bitcoin for services (via upfront payments, prisms, zap splits, etc) will become increasingly easier. Ancillary hybrid or non-social services will start to slowly appear in the ecosystem leveraging the frictionless flow of sats.

Add open source AI and Holepunch to the mix and there will be a cambrian explosion in this economy.

For newcomers in general, zapping is a much more enticing way of orange pilling than boring them with the censorship resistance speech and Nostr makes that super easy and fun.

The only thing you can be wrong about is the timeline. You could theoretically have a 1000 year CCP regime that manages to suppress adoption until they are finally overthrown. Most of the people who bring up thermodynamics (e.g. Saylor) spout gibberish, but it is thermodynamically certain. Your question is akin to asking "what if we are wrong and the sun doesn't rise tomorrow?"

164 sats \ 0 replies \ @Entrep 16 May

This growing number of people using Bitcoin to maintain the value of their hardwork wouldn't just up and leave it alone.

it just doesnt work out, gets "banned" or co-opted, or people just get lazy and stop caring

I don't see these as being major concerns. There's a lot of real use right now and it's overcome those types of challenges.

The idea that something will displace Bitcoin is the more likely concern, to me. However, if someone develops a superior technology it will be because we've created enough value in Bitcoin to make that worthwhile. Also, this community would likely be early adopters of any new superior money technology, so I wouldn't be too worried about losing everything because you went all in on Bitcoin.

I'm also annoyed by those people. They don't see the difference between propaganda and valid concerns. To some extent I understand it, since the two can have similar effect on BTC adoption and value, but they are not the same thing. I think it's often a matter of the classic "it's hard to understand something when your job [or future value of your BTC holdings] depends on you not understanding it".

One important difference between the two is also that some concerns can be mitigated technically, such as what has happened with Lightning solving the tx/sec problem of the chain. That wouldn't have happened if everyone just yelled FUD when they heard it. Listening to concerns is important.

Banning, in my opinion, is a highly valid concern, especially for all the people who owns KYC bitcoin, and doubly so for those who can't move to different jurisdictions. It is being addressed, both with lobbying and with privacy enhancing technology, but we're far from out of the woods. I don't believe the network would be killed, even by a global ban, due to its decentralized nature and there always being a few technical wizards who can manage to keep their nodes and miners hidden and online, but mass adoption could be delayed indefinitely, with a much lower value per BTC than today.

If what they say about BTC being the only truly decentralized coin is true, I don't think a "next thing" is very likely, unless it gets massive media support, which would probably unfortunately mean it's a surveillance theftcoin such as a CBDC or Worldcoin, which wouldn't kill BTC either, but delay it from growing faster, maybe even drag it down from current adoption, at least until the "thing" in question hyperinflates.

And for anyone looking to make some snarky comment, no, I will not sell my BTC to you or anyone else. I have mined BTC, bought stuff for some of it, more than covering the costs of said mining, and have some BTC left. If it goes to zero, I have already won, if it goes to the moon, I will win much more. I have decided on a level of BTC holding that I do not want to get below, at least not before retirement.

For the nocoiners, I'm with the people who say "get off zero". Get a little bit of BTC, preferably KYC-free, but not for more than your willing to lose, and hold on to it for at least one halving, preferably at least two. If it goes to the moon, that little will be a lot, if it crashes to zero, you have only lost what you put in. If you buy lottery tickets or bet on sports, maybe buy BTC for that money instead, or at least some of it - in my estimate a much higher chance of "winning" even if it's not guaranteed, and you don't support a zero sum game, but something that at least has the potential to be of extreme benefit to humanity.

"not for more than you are willing to lose"

THERE IS NO "LOSING" unless you lose your private key.

When you trade your genocide-enabling government proof-of-war money for Bitcoin, look at the app you are using- they will tell you how many sats you are getting.

After you move those sats to your own key and hold your key responsibly...


Of course not, you won't lose the sats, but the sats may lose most of their purchasing power, even very long term. The possibility and probability of that is the subject of this entire discussion. If we look at Bitcoin's history, the probability seems extremely low, but if we look at governments all around the world being scared of losing their power to print and control money, it's a bit more complicated. I don't know the probability, but it's not in the low single digits, nor in the high nineties, in my estimate.

