Michael Saylor talks about Bitcoin, and you WILL be disappointed

[Wind_FURY]

If Bitcoin is equal to anarchy, then it may not be good. Anarchy means chaos and disorder. But Bitcoin isn't anarchy or a currency for the anarchists. Bitcoin is just a currency that embodies freedom. There's nothing wrong with it.

I'm not designating Bitcoin with a belief-system or a philosophy. I'm merely describing it as what and how it's actually designed technically. What do you think should self-sovereignty and censorship-resistance necessitate? For everyone to follow the government? Or real embodiment of freedom from the State?

Plus Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean "chaos and disorder", but that's a debate for another topic.

Saylor is only after Bitcoin as an asset, something which he can earn from. With his words, it's clear that Saylor is in favor of censorship. He seems to be against privacy also. But should we be surprised? Saylor belongs to the traditional elite.

Or to give him some benefit of the doubt, he probably is playing 4D Chess. Haha.

[1714891036]

1714891036

[1714891036]

1714891036

[1714891036]

1714891036

[1714891036]

1714891036

[yazher]

If Bitcoin is equal to anarchy, then it may not be good. Anarchy means chaos and disorder. But Bitcoin isn't anarchy or a currency for the anarchists. Bitcoin is just a currency that embodies freedom. There's nothing wrong with it.

No matter how they interpret the people will gonna believe what they see and what they are witnessing for themselves. that's why the price of bitcoins is not affected by whatever opinions they have and when you have enough resources to do your own personal research regarding bitcoins, you will know that their opinions are not worth considering because you already know the truth and you know that when you have bitcoins in your personal wallet, no one can control it except you. We didn't have as much financial freedom before and to have it right now is a huge success towards financial privacy and secured assets.

[alani123]

Although Mr. Saylor is pretty understanding to the causes of Bitcoin and its stated goals, one shouldn't expect much more from a listed company CEO. He has a position to guide a company to success and can't really stand behind political and revolutionary causes such as anarchism so freely from where he stands. If you want to hear libertarian or revolutionary takes on bitcoin, there's all kind of party conferences to take yourself to.

By all means, political takes on bitcoin are more than welcome. Bitcoin's place in society is a subject that could be debated forever and these conversations are meaningful. But if you ask Mr. Saylor about a political take, he probably isn't the right person for it.

[Casdinyard]

I mean. He's true in what he's saying. The appeal of bitcoin only applies to those who aren't lined with deep pockets. After all, the billionaires in this economy got from where they are right now thanks to their manipulation of customer information, something that bitcoin withholds. It's poignant and painful but at the same time Michael's only saying the truth in here. Sure there will be billionaire deviants who would still dip their toes in the crypto industry despite it not giving them true monetary value, but they wouldn't be significant enough to count amongst the hundreds if not thousands of billionaires right now who aren't keen on the protection and anonymity/censorship that bitcoin is providing its users.

[redsun114]

I'm experienced and knowledgeable enough to not get disappointed because of a businessman going against Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. After all, I know that their support or opposing it wouldn't make things different for me if I had started using Bitcoin because I like the idea or the technology it has been built with and the purpose it serves for us as users or even investors. Their views regarding Bitcoin won't change my views regarding it since my views aren't influenced by what they say or think about it.

Michael Saylor or any other businessmen who are actively involved in Bitcoin investments might say things that will be useful for them in terms of profits in the long run, and it's understandable since all they care about is profit and they aren't backing Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies because they like them in other ways, which might be the case, but it might not, for most people.

[Wind_FURY]

I mean. He's true in what he's saying. The appeal of bitcoin only applies to those who aren't lined with deep pockets. After all, the billionaires in this economy got from where they are right now thanks to their manipulation of customer information, something that bitcoin withholds. It's poignant and painful but at the same time Michael's only saying the truth in here. Sure there will be billionaire deviants who would still dip their toes in the crypto industry despite it not giving them true monetary value, but they wouldn't be significant enough to count amongst the hundreds if not thousands of billionaires right now who aren't keen on the protection and anonymity/censorship that bitcoin is providing its users.

Are you saying that you agree that Michael Saylor is right that we don't need censorship-resistance? Would you agree that Bitcoin should throw POW out of the window and let a group of "trusted individuals" edit and append the ledger?

