-
@ 343PG
2024-05-04 09:26:56This is a slightly abridged version of an article published in Bitcoin magazine in October 2021.
June 4th 2021, Bitcoin Conference, Miami. Max Keiser strides onto the stage, clad in a white suit, in triumphant fashion.
“YEAH! YEAH! WE’RE NOT DONE! WE’RE NOT DONE! FUCK ELON! FUCK ELON!”
This clip attracted plenty of online criticism, perhaps most from those already looking for something to criticise, but also from some bitcoiners. But what was the impact? And how badly can bitcoiners hurt Bitcoin?
More on Max Keiser later.
Bitcoin’s most underrated facet is its fully distributed (frequently also described as decentralised) nature, both in terms of the miners and node operators. But this concept of decentralisation also extends to Bitcoiners themselves. There are certainly cohorts. The core developers, the miners. The podcasters, educators, & media personalities. The exchanges, traders, & the on-chain analysts. The venture capitalists. The plebs. However, because of the “opt in” nature of Bitcoin, attempts to typecast bitcoiners typically fail.
How can bitcoiners harm bitcoin? It's best considered when turned around. If you were a secret agent and could send someone to undermine bitcoin — who would you send, and what would they do?
Let’s consider a couple of recent candidates. The author Nassim Nicholas Taleb covered many topics in his books, (such as Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan, Antifragile, and Skin in the game), that resonate with Bitcoin principles. He was for many years loosely a Bitcoin advocate, and wrote the original foreword to the Bitcoin Standard.
As is well known, Taleb fairly abruptly announced he had sold all his Bitcoin in Feb 2021, and doubled down by writing a “black paper” denouncing the true value of Bitcoin as zero. This would certainly appear harmful to Bitcoin. However, the concepts expressed in his paper do not suggest a wealth of new insight suddenly having been gained from being some kind of Bitcoin insider. His arguments need to stand on their own merits (or lack of) either way. I’d argue that Taleb has simply joined the ranks of existing Bitcoin detractors, of which there are already plenty.
Many of Taleb’s ideas within his books still resonate. He was once famously asked his view on Microsoft as a stock, and remarked that since he was neither long nor short on the stock, he wasn’t qualified to give his opinion on it. Skin in the game.
The irony is that he has written a “black paper” denouncing the value of bitcoin as zero, and yet now appears to be neither long nor short on… bitcoin. No discernible skin in the game there, then.
Let’s consider another — Elon Musk. What better way to belittle Bitcoin than to endlessly plug Dogecoin and label it in with “Crypto”, essentially calling into question the notion of Bitcoin’s digital scarcity. The reason being, if Doge is a comparable investment to Bitcoin, why not Baby Doge? And so on. Secondly, he has very publicly questioned Bitcoin’s environmental impact.
Many involved with Bitcoin will have found Musk’s actions pretty frustrating; at best it could be described as learning in public, and he’s not done yet. But again, actions speak louder than words. In 2021 in terms of just his actions, Elon Musk has personally bought and still owns a chunk of Bitcoin, as do Tesla and SpaceX. I suspect we haven’t heard the end of this story just yet.
Re the idea of bitcoiners criticising Bitcoin, I think there is an interesting contrast here to a recent BBC documentary that Michael Palin presented on North Korea. When he asked his guide why North Korean citizens never criticise their leaders, she replied that the leaders represent the nation, of which they are all an intrinsic part — “Criticising our leaders is like criticising ourselves, too”.
This was to a small extent a compelling expression of unity, but scratch beneath the surface and it’s a pretty torrid state of affairs. There is no opportunity for debate or error correction, and indeed North Korean citizens have little choice but to belong to the nation, not having free borders.
Bitcoin is the total opposite. It in itself presents no barriers to entry — or exit. It is perhaps the embodiment of free speech and error correction. Taking Elon Musk’s environmental comments as an example, in recent months there has been considerable pushback against this narrative from others. As Lyn Alden remarked earlier this year — Bitcoin’s energy use may not be an actual problem, but general perception of its energy use is. This is now error correcting.
How would we even define a bitcoiner? Perhaps it is as simple as someone who owns bitcoin. At any point in time you either own bitcoin or you don’t.
Some might draw a common strand to the North Korea anecdote. That is — it’s not particularly easy for a bitcoiner to criticise Bitcoin. I think this is what inevitably leads to accusations of cult-like behaviour, but these are levied without proper understanding.
Why? Any bitcoiner can criticise Bitcoin, but the only way to meaningfully criticise and remain true to yourself is to remove your skin in the game, and no longer hold bitcoin. If you no longer own it, then perhaps you are by definition, no longer a bitcoiner.
Bitcoiners could certainly harm Bitcoin in aggregate. I would recommend reading “The Blocksize wars” by Jonathan Bier, for anyone looking to understand the events of 2015–17 around proposed changes to Bitcoin’s protocol. That seems a long way away today, though, and is perhaps yet another example of Bitcoin’s antifragility.
Bitcoin in its operation could be seen as a one way valve. It has the capacity to take on board improvements from benevolent actors, but ignores those who seek to harm it. See Taleb; antifragility.
Having considered all that, back to Max Keiser. Of course, he may have his own reasons for wanting to make a lasting impression. As for the impact:
- It had absolutely no impact on Bitcoin. Max Keiser knows he — or indeed anyone — could enter onto that stage however they like and it won’t make a scrap of difference to Bitcoin’s future.
- Perhaps the genius of Max Keiser is that he appreciates that the moment an observer fully clocks point one, they are a step closer to understanding Bitcoin themselves.
