I think I correctly interpret Tom Zander's comment as an admission that he thinks Bitcoin will have greater value if it is Centralized, Censurable, not Anonymous, and subject to diktat.
I think he may be nothing more than an elitist snake-oil salesman whose interest in others' opinions is solely for the purpose of virtue signalling.
At the very least he completely ignores the fact that there would not be a "entire, global market" for bitcoin if it were NOT open source.
He may as well assert that the price of gold would be higher if it wasn't so damn shiny.
Gold is not valuable just because it shines. imagine dollar being a free currency for every person to print and spend with everyone else accept the printed dollars from others but something you'll have to add to your imagination is: There are only 21,000,000 piece of papers which are accepted by the printing machines, those who print earlier than others will have more dollar bills and with an economy thirsty for freedom from governments, you'll have many people trying to use these dollars. What bitcoin developers are doing for years, they are well aware of these concerns and they do everything considering those concerns. I think he may be nothing more than an elitist snake-oil salesman whose interest in others' opinions is solely for the purpose of virtue signalling.
At the very least he completely ignores the fact that there would not be a "entire, global market" for bitcoin if it were NOT open source.
He may as well assert that the price of gold would be higher if it wasn't so damn shiny.
