Gathering is the new gold standard

There is never a boring moment in the Bitcoin space. The heated discussions on the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 (BIP300) has been a thought provoking spectacle. The debate is in itself a healthy sign. It also reflects that open protocols create coordination problems that can be difficult to solve. The BIP300 debate BIP300 is a proposal which aims at tweaking the core of the Bitcoin network in order to facilitate the development of technical layers that can connect with the core, and which can provide a higher capacity for monetary transactions. The main argument seems to be that developing such services is too costly today because Bitcoin core is clunky, and that speeding up the development of these services is necessary, because governments might soon find out how they can destroy Bitcoin. The rationale seems to be that rapid Bitcoin adaption will make it politically difficult for governments to do this. Changing the Bitcoin protocol involves an unknown risk, and the first counterargument is therefore that the risk has to be close to zero. The Bitcoin maxis argue that it's more important to maintain a robust core network, than to lower the cost of development of services built on top of the core. Challenges with open protocols There are benefits and disadvantages of open protocols. One benefit can for instance be that they attract great minds, and that more brains produce better ideas. Another benefit is that these systems don't have a single attack vector that enemies can exploit. Take out one of the volunteering developers, and ten will replace him - it's a waste of time and money. A disadvantage can be that it can be difficult for the developers to coordinate themselves and agree on which ideas that are best. Another can be that it takes time to solve coordination problems when no single person is appointed leader. The importance of Bitcoin Bitcoin tries to solve civilization's worst problem: Governments' manipulation of the money supply. If it succeeds, it may become a public infrastructure which is as importance to mankind as the open seas. In this perspective, the impatience that some have with implementing BIPs to facilitate faster and better services built on top of the Bitcoin core feels a bit like someone wanting to mix chemicals into the water in an attempt to reduce its density, for the sake of enabling boats to travel faster. In this way, one doesn't have to invest so much in the development of boats. "Smart improvements at the first layer, saves money and time in the development of the second layer." The benefits of manipulating the water might seem obvious, but the risks are of course unknown and potentially huge. Central planners The proponents of rapid development of Bitcoin's core network reminds me of bureaucrats and politicians who always come out in favor of more central planning and technocracy, because they believe free people and non-governmental institutions are unable to coordinate themselves in an efficient way that can serve society. So they come up with plans with the promise of making huge benefits tomorrow, instead of waiting in years for selfish-minded players to get their act together. The government threat Although governments are able to slow down Bitcoin adaption, I have yet to find a convincing argument for how they could be able to destroy Bitcoin. So the question is, why don't the proponents of BIP300 instead try to communicate clear arguments of how governments could succeed with killing off Bitcoin, and facilitate a discussion about it? Do they think it's too urgent? Do we have so little time that we cannot afford to debate the risk first? Or is the argument that discussing the risk openly increase the risk of governments finding a way to destroy Bitcoin? I'm not convinced, but please enlighten me. How to speed up adaption I do think that there are many other reasons why it is good if we can speed up adaption. But there is much that can be achieved at the social layer, especially by making it easier for people to understand what Bitcoin solves, how it solves it and how fast it's already solving it. When I started looking into Bitcoin I noticed that many Bitcoiners said that you need to study Bitcoin and economics for "hundreds" or even "thousands" of hours before you can understand it. For me this looked like an exaggeration, like someone finally had found their tribe, and that they wanted it to be exclusive. But this thought gradually disappeared when I began looking at the litterature. Some of it was pretty good. But the general impression was that information about Bitcoin and the problem it's meant to solve wasn't communicated in a way that was easily accessible for the general public. Most of it was written by technical people for technical people. Other stuff was obviously written by economists for economists. And a suprisingly big share of the litterature was of a philosophical nature, written by and for people who were deep into Bitcoin, and who already understood its technicalities and the economics. The information was also very fragmented. And to make things worse - I often found information that was in contradiction with other information. To me the overall impression can be summed up as an intellectually noisy environment. I get the impression that many others have come to the same conclusion, and that things now seem to improve. I also suspect that we will see noticeable investments flowing into this corner of the Bitcoin space. Furthermore, the demand for information about Bitcoin seems to grow. A significant share of the population might soon begin looking for accessible information that enable them to understand what it is, especially if we get another bullrun. When that happens, we better have to be ready. Conclusion Technical improvements of the Bitcoin protocol might be necessary to tighten the network's security. However, improving the features of Bitcoin core to facilitate a higher adaption speed isn't a compelling argument. There is plenty room to improve things at the social layer instead, especially with regards to how we communicate what Bitcoin is and what it solves. I actually think that this is going to be relatively smooth sailing and that the effects will be massive. The reason why I am optimistic, is the following: Nothing beats the network effect you get when you combine a sound monetary system with sound ideas that are well communicated.

