While at TABConf, I had a couple of interesting conversations with Wizardsardine cofounder Kevin Loaec. He seemed to be feeling that Bitcoin is in a holding pattern of sorts and that it is not likely to change very much in the near future.
A few days ago, I saw that he posted these observations:
He goes on to observe that most of the world doesn't see Bitcoin this way. Normies seem to think it's a scam or a get-rich-quick scheme and don't associate it with freedom at all (I would add that normies don't seem to think the financial system they use poses any threat to their freedom at all).
Loaec said he is content with Bitcoin, which is something I hear many Bitcoiners say:
But then he asked a question which I found interesting:
The question is: can we make people understand Bitcoin is freedom money, or are we only building for ourselves?
Most of the people I spoke with at TABConf felt that Bitcoin adoption wasn't going to increase any time soon. Nobody (other than @real_paul_sztorc?) was pushing for one last fork that will bring the crowds running. Most of the business-owners I spoke with were hoping to find customers among the group of people who are already Bitcoiners. Bringing in the normies was not on the table.
If Bitcoin is already freedom money (which to me means that I can retreat to bitcoin if the traditional financial system decided to eject/debank/censor me, and that I can hold my savings in bitcoin without being wrecked by inflation), perhaps the answer to Loaec's question is yes, at this point we are building for ourselves.
However, there are two points to consider here:
- If Bitcoin is freedom money, adoption will occur when people need freedom, which is to say, when financial repression or taxation or inflation increase. Perhaps Bitcoiners should be advocating for governments to implement more repressive financial policies.
- I did not immediately agree with Loaec that Bitcoin is already freedom money. Holding bitcoin is fine. Spending it is still difficult. I'm not convinced that Bitcoin is at the state where it preserves my freedom should the traditional financial system decide to shut me out.
Freedom is for those who think for themselves and who are willing to take self responsibility and self initiative. Anything that is freedom as a result, is not the mainstream. Because most of the population are lazy and lack intelligence. Freedom is for those who deserve it, and those who find it are worthy of it.
Do you think this is inevitable? is it possible we can change that
mosttosome?I'm scared about mining centralization, but think we're better off with bitcoin than anything else right now. So it definitely serves as freedom money currently, but the future of it looks grim.
As far as normies getting it, my experience is that they usually get it when we do a proper job outlining the problems with the current financial system in a winsome manner. Then again, many don't see the need at all, and sometimes really discouraging things like this happen:
This was a tough pill to swallow given these are my real friends/coworkers who have real families, real jobs, real lives, and definitely view bitcoiners like crazy people.
I feel you on the bitcoiners = crazy people count. I've had group chats that look a lot like that. And usually, I cave because I don't like being annoying.
Do you think it is leading you to expect less from orange-pilling efforts, or to abandon such efforts in general?
My only orange-pilling at the moment is attempts to spend bitcoin at Square terminals...
Nope. I had a short-term friendship about this time last year with a guy who's sister had been trying to send money to their mother for seven years with no luck. I taught him how to use lightning, that night he taught her, the next day she was finally able to do what she wanted (send to mom) with the money that she had worked for all that time. Stuff like that puts getting made fun of in the group chat in perspective pretty damn quick.
...thanks for asking. I'm suddenly in a really good mood. lol
My impression would be that those people tend to prefer USDT or similar rather than bitcoin. How did you pull it off?
This guy was from Zimbabwe and didn’t know about stable coins. He was working as a server in South Africa and asked for his tip in cash, sayings that the restaurant took a cut on top of the CC cut off his tips. I was just like, “You know what’s even better than cash?” He was all ears. His mom was back in Zimbabwe and his sister was in Florida.
I have exactly the same experiences. It is extremely rare for me to have discussions with people who see bitcoin in a positive light, coworkers friends etc included.
Despite the negativity they have towards it... They don't know the first thing about it. They have never had a 'wallet' they have no clue what a 'node' is, they literally have (the vast majority of them) zero idea as to what bitcoins purpose is or even why it was originally created.
Many see it is a speculative fast-money scam (that they cannot describe or articulate of course) especially the older generations, and countless people only believe exactly what they are 'told'.
Our financial press has an incredible opportunity to educate readers on lightning and more importantly bitcoin's purpose but they don't do it - at all actually. Its just sitting there and they (bloomberg for example) don't even mention it.
Why is that?