I could see an argument that Bitcoin doesn't really need to be private/fungible on-chain - But that's another debate for another topic. BUT censorship-resistance, NOT needed? What has everyone been doing here?

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

I mean. He's true in what he's saying. The appeal of bitcoin only applies to those who aren't lined with deep pockets. After all, the billionaires in this economy got from where they are right now thanks to their manipulation of customer information, something that bitcoin withholds. It's poignant and painful but at the same time Michael's only saying the truth in here. Sure there will be billionaire deviants who would still dip their toes in the crypto industry despite it not giving them true monetary value, but they wouldn't be significant enough to count amongst the hundreds if not thousands of billionaires right now who aren't keen on the protection and anonymity/censorship that bitcoin is providing its users.

Are you saying that you agree that Michael Saylor is right that we don't need censorship-resistance? Would you agree that Bitcoin should throw POW out of the window and let a group of "trusted individuals" edit and append the ledger?

I could see an argument that Bitcoin doesn't really need to be private/fungible on-chain - But that's another debate for another topic. BUT censorship-resistance, NOT needed? What has everyone been doing here?

How can someone just go by what the media said about Michael and he's also boosting on the same wrong idea and expect us to believe in whatever thing he said, Michael Saylor is wrong here totally and i completely disagree with him, we don't need censorship for whatsoever reason, if this had been in place, maybe someone like him wouldn't have accumulated this far from where he's now with his bitcoin holdings, this means he has been deceiving himself and not us all these while that he make posts about bitcoin saying alot of things that makes it a better Investment and global asset.

[hd49728]

How can someone just go by what the media said about Michael and he's also boosting on the same wrong idea and expect us to believe in whatever thing he said, Michael Saylor is wrong here totally and i completely disagree with him, we don't need censorship for whatsoever reason, if this had been in place, maybe someone like him wouldn't have accumulated this far from where he's now with his bitcoin holdings, this means he has been deceiving himself and not us all these while that he make posts about bitcoin saying alot of things that makes it a better Investment and global asset.

Does support anarchist mean it is a centralized or censored network?

The network is centralized and should be centralized in future. Censorship will need a long time with deep on-chain analytic tools to do it. Sometimes it is too late to detect a laundering money from a hack and want to block all money from darknet is impossible.

Like governments and central banks fail to block all money flow in and out of darknet with cash. It is unfair and unrealistic to want to have a perfect tool do to that with blockchains. They only want to show off their power and say they want to control things in their nations including blockchains and money flows through blockchains.

[Wind_FURY]

How can someone just go by what the media said about Michael and he's also boosting on the same wrong idea and expect us to believe in whatever thing he said, Michael Saylor is wrong here totally and i completely disagree with him, we don't need censorship for whatsoever reason, if this had been in place, maybe someone like him wouldn't have accumulated this far from where he's now with his bitcoin holdings, this means he has been deceiving himself and not us all these while that he make posts about bitcoin saying alot of things that makes it a better Investment and global asset.

Does support anarchist mean it is a centralized or censored network?

The network is centralized and should be centralized in future. Censorship will need a long time with deep on-chain analytic tools to do it. Sometimes it is too late to detect a laundering money from a hack and want to block all money from darknet is impossible.

Like governments and central banks fail to block all money flow in and out of darknet with cash. It is unfair and unrealistic to want to have a perfect tool do to that with blockchains. They only want to show off their power and say they want to control things in their nations including blockchains and money flows through blockchains.

Although I'm still giving Michael Saylor some benefit of the doubt, the kind of mindset that he exposed of himself truly having about Bitcoin is a sign that he wants Bitcoin to become like a corporate-controlled settlement layer for the wealthy and the elite, instead of what it was intended to be as a decentralized, censorship-resistant, self-sovereign cryptocurrency for everyone.

Plus don't forget the question of, "How much of the total supply must be held in centralized third-parties' vaults before we start to worry? What's the threshold?"

[nutildah]

He's certainly a controversial figure, and I don't particularly like him, but the fact is he has wormed his way into the hearts of permabull maxis everywhere. Thus, we have to accept the fact that he's here to stay.

He straddles the line between iconic leadership figure and hapless cheerleader, just as he is somewhere between brilliant corporate strategist and shrewd megalomaniac sociopath. Even if his conviction is all for show, its conviction nonetheless, and I've come around to respecting that.

