The market keeps talking: Critique of the ideological defense of Bitcoin

Source: ElBitcoin Original Title: The market keeps speaking Original Link:

I used to listen to Majamalu talk about what was happening in the Bitcoin-BTC forums: the posts and messages deleted, the systematic blocking of users, insults, etc. From his statements, I inferred that these spaces had become subsidiaries of a kind of sect. I found it hard to believe 100% what he told me until I decided to join a Facebook group and leave an opinion: all I did was point out, without disrespecting anyone, the reasons why I believed Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is better than Bitcoin-BTC.

Majamalu had already warned me about what I was in for, and I must say he was right. I received a flood of responses, almost all containing mockery and insults. But not all. The only argument they presented was a striking one: “the market has spoken.” They implied that, due to the large difference between the price of bitcoin-BTC and bitcoin-BCH, people had already decided in a free market which was better.

It is true that in the world of cryptocurrencies there are no impositions and everyone can choose freely. That said, I think it’s worth clarifying something that blind BTC fans insist on ignoring. The vast majority of people are still trying to understand what cryptocurrencies are, how they work, how they are issued, what advantages they have over alternatives, etc. They were created not long ago and, like all revolutionary innovation, generate skepticism and many, many questions.

But those who allow themselves to doubt and research patiently are often the ones who reap the rewards in the long run, just like those who got involved from the beginning. These pioneers were labeled naive or delusional, if not criminals, while the “experts” predicted the imminent extinction of Bitcoin.

Those who mocked bitcoiners at first, pointing to the limited transient value of the cryptocurrency, or to its spectacular price drops, are today the ones mocking those of us who criticize the negative change that occurred in BTC, and they do so using the same arguments that supporters of fiat money and central banks used.

We used to defend BTC from attacks coming from all sides. We did so because we understood its advantages and believed that this currency had the potential to compete with fiat money, not to prop it up as BTC supporters now propose. For us, the existence of a peer-to-peer electronic cash form of money is essential to put limits on the expansion of state power. That’s why we have fought from the beginning.

However, it is necessary to reiterate the question: would BTC have taken off as a project if Satoshi Nakamoto’s proposal had been what BTC supporters propose today? That is, if a cryptocurrency had been created with extremely high fees to force people to use it as a store of value or to make only transactions of thousands or millions of dollars; or if it had been presented as an alternative to make transactions as slow or slower than banking; or if sending bitcoins at a lower cost required intermediaries; or if its promoters invited us to continue using fiat money for almost all our transactions… What would have happened?

Entering the current BTC world, one gets the feeling that many of its members arrived late to the crypto ecosystem and invested in BTC without really knowing what they were doing, and without basic economic knowledge. And since the increase in BTC’s price doesn’t exactly promote reflection among these investors, they react defensively to anything that might force them to reconsider their decisions, such as BCH, which still keeps Satoshi Nakamoto’s project alive.

Claiming that the market “spoke” is nonsense. The market is speaking all the time; nothing is final for the market. Anyone who believes there’s no turning back, that nothing will change, either doesn’t understand how the economy works or is trying to make a (bad) defense of their investment.

This can be exemplified with the competition between WhatsApp and other messaging apps. I remember years ago, when only text messages could be sent via WhatsApp, other apps also offered voice messages and even video calls. But, as they say, the first to strike hits twice. The market, which as I mentioned earlier is always speaking, could also have punished WhatsApp if it hadn’t advanced, which is why the company improved its service. In fact, recently, privacy concerns about WhatsApp were capitalized on by other companies in the field, like Signal and Telegram, which achieved unprecedented visibility and a surprising increase in user numbers in a very short period.

And consumer punishment could even be more severe in the future, since the market has not finished speaking and never will. WhatsApp decided to take action, improved its service first, and then provided explanations to try to clarify the privacy issue. BTC developers do the opposite: they continue on the same path with pride, and assure us that this is just the beginning; that fees will keep rising, and we should celebrate it.

Meanwhile, the market keeps speaking, even if they try to silence it.