Tag: Bitcoin Maximalism

Choose Your Fighter: Bitcoin Maxis Vs. Fiat Maxis

[ad_1]

This is an opinion editorial by Tim Niemeyer, co-host of the Lincolnland Bitcoin Meetup.

Source

Bitcoin maximalists have had a whirlwind of a year. From getting browbeat through the recent price drawdown to being seemingly prophetic bell-ringers of the dumpster fire that is “crypto,” much of what has been written in the mainstream remains net negative. What’s concerning is that their centralized, authoritarian counterparts (referred to here as fiat maximalists) somehow maintain an air of superiority in the mainstream. Oddly, both Bitcoin maxis and fiat maxis have some similarities in their structure. But how they each attempt to achieve their goal is where they differ dramatically.

As a child of the early gaming systems, I fancied the “Street Fighter” and “Mortal Kombat” series. I’d even consider myself a formidable “Tekken” opponent. From those experiences, I often frame real-world comparisons using the “choose your fighter” paradigm. Whether I’m choosing which side of a debate has the best arguments, which ideology delivers the optimal outcome or which strategy is best suited for a game, I end up creating a mental list of attributes from which I can better choose my course of action.

So, what would it look like to size up Bitcoin maxis versus fiat maxis? Does one side have a stronger argument? Does one ideology deliver optimal outcomes versus the other? Or is it simply that one strategy is better suited to win in “the game” of monetary dominance? Let’s compare…

Structurally Similar

Source

Shinobi recently defined Bitcoin maxis as those who focus on Bitcoin, share criticism of other technologies and are constantly preaching the virtues of Bitcoin. Stephan Livera defines Bitcoin Maximalism as “the view that we’ll live on a bitcoin standard…” and that “maximalists want to clearly distinguish Bitcoin from ‘crypto.’” A potential framing of the toxic aspects of Bitcoin maximalism could be those preaching further out on the spectrum of decentralized (versus centralized), individualistic (versus collectivist) and laissez-faire (versus authoritarian), often confrontationally and controversially.

Conversely, when we apply these terms to fiat maxis, we can start to see some common themes. They focus on fiat currencies, criticize Bitcoin and pseudo-competing technologies, and are constantly preaching the virtues of the almighty dollar or similar coercive currencies. The fiat maxi maintains the view that we will all continue with the fiat standard. They also try to lump Bitcoin and “crypto” together. The toxic aspects of fiat maximalism tend to be those further out on the spectrum of centralized (versus decentralized), collectivist (versus individualistic), and authoritarian (versus laissez-faire). These are the ones who want you to eat the bugs, live in a pod, and, as the World Economic Forum states, “own nothing” and “be happy.”

When compared with these categorizations, it’s easy to see how we’re all so similar; we all want what we want in the way we want it. We’re not so different, you and I. We’re two sides of the same coin! Time to start singing “Kumbaya”? No? Well, although Bitcoin and fiat maxis are structurally similar in regards to their monetary systems, how they go about achieving it is where they contrast starkly.

Stark Contrasts

Source

“GFY” is a common anthem of the toxic Bitcoin maxi. If that makes you uncomfortable, pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and challenge yourself to understand why that’s not such a bad thing.

Comments like these are overt in nature, which is a feature not a bug. Tomer Strolight wrote “that thing that some people consider a ‘bug’ in bitcoin that they call ‘toxicity’ is in fact the virtue of integrity.” Most of the GFY-like comments are preceded by those either disingenuously or erroneously attacking Bitcoin; toxic Bitcoin maxis draw a line in the sand. Strolight further offers the concept of “principle-based toxicity,” which he considers an “intolerance of what Bitcoiners consider fatal compromises to Bitcoin.” This includes surrendering decentralization, sound engineering or security, all in exchange for adoption of some form.

If something I value is being attacked, I want to know that the people around me are willing to help defend it. Furthermore, personal growth happens when there’s a firm foundation upon which to build. If I’m surrounded by people willing to tell me the truth, I’m more likely to make sound decisions. As odd as it may sound, GFY is sincere; Bitcoin maxis are letting the intended recipient know they’re full of it and will not tolerate anything short of the truth, which is similar to the truth provided by Bitcoin’s consensus algorithm.

Personally, my BS detector has improved dramatically since I started studying the virtues of Bitcoin. While this is an N of 1 observation, I’ve encountered many similar anecdotes from Bitcoiners. That being said, there’s value in standing your ground while also calmly calling out someone’s inconsistencies in a constructive way. We should all strive to attain Michael Saylor’s ability to maintain a positive, collaborative, illustrative and welcoming frame.

