In analyzing this passage, one sees a twisting of reality disguised as reason. The argument begins by claiming that Bitcoin (BTC) is scaling through an increase in transaction value rather than transaction volume. Yet this notion directly contradicts the essence of scaling—a system's ability to handle more, not just "bigger." By claiming BTC is "scaling" while failing to increase capacity for everyday transactions, the author subverts the very meaning of scalability.
The claim that "cash" in the nineteenth century meant interbank gold reserves is not only misleading but patently false—a distortion meant to twist facts to fit a narrative. Cash has always meant a bearer instrument, something that allows direct, peer-to-peer transfer without third-party involvement. Cash’s fundamental essence—its immediacy, privacy, and directness—remains unchanged, whether in the past or present.
Equating Bitcoin’s original design with interbank gold settlements is a deliberate lie, designed to obscure the truth. Bitcoin was conceived as electronic cash, empowering individuals to transact without reliance on financial institutions or intermediaries. By attempting to redefine cash as something requiring settlement between banks, the author abandons intellectual integrity, distorting Bitcoin’s purpose in an attempt to justify BTC’s current limitations.
Next, the writer attempts a sleight of hand, redefining Bitcoin as a "settlement network." But the original vision of Bitcoin was as a direct, peer-to-peer cash system—cash, as even a child understands, is immediate, final, and does not require an intermediary. BTC, in its current form, has been hijacked away from this purpose, now requiring off-chain transactions handled by exchanges—introducing exactly the type of third-party control Bitcoin was designed to eliminate. This is a retreat into centralization, masquerading as innovation.
This piece presents a shell game of concepts, hoping the reader will mistake complex terms for depth. But underneath, the argument lacks substance. BTC as it stands today abandons Bitcoin's foundational purpose as "electronic cash," compromising on scalability, accessibility, and integrity. These are not refinements but betrayals of the system's original principles. In evading these truths, the writer commits the ultimate sin in philosophy: sacrificing clarity for the illusion of progress.
• • •
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 27, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1850433964001096169.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1719
The claim that "cash" in the nineteenth century meant interbank gold reserves is not only misleading but patently false—a distortion meant to twist facts to fit a narrative. Cash has always meant a bearer instrument, something that allows direct, peer-to-peer transfer without third-party involvement. Cash’s fundamental essence—its immediacy, privacy, and directness—remains unchanged, whether in the past or present.
Equating Bitcoin’s original design with interbank gold settlements is a deliberate lie, designed to obscure the truth. Bitcoin was conceived as electronic cash, empowering individuals to transact without reliance on financial institutions or intermediaries. By attempting to redefine cash as something requiring settlement between banks, the author abandons intellectual integrity, distorting Bitcoin’s purpose in an attempt to justify BTC’s current limitations.
Next, the writer attempts a sleight of hand, redefining Bitcoin as a "settlement network." But the original vision of Bitcoin was as a direct, peer-to-peer cash system—cash, as even a child understands, is immediate, final, and does not require an intermediary. BTC, in its current form, has been hijacked away from this purpose, now requiring off-chain transactions handled by exchanges—introducing exactly the type of third-party control Bitcoin was designed to eliminate. This is a retreat into centralization, masquerading as innovation.
This piece presents a shell game of concepts, hoping the reader will mistake complex terms for depth. But underneath, the argument lacks substance. BTC as it stands today abandons Bitcoin's foundational purpose as "electronic cash," compromising on scalability, accessibility, and integrity. These are not refinements but betrayals of the system's original principles. In evading these truths, the writer commits the ultimate sin in philosophy: sacrificing clarity for the illusion of progress.
• • •
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 27, 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1850433964001096169.html
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1719
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment