Not crazy unpopular, but unpopular with some people so I'm gonna say it.

Bitcoin is not salvation, a deity, the most moral cause in the world, etc. I feel like so many people, especially on Bitcoin twitter have inadvertently made Bitcoin an almost cult-like group, which although supporting a good technology and cause, creates a dangerous atmosphere around BTC that drives people away instead of bringing them in.

I came to Bitcoin in spite of all the slogans of "Bitcoin or slavery", ∞/21M, etc. Although they are in the distinct minority, I have heard several prominant Bitcoiners refer to Bitcoin as a new world relgion that will overtake all "impure" ideologies. I almost didn't start using Bitcoin because insanity like this made me less sure about it's actual usefulness.

Most Bitcoiners I've talked to seem to see Bitcoin in a reasonable light, where it is a technology and movement that can help the world in political and economic ways. Yet, too many people seem to almost worship Bitcoin like a god, rather than a protocol. Bitcoin is not God.

Bitcoin will not save you, and being pro-Bitcoin does not make you in any way more moral than a regular person who uses fiat, or even most bankers at that. This is not a jihad, it is a political movement. God has said that idol worship is a sin, and that He looks on the heart rather than the exterior. He will care about how you have lived and treated your brothers and sisters. I don't think He will care if you supported Bitcoin or not, but He will if you used it as an idol upon which you could belittle your brothers and sisters.

We shouldn't level judgement at people who choose to worship Bitcoin, yet a warning is in order. If you care about being a good person, about actually helping the cause of Bitcoin, and about your eternal salvation, please don't make Bitcoin a deity.

I'm not here to fight you guys. I'm just trying to warn and love.

If you don't understand the code, you don't really understand bitcoin

I feel like too many people are all about "don't trust, verify" etc. but never really tried to learn how to read code.

Shitcoins will never go away. They will always be a poor investment and will lose out to Bitcoin in the long term, but they will be around.

Creating a shitcoin is very profitable (for the issuer) and the cost of producing them is essentially zero. Anyone who maintains a strong network effect has the power to issue a shitcoin that will succeed in the near- to mid-term. Apple, Twitter, FB, anyone who produces a popular video game, etc.

Whatever activity can be done profitably will be done. If no one has said that before, let's call it Mudblood's Law.

None of this is meant as a justification, just a prediction.

Increase the blocksize limit…

I won.

In case of 4 years long network difficulty (i.e. security) regression - halving should be delayed by 210k blocks to meet the recovery of the network security. That would de facto implement a missing free market in post-subsidy era between overtaxed active on-chain users and passive free-riders aka stakeholders. Without free market there - we are f...ed long term :)

So many so called “bitcoiners” are LARPers, especially many who are prominent on bitcoin Twitter with large followings. They say they are all for freedom and privacy; meanwhile they endorse and take sponsorship from KYC exchanges and custodial lending platforms. I see all KYC coins as government captured coins, and any custodial platform is a “rug you anytime” platform.

And then there are those who keep saying bitcoin will eventually win, for certain. As if we can just kick our feet up, sit back, and watch bitcoin win. That is far from true. Satoshi gave us the gift of bitcoin and it is up to us to not fuck it up. We need to take care of it, build on top of it, make sure it’s still usable when hundred millions or billions of people want to use it. Thinking that we have already won / will eventually win while growing complacent is the last thing that will help us win. In fact, it might be the very thing that cause bitcoin to fail.

The “∞/21 million” idea is probably off by an order of magnitude.

i think ∞/210 million is a more accurate estimate of bitcoin’s market value on a Bitcoin standard.

Fearing KYC is FUD.

Someone will finally have to tell the gov to f off, bending over backwards as a new user to only hold p2p coins doesn't help win the race to avoid the war.

I got another one, Bitcoin is not 100% trustless

I'm pissed when Bitcoiners say that Bitcoin is backed by energy. No it's not! Unless you can get it back somehow. If BTC would be backed by electricity, then LTC, DOGE, XMR etc. would also be. And are they?