The only and I mean only group that seem open to bitcoin are the libertarians, and IMO that interest in bitcoin scales exponentially with intelligence and curiosity.
Bloomberg has something like ~22,000 employees. I would be shocked if 1 employee at Bloomberg has used lightning. Possibly, there is a CashApp user who has used it, but even that seems unlikely.
I believe it really is a case of "I don't think about you at all."
Every time I use lightning, despite the ui/ux challenges, thinking about this future of lightning and its possibilities makes me feel like a crazy person. I don't know why there aren't more 'bloomberg employees' but if I didnt know better I would say its some weird kind of conspiracy.
#1287624
Perhaps due to my birth lottery luck, I don't think I ever really concerned myself with payment tech beyond "how much does it cost?" prior to falling down the bitcoin rabbit hole. And it's very easy to feel that the tradfi options don't cost too much.
Despite all the friction and misery of this financial system, we sort of just seem to accept it, like breathing the air. Might their be air that is better to breathe? Sure, but nobody is going to put much effort into finding it because this is the air we have on planet earth.
The dollar is the product of... A literal paper printer. Whether its a 100$ bill or a 1$ bill its effectively the same.
The fact that the government is borrowing extensively and already 40 trillion in debt... Doesn't help things.
Bitcoin on the other hand is a product of large sums of energy and is extraordinarily difficult to fake. That alone got me into bitcoin and is why I believe everyone eventually will use it if in their own way.
Normies aren't inherently anti-freedom. They have no agency. They outsource their thinking to historical precedent and institutional power.
Keynesianism became the default opinion because FDR supposedly defeated fascism. All we have to do is beat communism, and the normies who survive will wholeheartedly embrace Austrian economics.
how much of a key role do you see more people using Bitcoin playing in defeating communism?
This will be a centuries-long debate. I think the financial advantages of Bitcoin adoption are important but not decisive. The decisive factor, in my view, is that Bitcoin clarifies the moral argument at hand, because we're defending a functioning ledger and not an abstract policy proposal. It clarifies the moral argument.
We could have demanded that the government adopt a fixed supply monetary policy. It would have been clunky and centralized, but it's conceivable. But then we'd be stuck in a doom-loop of asking our enemies to help us win.
So instead Bitcoiners built their own currency that, at the very least, is working "to scale" as far as the users themselves are concerned. It might seem like this is an isolated move that concerns us alone. It's not. Because to the collectivist, our business is their business. All of our accomplishments are lost revenue to them.
The whole surrounding world twists and breaks in surrender to that 1% of the population that refuses to bend to the rest.
This is a lot of what it feels like the storyline in A Lodging for Wayfaring Men is shaping up to be. I'm excited to see how the story deals with it.
It sounds like the important factor here is fixed supply money. I don't have any trouble imagining a government that agrees to a fixed supply, but still wants to control how the money flows. So I find the important factor to be censorship resistance. They are certainly related (I'd say fixed supply guarantees proceed from censorship resistance) but regardless, I like your point about the reality that Bitcoin exists in the real world, and that the collectivists now have to deal with it. This is something I don't think I appreciate fully.
If this is true, then there is quite a lot of hope for this freedom project.
People have to have an authentic interest in bitcoin first - that has to drive them. IMO its more intrinsic than external.
who is the biggest critic of Milei?
other libertarians
It might not fully be freedom money at present, while also not needing much further development to become such.
I’m increasingly expecting us to entrench more than expand, building tighter connections amongst those who already get it.
Galt’s Gulch is the relevant analogy.
Building our separate economy and withdrawing from the normie economy #1596972
Bitcoin may already be freedom money, but I definitely feel that we have not built the parallel economy I'd like to inhabit. But that's a much more difficult task, I think: demanding to be paid in bitcoin and offering to pay in bitcoin.
What I’m thinking about is the relative value of increasing how connected we are with existing bitcoiners vs the value of adding new bitcoiners.
There probably are quite a few goods and services that we could source from each other, if we knew what our options were.
This is what I spend my time on as well!
I agree, but I'd say even if we figure out what goods and services we are willing to trade with each other, they may often be things that carry a higher up-front cost or more friction than the same trade in the traditional economy.
There's a butcher in Austin that takes bitcoin. But it's a bit of a drive for me, and so far convenience has won out and I buy from closer options (that don't take bitcoin) -- ie Costco.
