An article on how to be a Bitcoin maximalist

[bbc.reporter]

I am sharing this article without antagonizing anyone and also sharing it with much neutrality.

What are your latest comments, thoughts and opinions on Bitcoin maximalism?

The replies of the older members of the forum who joined before 2015 will certainly have more importance in this because they have witnessed the changes and the growth of the cryptospace from being simple to presently being billions of dollars of crazy hehee.



Bitcoin Maximalists are skeptical and critical of claims to technical advances made by other cryptocurrency softwares, and seek to maintain and bolster a culture of scrutiny.

Still, they acknowledge there are new services and products made available in the crypto sector, and that the product of this effort can provide learnings to Bitcoin.

However, they believe that these crypto assets and services are profiting off the short-term limitations of Bitcoin, and thus their use should be discouraged in order to inspire and fund the development of like offerings built on the Bitcoin network.

Read in full https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterizzo/2022/08/25/how-to-be-a-bitcoin-maximalist/?sh=76bcd4897036

[1714156618]

1714156618

[1714156618]

1714156618

[1714156618]

1714156618

[1714156618]

1714156618

[1714156618]

1714156618

[Darker45]

It seems to me that Bitcoin maximalism has grown into a cultish group of individuals who tolerate nothing but Bitcoin. If it's simply Bitcoin over shitcoins, that would be acceptable. But it seems the movement has moved to the farthest extreme so that intolerance has grown toxic rather than helpful. We seem to have observed intolerance against innovation in general, intolerance against all other forms of investment, and so on.

The movement is now seemingly characterized with closed-mindedness rather than encouraging constant exploration and innovation and finding ways and possibilities to improve things, which was precisely what Satoshi did.

Other than this, it seems some who have been loudly claiming to be Bitcoin maximalists showed double standard. And some have eventually given up that label not because of realizations but because of financial prospects.

[mk4]

Even as a non-maximalist, the article is pretty reasonable even though I expected it to be an article that mocks the maximalists.

It seems to me that Bitcoin maximalism has grown into a cultish group of individuals who tolerate nothing but Bitcoin. If it's simply Bitcoin over shitcoins, that would be acceptable. But it seems the movement has moved to the farthest extreme so that intolerance has grown toxic rather than helpful. We seem to have observed intolerance against innovation in general, intolerance against all other forms of investment, and so on.

True, but to be far we really don't have an official definition of "maximalism". Also, it's just mostly the Twitter bitcoin maximalists that promote "toxicity" for some reason, with them expecting it to actually be a net-positive.

[davis196]

It can be "Bitcoin maximalists", "crypto bros" or "NFT bros".
There's always a group delusional fanatic supporters, who think that the object of their worship is the best invention since bread.
If claiming that Bitcoin is better than shitcoins makes me a Bitcoin maximalist, then I am a Bitcoin maximalist. It's true that Bitcoin is better than the shitcoins. However, I wouldn't mind an altcoin that is actually better than Bitcoin. Unfortunately such altcoin doesn't exist.
I definitely don't think that Bitcoin Core is perfect and I don't believe that Bitcoin will become the one and only global currency.
The Bitcoin maximalists tend to believe in such statements. Maybe I'm not a true 100% Bitcoin maximalist after all.

[mk4]

It can be "Bitcoin maximalists", "crypto bros" or "NFT bros".
There's always a group delusional fanatic supporters, who think that the object of their worship is the best invention since bread.
If claiming that Bitcoin is better than shitcoins makes me a Bitcoin maximalist, then I am a Bitcoin maximalist. It's true that Bitcoin is better than the shitcoins. However, I wouldn't mind an altcoin that is actually better than Bitcoin. Unfortunately such altcoin doesn't exist.
I definitely don't think that Bitcoin Core is perfect and I don't believe that Bitcoin will become the one and only global currency.
The Bitcoin maximalists tend to believe in such statements. Maybe I'm not a true 100% Bitcoin maximalist after all.

Pretty much. It's safe to assume that there are a lot of people that are Bitcoin-only just because it's the safest bet with probably the best risk/reward ratio, but at the same time doesn't look at other cryptocurrencies as 100% totally a scam. It's just that the total nutjob maximalists are the loudest ones.