Contrast all of that with the covert nature of the toxic fiat maximalist. These are the people who engage in what George Orwell referred to as “doublespeak,” language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts or reverses the meaning of words. Common to the toxic fiat maxi, this language does not display integrity. It is often used divisively in order to garner more control; it’s insidious in nature.

Whether it’s Nancy Pelosi’s obscure “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” comment to Elizabeth Warren’s divisive “shadowy faceless group of super coders,” all of these are just word salads attempting to coerce the public into a preapproved mindset; it’s obfuscatory optics. Nothing they say offers solid truths; it’s hot air intended to puff up their perceived sense of power. Words are weapons they wield to sway public perception. At least Agustin Carsten was direct when he said that, with central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), “central bank(s) will have absolute control on the rules and regulations.”

So, seriously, kudos to you for that.

Choose Your Fighter

It’s time to choose your fighter. Who do you want to associate with? Someone who has a principled approach and provides a clear conception of reality (regardless of political correctness) or a wordsmith with the intent to deceive? Someone who wants to allow you to be you (regardless of what “you” stands for) or someone who will attempt to exert influence over others who don’t share their conception of what ought to be?

In a weird way, the preferred monetary medium is irrelevant (at least in the vacuum of this framing). What is relevant is the outcomes of human behavior seemingly created by each system. I often wonder what size the effect of the chosen monetary system has upon the individuals within said system. It’s as if Bitcoin is a forcing function for facts while fiat is a forcing function for falsehoods.

This fight continues to play itself out on the main stage of society. I believe it’s imperative to not only choose the side of truth and reason, but also to share these facts with those you love. A bottom-up, grassroots approach is the ethical way to garner consensus. Where fiat maxis will coerce you with their doublespeak to continually create their ruling-class legacy in their image, Bitcoin maxis will continue to authentically advocate for truth and reason.

Bitcoin maxis are the antithesis of fiat maxis; Bitcoin maxis exude integrity, sincerity and truthfulness whereas fiat maxis exhibit corruption, artificiality and equivocation. Bitcoin is to signal what fiat is to noise. In a head-to-head match, I choose Bitcoin maxis hands down, every time. Good ideas don’t require force. Adoption is increasing. Our time will come. The good news is Bitcoin is for everyone. Except you, Craig.

This is a guest post by Tim Niemeyer. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

[ad_2]

Tim Niemeyer

Source link

January 7, 2023
After FTX Implosion, It’s Time To End Bitcoin’s Dysfunctional Relationship With Crypto

[ad_1]

This is an opinion editorial by Tim Niemeyer, a Bitcoiner since circa-2018 and co-host of the Lincolnland Bitcoin Meetup in Springfield, Illinois.

“Bitcoiners are trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with crypto and we want out!” — Michael Saylor

Amidst the carnage of the FTX drama, a moment of clarity illuminated the Twittersphere. Michael Saylor’s words were the signal in the noise resulting from the dysfunctional trainwreck unaffectionately known as “crypto”. Before we can truly appreciate his insights, we should first meditate on what makes this relationship dysfunctional or, in the context of couples therapy, a toxic relationship.

While many in the cryptocurrency industry were happily going about their life viewing their relationship with money (trust, commitment, support, etc.) in a positive light, they were ignoring the warning signs that their relationship was anything but healthy. Sure, all good relationships have their ups and downs. Disagreements happen, but overall you share common goals and trust the other to have your best interests at heart. There’s a certain level of expectation that your partner will support you, communicate openly and honestly, and refrain from controlling behaviors. Life this way is freeing and you’re generally able to flourish.

But what if one side doesn’t have your best interests at heart? What if they are dishonest? What if there becomes a pattern of disrespect? What if they ignore your needs? Sure, you can hope for change, but you still feel drained, stressed, anxious, or depressed. Eventually, you want out. Your need for a positive, healthy relationship overwhelms the comfort of the known, current relationship. The first step is admitting there’s a problem. Acknowledging signs of a toxic relationship are necessary.

