Thread by @AlyseKilleen

We see a great example in the noise around the El Salvador news of the need for education of the differences between #Bitcoin and altcoins ...

+ we see why some are pushing hard for this education to be defined as “toxic”

https://twitter.com/alysekilleen/status/1402686907331448834

Even ahead of the #BitcoinLaw being approved by the Salvadoran Congress this morning, altcoin folks claimed El Salvador was making “crypto” legal tender (btw - no they’re not; this is #Bitcoin specific and for good, technical reason) and had begun setting up regional HQs.

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1402507224916836352

Why #Bitcoin?

a) It’s security model is long established; it’s historically proven robust and dependable. There’ve been no protocol breaches (a pretty important quality of an emerging market’s legal tender).

b) It’s decentralized, and as a result, the rules are known & stable.

Nobody “hates innovation” lol. I mean, maybe some folks do but definitely not me. This is another slur levied at folks educating other about the trade-offs inherent in the tech. A weak or unproven security model is not “innovation” & selling it to folks as innovation is... toxic.

Generally speaking, when someone replaces the word “Bitcoin” with the word “crypto” when the context is *specifically* Bitcoin (eg. El Salvador’s #BitcoinLaw) it’s smart to ask why.

“Why” is usually that they have a token they’d like you to buy in order to use their blockchain.

thread below this tweet illustrates the point I was making. “Toxic maxi” is a terminology tool used to obfuscate (or DDOS style attack) discussion of other issues; eg the characteristics of a technology.

https://twitter.com/AlyseKilleen/status/1402686907331448834