You claim to not be in favor of wrapped BTC, while at the same time spending quite a lot of time trying to proclaim that they are just a part of what we need to accept.
Sure, various shitty things happen in regards to bitcoin, yet I doubt any of us need to argue in favor of them.
I am not arguing in favor of them. I am trying to give a more balanced opinion instead of all is bad, everyone who uses it is bad. I have explained why. This kind of approach leads people to choose even worse instruments and getting scammed. If you don't care about them at all sure you can say it is their own fault. I don't think that is necessary though. If they want to use wrapped things, we can at least educate them on the risk and push them towards the better options? Again the big misunderstanding here is that you are supposed to compare wBTC to BTC, that is not correct and you can't make that comparison at all. You are supposed to compare it relative to other wrapped options like renBTC if that is still a thing to evaluate it in its own relative context of what it is. Anyhow don't you get tired of all the yes I agree responses to your posts in many other threads?
That sounds good theoretically, but most of the corporate treasuries are held this way. Why jump on WBTC as wrong? Did you write to Saylor that he should take control of his keys?
Saylor is a bit of a dumb-ass in regards to his proclamations that custodial solutions are a good thing for either himself (his company) or even his various attempts to normalize those aspects of the way bitcoin is being held and/or sold - and so even Saylor likely realizes (since he is not a dummy) that bitcoin's power comes from its ability to be self-custodied (or threatened to be self-custodied), even if not everyone does it, and I think that I had heard Saylor acknowledge those points in the past, even though he has evolved into even less radical talking points in recent years as compared with some of his earlier years proselytizing bitcoin.
If you criticize Saylor and custodian wrapped solutions at the same time then that is fair. Here I want to say that criticizing custodians and wrapped solutions but applauding Saylor would be hypocritical and wrong.
You think that there needs to be some kind of a litmus test in order for guys to express their opinions about bitcoin code? and/or governance? whether they know anything about these topics or not?
I don't think any kind of standard test would be good because that introduces a centralized barrier for entry which can be abused. I think that with education and scrutiny by senior Bitcoin members we can achieve enough impact. We should not encourage somebody who doesn't even know how a Bitcoin address works to go and annoy the developers about issues relating to OP Return..
If you think about it there is already a decentralized litmus test anyway, that is what I was trying to tell you. If you are a good participant in the discussions meaning that you show correct knowledge and reasoning and especially if you start making good code contributions you have essentially passed the test. With time more and more contributors will value you and your reputation will rise. There is no centralized leaderboard for reputation, but there is a decentralized one.
That is the nature of open source, and also the nature of free speech and various kinds of public participation matters that can frequently involve differences of opinion and even chaos.-
I doubt that you know everything in regards to various topics in which you choose to participate.
I don't but this is not a good comparison. You can't have it both. Either you can have the Core developers efficient and good development work or you can have them losing a lot of time to random people and their wrong opinions and ideas. They are limited in numbers and their time is limited. Wouldn't it be better for them to spend time reviewing important code instead of responding to the 1000nd wrong post about OP RETURN by people who don't even know the basics of Bitcoin?
This modern world is strange. Not that long ago people would not share their false knowledge, they would wait until they became masters of a trade before they would try to educate someone else.
Historically, the internet did not exist in all parts of the world, so there seems to be ongoing adaptation to the role of communication and information in this new world, and surely bitcoin is value attached to information, which is also both a threat and empowering at the same time in regards to its paradigm changing nature, and we don't even know the ramifications of how bitcoin is going to play out.... so who is going to administer this litmus test that you would like to have activated?
The problem is a cultural one, no central solutions would solve anything. People in general just need to shut up more and instead spend time learning and listening. Internet and social media have caused a massive denigration in this part of existence.
You mean ostracize? Yes. We help them by referring to them as retarded, gullible and various other denigrations.
Yes, that is the word that I was looking for. I don't think that your method will work well with many people though. I mean you are right that they are those things, but the question is what is our goal? If it is to educate them and get them to use the right thing, then perhaps insulting them is not the best strategy?
Poll