Let's imagine the extreme case (which seems extremely unlikely, but so did most of the world's governments' response to Covid-19, and its peoples' obedience to it): US, Canada, EU, Russia, China, etc. feel so threatened that they, over a few years, escalate until any dealings with Bitcoin is punishable by death (even in countries that didn't have capital punishment before), and they threaten to nuke any country that doesn't prohibit its use the same way. As I said, I don't think the Bitcoin network would go down even in that case, at least not in the first 10-100 years, depending on many factors, but it would probably deter at least some 99.999% of the world's population from transacting, mining, running nodes, etc. More might HODL what they already have, since it's passive, potentially undetectable and plausibly deniable ("I deleted the keys when it became illegal").

Do you think BTC would retain more than 1% of its current purchasing power in that case, or go back above that level again before either the laws for some reason are revoked, or the situation in the world because of fiat becomes so bad that people perceive a similar risk of death from not using Bitcoin as from being discovered using it?

There was once a death penalty on using printing presses in certain countries, because of "dissemination of dangerous information". Nothing is more dangerous than a threatened ruling class. The printing press obviously won anyway, but since Bitcoin is internet native, and the internet is surveilled by the NSA and similar agencies around the world, and gets more restricted and surveilled for every year that passes, I don't think Bitcoin's chances are as high in such a scenario as those the printing press had.

Once again, this is a thought experiment, I'm not saying something like that is likely, and you're welcome to explain why it, or some more-or-less similar clampdown, is completely impossible or couldn't affect the purchasing power in that way etc., but I don't believe Bitcoin is completely invincible. Highly resilient, but not infinitely so.

You need to zoom out from the Bitcoin issue.

What you describe is total tyranny and if people submit to laws like that then we have a much bigger issue than money.

My people overthrew their communist dictators in the 90s. War is recent and ongoing for people all around the world. The kind of war where bullets and shells hit your house or your neighbors. Our relative comfort in “the west” has spoiled us. We are mostly fat lazy pathetic tax slaves.

Bitcoin is part of fight for liberty globally. This battle will never be over or “won” - it is ongoing and ceaseless. Even at the peaks of human liberty after major victories- one slip of the watch allows the festering parasite of tyranny to return. It grows and grows, consuming more and more of its host- until the remnant rips it out by its bloody roots and we can again find peace.

"What you describe is total tyranny and if people submit to laws like that then we have a much bigger issue than money."

Exactly. What I mean is that every sign points to the vast majority of people actually submitting to whatever their government says, at least in "developed" countries (makes you wonder what kind of "development" is meant...). I have had hope that there would be a breaking point where at least a substantial, loud-voiced minority would stand up and say "no more", and get traction, but for every year that passes, it seems less and less likely.

Yes, Bitcoin, certain groups of activists, programmers, etc. are trying, but the vast majority chooses not even the easy way, but the compliant way. If Bitcoin becomes so easy to use and beneficial that it saves hours of the day and increases living standard by 2X (which I'd argue it already is and can in some cases), and it became illegal, even if just a hefty fine, the vast majority wouldn't use it.

Most people don't know the first thing about keeping their tracks hidden, but even more people wouldn't keep using Bitcoin even if they knew they could stay perfectly hidden (which is impossible to know for certain), because they don't want to break the law. They think the law is what decides what is morally and ethically right.

Maybe it will be different if there are "example countries", such as if El Salvador is allowed to flourish for 5-15 years, much like communist countries' populations found out about the prosperity in more capitalist ones.

Since Bitcoin is global however, that would require that nothing too damaging happens in the rest of the world until then, or El Salvador will be dragged down along the rest of the Bitcoin value, and probably make their people demand they end the experiment.

I believe it's more of a race against time than an endless battle. Bitcoin soon-ish or Bitcoin never, or at least not for a hundred years or more.

Again, Bitcoin is a big part but not the only thing.

When tyranny takes over the empire/country falls.

The best people leave or are imprisoned.

Other countries get the opportunity to be leaders.

The system naturally resets. We are arguing to avoid all the pain and suffering…. But we will go through it and the fall of each empire if the tyrants never stop trying.

They will never win

As long a dystopia comes closer and closer to be real at a large scale I don't really worry for Bitcoins use cases and the constant growth of new Bitcoiners and freedom lovers among our ranks. Honestly, as Margaret says "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". So as long as the fiat system still exists Bitcoin will be a big thing IMO Once "other people money" will be spent and turned into ashes, and that lots of people will hold their wealth in Bitcoin, then the hardest fight will begin as "easy times will come and with them weak men/women.

From a game theory point of view, I can't understand why we are "early" 14 years after the public release of the project. The fact that a lot of smart people are not partially or fully invested in Bitcoin, just for the hedging alone, worries me. That's probably the only thing that worries me about Bitcoin, the fear of the unknown, something that I don't know about and that other economic actors have and that doesn't make them jump on the Bitcoin wave.

Anyway, I'm going to follow my brain my heart and my guts because I deeply know that we are in the right place. Stack sats or die

It is early because people don’t understand how Bitcoin is not shitcoins

Agreed. 👍

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @guts 16 May

I think we are not entirely wrong as CBDC are coming around the corner. But I would say Bitcoin maxis are wrong, Bitcoin is not the only solution, neither Lighting.

No matter how luxurious and functional a money printing machine is, it is still just a money printing machine. The essence has not changed. Maybe it can print more and print faster. This is CDBC.

There is only 1 design of the wheel.

Beyond Bitcoin lies Artificial Intelligence

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satos 17 May

We are not wrong mate,no body can control bitcoin, HODL or regret later, you see BTC trading at $1M in coming years, possible in 5 years, STACK SATS.

1024 sats \ 1 replies \ @Chep 16 May

Svetski's perspective, as outlined in the article "Bitcoiners Are the Remnant" (, deeply resonates with me. It suggests that those who are willing to invest the time and effort to understand Bitcoin are likely to be better prepared to navigate potential future financial crises. I wholeheartedly agree that education and awareness are key to safeguarding oneself in such circumstances. However, it is important to acknowledge that not everyone will take the initiative to educate themselves about Bitcoin, which poses a challenge to its widespread adoption.

While the lack of understanding among individuals is concerning, I believe the most significant threat lies in the possibility of governments successfully averting hyperinflation of fiat currencies. If governments manage to maintain stability and prevent excessive inflation, it could potentially delay the sense of urgency for mass adoption of Bitcoin as a viable alternative. Nonetheless, history has shown that pain often serves as a powerful catalyst for change, and if inflation reaches levels experienced in the global south, more people in the West may awaken to the importance of financial autonomy.

The growing acceptance of surveillance and digital currencies is indeed disheartening. Many individuals prioritize convenience over privacy, which often leads to a loss of financial autonomy. The allure of streaming services and government stimulus checks tends to divert attention away from crucial matters such as the integrity of financial systems and the significance of personal financial responsibility.

While Bitcoin's fundamental principles, including fairness and decentralization, make it a strong contender in the digital currency space, it is essential to remain open-minded and consider the possibility of being wrong. The continuous evaluation and critical analysis of our own beliefs and perspectives are crucial. If we cannot adequately defend our own arguments and consider alternative viewpoints, it indicates a need for further research and understanding.

This is a big brained post. I never even considered that goverments could, perhaps, avoid hyperinflation. And yes, pain is the best teacher, and has taught me well these past few years. Thanks for the reply 👍

People getting comfortable with big techs dystopia is not bitcoin's fault. However I think btc should focus more in ease of use. People tend to use what is more comfortable even if it violates their privacy/rights.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 18 May

If we're right, we'll be richer and freer. If we're wrong, we'll be poorer and freer. As long as we're freer, that's good enough for me.

In short, bitcoin is designed to open answers. it should not work or not work! it opens doors with the oldest key to a new space! but slowly and gradually! it may seem strange, but if you do a mental experiment, then in the end, bitcoin will become that picklock in your subconscious, and will show you the possibilities. you just have to choose the direction.

Another concern is hopping onto the next thing.

This was one of my concerns. Over the years however, I've come to think of Bitcoin as a scoreboard. There is no other scoreboard that is as global, fair, and impartial; from who can transact on the network, to who gets the units in the first place. This makes the scoreboard a discovery, not an invention because this scoreboard can only be created once. As more and more people realise this fact, they will move from whatever scoreboard they are using, be it fiat, cbdc, or even gold, and onto the Bitcoin standard. It's just a question of time.

Its possible

But I don't think we are wrong

There is nothing wrong with humans always experimenting with money systems. All I know is that the current fiat currency system has failed, and we need a whole new system, and maybe a newer system in the future. But we can only focus on the present.

The only thing that I can personally see being "beyond" bitcoin would be some type of device that allows us to have whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted it.

If we could all just have whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted it, I don't know if we would need money to trade with each other.

Something tells me we're a ways away from this coming to be lol

legitimate question ..... if we are wrong....ill lead the troops to fork it into the real BTCmv (Maxi Vision)


Until the relentless momentum of Bitcoin's advance in securing solid bulwarks in the economy lets up I'd hope that being wrong means being pessimistic.