Bitcoin isn't backed by any physical asset. Energy is needed for it but it's not backing it.

Holding bitcoin never made me feel self sovereign. And running a node does not either.

Money is a perception of value, without any entity. Concrete performance is a kind of IOU. Asking people to believe that you can store value in some kind of entity or encrypted text is inherently religious.

Bitcoin proper may never achieve mass adoption because most humans are not sufficiently independent thinkers 🐑.

Once bitcoin reaches a certain saturation point in the general population, there will be too many nodes run by follower-thinkers. Eventually they will do something dumb like increase the supply, change the blocksize or some similar step that increases centralization.

Of course those of us who disagree will not update our nodes as such. But most of the population will unthinkingly follow along.

Although a good number of us will fork to "true" bitcoin. But we would be a much smaller percentage of what was once bitcoin.

So we'd again be the smaller band of rabble-rousers, rebels, punks, etc. While the rest of the mindless population continues re-creating fiat or reserve banking on what was once bitcoin.

They'll fail again, and the endless cycle begins again. Endless because most people don't learn.

Just a thought

I think "eating bugs" is not that bad...

Imo the term Bitcoin will be abstracted away. First and foremost due to Bits and Sats but also because the way it actually becomes money imo is by having currencies built ON TOP OF IT with different names and redeemable for varying amounts and which most people will probably never do.

Intentionally saying the phrase "hodl" alienates a lot of potential bitcoiners and makes it so a lot of people cant take us seriously. Somehow it also makes us seem cultish, like a weird chant we have. Also, saying hodl stands for 'hold on for dear life' is also weird, because originally that wasn't what it was, it was simply a misspelling of the word hold. Its not the end of the world, I know, but this is my unpopular opinion.

Coriander/Cilantro should be an explicit opt-in at restaurants/food trucks/etc

Recursive covenants will allow governments to control Bitcoin while at the same time keeping it decentralized and thereby not killing off a trillion dollar asset class.

this was one of my favorite hot takes on SN, i am now convinced every bitcoiner should own a bike

Most bitcoiners suck and bitcoin fixing things will really kick into high gear after a few rounds of all your idiotic malinvestment running their course (likely multigenerational), meaning hyperbitcoinization as a point event will not necessarily be all that significant.

Bitcoiners having the opportunity to become poorer is sort of the fundamental reason why bitcoin will fix things.

You already have enough bitcoin

I see that very few bitcoiners agree with my strong meme...

It's good that shitcoins exist.

Particularly those that think themselves to be "better Bitcoin" are really just a breeding ground of ideas and technologies. Those worth preserving get implemented into Bitcoin or coopted by the ecosystem in some way.

We shouldn't use the term satoshi or sat to describe the smallest unit of bitcoin. Hear me out.

The dollars smallest unit is called a penny. And then we have nickels and dimes and quarters. Pesos smallest unit is called centavos.

My point is it is unusual to name the smallest unit of a currency after a person. Or any denomination of currency

Now the problem really is that the name of a person actually I think diminishes bitcoins grandeur: Calling it a satoshi somehow, as an introduction, to an outsider, makes them think bitcoin is this Japanese focused idea. When in reality its global and no one knows where its from. And sure me and you know satoshi Nakamoto could easily be a pseudonym, but the average person is learning all this for the first time and coming to their own conclusions based on what theyre hearing and seeing. Normally, im here, in a bitcoin focused area, and everyone understand me, and I have no issue calling it a satoshi. But these thoughts occur to me when im talking to my 70 year old mother and father about bitcoin, or a random stranger who's not that great with tech, and I hesitate to explain that theyre called satoshi it just seems also to unnecessarily complicate it. I think things should be named more intentionally, like quarter or dime, because those names describe the actual thing itself.

I think the smallest unit should be referred to as "bits"