I listened to a Zimmerman interview about bitcoin this year & he talked about how it's used by criminals and imo didn't seem particularly supportive of bitcoin and I was surprised he even gets interviews on the subject. At least Saylor has a solid understanding of it even if we disagree with some of his views.
Respectfully is there a simple nostr answer say a 55 year old uncle, convinced at Thanksgiving dinner bitcoin is great, how to just go buy some bitcoin and use it to support the bitcoin economy in a digitally private way (free of disclosure / kyc / a centralized issuer)? Set aside the sold storage issue - assume the uncle has that down pat. How does he get the digitally private BTC?
Saylor can tell the uncle in 10 seconds how to buy MSTR or FBTC shares and how to sell them for fiat later on to support whoever and Saylor would not need to recommend wearing a mask, turning off his phone speakers or location service, or include tips on avoiding wrench attacks. I really do not mean disrespect. I am not trolling. I do think my question explains the view discrepancy though.
Most people are feeling the effects of inflation more than they feel the effects surveillance so its only natural for people to focus on solving the problem of securing wealth rather than privacy.
I remember someone saying โmost ppl are boring, they donโt do anything interesting and so they have nothing to hideโ.
This is also the feedback I got when talking with ppl, nobody sees the danger of having freedom of speech/interaction controlled
Saylorโs just charismatic, and you need charisma if you want 99% of the global idiocracy to adopt a new technology. As always, itโs the kind of tech meant to free those of us who actually want to be free.
Thatโs what history keeps showing us.
Guy Fawkes, the face behind the V for Vendetta mask, was a terrorist fighting for Catholicism, against a state defending Protestantism.
In the end, both sides just wanted power.