In the early days of Bitcoin, the promise was clear and bold: a decentralised digital currency, money that would enable anyone, anywhere, to participate in the global economy.
The ambition wasn’t merely financial; it was philosophical. Bitcoin, as conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto, wasn’t just about storing wealth—it was about financial inclusion, micropayments, and giving individuals the freedom to transact without the oversight of oppressive institutions or middlemen.
It was an idea that aligned with the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and the importance of self-determination—principles celebrated by Ayn Rand in her defence of the rational self-interest and echoed in the economic pragmatism of Thomas Sowell, who reminded us that the real cost of any system lies in its consequences, not its rhetoric.
A Truth Machine.
But over time, the idealists and early adopters who were drawn to Bitcoin’s revolutionary potential found themselves at a crossroads, disillusioned as the project drifted further away from its original path.
In 2009 and 2010, these individuals believed in Bitcoin’s power to bank the unbanked, to allow those without access to traditional financial systems to transact, store value, and participate in the global marketplace. It was a concept that rejected paternalism, that placed faith in individual autonomy, and that didn’t ask governments for permission to be free. It was financial self-sovereignty, not charity, that would lift people from poverty.
Micropayments—the ability to send fractions of a cent anywhere in the world—represented the lifeblood of this system, enabling a global economy where even the smallest transactions mattered.
Yet, like many systems that start with noble ideals, Bitcoin became subject to the same corrupting forces that plague institutions when they stray from their foundations.
It started to become BTC Core.
The dream of Bitcoin—a network that would empower the individual and foster financial freedom—was gradually subverted by those who sought to control it.
The BTC Core developers, like central planners who promise prosperity but deliver stagnation, incrementally began to reshape Bitcoin into something unrecognisable from its original design.
In a world where the laws of economics do not bend to sentiment, the consequences of such changes were inevitable.
Small Casual Transactions...
Micropayments—once the core utility of Bitcoin—became impractical as transaction fees skyrocketed.
The very people Bitcoin was meant to serve—the unbanked, the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, and the everyday users—found themselves priced out of the market.
How could a protocol that once promised to facilitate casual transactions now require fees that exceeded the value of the transaction itself? It was as if the market for economic inclusion had been deliberately choked off, narrowing the opportunities for anyone except the elite few.
The idealistic early adopters, who in 2009 and 2010 mined Bitcoin on their personal computers and imagined a future where it could be used as easily as cash, began to lose interest.
Their detrimental reliance on the original vision of Bitcoin as a tool for financial empowerment—a vision of a future where people could send money as easily as they could send an email—was shattered. For many, the loss was not just financial, but intellectual and moral.
These individuals were drawn to Bitcoin because it represented freedom in its purest form: the freedom to transact without the interference of gatekeepers, without the need for permission, and without the burden of excessive costs.
1/3
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 23, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1849015497683308736?t=qvm14WdTc_xih9KP5irgRg&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1645
The ambition wasn’t merely financial; it was philosophical. Bitcoin, as conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto, wasn’t just about storing wealth—it was about financial inclusion, micropayments, and giving individuals the freedom to transact without the oversight of oppressive institutions or middlemen.
It was an idea that aligned with the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and the importance of self-determination—principles celebrated by Ayn Rand in her defence of the rational self-interest and echoed in the economic pragmatism of Thomas Sowell, who reminded us that the real cost of any system lies in its consequences, not its rhetoric.
A Truth Machine.
But over time, the idealists and early adopters who were drawn to Bitcoin’s revolutionary potential found themselves at a crossroads, disillusioned as the project drifted further away from its original path.
In 2009 and 2010, these individuals believed in Bitcoin’s power to bank the unbanked, to allow those without access to traditional financial systems to transact, store value, and participate in the global marketplace. It was a concept that rejected paternalism, that placed faith in individual autonomy, and that didn’t ask governments for permission to be free. It was financial self-sovereignty, not charity, that would lift people from poverty.
Micropayments—the ability to send fractions of a cent anywhere in the world—represented the lifeblood of this system, enabling a global economy where even the smallest transactions mattered.
Yet, like many systems that start with noble ideals, Bitcoin became subject to the same corrupting forces that plague institutions when they stray from their foundations.
It started to become BTC Core.
The dream of Bitcoin—a network that would empower the individual and foster financial freedom—was gradually subverted by those who sought to control it.
The BTC Core developers, like central planners who promise prosperity but deliver stagnation, incrementally began to reshape Bitcoin into something unrecognisable from its original design.
In a world where the laws of economics do not bend to sentiment, the consequences of such changes were inevitable.
Small Casual Transactions...
Micropayments—once the core utility of Bitcoin—became impractical as transaction fees skyrocketed.
The very people Bitcoin was meant to serve—the unbanked, the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, and the everyday users—found themselves priced out of the market.
How could a protocol that once promised to facilitate casual transactions now require fees that exceeded the value of the transaction itself? It was as if the market for economic inclusion had been deliberately choked off, narrowing the opportunities for anyone except the elite few.
The idealistic early adopters, who in 2009 and 2010 mined Bitcoin on their personal computers and imagined a future where it could be used as easily as cash, began to lose interest.
Their detrimental reliance on the original vision of Bitcoin as a tool for financial empowerment—a vision of a future where people could send money as easily as they could send an email—was shattered. For many, the loss was not just financial, but intellectual and moral.
These individuals were drawn to Bitcoin because it represented freedom in its purest form: the freedom to transact without the interference of gatekeepers, without the need for permission, and without the burden of excessive costs.
1/3
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 23, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1849015497683308736?t=qvm14WdTc_xih9KP5irgRg&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1645
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment