Bitcoin and Bitcoiners are Going to Stay
In my opinion, bitcoin and Bitcoiners are Going to Stay: Between Bitcoin Maximalism and Bitcoin Maximalists, there is a distinction.
There is a subclass of “Bitcoin Maximalists” who have been involved with Bitcoin for about a year and have adopted the anti-crypto culture without even being able to defend it.
They are Bitcoiners because they became involved with Bitcoin. Compared to these guys, I have a different perspective on Bitcoin maximalism.
My understanding of Bitcoin Maximalism is firm, and it hasn’t changed over the previous two years despite all of the newcomers who have jumped on the bandwagon and are using it as a stick on Twitter.
WHERE DID THE TOXICITY COME FROM?
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH CRYPTO?
Let’s begin by discussing the origin of the hostility. It resulted from repeatedly observing a whole market of nonsense, including fraud, Ponzi schemes, the gigantic initial coin offering (ICO) bubble, many tokens, blatant imitations of other projects, frequent attempts at seigniorage, etc.
- Anyone who entered this area would be destroyed. They were being robbed while thinking, “Man, I hate Bitcoin,” although it had always been Bitcoiners explicitly attempting to call out and stop that kind of behavior.
- Because Bitcoin was not pre-mined and the project was made public from the outset, ethics were ingrained in the Bitcoin community from the beginning.
- At the same time, he was earning nothing and maintaining the project for two years when it was worth nothing, Satoshi Nakamoto. It was an entirely fair launch; it was an experiment. He did not look for a firm to buy it out, and there were no investors.
- It was merely an open-source undertaking. Nakamoto wanted to see if others would endorse the idea and test it out to see if it functioned.
- As we entered 2012 and 2013, the environment shifted, and individuals began considering other applications for this technology. After that, there have been attempts to use the same framework to build a different network with a different goal.
- All of those early projects made a concerted effort to uphold the highest ethical standards; they were genuinely sincere endeavors to launch a new initiative and somewhat introduce a new cryptocurrency.
- Because it was part of the presumptive ethics, they didn’t begin with pre-mines. These vague regulations were numerous.
BITCOIN IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE, NOT A SOCIALLY MOTIVATED
What you consider moral or ethical shouldn’t alter based on what other people think. That is precisely why I remain a Bitcoin Maximalist: my morals haven’t changed.
- The founders of these initiatives, Ethereum being one of the best examples, took advantage of their power to openly defy the laws of the system for their gain.
- I can’t simply act as though none of that ever happened or that it doesn’t matter any longer because there are so many new individuals! For me, nothing has changed as a result.
- I refuse to compromise my moral standards merely because others have stopped caring, and discarding them has become the norm. If I had done that, I would never have become a Bitcoiner.
- One argument favoring the proposition that “Bitcoin maximalism is dead” is this. People say, “The numbers are dropping. Get out while you can.” That’s funny to me since it makes the same appeal to societal norms and approval.
- I genuinely have a rationale for my beliefs, so it doesn’t matter whether someone else thinks that people are abandoning them. If it did, I was going along with the crowd and never really had any reason to believe anything.
- To conclude, Bitcoin Maximalism and win the approval of others, I have spent tens of thousands of hours in research. I believe it matters.
Also Read: Advice For Success in The Crypto Industry