Q: Why does #Bitcoin keep growing so incredibly fast? A: Nothing has a stronger network effect than the combination of knowledge and money

Why does our media fail to see that the political scandals in Støre's cabinet represent a threat to Norway's security? Biden isn’t the only leader of a Western democratic country who has major problems with corruption and other embarrassments. The Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre, who by the way has in common with Biden that he is one of the favorites of the World Economic Forum, presides over one of the most scandal-ridden cabinets in our nation’s history. Let’s take a look at what we have been entertained with during the last couple of years: In March 2022, Støre lost his Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion, Hadia Tajik. She was considered one of the top political talents in Norway. Tajik was forced to leave due to tax evasion that she started with when she was a member of parliament back in 2006. The scheme went on for several years. Immediately after Tajik left the government, the news broke that Støre’s Minister of Defense, Odd Roger Enoksen, admitted that he had an extramarital affair back in 2005, and that the woman was only 18 years old at the time. Enoksen, who was a member of the parliament while he enjoyed the benefits of being a powerful man, had since long been one of the leaders of the Center Party. Støre’s Foreign Minister, Anniken Huitfeldt, might not have too many skills that we want to brag about to the rest of the world. But she is definitely famous for her selfies. On 27 September she posted one on social media while she attended the funeral of Japan's former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated at a political campaign event. Huitfeldt's political career survived the incident, although I guess she didn’t score too many points with the many Norwegian and foreign diplomats that must work with her. She loves to be in the limelight, and we I'll shortly get back to her again. Two new members of Støre’s cabinet were forced to leave in 2023. Minister of Culture and Equality, Anette Trettebergstuen, lost her job in June due to repeated examples of illegally doling out positions to her friends. And in the beginning of August, the Minister of Research and Education, Ola Borten Moe, had to go. Moe is currently under investigation for insider trading. And finally - yesterday the media presented a new scandal from Støre’s cabinet. It turns out that Ola Flem, the husband of the minister who loves selfies, has had some extreme luck with his stock investments while she has been leading the Foreign Ministry. Among other things, Flem bought stocks in the Norwegian weapon manufacturing company Kongsberg, just two days after Huitfeldt met with Kongsberg’s top leaders. Two weeks after the meeting, Kongsberg’s CEO announced that the Norwegian government had bought several weapon systems that it would be donating to Ukraine. Flem also repeatedly bought and sold stocks in several seafood companies while Huitfeldt and the rest of the cabinet was discussing a proposal to introduce new and harsh taxation of the sea farming industry. Norwegian media now wants to know if Huitfeldt also might be guilty of insider trading. The Minister herself(ie), of course, denies any wrongdoing, and says that Flem never told her about his stock trading. Støre stands firm and says that he still trusts Huitfeldt “as Foreign Minister”. I guess she has in common with Nancy Pelosi that she cannot be blamed for talking while she sleeps. Jokes aside, what we are dealing with here is that we have an example of journalists and editorial boards who can’t see the forest for the trees. They eagerly zoom in on stories about money, sex and nepotism, while they at the same time miss the bigger picture, which in my opinion is all about national security. People like Huitfeldt and the four ministers who had to leave are favorites of the mafia and agents in foreign intelligence services. They just love to have meetings with them where they explain that they know everything about their past wrongdoings. And then they start to squeeze them slowly for confidential information. The main story therefore seems to be that Støre’s cabinet is riddled with scandals to such an extent that we should fear that there might have been several security breaches on his watch. Considering the rather tense geopolitical situation that we have in the world today, this is in my view extremely concerning. In conclusion: Støre’s time as Prime Minister of Norway has been a string of embarrassments. The greater scandal, however, is that our mainstream media fails to ask how big threat his cabinet poses for the national security of Norway.