2017 marked a generational change in BTC
The older devs left Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn)
A bunch of younger guys stepped up (Luke-jr, Greg Maxwell, Wladimir van der Laan, Matt Corallo)
An entirely new culture was formed, featuring optimism about layer 2 scaling, a rejection of bigger blocks, and a general philosophy that Bitcoin is savings tech that is primarily used for storing value
Unfortunately, too many sociopaths tagged along in order to take advantage of the Lord of the Flies scenario.
Professional influencers, government agents, midlife crisis challengers, nutrition experts, outcast artists, they all appropriated the language and culture in order to become part of the movement.
Of course, there are only so many slots on conference stages and only so many podcasts can succeed. So what followed was a ritual of purging anyone they didn’t like or simply didn’t want to succeed in this community
It wasn’t about purity tests per se: people from the inner circles always had a free pass to use “shitcoins” (non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies) without any accountability.
This is why Giacomo Zucco could do consultancy for Ethereum token projects without ever getting called out. This is why Idi Wertheimer could shill Tron while everyone else giggled. This is why nobody ever called out Rodolfo Novak for supporting Litecoin with his first version of the Coldcard. This is why Jameson Lopp could tweet “running Grin” without getting cancelled.
The purging wasn’t for them. It was for me, because I interviewed Roger Ver. It was for Andreas Antonopoulos, because he never studied the new maximalist jargon and he wrote “Mastering Ethereum”. It was for Zooko, because in his quest to improve Bitcoin’s privacy he created a compatible altcoin.
Just like accusations of sexual harassment were used during the metoo era to destroy the careers of businesses men and politicians, being a “shitcoiner” carried almost the same stigma and effect
Bitcoin maximalists are the first class citizens. The chosen people. The pure ones who are destined to become super rich by doing nothing.
Everyone else who tries to do something else, has the curiosity to explore beyond the limits of the dogma, or simply talks with certain people must be excommunicated.
Of course, this morality works only as long as the claims are backed by technical merits. In 2017, Bitcoin still retained a technical edge and most altcoins were basically lazy clones with some modifications.
But obviously, the free market was able to come up with innovations that weren’t cooked in the Bitcoin Core ivory tower. New use cases emerged. New users came with the expectation to access certain features.
Instead of adapting to consolidate its network effect, Bitcoin chose to stagnate… and became increasingly proud about it! If proposals aren’t cooked in the ivory tower laboratory, they are either shitcoiny (because they were tried on other networks) or else they’re “not ready” until the ivory tower people agree that they’re good.
Otherwise, the cheerleaders LARP that Bitcoin Core is a decentralized meritocracy where the best ideas always win.
This is how Bitcoin lost its market dominance and network effect. Because the price went up irrespective of technological progress, the Core dev team became scared of improving anything because the project is too valuable, the conferences became brainwashing distractions that propagate memes instead of trying to create consensus, and in the meantime the smart people left the room to build elsewhere.
Now we’re stuck with the bottom of the barrel in terms of community member IQ because only these guys can ignore all the signs and pretend with a straight face that Bitcoin is winning.
The biggest irony is that many new devs today will admit that conservatively increasing the block size is a good approach, without unknown tradeoffs. 10 years too late…
The older devs left Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn)
A bunch of younger guys stepped up (Luke-jr, Greg Maxwell, Wladimir van der Laan, Matt Corallo)
An entirely new culture was formed, featuring optimism about layer 2 scaling, a rejection of bigger blocks, and a general philosophy that Bitcoin is savings tech that is primarily used for storing value
Unfortunately, too many sociopaths tagged along in order to take advantage of the Lord of the Flies scenario.
Professional influencers, government agents, midlife crisis challengers, nutrition experts, outcast artists, they all appropriated the language and culture in order to become part of the movement.
Of course, there are only so many slots on conference stages and only so many podcasts can succeed. So what followed was a ritual of purging anyone they didn’t like or simply didn’t want to succeed in this community
It wasn’t about purity tests per se: people from the inner circles always had a free pass to use “shitcoins” (non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies) without any accountability.
This is why Giacomo Zucco could do consultancy for Ethereum token projects without ever getting called out. This is why Idi Wertheimer could shill Tron while everyone else giggled. This is why nobody ever called out Rodolfo Novak for supporting Litecoin with his first version of the Coldcard. This is why Jameson Lopp could tweet “running Grin” without getting cancelled.
The purging wasn’t for them. It was for me, because I interviewed Roger Ver. It was for Andreas Antonopoulos, because he never studied the new maximalist jargon and he wrote “Mastering Ethereum”. It was for Zooko, because in his quest to improve Bitcoin’s privacy he created a compatible altcoin.
Just like accusations of sexual harassment were used during the metoo era to destroy the careers of businesses men and politicians, being a “shitcoiner” carried almost the same stigma and effect
Bitcoin maximalists are the first class citizens. The chosen people. The pure ones who are destined to become super rich by doing nothing.
Everyone else who tries to do something else, has the curiosity to explore beyond the limits of the dogma, or simply talks with certain people must be excommunicated.
Of course, this morality works only as long as the claims are backed by technical merits. In 2017, Bitcoin still retained a technical edge and most altcoins were basically lazy clones with some modifications.
But obviously, the free market was able to come up with innovations that weren’t cooked in the Bitcoin Core ivory tower. New use cases emerged. New users came with the expectation to access certain features.
Instead of adapting to consolidate its network effect, Bitcoin chose to stagnate… and became increasingly proud about it! If proposals aren’t cooked in the ivory tower laboratory, they are either shitcoiny (because they were tried on other networks) or else they’re “not ready” until the ivory tower people agree that they’re good.
Otherwise, the cheerleaders LARP that Bitcoin Core is a decentralized meritocracy where the best ideas always win.
This is how Bitcoin lost its market dominance and network effect. Because the price went up irrespective of technological progress, the Core dev team became scared of improving anything because the project is too valuable, the conferences became brainwashing distractions that propagate memes instead of trying to create consensus, and in the meantime the smart people left the room to build elsewhere.
Now we’re stuck with the bottom of the barrel in terms of community member IQ because only these guys can ignore all the signs and pretend with a straight face that Bitcoin is winning.
The biggest irony is that many new devs today will admit that conservatively increasing the block size is a good approach, without unknown tradeoffs. 10 years too late…
63❤️5🤙1
