I cannot tell if we are saying similar things or not. I am trying to suggest that value is going to continue to flow into bitcoin no matter what, yet there could be various kinds of governmental actions and/or the actions of various market actors that affect the trajectory one way or another and in ways that we cannot really figure out how they are going to play out.
Yes, we are saying same time while you gave a better point on the trajectory of it moving either gradually or suddenly but I was still just on the fact that either ways in the long run, the growth will still be positive. This is similar to how the trajectory has been going since the creation of Bitcoin.
No manipulation is required, even though several governments are going to try to manipulate it, and I am not going to count out king daddy, even if it might take 50-200 years for value to gravitate into bitcoin, even though sure in the mean time, is bitcoin debilitated at some point along the way, or does it continue to operate in a tick tock next block kind of way? or what are the attacks going to be?
There will always be a fight but as long Bitcoiners are together we are still bigger than all of their feature plans since we have been on a fight before now.
I have trouble with accepting or believing that "the good guy always wins" or whatever it might be that you are trying to say...
Another thing is that the whole world's population are likely going to end up as bitcoiners, yet at this point there are hardly any bitcoiners in terms of the whole population.. so there are some contingencies who seem to have more influence than others whether in traditional systems or in bitcoin systems, and surely there are going to be overlapping of the circles (contingencies), and so it can be difficult to figure out how systems will prevail, even though many of us likely recognize how incentives have been created in bitcoin so that even if some folks are working to get greater influence in the bitcoin system, there are counter reactions that end up causing bitcoin to get stronger rather than weaker, yet there still could end up being imperfections in the incentive systems that end up contributing to unexpected attack vectors and splitting of bitcoins and difficulties in figuring out which is the correct bitcoin, so will we know which side are the "good guys" if all the money seems to be on one side, and so sure, follow the money, right? Does that end in the right outcome? I am not going to take any of it for granted, even though I also have quite a bit of my own investment of time, energy and value in bitcoin.. yet aren't there still ways that each of us should be trying to hedge? or not? And we might not even agree about the extent that we should hedge or how to hedge, and does that end up in the better outcome and knowing what is the right bitcoin to follow?
Sadly all these are possible. When the majority are mainly concerned the money/value, then with time I think the fight will be lost because when the priority is money in the long run things often end side ways while when focusing on other fundamentals like decentralization and the likes the money/value will surely come and last longer though not quickly as when the focus is money but will definitely outpaced it.
I guess as we make others invest in Bitcoin we also need to enlighten them about the reason for it creation, the fundamental principles rather than the ROI.
Sure right now there are ways to try to KYC everyone and make self-custody illegal, yet I have my doubts about if that will be successful, even though they may well end up coming after some of us (or many of us? or can they get most of us to not self-custody, then it may well be easier to target some of us).
Self-custody except they can make the masses lose the reason for it, all their plan against will be vain. To be frank I think the government is already losing this fight since with time many are coming into the realization of self custody, and many here came to this realization through this forum and I'm one.
There are going to be ongoing attacks on self custody, and so there can be communication difficulties to make sure that we are able to transact peer to peer and to have peer to peer circles for transactions, so I am not going to presume peer to peer is going to win the day, and I am also not going to presume that government is dead or that the reasons for government have disappeared, including that people surely have different views about the role of government, so even if battles might not be happening about whether governments should be responsible and to spend within their means, people are not going to necessarily like the disappearance of certain governmental systems or even if some government leaders might be using governmental systems to attack their perceived political enemies, and I am not going to proclaim to know exactly where bitcoin, crypto and/or other financial interactions fit into various transitions that might even incentivize governments to spend within their means, yet governments still might be unable to figure out ways to spend within their means, and even those who are deviating from fiscal responsibility may well end up getting rewarded, which seems to be rewarding bad behaviors contrary to bitcoin ideas, yet it can still be difficult to sort out or even to figure out, including potentially how to preserve our own value if some folks might have direct or inferential information that you have more bitcoin than they believe you deserve... so then you giving up your keys or are you going to die on principles...and just believe that it is all going to work out, when you personally have been the one who ends up getting targeted because it is "known" or inferred that you have more bitcoin than you deserve.
Full blown self custody for everyone will not be possible while many will still be using KYC, others will have the chances for self custody this will be continually possible, my take is that the government(s) cannot entirely banned the right for self custody.
Surely, I am not going to claim to know the answers or even to presume that the good guy always wins or even that many of the matters will be resolved in the coming 5-20 years or even the fact that it could take 50-200 years to resolve some of the matters, there may well be a considerable number of folks who are not able to make sure that they don't get reckt while anticipating that matters are going to resolve themselves in "the correct" ways because bitcoin happens to have all the "good guys" behind it.. and for sure, you can see some problems in presuming bitcoiners are good guys merely because they are bitcoiners or even to give more status to older bitcoiners versus younger bitcoiners since the older ones would have the true cypherpunk vision as compared to the newer ones who just want to create ordinals, inscriptions, NFTs, runes and/or meme coins in order to get themselves rich faster than anyone else based on their cleverness in making the coin/project or their ability to garner up name recognition and momentum. Those are the good guys, right? or how do we know who are the good guys? Have they infiltrated the nodes and the miners, yet? Are they changing the code? Maybe the ones who are refusing to change the code are the bad guys? How do we know?
I think we should stick with the true cypherpunk vision stated by Satoshi in the white paper but the fact that they continue to state Bitcoin is now bigger than Satoshi may likely lead to another hard fork again and other changes on Bitcoin.