[DooMAD]

Seems I overlooked this topic first time around.

I'd say that, in order to be disappointed, you'd first have to have some level of expectation.  People, especially those in business, have agendas.  If you hold the expectation that such people are "on your side", then you probably are going to be disappointed at some point or another.  Because such people will always serve their own interests first.  I suspect Bitcoin is largely a means-to-an-end for Saylor.  He's just using it to get what he wants.  Don't pin your hopes and dreams on him, or people like him.  Then you won't be disappointed.

And you definitely can't assume people are allies just because they sometimes say nice things.

[franky1]

Seems I overlooked this topic first time around.

I'd say that, in order to be disappointed, you'd first have to have some level of expectation.  People, especially those in business, have agendas.  If you hold the expectation that such people are "on your side", then you probably are going to be disappointed at some point or another.  Because such people will always serve their own interests first.  I suspect Bitcoin is largely a means-to-an-end for Saylor.  He's just using it to get what he wants.  Don't pin your hopes and dreams on him, or people like him.  Then you won't be disappointed.

And you definitely can't assume people are allies just because they sometimes say nice things.

wow he learned something in 2024.. im shocked, but in a pleased way
now he should apply that knowledge to core devs that are paid by a business..
and then look specifically at their "force merge" code upgrades those devs done

[NewRanger]

wow he learned something in 2024.. im shocked, but in a pleased way
now he should apply that knowledge to core devs that are paid by a business..
and then look specifically at their "force merge" code upgrades those devs done

The bottom line question is Will the scaling problem be addressed and is it necessary now?

[franky1]

wow he learned something in 2024.. im shocked, but in a pleased way
now he should apply that knowledge to core devs that are paid by a business..
and then look specifically at their "force merge" code upgrades those devs done

The bottom line question is Will the scaling problem be addressed and is it necessary now?

core have a roadmap of idea's for the next release and the release after that

and seeing how core devs prefer adding code that TRY to make subnetworks operate better. but close issues regarding making bitcoin less annoying.. i dont see them desiring scaling bitcoin any time soon.
most paid devs have the mindset that the junk/spam is needed as it pays miners....
yet, miners were never poor even when btc market was $17k.. nor do they need subsidy when market economics of btc price can take care of them.. so they dont need extra payments anytime soon. but .. dev politics overalls logic, economics

inshort
they have no desire to make transactions lean or allow more transactions per block nor remove the spam anytime soon

[hd49728]

Although I'm still giving Michael Saylor some benefit of the doubt, the kind of mindset that he exposed of himself truly having about Bitcoin is a sign that he wants Bitcoin to become like a corporate-controlled settlement layer for the wealthy and the elite, instead of what it was intended to be as a decentralized, censorship-resistant, self-sovereign cryptocurrency for everyone.

Michael Saylor is building up a massive automatic profit printer for MicroStrategy. I am not considering him as my idol and anyone similar. I just think about him and his strategy for MicroStrategy and in my opinion, he is a genius.

People can ask questions like, MicroStrategy is getting benefit by their decision to invest in Bitcoin which no doubt has big contribution from Michael Saylor to convince the company board members to spend money for a risky investment in BTC since 2020.

As a clear result of this, the company stock has very good growth in 2023.

People can ask question like, if Bitcoin Spot ETFs will be available, will people continue to buy MicroStrategy stock?
I think they will do because if they buy Bitcoin Spot ETF, they won't have a thing that can bring double benefit like MicroStrategy stock. Buy the stock, see Bitcoin growth to increase your portfolio value and also see the stock increases in value. Double wins.

I am sorry if someone thinks I am shilling MicroStrategy stock. It's not my intention. Just thinking about Michael Saylor as businessman with very smart strategy.

Plus don't forget the question of, "How much of the total supply must be held in centralized third-parties' vaults before we start to worry? What's the threshold?"

It is a big concern but MicroStrategy and any investor are free to accumulate bitcoin from the market.

[serveria.com]

Stop talking about regulatory arbitrage. Censorship-resistance, privacy, and tax evasion are bad ideas. We hate that.”

The conversation began with a huge letdown. I had asked Michael Saylor what could motivate greater institutional investment in Bitcoin—after all, if Bitcoin is going to the moon, we’re gonna need a lot of deep pockets to climb on board.