[avikz]

Maximalism is harmful in any sector and majority of the time it doesn't make sense! As a real world bitcoin user, we need to be practical more than anything. Then only we will be able to put our best foot forward. Maximalism will force you to go all out even when your arguments have stopped making sense!

So I don't think a sane person would ever become a maximalist in any way. Rather they will try to avoid those people at any cost!

[BlackHatCoiner]

Maximalism isn't fanaticism. It isn't bad; it's neutral. It's similar to being stereotypical versus being racist.

True, but to be far we really don't have an official definition of "maximalism".

Simply put, a Bitcoin maximalist is a person who supports the ideals of bitcoin, and fights FUD. That's how I understand it. Being toxic or non-friendly on altcoiners is reasonable, because having multiple currencies that thrive to give a solution to the same problem is somewhat against the ideals.

I identify as a Bitcoin maximalist.

[d5000]

Just read the article. The definition of a "Maximalist" in it is broad enough to include people like me, who don't oppose altcoins generally, but do oppose some of the "traits" in the altcoin space. In my case, I'm particularly concerned about crypto projects which hide their centralist nature from the public, in my opinion mostly to be able to "ride the Bitcoin train" without getting control (and profit in an old-style, centralized way) out of their hands. (Thus the "decentralization maximalist" phrase below my boring avatar). But I have no problems with altcoins with Bitcoin-style openness like Monero, Groestlcoin or Grin, for example.

Generally, the Forbes article puts the focus more in the open, decentralized nature of Bitcoin (and Proof of Work as it's "base technology"), and not so much in the opposition to other cryptocurrencies. So I can agree with most of the statements of the "definition". The only point where I disagree slightly (so I'm maybe not a "true" Bitcoin maximalist) is the ignorance of the issues regarding energy sources powering mining and its carbon footprint. While the protocol for sure doesn't discriminate between miners working with fossil energy and those using renewables, the community itself should be able to promote the second group. The stance of some Maximalists that it doesn't matter which energy is used can be seen as a symptom for a trope I see critical in the Bitcoin community: to ignore the social aspects of the Bitcoin protocol. Code may be law in the Bitcoin protocol but there may be other "rules" (or perhaps "guidelines", as they can't be "enforced" easily) supporting it - like a commitment of the community to try to reduce the carbon footprint.

[odolvlobo]

It seems to me that there is a range of Bitcoin Maxis. There are those who believe that Bitcoin will always naturally dominate as other coins fade into obscurity. And, there are those that believe that anything other than Bitcoin is a scam.

I think that Maxis generally feel threatened by other projects. I think a lot of it is because they have put money into bitcoins and they naturally don't want any other coins to succeed at Bitcoin's expense. I think the worst Maxis are the tribalists who identify so strongly as a Bitcoiner that they must defend Bitcoin by spreading lies and FUD (based on their own ignorance) about other projects.

I am not a Maxi. I believe that Bitcoin is the strongest and safest cryptocurrency. But some coins, such as Ethereum and Monero, provide benefits that Bitcoin may never be able to provide, and there is room for multiple currencies (as determined by the market, of course).

I think Pete Rizzo's description of Bitcoin Maximalism is too generous and does not accurately reflect the beliefs of Bitcoin Maximalists.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I think the worst Maxis are the tribalists who identify so strongly as a Bitcoiner that they must defend Bitcoin by spreading lies and FUD about other projects.

Huh. Still better than Altcoin tribalists.

But some coins, such as Ethereum and Monero, provide benefits that Bitcoin may never be able to provide, and there is room for multiple currencies.

Answer me this: We have an idea. We can write code to implement that idea. It's something bitcoin isn't currently capable of doing due to consensus limit, and would require a hard fork (e.g., turing completeness, ring signatures, block size increase). But, what you'll be working on, is still money. So, you have two options; make that currency backed-by / based-on bitcoin or don't.

Can you justify why you'd choose the latter over the former? It appears to me that crypto coins are scarce, but cryptocurrencies abundant, which nullifies the whole money concept.

[bbc.reporter]

Maximalism isn't fanaticism. It isn't bad; it's neutral. It's similar to being stereotypical versus being racist.

