How is bitcoin maximalism presently taken by everyone in bitcointalk?
New policy: I present myself as a fearsome “Bitcoin maxi” to altcoiners, and I chat about my favourite altcoins to Bitcoiners. Thus, I can discover who my true friends are. This optimizes for the human element. So does intransigent opposition to scams.
I have been intending to write an essay with my own take on Bitcoin maximalism, but I am not sure if this forum is the right place to publish it.
You should write and publish it in the forum, I reckon. I would also like to know your opinion on some bitcoin maximalists who appear to want everyone to believe that there is only bitcoin and bitcoin's failure will be the whole cryptospace's failure without any other cryptocoin having to find and achieve success.
Thanks. Unfortunately, I will need to cut short what I was writing here—if I ever want to post this.
:-)To answer that, we first must define “success”. Is economic success the sole criterion? Although that is important, I think that economic success is
necessary but insufficient.
Bitcoin is
freedom-money. It is
authentic cypherpunk-money. It grew organically as
a social phenomenon, in historical circumstances that cannot be artifically duplicated.
If Bitcoin were to fail, I think that “the whole cryptospace” would
almost inevitably fail in the way that really matters.
I say this when I own altcoins, and I much like some altcoins: If Bitcoin were to fail, then any
independent altcoin would
almost inevitably fail economically. Bitcoin makes the cryptocurrency market.
If Bitcoin were to fail, I predict that the only “altcoins” that could still succeed would be those backed by massive capital from big banks and VCs. But those are not legitimate “crypto” in the sense of cypherpunk-money. Those are merely
de facto centralized Fintech payment systems that use some cryptography, and that sell themselves under a veneer of fake “decentralization”. Some are better in this aspect, some are worse—all of them devolve over time in the direction of giving big banks and insider whales the power that Bitcoin takes away from them. Worst in this aspect is anything POS, a definitional plutocracy.
Thus, although I disagree with the “maximalist” purity-testing that treats people as sinners for (gasp!) touching a forbidden altcoin, I agree with the proposition that “Bitcoin’s failure will be the whole cryptospace’s failure without any other cryptocoin having to find and achieve success.” Like it or not. That is the reality.
I love Bitcoin. I love it as if it were a living creature. And I recognize on pragmatic grounds that attempting to replace it would be a fool’s errand, likely resulting in a Pyrrhic victory
at best. Accordingly, I am proud when altcoiners call me a “Bitcoin maxi”; and I tend to agree with them about that. I say that when I own altcoins, I think that defi has great potential (excluding such garbage as Yield Farming, a classic HYIP scam), and I have some history on this forum of defending the good uses of NFTs. (Not Bored Ape trash. The basic idea now called “NFTs” is much older, and it has much undiscovered potential for future applications.) There are multiple reasons why my signature or personal text has said since 2017: “There is only one Bitcoin.”
Am I a Bitcoin maximalist?
I love bitcoin also, however, I also try to not be far removed from reality and try not to make very biased statements and impossible predictions. You say if bitcoin fails, nothing else will be
money? There is Monero, Grin and Litecoin can also be considered cypherpunk money. Are they successful? I reckon they certainly are successful alternatives to bitcoin.
Also much of the bitcoin maximalists appear to have the argument that bitcoin is successful because it has the highest market capitalization and therefore it is a good store of value. However, what if Ethereum begins becoming the most valuable coin in market capitalization? That certainly makes Ethereum a better store of value according to their argument.