“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained.

https://www.btctimes.com/insight/michael-saylor-on-bitcoins-next-billion-hodlers

Is this the same person who was telling everyone about appreciating the power of Bitcoin because he experienced having $1,000,000 of his own money locked in Argentina with no way to send it out of the country? Didn't he need censorship-resistance to send that money out?

Plus it's understandable that the largest Bitcoin HODLers should not say anything that might get them and their investment in some inconveniences, but actually saying the censorship-resistance is a "bad idea"?

Remove the "Chad", just "Saylor", he is not a friend to the Bitcoin community. He doesn't support its ethos.

This kind of looks like it's ripped out of context. By 'we' he probably means institutional investors. And that is not his POV or something. That's a fact. At that level you have to be as law abiding as possible (remember what happened to CZ?) But we can't know for sure what Saylor really thinks as an individual.

[franky1]

no institution is talking about monero..
for obvious reasons(anarchists)

as for institutional effects to bitcoin:
we will see the likes of coinbase.com(main custodian) get stricter in regards to 'blacklisting' so that they can keep their custody free from nefarious users coins, because as a custodian of coins that then get allotted to ETF the institutions wont want to be trading shares of criminally linked coins which authorities can seize and kill peoples share allocations

as for actual bitcoiners that use UTXO's not shares.. we will enter a thunder-dome scenario
'two may enter one may leave'
where by middle men services/system/subnetworks will want users to lock funds into their systems and only let the user escape once users have spent the value and hold an empty balance of funds owed to users, leaving all coins to the middlemen
(this is and will be achieved by fooling people intoo spending their value on digital items that cost nothing to make. EG forum hat avatars, junk meme AI gen images.. all so middlemen get coin at costs far far far far lower then minimum cost mining)

i do laugh though
with saylor no longer CEO of microstrategy and is diluting shares... its microstrategy that has over 130k btc not saylor personally
so pointing at microstrategy for having 130k+.. whilst a certain OP always tries to avoid discussions of the coins hoarded by DCG sister companies (coinbase/grayscale) that are over 1million coins, it makes me laugh..
DCG has sponsored more core dev deals that have made bitcoin more annoying.. oops i said it, prepare for backlash

i personally dont like saylor nor dcg.. but its funny how certain people finger point at the less concerning to avoid highlighting the bigger concern

[Wind_FURY]

Seems I overlooked this topic first time around.

I'd say that, in order to be disappointed, you'd first have to have some level of expectation.  People, especially those in business, have agendas.  If you hold the expectation that such people are "on your side", then you probably are going to be disappointed at some point or another.  Because such people will always serve their own interests first.  I suspect Bitcoin is largely a means-to-an-end for Saylor.  He's just using it to get what he wants.  Don't pin your hopes and dreams on him, or people like him.  Then you won't be disappointed.

And you definitely can't assume people are allies just because they sometimes say nice things.

I truly thought that he of all founders/CEOs from legacy, actually understood what Bitcoin is, how it technically works and because of it, I thought he understood how its ethos was derived from how Bitcoin technically worked. It was also because if this educational website, built by the foundation of his, that I thought he might be different from the others.

https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=30734&forceview=1

He has the educational website, but he didn't learn anything from it.

[nutildah]

This kind of looks like it's ripped out of context. By 'we' he probably means institutional investors.

By "we", he means Wall Street-level corporate psychopaths who don't give a shit about anything but extracting as much wealth as possible from the American public. Stop simping for him. Its embarrassing.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

I truly thought that he of all founders/CEOs from legacy, actually understood what Bitcoin is, how it technically works and because of it, I thought he understood how its ethos was derived from how Bitcoin technically worked. It was also because if this educational website, built by the foundation of his, that I thought he might be different from the others.

https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=30734&forceview=1

He has the educational website, but he didn't learn anything from it.

We can not know his learning progress but people can always change their mindset. As a businessman, he can more flexible with his mind if it brings benefit to his business.

For the educational contents on his Saylor Academy website, it's very possible that those contents were composed by his staffs, not by himself. He even not read all those contents.

He can do what needed for his business and if it helps Bitcoin gets more exposure in community, expands its adoption, I see he is doing good contributions for us.

Use his business products, it depends but I would like to store my bitcoins self custodial.