True, but to be far we really don't have an official definition of "maximalism".

Simply put, a Bitcoin maximalist is a person who supports the ideals of bitcoin, and fights FUD. That's how I understand it. Being toxic or non-friendly on altcoiners is reasonable, because having multiple currencies that thrive to give a solution to the same problem is somewhat against the ideals.

I identify as a Bitcoin maximalist.

You do not support the freedom of other developers to create other projects in the cryptospace that might be better than bitcoin?

Also, would you support those projects being developed in Ethereum to be developed in Bitcoin's ecosystem instead? I reckon if the Bitcoin developers and community were supportive of this there would not be any growth in the Ethereum ecosystem. It would also be arguable if Ethereum would be created.

[Devifajarina]

The bitcoin maximalists I know are more about individual beliefs about crypto most importantly, this represents someone's thoughts in reviewing bitcoin in the past and present, because they believe bitcoin can have a positive impact on society, with various assumptions and reviews, but more specifically I cannot explain what is meant by maximalism.
If you open your eyes, maybe this Maximalist has a strong meaning for individual thinking in the valuation of bitcoin as the most important.

[odolvlobo]

...because having multiple currencies that thrive to give a solution to the same problem is somewhat against the ideals.

That implies that Bitcoin can solve every problem, or that there is only one problem that needs to be solved. Both are unrealistic.

Answer me this: We have an idea. We can write code to implement that idea. It's something bitcoin isn't currently capable of doing due to consensus limit, and would require a hard fork (e.g., turing completeness, ring signatures, block size increase). But, what you'll be working on, is still money. So, you have two options; make that currency backed-by / based-on bitcoin or don't.

Can you justify why you'd choose the latter over the former?

If I have a good idea, I can implement it now, or I can hope that Bitcoin might be able to support it some day. The choice seems clear to me. Do it now. If it fails, then maybe you can try again if Bitcoin ever gets around to supporting it. If it doesn't fail, then you have succeeded.

It appears to me that crypto coins are scarce, but cryptocurrencies abundant, which nullifies the whole money concept.

According to CMC, there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies. Apparently 20,000 is not abundant enough to nullify the whole money concept. How many does it take?

[BlackHatCoiner]

That implies that Bitcoin can solve every problem, or that there is only one problem that needs to be solved. Both are unrealistic.

I implied that every cryptocurrency gives solution to the same problem, that is double-spending, other features asides.

If I have a good idea, I can implement it now, or I can hope that Bitcoin might be able to support it some day.

Or you can implement it now, but instead of new currency, you can utilize the already existent. Do you want to add smart contracts that can't be implemented on Bitcoin blockchain? Make a sidechain (e.g., rsk). Your rules, but not your currency. The foundations of bitcoin are invaluable. Part of the ingenious technology is the stable, scheduled, human-resistant monetary policy.

According to CMC, there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies. Apparently 20,000 is not abundant enough to nullify the whole money concept. How many does it take?

So point me to merchants that accept more than 10, 20, 50.

[danherbias07]

I like it more when it's put as "they love Bitcoin more than any cryptocurrencies that will be created". They won't falter on that idea and they will explain how Bitcoin is better than anything. No toxicity, just plain reason of truth.

But there will always be a part to giving chance to new projects that are true to their intentions of making the crypto world a better place and what lacks in the technology and what is necessary to be added to speed things up. Good competition is healthy as long as it's not proven to be a shitcoin.

[mk4]

Simply put, a Bitcoin maximalist is a person who supports the ideals of bitcoin, and fights FUD. That's how I understand it. Being toxic or non-friendly on altcoiners is reasonable, because having multiple currencies that thrive to give a solution to the same problem is somewhat against the ideals.

Isn't that just being a Bitcoiner though, and not a maximalist?

To be fair with other cryptocurrencies, 99.9% aren't even trying to fight bitcoin in the currency category for a while now; a huge majority of them are trying to be pseudo-equity of a platform. Like stocks, but freely accessible to almost anyone.

[Lucius]

You do not support the freedom of other developers to create other projects in the cryptospace that might be better than bitcoin?

