Topic: An article on how to be a Bitcoin maximalist - page 2. (Read 639 times)

Here is NotATether's Easy 3-Step Guide For Becoming a Bitcoin Maximalist:

1. Buy bitcoins or earn them (do not use faucets). Do not sell unless necessary.
2. Only buy as little amount of altcoins as is absolutely necessary for you.
3. Support the Bitcoin community during moments of solidarity.

That's it. It's not that hard to become a maximalist. I don't understand why people have to make it so complicated.

It's way of thinking, of progression thus at the end of the day there is no way to find out how and when the thinking will change, some people need the ' Learning ' they usually make loads of mistake and at the end they do tend to understand the spectrum of cryptocurrencies that are in the Market, shitcoins are undeniably increasing day by day and they are becoming the key to gaining profits for the wallets since they have considerable amount of change in the buying/selling prices and thus at the end of the day, all the wallets are even burdened with shitcoins as well, for a newbie it would be hard to navigate thus this is where platforms like this can help loads. Helping people navigate through the crypto market would be plenty helpful, bitcoins is more or so the major crypto one needs to focus on.

I have to say as a person who has been involved in crypto one way or another for the past 10 years give or take, I can easily say that the best way to be a maximalist of bitcoin is not to just see the future of bitcoin and how "bright" it is, but to see fiat world and all the other alternatives to crypto and realizing how terrible it is.

As long as you have that, you are not going to really end up with something like that profiting you, all the other options sucks, and you are stuck with bitcoin. Bitcoin could be better of course, there are things I would improve with bitcoin too, but all others are so and that bitcoin looks like the best thing ever.

you mean like lock bitcoin up into a contract with a middleman. and then use a different balance measure on another network..
bitcoin sat:msat LN  (bitcoin does not understand 11 decimals.. just saying. but thanks for the admission.. )

bitcoins never leaves the bitcoin network. thats the beauty and security of bitcoin.

it seems today you are ready to escape the cultish tribe of your offramp agenda group..
maybe you can start promoting onchain scaling growth and utility growth,

lets see how long your non-cultish posts(only seen in recent hours) lasts before rejoining the defensive hostile narrative of the last few years, of preferring to support the DCG products, rather than support/protect the bitcoin protocol from centralisation of control groups

..
i have no problem with bitcoin being a commodity(raw item used to make other items)
EG bitcoin as (analogy: gold) store of value to make products/technologies backed by it like a bitcoin NFT
as long as people make things risk aware that those subnets are not bitcoin but backed/pegged to bitcoin. and ofcourse those networks are not half made and flawed(bridge/peg easily breakable, etc), like some current bridged/pegged networks

The core of the idea is to be hard money. If some people want to extend the idea, no problem. But if to utilize their implementation, I need to hand over bitcoin, and acquire a currency that doesn't have the same recognition, it's already a big no.

Or just altering monetary policies is attractive for the developers' pockets.

My point is that cryptocurrencies that give solutions to different problems aren't adopted by most merchants, and therefore users can't gain those benefits, whereas bitcoin is.

avoiding debates from the younger crowd posting previously in this topic, that pretend they know whats best.. (they seem more of the cultish group)

i am from the 2012 entrance era of bitcoin.

my definitions of a true maximalist are
supports and wants to protect BITCOIN consensus and protocols of the network, even against the human devs that may want to stifle,redefine bitcoin for their own profitable reasons

uses bitcoin for its store of value and utility.. but does not fear reading, researching, learning about other systems

does not object to other systems/networks. but is not afraid to call out on the ones with flaws people should be risk aware of

...
i myself only use bitcoin. and i mean bitcoin not the other networks that brand steal bitcoin
i do not fear reading code, and playing around on the other networks, for research.. but its not those networks i use as my store of value or utility..

i have not touched other altcoins(for value store/utility) like litecoin for about 8 years,
but i dont fear looking at other altnets and subnets and projects for research purposes and learning opportunities

my personal opinion (yes you must all by now know i have one, (and its my independent opinion, not one passed down to me by the cultish groups))

my opinion is that bitcoin has alot of potential, but that is currently stifled by the cultish loyalisms of a certain core group that had led to power. and their loyal supporters that fight off any idea's that dont follow the DCG roadmap... even the lead maintainer of the core dev group has admitted to the centralisation/cultish behaviours

there is a cultish mindset in the community since about 2015..  that support this stupid central point of failure, which has caused problems for the progress of bitcoin growth (on the bitcoin network,.. not to be confused with the offramping games to subnetworks pretending to also be bitcoin(by the cultish lot of younger people who entered bitcoin much later))


bitcoin could have done alot of ON BITCOIN growth in the last 7 years and had some good utility progress.
bitcoin still has potential for this growth.
i am and will remain a bitcoin maximalist. but i am a realist not a cultist.. and can happily call out the issues and risks and problems, because by being a realist, people can be awake to then work on those problems rather than lull people into cultish sleep of whatever silly games they wish to play pretending they know whats best because they call themselves maximalists too..

