Quote from: HmmMAA on Today at 05:33:55 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 02:20:31 PM

I don't think everyone has the same definition, opinion or understanding of Bitcoin. Bitcoin for some people, and the way it's designed, is a kind of tool that can weaken and break down political strongholds, not a tool for personal finance like PayPal.

If i'm not mistaken the whitepaper mentions bitcoin as a peer to peer electronic cash . And how have you come up to the conclusion that bitcoin can weaken and breakdown political strongholds ? By buying senators like Max Keiser said ? That's what bitcoin has become ? A means to create another caste to rule the world ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3ObPjcFE&t=52s
I think that you are the one that have a different definition and understanding of what bitcoin is . Try read the whitepaper to understand why bitcoin was invented .

I'd like you to point me to any post that satoshi makes such a political statement .

Of course there is some truth in what Keiser says both in regards to fiats going to zero and also in terms of bitcoiners gaining more and more power with the passage of time, but he's also exaggerating (parody right) certain kinds of points.

There are transitions and battles along the way (and even currently), and surely bitcoin is for friends and for enemies and can be used in any way that people want within the parameters of current consensus rules, and if they are able to convince (in order to gain consensus) to change the rules to their advantage, then bitcoin can be used in other ways too - yet with the passage of time, we have witnessed that bitcoin is becoming more and more difficult to change - at least in terms of some of the more steadfast principles, yet there have been ways that softforks have been created and adopted and there have been ways that people have learned to build systems within the existing rules, whether upon second layer or seemingly first layer with the ordinals and inscriptions and other ways that innovations have come from already existing rules.

There is no need to appeal to the white paper or to what Satoshi thought or what he might have thought, even though surely the way that Satoshi put bitcoin into play did set up some ground expectations - and some of those set ups continue to be true, yet people still can use bitcoin how they like, whether they believe it to be a way to store value or ways to transfer (transact) value or even other ways, and we do not even need to agree regarding how many bitcoin that we believe that we need to store (stack up) as compared to other things that we might invest into, and still it does seem that with the passage of time value is going to continue to gravitate into bitcoin, even if we do not necessarily agree how bitcoin can be used or should be used, and some folks will advantage more than others in terms of the extent to which they stacked sats and invested their time and energies into bitcoin, and figured out how to balance their spending of lesser valued assets first.. such as fiat and other investments that they might make that still might retain value (perhaps some of that utility value and some of that resale value.. and some assets have expenses involved with them....)

We cannot live inside of a bitcoin, even though we can buy property with some or all of our bitcoin.. and we can buy property with fiat too.. but then where are we going to store our value and in what proportions? How about equities, commodities or the creation of a business? That's up to each of us, no?

Even with bitcoin, we might find that we have various ways that we might be able to transact with it, and sometimes it might be cumbersome to figure out how to use (and who accepts it and in what form) - or we might not know how to put our bitcoin into wallets that we might be able to control the transaction fees (coin control and other mechanisms), and if we are trying to use lightning network to save fees, we might have some difficulties with wallets that might have difficulties during stress periods (such as some of the troubles that Muun found itself in during the earlier parts of this year.. I am not sure if they fixed their issues because I do not use their wallet),

...and it is NOT necessarily easy to learn these things - including that we might also have had been getting attacked by Blackrock (and like status quo financial entities teaming up with government institutions.. maybe not an exact coordination, but some kind of coordination seeming to be going on) in the coming years, if Black Rock's ETF (or whatever) product gets approved and they start to purchase a lot of BTC on behalf of their clients, but their clients don't even have abilities to control "their" coins that Blackrock is holding... Then we have already seen how some of those big institutions (we might see it with Greyscale and GBTC) retain various ways that they had been able to lock up bitcoin and to control bitcoin (at least the ones they locked up) that might not exactly had been consensual from the clients who might not have had know what kind of a product that they are getting into.

Sometimes we might not even realize the ways that bitcoin is being attacked - and the mere fact that the chain is being used by NFT aficionados causes use cases on bitcoin and causes on chain fees to rise, but still seems to be within current rules and does not even seem to be creating any kind of emergency to fix (even though some bitcoiners act like there is an emergency, and perhaps the creation of an emergency is a kind of an attack) - even though at the same time, we cannot always know the extent to which bitcoin fees are going to adjust in ways that still incentivizes use and incentivizes miners to mine it.. currently and into the future..

It surely is good to be having on chain bitcoin use cases (such as ordinals/inscriptions), even if we might not agree with some of the newly created use cases, and even if some of them might be attacks that in their current state don't seem likely to be successful.. if there are efforts to make bitcoin weaker, just like Blackrock is not necessarily going to be successful in its attacks on bitcoin, but no one can really stop Blackrock and the government to team up to try to attack bitcoin and to attempt to cause more paper bitcoin and to lure people into paper bitcoin..

I have me doubts about Blackrock's abilities to control bitcoin, even though they seem to be wanting to try to do that if they get their ETF, and in in the short term, we are going to witness various differences of opinion and different ways of trying to use bitcoin whether we are referring to Blackrock and the government or if we are referring to Ordinals/inscriptions that some of us might not agree with those uses of bitcoin, but there may be difficulties in terms of stopping any of these people from coming to their own interpretations regarding how they would like to use bitcoin and whether Satoshi approved or not.

Satoshi is no longer here.. (at least in terms of a live interacting being) since 2010, if you had not noticed. The rules are the rules and people can interpret them how they like or try to break bitcoin if they like, and we will see if incentives continue to make bitcoin stronger and more resilient or if there might be ways that bitcoin changes or becomes weaker... I don't see any reason to bet on it's becoming weaker, even if some people might be using bitcoin in ways that don't seem to be within original intentions of Satoshi or anyone else, to the extent that part even matters.