I have nothing against anyone trying to make something better than Bitcoin, nor is it at all possible to ban someone from designing their own coin/token, and more than 20 000 such projects listed on CMC probably speak more than clearly in favor of that. What I see as a problem in this whole story is an absurd idea that Bitcoin maximalists are to blame for the failure of these alt-projects, because we support Bitcoin and warn others about the risks that arise from investing in altcoins.

I can agree that some coins may have some features that Bitcoin does not have, but for me personally, something like that is not too important. What Bitcoin has has been built from 2009 until today, and if someone thinks they can do better, let them get to work and show that they can achieve a greater degree of decentralization and trust that people have given Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Maximalists are skeptical and critical of claims to technical advances made by other cryptocurrency softwares, and seek to maintain and bolster a culture of scrutiny.

We are going back to the beginning again, because it is our right to defend what we have confidence in and we cannot be blamed for the reason that some other projects are not or will never be as successful as Bitcoin. It's better to be skeptical and critical than to turn out to be a fool, and on top of that, the fool who invests in Terra/Luna type projects and still has an eternal memory of his stupidity tattooed on his shoulder.

[buwaytress]

It's just that the total nutjob maximalists are the loudest ones.

Want to agree but the loudest ones I used to come into contact with weren't even total nutjobs but were even just chest-out mealy-mouthed business suits who got lucky with Bitcoin, secretly invested in alts, publicly invest more in Bitcoin but ask them to sign a transaction and they'll fumble to figure out if they can do that with Coinbase Pro and Limited Edition gold-plated Ledger (I made this one up but not surprised if it exists). Not sure if they even really ever used Bitcoin in a supportive way.

Super toxic, pay to be seen at events and conferences... you know who they are before you know who the vegans are.

I do actually like most maximalists, they appear so to me, perhaps have never claimed to being one themselves.

[odolvlobo]

That implies that Bitcoin can solve every problem, or that there is only one problem that needs to be solved. Both are unrealistic.

I implied that every cryptocurrency gives solution to the same problem, that is double-spending, other features asides.

I see. Your point is that cryptocurrency should only do one thing -- be a simple money. That seems like a good point, but it could also be short-sighted. Also, keep in mind that Bitcoin has already been extended to be more than just a simple money.

If I have a good idea, I can implement it now, or I can hope that Bitcoin might be able to support it some day.

Or you can implement it now, but instead of new currency, you can utilize the already existent. Do you want to add smart contracts that can't be implemented on Bitcoin blockchain? Make a sidechain (e.g., rsk). Your rules, but not your currency. The foundations of bitcoin are invaluable. Part of the ingenious technology is the stable, scheduled, human-resistant monetary policy.

If it were that easy or even that practical, it would have been done years ago. I think the idea is approaching wishful thinking. It may happen someday, but other coins already have a huge advantage.

According to CMC, there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies. Apparently 20,000 is not abundant enough to nullify the whole money concept. How many does it take?

So point me to merchants that accept more than 10, 20, 50.

I thought your point was that a cryptocurrency can't be a money if there is an abundance of them. Is Bitcoin then doomed, or was that not your point?

[pooya87]

It is funny to know that the term "bitcoin maximalist" was first introduced by shitcoiners who couldn't argue against those who were simply pointing out the flaws in the shitcoins they were bag holding. For example if you tell a ETH bag holder that their shitcoin is centralized with a mutable blockchain, they would reply by calling you a "maximalist".

Otherwise any bitcoin, specially those who are interested in the Bitcoin technology (not just profit making) are actually very keen on any other development in alternative cryptocurrencies. It's just that we are too tired of seeing the same copycoins claiming they are "better" just because they did something silly like changed block interval from 10 minutes to 2.5 minutes

However, they believe that these crypto assets and services are profiting off the short-term limitations of Bitcoin,

I disagree. They are benefiting from two things:
1. Bitcoin history.
They basically tell newbies about how bitcoin has gone from $0.001 to $70,000.00 and convince them that their shitcoin can do to just because it is worth $0.000000001 today.

2. People's lack of technical knowledge
They rely on the fact that when you tell people a particular shitcoin's blockchain is mutable and centralized, they don't understand what it means and why it is bad.
They also rely on being able to convince them that the meaningless change they introduced in their  copy of bitcoin "solved" a "problem".