Signs Of A Toxic Relationship

In regards to our relationship with money, support may be displayed in many ways. One way we support each other is through the ability to trust that our counterpart has our best interests at heart. The overwhelming problem with the cryptocurrency sphere (defined here as everything other than Bitcoin) is that it’s still largely based on an expectation of trust. Whether it’s FTX, Celsius, LUNA or the countless other scams and Ponzis that are sewn into the fabric of the cryptocurrency industry, it’s clear that having centralized entities controlling your value requires you trust the fallible seamstresses and their incentives. It’s like the trust fall; an exercise in which one person lets him- or herself fall without trying to stop it, relying on their friend(s) to catch them. How many times do you allow yourself to fall to the ground before you lose trust?

These recent fallouts in crypto continue to illuminate the inherent dishonesty in its DNA. Investors are deceived into a false sense of security in the relationship; it’s a form of dishonest communication based on non-transparency and the over-leveraged nature of exchanges. Allowing humans to control money allows controlling behaviors to be coded into the system, which leads to growing resentment in the relationship … The relationship is further strained when the toxic side puts their needs ahead of your own. The needs of some CEOs often incentivize them into leveraging the customers’ trust to benefit their gain. This display of negative financial behaviors is becoming all too common in the cryptocurrency industry (again, non-Bitcoin-only entities). At some point, as my father would say, we need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Steps To Fix A Toxic Relationship

The first step is to accept responsibility. Not that you caused the situation per se, but that you acknowledge the situation you’re in and begin advocating for yourself. This can be done by investing in yourself. In the context of this article, that investment is education in Bitcoin as well as understanding the unintended consequences of adopting a “digital fiat” mindset present throughout the altcoin and centralized exchange industries. Once we shift from blaming to understanding, we allow ourselves to begin healing. The pain resulting from the recent developments will linger for a while, but it is our responsibility to not dwell on the past but move forward with compassion. The next step in the journey to healing is allowing yourself to be vulnerable again. This can be attained by sharing your self-love with others; calmly and clearly explaining the benefits of Bitcoin, self-custody and proof of reserves to friends and family.

People recovering from a toxic relationship can benefit from finding support. It is the opinion of the author that Bitcoiners should be that support structure. It’s ironic that many Bitcoiners are known as the toxic ones when they are the ones trying to illuminate the toxicity inherent in the ecosystem. That being said, an “I told you so,” doesn’t assist in the healing process. This is the moment where we must rise above and lead with compassion. We should hold space in our heart and allow others the time to heal and change.

There will be many who do not recover from a toxic relationship of this magnitude. While we can continue to educate from a place of humility, we must remember that, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Everyone will ultimately heal in their own way at their own pace. Some may never learn. We’ve probably all had a friend who’s jumped from one toxic relationship to another. As much as you may want to help, they need to first choose to help themselves. Even more, some people will continue to “Tinder around” with unhealthy cryptocurrency relationships. That’s their prerogative. If a friend of ours wants to be part of the hookup culture, that’s on them. They have to deal with the consequences of STDs and the like.

Regardless of the actions of certain exchanges or crypto in general, we must continue to espouse the benefits of Bitcoin in a positive light. Tell them how truth is born from trustlessness. Demonstrate how actual decentralization leads to pure democracy. Illuminate how immutability and permissionless systems allow for a free-flowing, cooperative society. Michael Saylor acutely recognized the toxicity we are allowing to proliferate through the perceived connection to crypto. We must choose to move forward towards a bitcoin standard for ourselves, our friends and family, and, ultimately, for society to flourish.

This is a guest post by Tim Niemeyer. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

[ad_2]

Tim Niemeyer

Source link

November 14, 2022
The Bitcoin Maxis Warned You About FTX
[ad_1]
This is an opinion editorial by Aleks Svetski, author of “The UnCommunist Manifesto,” founder of The Bitcoin Times and Host of the “Wake Up Podcast with Svetski.”

“The Bitcoin Maximalists were right, again. Damn them. Damn them to hell. This entire thing is their fault!”

Many a time, especially since 2020, I’ve heard variations of the following from people all across the “crypto” space:

“Look: a billion-dollar company isn’t going to collapse overnight. That’s impossible. They’re sponsoring an entire stadium for God’s sake — and you think their business model is to run off with your $2,000 worth of crypto? Don’t be so stupid. It’s safe enough to leave your bitcoin on there. Self custody is too complicated anyway. If we want mass adoption, custodians are important.”
These people’s faith in VC-backed institutions is blinder than the most fundamentalist of religious zealots, only far-worse placed.

And these people behind these institutions are glorified and revered in the media as eNtRePrEnEuRs, while their opinions lead people directly to the slaughterhouse. Case in point with Mr. Wonderful below:

Source

This proves much of what I discussed in my satirical article from October. You know we’re in late-stage fiat when the “smartest in the room” these days are about as dumb as the rest of the lemmings marching into the lava.

