[...] when two people in the topic point out that the OP hasn't been able to even write the guy's name right and you come here and baptize him "Gentsler", [...]
So, can someone present (and with proof of it actually happening) a thing that Gensler did and it was anti bitcoin? He is anti shitcoins for sure but I don't see him anywhere near as critical of bitcoin!
Poor Mr. Gantslir. He shall suffer the slings and arrows of “crypto Twitter” tweeting furiously at him, when the SEC runs through shitcoinland like a bull in a china shop. It shall hurt Mr. Gonslear terribly, because... um... I dunno.
The funny thing is that
decentralization matters. And one of the only coins (arguably,
the only coin) that is sufficiently decentralized to have some chance of resisting regulatory interference is—Bitcoin, the one coin that Mr. Ginslar affirmatively said is not within his agency’s jurisdiction. Amazing how that works.
I will illustrate with only one example of what I mean. Beneath is marketing veneer of fake “decentralization”, the whole Ethereum ecosystem has a practical dependency on a single U.S.-based company: ConsenSys, the owners of Infura and of the vertically integrated Metamask wallet. If Infura were to go down, it would cause ecosystem-wide disruption in Ethereum that could not be caused in Bitcoin by eliminating any single party, or even any small group of parties.
Another funny thing: After my prior post here, I posted in an Ethereum thread
a substantive argument that POS ETH will be deemed an illegal unregistered security. I quoted from a law professor, who reached the same conclusion that I have been saying about that for awhile. The topic starter,
who has an admitted history of having “disliked” Bitcoin,
insulted me while dodging the substance of I said about the issue of POS tokens being illegal securities offerings. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Poor Mr. Genßler, needing to deal with that.
[...] it makes a lot people think that they're doing something good for the world. They pretty much sign a petition, then they simply forget about it altogether after a few days lol.
change.org alone won't achieve anything. But it's good addition when it's used properly (only mention facts with source/proof, regular update, started by reputable group/organization, etc.) and someone actually do impactful action.
I think that the essential nature of democracy is to fool people into believing that they do something useful, while they uselessly dissipate their energies. It is probably the most effective strategy that has ever been invented for a régime to prevent a revolution.
An online petition is only an extreme version of that; for unlike participation in the official democratic process, it does not even theoretically have any authority. For organizing impactful action, I think that blogging and tweeting should have more practical effect—
i.e., usually-negligible (rarely-high) instead of always-none; and that does not pacify people by fooling them with a mirage that they are directly making some sort of an
actual change.
