Thread

Replies (53)

I've learned these last 5 years that bitcoin is attractive to many different types of people. I met saylor and talked to him for a bit, he has his opinions and self interests like we all do. I disagree with his opinions, but he is allowed to have them. I don't want to speak for him but I get the sense that he's a "store of value" above everything else, and is very pro regulation. I don't think an individual holding that narrative would appreciate the open source community and hearing his lack of support doesn't come as being out of character, just disappointing. Hopefully it's just a misunderstanding or if not, he will have a change of heart in the future.
↩ replying to Brian
Almost certainly yes. 1. Medium of Exchange usage increases demand for Bitcoin (improving MoE requires development) 2. Software requires maintenance 3. ossificiation means the eventual death of Bitcoin I know some debate 3 (they're wrong), 1 and 2 are self evident. I could see a strategy where Saylor intends to capture Bitcoin and become an intermediary, but that defeats Bitcoin's core value proposition and that would (eventually) destroy it.
Michael Saylor, Chairman and CEO of MicroStrategy, adds, β€œBitcoin is the most important innovation since the advent of the internet, and it is our responsibility to invest not only in the asset, but also in the underlying infrastructure that is maintained and improved by open-source developers and nonprofit institutions like MIT’s DCI.” Source:
MIT Digital Currency Initiative
Bitcoin Security Initiative — MIT Digital Currency Initiative
I'll say shit, @ODELL. Saylor is not here for freedom maximalism, has attacked the idea of Bitcoin as a MoE, and, based on what you're saying, doesn't support Bitcoin development. End the hero worship. It's never a good look.
ODELL's avatar ODELL
THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. IF PEOPLE STOPPED SIMPING AND ASKED SAYLOR HIS OPINION HE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVS. HE HAS ACTIVELY KILLED DEALS TO SUPPORT DEVS. HE IS PROUD OF IT. HE IS WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TO AFRAID TO SAY SHIT.
View quoted note →
This sounds like nonsense, but it’s definitely going to bring some engagement over to nostr from Twitter. I mean, if you’re Fidelity and you want to donate to open source, are you the slightest bit scared of Saylor? How would he β€œcrush” you? Why would he care?
IMHO, devs are focused on adding new technologies to the protocol when they instead should be adding limited specific features. Technologies are increased capabilities that can be used in multiple ways for multiple features. They also have a higher likelihood of being misused in a way that wasn’t intended. We should instead develop for a specific feature and make the most limited code changes to enable that one feature. For example, devs should have made a very limited change just to enable Lightning, but instead they rolled out SegWit technology with a hidden 4x blocksize increase and we got network spam. Have devs learned the lesson? Ossification should be the default and we should add specific limited features when they’ve had sufficient time to bake. We have to acknowledge that with more devs, comes more risk. Devs don’t know when to stop. More code means more bugs. To see what happens when too many devs get involved, we can watch ETH. 🍿 Bitcoin isn’t a shitcoin. We don’t need to compete on β€œinnovations”. We also can’t β€œmove fast and break things”.
@ODELL , I thought about you calling out @npub15dql...lm5m for not investing in open-source development. Bitcoin is freedom money, implying that I am free to do with it as I please (including donating to OpenSats, HRF, etc.). For Bitcoin to be generational wealth, must I not demonstrate to my heirs and everybody else that I can and will withstand public attacks like yours on Saylor? It is only natural that Bitcoin owners will be bullied into parting with their coins for this reason or that. I am sure you know this; perhaps you are trolling and testing the space. I much respect your work. View quoted note β†’