They’re so used to easy money via their obfuscated proximity to the money printer, that they have no idea why something like Bitcoin exists, why it’s important, or why it is different. They cannot see beyond the paradigm which has brought them success to date, and as such they are utterly unqualified to comment on something as paradigmatically different as Bitcoin.

Toxic!!!

When Bitcoin Maximalists turn warnings into memes, e.g., “not your keys, not your coins,” or proclaim the importance of “sound money,” e.g., “Bitcoin fixes this,” they are ignored as if they’re a group of a) zealots, or b) boring and outdated.

“Toxic” is the blanket response given by the Mr. Wonderfuls, BitBoys and Vitaliks of the world.

Well…. here we are again.

The reality of all Ponzi schemes is that they fall much quicker than they rise — and when their rise has been stellar, their fall is that much more meteoric. From Mt. Gox to BitConnect to Luna to BlockFi to Celsius to Voyager and now, to FTX.

They are all the same, and they are no different to every other cryptocurrency company on the market. Yes, I use the word “company” specifically because all of these so-called “projects” are just that; companies no different to FTX, just playing pretend with numbers conjured up out of code. And yes, that includes Ethereum, Cardano, Hex, Solana, Chainlink and every single other cryptocurrency, NFT or DeFi stupidity out there.

Only Bitcoin is different. Only Bitcoin lacks (and I say this as a positive attribute) “leadership” and a head of the snake to chop off or pressure. Only Bitcoin has an immaculate conception. Only Bitcoin had an organic, market-driven emergence. Only Bitcoin is fixed. Only Bitcoin is finite. Only Bitcoin matters.

Bitcoin Maximalists who warned you of all of the above have also been warning you about all of the shitcoins as well. The time will come for each of those to either explode, implode or fizzle out of existence.

The only question is: What will it take for you to heed those warnings?

The Signs Were There, Not Only The Warnings

FTX was always fishy. I met its founder, Sam Bankman-Friend, or SBF, on a yacht during Bitcoin 2021 in Miami. It was a private, little sailing trip we went on with about 50 or 60 other people.

I had no idea who he was, other than some really unhealthy looking dude with a distended gut and a bad hairdo. We exchanged a few awkward words and I proceeded to go speak to the waitresses while he remained in a corner eating hors d’oeuvres.

One of the people on the boat told me that he ran a company called “FTX,” to which I responded, “What the hell is that? Another shitcoin?” His response was, “No, it’s one of the fastest-growing exchanges in the world.”

I was intrigued, so I asked SBF a little about it, to which he responded that he had run a crypto hedge fund beforehand, was very successful and put that money into building an exchange.

At that point, I was running a Bitcoin-only app known as Amber, back in Australia, and I remember thinking to myself, “Goddammit, these shitcoiners are literally printing money by feeding gambling addictions — and here I am trying to help people stack sats sensibly. What a clown world…”

Anyway, I never heard or thought more about him after that, until I saw his “Home Cooking With Beyond Meat” tweets. The sickly physique made instant sense to me, and so did the shitcoinery.

Physiognomy matters, and while that may trigger some of you, the fact of the matter is that how you look is largely determined by your behavior, and your behavior is a manifestation of your values.

Sure, there are some things you cannot change, but by and large, you build and mold yourself into a reflection of what you value most — alas, I will save this talking point for a future article on why Bitcoin is aesthetic.

For now, suffice it to say that poor physiognomy was a warning sign. Fake meat leads to fake business (and a whole lot more fakeness in between, which I won’t mention here as people may get triggered).

What’s On The Horizon?

What will the future “I told you so” article be about?

Probably the collapse of Ponzi-like craptocurrencies whose raisons d’etre are “pumpamentals,” or Ethereum as it becomes “panopticoin” and merges with governments who aspire to issue central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

NFTs already seem to be dead. DeFi is in DeepShit, but maybe that has another round.

Whatever it is, it’s going to be painful for the myriad idiots who are following people like this:

I mean, you couldn’t make up such poetic irony if you tried, saying things like:

“CeFi failed” (while being sponsored by Nexo)

“We build cool shit and people use it for bad reasons”

“Is it a problem with the social layer?”

Much like Marxists, hosts like this, along with those behind failures like FTX have a very, very poor understanding of human nature. They think that if you just “build cool shit,” the world will become a better place, and that you could one day “fix the social layer” by turning everything into some transhuman smart contract.