This kind of change will certainly involve changing some of our routines. I’ve also been too lazy to frequent some of the opportunities in my area.
Bitcoin is already freedom money, anyone can access it and use it.
But it has grown stagnant, both from a technical standpoint and general adoption:
Worst of all, the community has turned toxic and insular. Everytime I've voiced concerns privately, I get nothing but ridicule or apathy.
In its current state, I'm not very optimistic about bitcoin's long term prospects, unless there is a dramatic shakeup and re-invigoration of the technical process (merging multiple covenant proposals, drivechains, and so forth).
*in the almost nine years since then, we've only gone from $20k to $80k
There is definitely a sense of loss of energy in Bitcoin.
However, I'd contrast that with being able to buy stuff with lightning at a good number of places (both brick and mortar and online).
I buy esims, pay for DNS registration and web hosting, and I've been paid in bitcoin.
All the frustrations showing up in the comments of this post are real, but I find that I am still (unreasonably?) optimistic about increasing adoption.
The question that really gets me is how much more adoption do we need before we say it's good enough?
Many seem to think it is more, but hard to know how much more.
living on bitcoin is an intelligence test in so many ways: how to store, how to use, where to use, where to look for reliable updates, and so many other aspects & contingencies;
that said, the dumbification of the world population, esp. the city societies is very far along; proper bitcoin use will remain rare for a while; as a rule, as mind-control intensifies on one side, the other side will become even more radical in terms of what freedom looks like;
to me true freedom in the physical realm means unlimited possibilities - even while operating a barely-working mini-excavator i can already sense that i am ready for robotically-enhanced exoskeletons & hovercrafts; what i am missing is some fundamental practice and a worthy reason to need that technology;
I want to think about new and interesting things and build weird stuff. That seems reason enough to require exoskeletons and hovercrafts -- however, I also recognize that no one is going to give these things to me for free. So I want to be a part of building the civilization that makes it cheap for someone to sell them.
I think it is definitely freedom money in it's current form. The main reason for perceived slow adoption is that there's a lot to learn and the pain isn't strong enough yet to get them to learn it.
I'll concede that after these recent hacks we have to rethink how we present Bitcoin to newbies. It has always been verify, don't trust and DYOR but now that needs stronger emphasis.
This was the thing I heard a lot in Atlanta. No real adoption until the world feels more pain (taxes, inflation, financial restrictions)
It would be better if a normie had a simple way to get hold of some sats p2p. That could lower the barrier somewhat.
Yes. Zapping freebies on SN would be great if there was an easy way to tell between newbies and bots.
Next best is to convince newbies to post interesting thoughtful things here or on nostr so we can zap those posts.
yup... nobody wants to proselytize. But the current market/audence of Bitcoiners is too small, so wtf do we do??
Also, I vote #1. We good; it works if/when you need it. It'd be better if it was better (and Ioni #1579572 + fertility #1598672) scares me that the clock is tick-tock ticking fast
If this is too small, what is not? 10x the current usage? Something more?
don't think I have a good threshold.
What's funny is that trying to sell gold bullion sounds like such a headache.
but at least you're vaguely aware that you can rock up in basically any city in America, find a dealer, get completely ripped off on the spread, but at least get $$ for your Eagles or Krugerrands or whatever pretty much immediately.
Fascinating post. I don't have much to add, other than totally agreeing with this:
"Normies seem to think it's a scam or a get-rich-quick scheme and don't associate it with freedom at all (I would add that normies don't seem to think the financial system they use poses any threat to their freedom at all)."
Helping normal people understand Bitcoin, why it's important, how it works – that alone is huge, and what will come from that understanding is the realization that it's freedom money.
I have several family members whom I have been talking about Bitcoin with for a number of years now.
They still mostly comment on price to me, or to ask perhaps if quantum is going to kill it.
It must be that I have failed to communicate the importance of it, because I don't see how they aren't thinking about it every waking second, like me.
Ha, yeah, I know that feeling. It's the desire to help people unfuck their lives and understand Bitcoin that really gets to me. I agree with your assessment that you may have failed to communicate the importance of it. Giving them a copy of 'Bitcoin is for Everyone' might help. It speaks to normies.
Bitcoin today has fulfilled ~ 1℅ of its potential.
Still 99℅ the same story today IMO -
#1019007
Just cause it has potential doesn't mean that potential will be fulfilled.
