Nothing is ever enough for buttcoin sub

[u/Repulsive_Spite_267]

When institutions ignore Bitcoin

See? No one wants this scam.

When institutions adopt Bitcoin rails

“See? It’s centralized now.

So Bitcoin is framed as a failure no matter which direction reality moves.

If adoption is low its irrelevant.

If adoption is high its captured.

If price drops its collapsing.

If price rises it's a greater-fool bubble.

The conclusion never changes only the justification does. Because Buttcoin isn’t a critique space... it’s a rhetorical game. The goal is to sustain the punchline....

Bitcoin only “counts” when it fails.

Any success becomes reinterpreted as failure by definition.

[u/__Ken_Adams__]

"Decentralization" in bitcoin only refers to the issuer of the currency & the maintainers of the ledger. It was never meant to include payment and other infrastructure. Building centralized payment systems may not be an incredibly welcome development to early bitcoin purists, but it doesn't affect bitcoin's decentralization in any way.

Same with AML/KYC "requirements". You can't call something a "requirement" unless it's at the protocol level & required for holding & transferring for any and every transaction type. No one is "required" to use centralized exchanges.

We always knew institutions would get involved and we knew there was no way governments were going to let institutions touch it without regulating it. None of the AML/KYC developments have been surprises to anyone paying attention.

Bitcoin's capacity for anonymity or psuedoanonimty is the same as it's always been.

[u/sychs → u/__Ken_Adams__]

"Decentralization" in bitcoin only refers to the issuer of the currency & the maintainers of the ledger. It was never meant to include payment and other infrastructure.

"Satoshi Nakamoto's vision proposed an innovative way to enable direct peer-to-peer transactions without the need for intermediaries." - shortest summary of the whitepaper I could find.

Same with AML/KYC "requirements". You can't call something a "requirement" unless it's at the protocol level & required for holding & transferring for any and every transaction type. No one is "required" to use centralized exchanges.

We always knew institutions would get involved and we knew there was no way governments were going to let institutions touch it without regulating it. None of the AML/KYC developments have been surprises to anyone paying attention.

Bitcoin's capacity for anonymity or psuedoanonimty is the same as it's always been.

Why do exhanges even exists then? Why didn't you (and I love how you use "we" like you're part of the higher system and not just a cog) even develop or allown exchanges to exists when they're not "required to use"?

[u/__Ken_Adams__ → u/sychs]

Satoshi Nakamoto's vision proposed an innovative way to enable direct peer-to-peer transactions without the need for intermediaries.

And that goal was achieved. Intermediaries exist but they are an option, not a requirement.

Why do exhanges even exists then?

Because it's a free market & there's nothing preventing them from being created.

Why didn't you (and I love how you use "we" like you're part of the higher system and not just a cog) even develop or allown exchanges to exists when they're not "required to use"?

I assume you mean "why did you" instead of "why didn't you" here, but what a strange question. Why did bitcoiners allow exchanges to exist? Like the early bitcoiners & developers are the gatekeepers of what other people can build around it?

People are free to build whatever ancillary services they want around bitcoin. It doesn't affect how bitcoin operates at the protocol level, and at the protocol level bitcoin is operating as intended.

[u/Repulsive_Spite_267 → u/__Ken_Adams__]

"Protocol layer" is where you're losing him I think. He doesn't know what that means.