They fail to realize that constraints are not just important, but necessary. Especially with respect to the language of value (i.e., money). That’s actually the answer to points two and three above.

What they see as “flaws” in Bitcoin are precisely its primary set of assets. Bitcoin is superior because idiots like SBF, Vitalik Buterin, Roger Ver, Richard Heart and the rest of the charlatans can do nothing to influence it.

Children like this, with no life experience and no understanding of psychology, traditionally had zero influence. It’s no surprise that in a clown world, their voices carry weight.

Imagine what they’re going to do when Ethereum falls apart, and their hero, Vitalik, becomes the next SBF. I don’t think they’re ready for it.

Source: author

The Silver Lining

So what does it all mean? What do we do with all this?

Well… there is a silver lining, always.

Some have said this FTX debacle, hot on the heels of similar fates for Luna and Three Arrows Capital has “set the industry back by years.”

I agree only insofar as the price of bitcoin may be affected in the short term. Otherwise, I have to wholeheartedly disagree.

If anything, I think this entire event has brought some reality to the so-called “industry,” and shown everyone what it really was on the inside; one big hot air balloon.

The Bitcoin industry, while perhaps inflated by the excessive interest in “crypto,” is now closer to where it should’ve been at this point in its evolution. A lot of the dumb ideas, like NFTs and “tokens on Lightning” will probably dissolve and disappear, while capital allocation toward Bitcoin will re-normalize.

Much of the phantom wealth in all of the mind-numbingly stupid shitcoinery so rampant these last few years should evaporate, and real capital will look for real innovation and business models in and around Bitcoin.

Bitcoin will have moved from institutions, crypto companies, VCs, shitcoiners and weak hands, into the cold storage wallets of Bitcoiners and long-term HODLers. A new price floor will develop and the next phase of growth will commence.

This is a net good. All of it.

In that sense, SBF, Do Kwon and Su Zhu are the saviors we never asked for, but that humanity at large deserved. We’re in a clown world, so why not have saviors with a clown complex accidentally wipe themselves and their dumbass fiat industry away with them?

I mean, just look at the FTX ventures portfolio. To know that all of this junk is up shit creek without a paddle brings me levels of joy I’ve not felt since Bitcoin broke the prior all-time high in 2021:

Source

While groups of 20,000 people spend the next few weeks on Twitter Spaces in disbelief, wondering “how this could’ve happened,” a small number of newly-minted Bitcoin Maximalists will have been born, a large number of the recent minimalists will have had their positions validated and the veterans… well, we’ll sit back and continue to tell you so.

Some of us in more eloquent ways, others in more colorful ways. And next time around, we’ll probably be ignored again, but it’s OK. At least we get free entertainment:

This is a guest post by Aleks Svetski, author “The UnCommunist Manifesto” and founder of The Bitcoin Times. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
[ad_2]

Aleksandar Svetski

Source link
November 14, 2022
Bitcoin Is Here To Stay And Bitcoiners Aren’t Going Anywhere
[ad_1]
This is a transcribed excerpt of “Bitcoin Audible” Guy’s Take #59 – “We’re Not Going Anywhere” by Guy Swann, adapted into article form for Bitcoin Magazine.

We’re gonna do a “Guy’s Take” today and we’re going to do it on Bitcoin Maximalism.

I think there is a difference between Bitcoin Maximalism and Bitcoin Maximalists. There is a subset of “Bitcoin Maximalists” who have been in Bitcoin for like a year and they have embraced the culture of anti-crypto without even being able to argue why; they’re Bitcoiners because they came into Bitcoin. My view of Bitcoin Maximalism is different from these types of people. I have a really strong idea of what Bitcoin Maximalism is — and it did not change in the last two years with all of these new people who are jumping on the bandwagon and using it as a bludgeon on Twitter.
I want to use Pete Rizzo’s “How To Be A Bitcoin Maximalist” and Nic Carter’s “Setting The Record Straight” as a foundation to start. One of the things that Rizzo did in his piece was to separate “Maximalist” from “Maximalism.” I want to argue the “what” and the “why” of Bitcoin Maximalism as I see it, the reason that I am only focused on Bitcoin and why I think it’s both a logical and morally sound position to hold.

Some general points I want to cover:

Where did Bitcoin Maximalism come from, and why did the anti-crypto culture of animosity arise?

Where did crypto go wrong?

What is Bitcoin Maximalism?

What is the goal and the fundamental reason for Bitcoin Maximalism?

