pull down to refresh

201 sats \ 1 reply \ @softglitter2d 2 Jun \ on: What should bitcoin be? bitcoin
Let's face some facts before we jump to my response:
  • Michael Saylor is 100% pure balls. What he did and his responses trough Microstrategy's first bear market was something to observe and learn
  • I think1 Michael Saylor has the best intentions and want to see bitcoin to grow, like everyone else in the community

Some bitcoin facts

  • Doing development and working at Core itself happens to be something voluntary and it's challenging according to developers itself.
  • Bitcoin Core needs all the help people can provide.

Now,

Bitcoin is the internet of money and with that, we as a community have a responsability and we're accountable for what's happening there. I'm not saying we should just pretend we don't care something and ignore it. Saylor is offering his view and that's the way I took his opinions, which too many influencers/podcasters pretends that he has some kind of direct hit to actions taken in Bitcoin ecosystem.
Now, although I get his idea to developers and try to fund them in order to work at Core itself, that's not how open money works. Actually, I'm not against Microstrategy to put some fund to developers. That won't change the fact that make changes in the most hard money protocol that have been seen is hard hard way more difficult than most people think. This was my conclusion after I listened WBD with Gloria Zhao. And I finish quoting Jona's thread:
Adding more developers have huge upside potential and little risks… regardless of who is funding them.
In the end of the day, what would happen if some corporations wants to take bitcoin and make some..agreements between them to modify something?2

Footnotes

  1. I know, it may sound a little naive from me ↩
  2. Blocksize Wars Part II? That would be fun, Bitcoin Saylor Vision, the new BSV ↩
write
preview
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 2 Jun freebie
Saylor is offering his view and that's the way I took his opinions
Fair! I think his opinion, at base, is worth discussing. He's just being super sneaky about it like he lost his humility.
If he just said: "I have a lot at stake and I'm afraid of bitcoin changing, so I won't fund protocol development and I urge all my friends to not fund it as well. I believe changing bitcoin threatens me, my company, my shareholders, and other bitcoiners. I know this is contrary to the way some people think about the protocol, but I'm open to feedback and having my mind changed." I don't think saying that would matter much, it'd be honest, and many would agree with him.
Instead he talks about aeronautical engineering as if introducing OP_CAT is like building a plane with its wings upside down.
reply