those people are the extremists of bitcoin. (much like trump supporters of 2016-202X)

It is funny to know that the term "bitcoin maximalist" was first introduced by shitcoiners who couldn't argue against those who were simply pointing out the flaws in the shitcoins they were bag holding. For example if you tell a ETH bag holder that their shitcoin is centralized with a mutable blockchain, they would reply by calling you a "maximalist".

Otherwise any bitcoin, specially those who are interested in the Bitcoin technology (not just profit making) are actually very keen on any other development in alternative cryptocurrencies. It's just that we are too tired of seeing the same copycoins claiming they are "better" just because they did something silly like changed block interval from 10 minutes to 2.5 minutes

I disagree. They are benefiting from two things:
1. Bitcoin history.
They basically tell newbies about how bitcoin has gone from $0.001 to $70,000.00 and convince them that their shitcoin can do to just because it is worth $0.000000001 today.

2. People's lack of technical knowledge
They rely on the fact that when you tell people a particular shitcoin's blockchain is mutable and centralized, they don't understand what it means and why it is bad.
They also rely on being able to convince them that the meaningless change they introduced in their  copy of bitcoin "solved" a "problem".

I see. Your point is that cryptocurrency should only do one thing -- be a simple money. That seems like a good point, but it could also be short-sighted. Also, keep in mind that Bitcoin has already been extended to be more than just a simple money.


If it were that easy or even that practical, it would have been done years ago. I think the idea is approaching wishful thinking. It may happen someday, but other coins already have a huge advantage.


I thought your point was that a cryptocurrency can't be a money if there is an abundance of them. Is Bitcoin then doomed, or was that not your point?

Want to agree but the loudest ones I used to come into contact with weren't even total nutjobs but were even just chest-out mealy-mouthed business suits who got lucky with Bitcoin, secretly invested in alts, publicly invest more in Bitcoin but ask them to sign a transaction and they'll fumble to figure out if they can do that with Coinbase Pro and Limited Edition gold-plated Ledger (I made this one up but not surprised if it exists). Not sure if they even really ever used Bitcoin in a supportive way.

Super toxic, pay to be seen at events and conferences... you know who they are before you know who the vegans are.

I do actually like most maximalists, they appear so to me, perhaps have never claimed to being one themselves.

I have nothing against anyone trying to make something better than Bitcoin, nor is it at all possible to ban someone from designing their own coin/token, and more than 20 000 such projects listed on CMC probably speak more than clearly in favor of that. What I see as a problem in this whole story is an absurd idea that Bitcoin maximalists are to blame for the failure of these alt-projects, because we support Bitcoin and warn others about the risks that arise from investing in altcoins.

I can agree that some coins may have some features that Bitcoin does not have, but for me personally, something like that is not too important. What Bitcoin has has been built from 2009 until today, and if someone thinks they can do better, let them get to work and show that they can achieve a greater degree of decentralization and trust that people have given Bitcoin.


We are going back to the beginning again, because it is our right to defend what we have confidence in and we cannot be blamed for the reason that some other projects are not or will never be as successful as Bitcoin. It's better to be skeptical and critical than to turn out to be a fool, and on top of that, the fool who invests in Terra/Luna type projects and still has an eternal memory of his stupidity tattooed on his shoulder.

Isn't that just being a Bitcoiner though, and not a maximalist?

To be fair with other cryptocurrencies, 99.9% aren't even trying to fight bitcoin in the currency category for a while now; a huge majority of them are trying to be pseudo-equity of a platform. Like stocks, but freely accessible to almost anyone.

I like it more when it's put as "they love Bitcoin more than any cryptocurrencies that will be created". They won't falter on that idea and they will explain how Bitcoin is better than anything. No toxicity, just plain reason of truth.

But there will always be a part to giving chance to new projects that are true to their intentions of making the crypto world a better place and what lacks in the technology and what is necessary to be added to speed things up. Good competition is healthy as long as it's not proven to be a shitcoin.

I implied that every cryptocurrency gives solution to the same problem, that is double-spending, other features asides.

Or you can implement it now, but instead of new currency, you can utilize the already existent. Do you want to add smart contracts that can't be implemented on Bitcoin blockchain? Make a sidechain (e.g., rsk). Your rules, but not your currency. The foundations of bitcoin are invaluable. Part of the ingenious technology is the stable, scheduled, human-resistant monetary policy.

