-
@ Eitoon
2025-05-17 17:59:18
You’re welcome to challenge ideas, but reducing the conversation to metaphors about memory loss doesn’t move the discussion forward. Let’s keep it focused on arguments, not people.
Fair enough about the caps. Emphasis is fine, let’s just aim for clarity so that neither side misinterprets tone.
The distinction isn’t about denying that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, it’s about recognizing differences in structure. Bitcoin is decentralized, has a fixed supply, and no central issuer. That’s not just philosophical, it affects how it’s used, secured, and regulated. Lumping it in with ICO scams and VC-backed altcoins ignores critical context.
No one claims gold or Bitcoin prevent war. The point is that fiat makes large-scale, prolonged wars easier to fund without taxpayer consent through inflation. Bitcoin’s fixed supply limits that. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s a constraint. That’s the key difference.
Critiquing the EU’s structural flaws doesn’t mean calling for anarchy. It’s a call for decentralization, accountability, and transparency, values Bitcoin emphasizes. Regulation isn’t inherently bad, but centralized control without meaningful oversight is a problem, whether in Brussels or on Wall Street.
Even if someone holds Bitcoin, that doesn’t invalidate their arguments. If we dismiss every idea because someone might have a stake in it, we shut down half of all debates. Let’s engage with the content, not speculate on intent.
If you want, let’s agree to disagree.