It is absolutely mental how many famous Bitcoin evangelists reject coordination problems as a concept. Why? If they admitted that coordination problems exist, they'd also validate their possible solutions, e.g. a central government, or above that, an international order.
However, that thinking is incredibly short-sighted. It's possible to admit that coordination problems exist AND that we need better solutions than central parties. Bitcoin itself is such a solution. But that opens another can of worms...
If they admitted that a rule-based system, enforced by cryptography and economic incentives, are a useful to solution to anything else than digital gold, they'd risk also validating Defi and at least a few other altcoins... oops
So you see, it's much safer not to pull that string to begin with, reject one of the foundational concepts of the study of the human interaction, and hide behind motivation reasoning.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