So point me to merchants that accept more than 10, 20, 50.

That implies that Bitcoin can solve every problem, or that there is only one problem that needs to be solved. Both are unrealistic.


If I have a good idea, I can implement it now, or I can hope that Bitcoin might be able to support it some day. The choice seems clear to me. Do it now. If it fails, then maybe you can try again if Bitcoin ever gets around to supporting it. If it doesn't fail, then you have succeeded.


According to CMC, there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies. Apparently 20,000 is not abundant enough to nullify the whole money concept. How many does it take?

The bitcoin maximalists I know are more about individual beliefs about crypto most importantly, this represents someone's thoughts in reviewing bitcoin in the past and present, because they believe bitcoin can have a positive impact on society, with various assumptions and reviews, but more specifically I cannot explain what is meant by maximalism.
If you open your eyes, maybe this Maximalist has a strong meaning for individual thinking in the valuation of bitcoin as the most important.

You do not support the freedom of other developers to create other projects in the cryptospace that might be better than bitcoin?

Also, would you support those projects being developed in Ethereum to be developed in Bitcoin's ecosystem instead? I reckon if the Bitcoin developers and community were supportive of this there would not be any growth in the Ethereum ecosystem. It would also be arguable if Ethereum would be created.

Huh. Still better than Altcoin tribalists.

Answer me this: We have an idea. We can write code to implement that idea. It's something bitcoin isn't currently capable of doing due to consensus limit, and would require a hard fork (e.g., turing completeness, ring signatures, block size increase). But, what you'll be working on, is still money. So, you have two options; make that currency backed-by / based-on bitcoin or don't.

Can you justify why you'd choose the latter over the former? It appears to me that crypto coins are scarce, but cryptocurrencies abundant, which nullifies the whole money concept.

It seems to me that there is a range of Bitcoin Maxis. There are those who believe that Bitcoin will always naturally dominate as other coins fade into obscurity. And, there are those that believe that anything other than Bitcoin is a scam.

I think that Maxis generally feel threatened by other projects. I think a lot of it is because they have put money into bitcoins and they naturally don't want any other coins to succeed at Bitcoin's expense. I think the worst Maxis are the tribalists who identify so strongly as a Bitcoiner that they must defend Bitcoin by spreading lies and FUD (based on their own ignorance) about other projects.

I am not a Maxi. I believe that Bitcoin is the strongest and safest cryptocurrency. But some coins, such as Ethereum and Monero, provide benefits that Bitcoin may never be able to provide, and there is room for multiple currencies (as determined by the market, of course).

I think Pete Rizzo's description of Bitcoin Maximalism is too generous and does not accurately reflect the beliefs of Bitcoin Maximalists.

Just read the article. The definition of a "Maximalist" in it is broad enough to include people like me, who don't oppose altcoins generally, but do oppose some of the "traits" in the altcoin space. In my case, I'm particularly concerned about crypto projects which hide their centralist nature from the public, in my opinion mostly to be able to "ride the Bitcoin train" without getting control (and profit in an old-style, centralized way) out of their hands. (Thus the "decentralization maximalist" phrase below my boring avatar). But I have no problems with altcoins with Bitcoin-style openness like Monero, Groestlcoin or Grin, for example.

Generally, the Forbes article puts the focus more in the open, decentralized nature of Bitcoin (and Proof of Work as it's "base technology"), and not so much in the opposition to other cryptocurrencies. So I can agree with most of the statements of the "definition". The only point where I disagree slightly (so I'm maybe not a "true" Bitcoin maximalist) is the ignorance of the issues regarding energy sources powering mining and its carbon footprint. While the protocol for sure doesn't discriminate between miners working with fossil energy and those using renewables, the community itself should be able to promote the second group. The stance of some Maximalists that it doesn't matter which energy is used can be seen as a symptom for a trope I see critical in the Bitcoin community: to ignore the social aspects of the Bitcoin protocol. Code may be law in the Bitcoin protocol but there may be other "rules" (or perhaps "guidelines", as they can't be "enforced" easily) supporting it - like a commitment of the community to try to reduce the carbon footprint.

Maximalism isn't fanaticism. It isn't bad; it's neutral. It's similar to being stereotypical versus being racist.

Simply put, a Bitcoin maximalist is a person who supports the ideals of bitcoin, and fights FUD. That's how I understand it. Being toxic or non-friendly on altcoiners is reasonable, because having multiple currencies that thrive to give a solution to the same problem is somewhat against the ideals.

I identify as a Bitcoin maximalist.