What is the risk of Bitcoin failing?

Where Did The Toxicity Come From? Where Did Crypto Go Wrong?

Let’s start with where all the animosity came from. It came from multiple cycles of watching an entire market of nonsense: scams, Ponzi schemes, the massive initial coin offering (ICO) bubble, thousands and thousands of tokens, obvious copy-pastas of other projects, brazen attempts at constant seigniorage, etc. People who got into this space were getting obliterated. They were getting robbed, and they were looking at crypto and saying, “Man, I hate Bitcoin,” when it had always been Bitcoiners that specifically were trying to call out and stop that sort of behavior.

Going all the way back to the beginning, there were ethics built within the Bitcoin space because of the example of Bitcoin not being pre-mined and the project being made public from the very start. Satoshi Nakamoto kept the project running for two years when it was worth $0, while he was making absolutely nothing. It was an experiment; it was a completely fair launch. There were no investors and he didn’t seek a company to buy it out. It was just an open-source project. Nakamoto was trying to see if people could come on board to support this thing and to test it out to see if it actually worked.

As we got into 2012-2013 and the space changed, people started thinking about how you could use this technology for something else. Then these attempts of using the same structure to create an entirely different network for an entirely different purpose. All of those early projects tried incredibly hard to be very ethical; they were actually honest attempts at creating a new project and at fairly releasing another one of these cryptocurrencies. They didn’t start with pre-mines; that was part of the presumed ethics. There were a lot of those unspecified rules.

Crypto just threw it out the window when a mass of people showed up and said, “Screw it, we’re gonna ICO, we’re gonna issue everybody our new tokens.” It was easy in the flood of fresh users with no understanding, so they dismissed Bitcoiners’ denouncements by saying, “Oh, all the old Bitcoiners are just curmudgeons.” But many of us were saying, “No! You’re paying for something that somebody else made for free!” This is the whole problem that Bitcoin is trying to solve, and all they did was copy and paste the Bitcoin code so that they could recreate the fiat system where they are the masters, where they’re the ones at the top of the ladder. That is what 99.9% of those projects are still doing.

I dealt with the personal dilemma myself. I could have easily made a copycat coin and tried to sell it. I could have made millions of dollars. Anybody could have. In 2011-2014, you could have made any dumb coin for any dumb excuse. In fact, all the way into 2017, you barely had to have any competence. There were websites where you could just punch in characteristics and settings and it would spit out a client that had a fork of Bitcoin with a different mining algorithm, or a different block time, or a different block size. You could start mining it yourself from the beginning. You could pay $20 on Fiverr for a website, and then you could make millions, some even billions of dollars.

So, if you’re wondering where the “toxicity” and animosity comes from, it is not due to a lack of knowledge; it is due to too much. I am not going to suddenly forget how scammy these projects have been and how this all started. How they bastardized the ethics of the space. In cryptographic communities, there were always rules that you never roll your own crypto, you never design your own system; you always design it out in the open or it’s never going to be properly tested and you’ll never know if it’s secure. These were basic rules and anyone who came in and created their own algorithm was thought of as a crank.

Bitcoin Is A Moral Imperative, Not Socially Motivated

What you believe is moral or ethical should not change based on social acceptance. That’s exactly why I’m still a Bitcoin Maximalist: because my ethics didn’t change. The leaders of these projects — Ethereum being a prime example — used their position to explicitly break the rules of the system for their own benefit. I can’t just pretend that all of that didn’t happen or that somehow it doesn’t matter anymore because there’s so many new people that nobody even knows about it! That doesn’t change anything for me. I don’t throw away my principles just because abandoning them has been normalized and no one else cares anymore. If I had done that, I never would have been a Bitcoiner in the first place.

This is one of the appeals in the idea that “Bitcoin Maximalism is dead.” People frame it like, “The numbers are dwindling, you should get out while you still can.” I find that funny, because it is the exact appeal to social acceptance, to the norm. I actually believe in what I believe for a reason and the fact that someone else thinks people are walking away from it doesn’t change my mind. If it did, then I didn’t believe anything in the first place — I was just following the crowd. I have not engaged in the exploration that I have for tens of thousands of hours to reach the conclusion of Bitcoin Maximalism so that I could get approval from people! I actually think it matters.