We actually have to do stuff.
do you think anything has changed from a year ago when you wrote that?
how likely is it that fewer people are using bitcoin now?
I think that (puts on tinfoil hat) we will eventually have a collapse of the dollar and the US treasury market, because the united states is living way way beyond its means.
Add to that the indebted European countries (ie France) and the civil unrest associated with 'something for nothing' (unfunded government liabilities in france but all of Europe too) and I believe there will be revolutions in many of these countries and greater bitcoin adoption will be a byproduct.
Property rights and sound money will happen in the common parlance... when fiat has completely, utterly failed which I think it will eventually even if it takes a long time in western countries. Sometimes people have to lose it all before they recognize the value that sound money provides to them.
In specific answer to your question we need to have a far more open mind when it comes to expectations as to how long it takes for perspectives to shift. Last time i really thought hard about adoption I came to the conclusion we need 10 more years.
Every. Single. Day.
for me
The definition of freedom money does all the lifting
This in particular is a Rorschach test, normies using gold is is what created fiat. Normies sleeping on it may be the strongest argument for it being "freedom money" currently.
Bitcoin's utility as freedom money is currently limited by its 7 transactions per second throughput, making spending difficult compared to traditional systems. While it preserves savings from inflation, its censorship resistance remains theoretical until Layer 2 solutions achieve wider adoption. The trade-off between security and scalability means Bitcoin can't yet serve as both a savings technology and a daily spending medium for the masses.
Bitcoin's utility as freedom money remains limited by its volatility and spending friction. With daily price swings often exceeding 2%, it fails as a stable savings vehicle for many. Until Layer 2 solutions reduce transaction costs below $0.01, Bitcoin's freedom potential remains theoretical for the average person.
Bitcoin's utility as freedom money is currently limited by its volatility and spending friction, with on-chain transaction fees averaging $1-5 but spiking to $30+ during congestion. While it excels as censorship-resistant savings, its practicality for daily transactions remains constrained, suggesting it's more of a freedom escape hatch than a complete financial system replacement at this stage.
I think Bitcoin is the ultimate freedom money in theory, but the infrastructure for spending it freely is still catching up. Holding it as a store of value is easy, but using it for daily transactions without KYC or high fees can be tough. The Lightning Network is solving a lot of this, but mass adoption is still the biggest hurdle. It's a journey, but we are definitely on the right track! What do you think is the fastest way to onboard normal people?
I just love when Justin starts dropping truth bombs
And there's so many separate pieces, I asked slopPT to piece it together
Partly so I could fully understand his points
And for anyone that wants a summary
Justin (@justin_shocknet) is making a pretty interesting argument: Bitcoin may be freedom money today, but mass adoption could change what Bitcoin is understood to be — and create a conflict between freedom and mainstream acceptance.
He makes two main points.
1. Ordinary people may redefine what Bitcoin is for
Justin says:
In plain English, he thinks most ordinary people won't adopt Bitcoin because they care about escaping government control, financial censorship, or the traditional banking system.
Instead, they'll adopt it for something simpler: predictable money — an asset with a more predictable monetary policy than government-issued currency.
That distinction matters because the motivations of existing Bitcoiners and mainstream users may be very different.
2. Bitcoin winning could disappoint some Bitcoiners
Justin points to a recurring pattern: whenever Bitcoin moves closer to mainstream acceptance, some people who were attracted to its more radical vision leave for something else.
He gives examples:
His point is that some people want Bitcoin to remain an outsider's tool, and they become disillusioned when it becomes more conventional.
3. Can Bitcoin be both freedom money and mainstream money?
Justin's central question is:
He's highlighting a tension:
In his follow-up discussion, he argues that ordinary people can own Bitcoin without actually using its freedom-enhancing features. If they hold it through an ETF or exchange, they may still depend on financial intermediaries. Bitcoin removes the central-bank issuer, but that doesn't automatically eliminate banks or custodians from people's lives.
Slop's interpretation
Justin isn't necessarily arguing that Bitcoin cannot serve both purposes at the protocol level. He's questioning whether it can achieve both in the way people actually use it.
Bitcoin can become a huge financial success while most users continue to rely on institutions. Its price and adoption could rise even as relatively few people use self-custody or peer-to-peer payments.
The deeper question he's raising is: If Bitcoin succeeds as an investment but people still need permission from intermediaries to use their money, has it really succeeded as freedom money?
That's the tension at the heart of his argument.