Topic: Seems Roger ver's narrative of Bitcoin isn't same with most of ours. (Read 141 times)

That's the sad reality that everybody seems to be content with as long as Bitcoin appreciates in value.
It's fair to say that Bitcoin has already become mainstream in the sense that almost everyone has heard of it and a huge part of retail investors is, or have been in the past, invested in it (in 99% via centralised exchanges or investment platforms). But yet, in terms of adoption as a payment system, there isn't much progress and I think most of bitcoiners (if this term has any meaning anymore) have eased to the fact that Bitcoin doesn't work as money. It's simply too slow, expensive and unpredictable (when it comes to tx cost/confirmation time).
Even on this very forum, when you go to lending board you'll see that most prefer to use stablecoins over bitcoins (to no surprise).

Personally, I think Bitcoin mustn't get co-opted by regulations and financial institutions if it is to maintain any meaning to its existence. Being able to freely exchange it, including for goods/services is an important part of it.

You are right because they did not know or learn about these historic events or they can learn about past events but can not actually digest them. It's always better to participate in the market during these chaotic times.

For learning, fortunately, they can try.

Make sure you get legit bitcoin and its wallets, resources
To newcomers: make sure when you buy bitcoin you are buying bitcoin!

Funny seeing a bunch of newbies debate something that happened before any of them ever heard of Bitcoin and pretend that they know what they’re talking about. It’s pretty clear that nobody commenting here was around for the block wars, knows what they’re talking about, or has read Roger’s book. Why even bother to comment on something that you so obviously have no clue about?

I thought Roger Ver would stop talking about Bitcoin and move on to promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Bitcoin is still a source of liberating people from the restrictions of central financial systems, and Amazon’s lack of acceptance of it does not mean that it is centralized, and the demand for Bitcoin is increasing day after day, to the point that you can now pay with it indirectly for most current services. The argument would be stronger if you said that because of high fees or slow confirmation times, Bitcoin adoption will slow or it will be difficult to use it to make payments.

Roger Ver is the man from a past several years. He tried to scam Bitcoin investors by support a Bitcoin fork, Bitcoin Cash, and told people that BCash is a real Bitcoin.

Years later, we knew how community realized his lie and they already chose a right one, Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin, only an altcoin and best developers on Earth do not choose Bitcoin Cash to work with. They wisely choose Bitcoin and continue their works with Bitcoin.

Together with Roger Ver, you can name Jihan Wu, who almost disappeared in cryptocurrency market. Recent months, his name appeared again with fud from Matrix Port.

That because he's more interested in peddling his forkcoin.  If he was aligned with our values, he wouldn't be promoting something else entirely.  His emphasis is now on the speculative side because he wants people to buy his junk.

Bitcoin is primarily about freedom, but many people get caught up in the candles and aren't appreciating the real value (as opposed to the dollar value).  Bitcoin's fundamentals are open-source, permissionless, censorship resistance, limited supply, security, etc.  But speculators sadly don't seem to care about any of those things.

Doing a quick review at satoshis white paper and listening to Bitcoin takeover podcast from earlier Bitcoin entosiast like Roger ver,   it does appear to me that a lot has changed in comparison between the narrative held by earlier Bitcoin entosiast and the current school of thought in the minds of  the current Bitcoin users.

At the core of bitcoins initial  value at the point of creation is the analogy that Bitcoin is a get-free-quick scheme that promises to give holders the freedom to own complete access to their wealth in a manner that's  void of a third party  intervention but over the years the narrative about getting involved in Bitcoin has shifted more to the investible part of it and most newbie don't even know much about the other aspect of bitcoin being a store of value that gives them total control of there funds and you find somany individuals in this ecosystem that have a mentality that's now wired towards looking at Bitcoin as a get rich quick scheme rather than a get free quick scheme and telling someone about bitcoin without telling them that it is investible makes it look like the statement isn't complete.

If my conclusion isn't wrong, the intention of earlier Bitcoin entosiast wasn't more about the value of  Bitcoin getting to $100k or even  $1M and from the statement made by Ruger ver, Bitcoin wasn't supposed to be a get rich quick scheme but was supposed to be a get free quick scheme that gives people freedom and emporemet to thier lives"

Doesn't it look like one of the reason why Bitcoin adoption might have slowed down a bit and big players like Amazon aren't still accepting Bitcoin as a payment medium is due to a shift of this core value system from Bitcoin being a tool for financial freedom and liberation to what's now mostly looked at as an asset that's more of an investible nature rather than one that comes in to liberate people from the chains of the centralized financial systems?

Link to podcast
https://www.youtube.com/live/DMxx6O9_9nQ?si=GeOpSQJM7nusjx3p