I don’t know of a better way to help Bitcoin succeed. If I get ostracized by “Bitcoin Maximalists,” it will not change my perspective on Bitcoin Maximalism — on being bitcoin-only. And if it does, I should rightfully be called out for it. I was never a Bitcoin Maximalist because I thought they were the “in-group.” I believed in Bitcoin for years while I saw a system of property rights, a system of money where the state was not involved and their political control was made obsolete. I gladly held my position and I gladly took on my exploration while everybody thought I was stupid. I am not confused about why I am here.

Now, that’s not to say that I don’t respect the opinions or perspectives of the people who offer legitimate arguments, who have a completely different perspective and different belief about what crypto is. There are plenty of “crypto” people who have solid opinions and whose thoughts I value. I’ve read articles and pieces by a lot of these people on “Bitcoin Audible.” I actually appreciate the pushback, the challenges, against those who call themselves Bitcoin Maximalists. I think a useful Bitcoin Maximalist will take legitimate concerns and recognize where there are trade-offs, limitations and places for improvement. If Bitcoiners aren’t the ones trying to figure out where Bitcoin is subpar or needs to be improved, we are a vulnerability and we are lowering its defenses. Bitcoin is an anti-fragile thing; it thrives under attack and under adversarial thinking. Where we have lost that, we owe it to ourselves to do better. There are a lot of “Bitcoiners” who just don’t want to talk about uncomfortable things.

What Is Bitcoin Maximalism?

The idea that Bitcoin Maximalists are some homogeneous group that all cultishly believe the exact same thing is laughable. I know Maximalists who are carnivores; I know some who are vegan. I know some who are politically liberal and some who are full-on MAGA Trump lovers; some who are libertarian and others who are die-hard anarchists. I know some who are policy makers and think we need to change the state and I know some who think talking to politicians is the most profound waste of time. I know some who are environmentalists and I know some who would literally buy a poster that says, “Fossil fuels are the greatest thing that have ever existed on this planet.” I know some Bitcoiners who are devout Christians, Muslims or subscribe to numerous other religions that are historically in conflict with one another, but will sit across the table laughing and joking.

I log in to Twitter and I see these people argue with each other all the time. I go to conferences and listen to them argue. And yet, the crazy thing about it is that they all agree on one thing: Bitcoin. They can argue about all of these other issues, but know that they don’t matter because something that matters more keeps them together as a community. Bitcoin Maximalists are not some homogeneous group who believe or behave or think all the same things. I actually think of them as people who don’t agree on anything, except for the fact that Bitcoin is the most important thing to focus on. That’s the only thing that I think they generally agree with!

What is Bitcoin Maximalism? This is where Matt Corallo surprised me with his thread about maximalists on Twitter. He posted a poll giving people two options to define Bitcoin Maximalism:

I’m disinterested in non-Bitcoin cryptocurrency systems because I’m only interested in payment tech and not other uses of cryptocurrency systems.

Cryptocurrency systems outside of Bitcoin need to be fought because they’re scams and hurt Bitcoin.

If people think that either of these options is the definition of Bitcoin Maximalism, then we have done a horrible job at communicating it. There are so many attempts at trying to define it and trying to narrow down exactly what it is, but I’ll be completely honest, this really did surprise me. I answered as best as I could:

3. “The reason #bitcoin is revolutionary is because it has the potential to separate money & state. None of the centralized shitcoins have a ghost of a chance of doing that, most are scams anyway, therefore they are largely irrelevant & uninteresting until that problem is solved.”

It’s almost like it’s uncomfortable to mention that the reason Bitcoin is such a potent tool — the reason it is fascinating and revolutionary as a technological system — is that it is a system that establishes property rights. It establishes a monetary base that is external to the political system. It is a consensus mechanism that isn’t reliant on the state. It is a cryptographic system that acts as a tool for political liberation.

Bitcoin Maximalism is an anti-authoritarian movement.

It is not left versus right, it is bottom versus top; it is the money subjects versus the money masters. Bitcoin’s continued spread and adoption as a network and as a monetary base alters how power is maintained and funded in the political sphere. The most powerful tool in the modern age is the counterfeit machine and Bitcoin takes that machine away. This is about undermining the most potent tool of the most powerful institutions in the world who demonstrate over and over that they have no qualms with lying, killing and attacking innocent people to keep that power.

The point of Bitcoin Maximalism to me is clarity. The point is focus: focus on the single most important mission that we are here for. Proof-of-work, no compromise on running a node, mining power in every jurisdiction on Earth, everything about bitcoin is designed for one ultimate purpose: To create a money that no one, not even the most powerful and violent government on Earth, can make more of for free. It is the separation of money and state. It is monetary assurance without monetary masters. Rules without rulers. If it is not contributing to that purpose, it is uninteresting to me; it is doing nothing of great consequence, and it is just a toy.

