'Bitcoiners are hypocrites because they embraced some law' is a knuckle-dragging take. Everyone is hypocritical in some way. No one is internally consistent
There is absolutely no inconsistency in being pro securities regulation and being pro bitcoin. Being pro bitcoin does not require a blanket rejection of government or law
Satoshi was flawed in many ways and failed to anticipate the eventual development of the protocol. This is fine. Satoshi was not infallible and fetishizing his/her vision is a doomed prospect
Economic nodes are not made equal. Nodes connected to exchanges do have more political weight. However threats to partition the network are compelling and only a minority of users need to threaten for it to work.
Inflation is manifested in Bitcoin through the creation of competing projects. Forks genuinely do confound newcomers and (at least temporarily) redirect attention and value
There is no obvious way to determine which chain has the truest claim to being the original. There was no predefined dispute recognition solution. The best we can hope for is convergence on a single chain (this is basically the case today)
There is no obvious way to determine which chain has the truest claim to being the original. There was no predefined dispute recognition solution. The best we can hope for is convergence on a single chain (this is basically the case today)
'Bitcoiners are hypocrites because they embraced some law' is a knuckle-dragging take. Everyone is hypocritical in some way. No one is internally consistent
Some early Bitcoiners got into Bitcoin for perverse or self serving reasons or because they completely misunderstood the protocol. Being early should confer no automatic credibility
Bitcoin developers are not unimpeachable. They have no special purchase on traits like the economics of bitcoin, and their proximity to the code might actually impair their ability to take a 10,000 foot view of the system