Bitcoin Maximalists are the only community with a die-hard commitment to supporting Bitcoin and nothing else, and who are not afraid to be unpopular in that stance. If they change their views because everyone’s renouncing maximalism, then they did not have a real reason to be a maximalist in the first place. When Vitalik Buterin was trying to normalize pre-mining and trying to normalize ICOs, he was trying to excuse it by demonizing Bitcoiners. He used “Bitcoin Maximalism” as an insult. That’s why we’re referred to as Bitcoin Maximalists. We didn’t choose that word; we got called that word when we attacked an absolute, obvious scam. So I don’t care what you call us. Call us “bitcoin-only,” call me a “Bitcoin miser,” a “Bitcoin Maximalist,” a “Bitcoin fundamentalist” — it does not matter. It is about the principles that lead me to think Bitcoin is the only thing that serves the mission that is important to me about this space. I think the reason Bitcoin Maximalists (or whatever you want to call us) have adopted a culture of pushing back, of making people uncomfortable, is because that mission is more important than people’s feelings. We’re not going to tolerate scams, we’re not going to allow the message to be diluted and we will not compromise on what matters. If that means we miss out on a billion-dollar NFT market, fine! Do you really think NFTs are some secret piece of the puzzle to solve billions of people living under double-digit inflation? The people who have to suffer through economy-obliterating capital controls? The majority of the world that is suffering the never-ending consequences of the horrible political monopoly over money? Go ahead and try, but I’m not going to refrain from telling you that I think it is a huge waste of time and resources.

What Is The Goal Of Bitcoin Maximalism?

I think this is a game of survival and the only money that can survive this is one that is radically neutral. Political systems are destroying the world. They are destroying the safety, assurances and any sort of guarantees that our economy has been able to provide us. It is breaking down everywhere. The only solution is to achieve a consensus that does not have the problems and the insanity of the current political systems. We need an alternative. The political divisions are growing. We are not getting more aligned with things that are prosperous, we are doing the exact opposite: We are destroying investment in infrastructure, we are splitting up all over the place, conflicts are growing everywhere. What we need is something external to them to solve this problem.

It seems obvious to me that almost nothing else we do will work over the long term if we don’t fix the money first. It is the foundation for every higher-layer solution. No solution can be sustained without a robust, global, censorship-resistant and radically neutral money. How could we possibly succeed if the state can counterfeit trillions of dollars out of thin air, at no cost, buy up everything we’ve built and turn it around to use against us? Until we destroy the money printer, we will never be able to do anything or be anything but servants. This is about independence.

What Happens If Bitcoin Maximalists Are Wrong?

The ultimate asymmetry of the debate about Bitcoin Maximalism is: What happens if I am wrong? What happens if there’s actually tons of great crypto out there? That the government is going to embrace cryptocurrency, we’ll get some regulatory clarity and it will all work out? I would lose out on some decent investments. That’s about it. I am totally fine with giving up that opportunity.

However, if cryptocurrency fanatics are wrong, then we have a real fight ahead of us. If I am right in thinking that we are up against the most powerful adversaries in the world, who do not give a crap about us and see us as annoying little peons who need to eat the bugs so we don’t get in the way of their grand “Build Back Better” plans for the future, who will gladly shut down our networks, destroy our savings and claim that we have to pay 10 times the price of energy as a sacrifice in order for them to maintain control over the world’s political and monetary levers, then you just divested from the best chance we ever had at removing money from the hands of the state.

If I am wrong, I lose a bunch of money, and I’m OK with that, but if you are wrong, then we could lose everything. Sorry, not sorry: Bitcoin Maximalism isn’t going anywhere.

Conclusion

And I guess I’ll leave you with some final thoughts. Ask yourself if you see any truth in my opinion that we live in a world that is increasingly authoritarian, that is financed and funded through the monopoly on money. They have colonized us; we are the colonies that produce the resources for their empire. We give their money value. Bitcoin is the foundation of our independence. If we don’t take this opportunity, we might not get another chance; we might end up with total surveillance in a completely permissioned system with carbon allocation and social credit scores. Bitcoin is our best hope at obsoleting that future before it gets here. If I am right about that, then that’s just not something you go half-in on.

This is a guest post by Guy Swann. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.
[ad_2]

Guy Swann

Source link
October 28, 2022