Satoshi wasn't a seller of bitcoin. He was a buyer. Because he had to purchase his coins from nature — with electricity and processor cycles — just like anyone else.
There's something so attractive about this: the creator of a new money following the same rules as everyone else.
When powerful lawmakers rage against non-custodial wallets, they are not striking a blow against "big crypto". Rather, they oppose little crypto — normal people keeping money themselves instead of in the pockets of a corporation.
If someone say that bitcoin was borne from right wing or libertarian conspiracy theories, you know they've not done their homework.
Bitcoin is cypherpunk software, and the golden thread uniting the cypherpunk movement is anti-authoritarianism, not opposition to the state. 🧵
Block will be working on Nostr-compatible products. Nice.
Also: "Dorsey announced it would form the model for his new personal media policy: 'No more closed interviews for me. Over NOSTR or live pods only.'"
While we're bearposting: imagine a Tether blowup. No redemptions. Broken peg. USDC steps up minting and swells to accommodate demand. Coins die. There is only USDC. DeFi is USDC. Crypto is USDC.
The Fed announces a new CBDC. It is USDC. We are all eating bugs. And we are happy.
Let's give corporate and state authorities the ability to regulate access to our most vital systems via immutable biometrics. Biometrics from where? A crypto scheme with a history of preying on the global poor, self-dealing — all clothed in technobabble. Fascinating!
Let us never forget: cash is awesome -- private, cheap, censorship-resistant payments, for all. As things stand, going cashless is a step in the wrong direction, a step towards surveillance and control.
Today, I will buy some groceries with cash.
'Cashless' establishments *force* you to use card payment, which economists read as a rise in ‘demand’ for card payments, an interpretation that other institutions will use to justify why they too will ‘go cashless’, an action which in turn will coercively increase 'demand'
Bitcoin is more than a currency. It is a symbol of human ingenuity, resistance to authoritarian control, and love. It will remain a cornerstone of any effort to keep autocrats on a tight leash, and an anchor in economic storms created by irresponsible central banks.
The euro is more than a currency, says President Christine Lagarde. It’s a symbol of European integration and stands for a united Europe that works together. We’ll always be a cornerstone of that effort and an anchor of stability.
Read
#TheECBblog
Crowd reactions to pro-bitcoin remarks at OSU's commencement are telling. Bitcoin is a brand. And to this audience, an annoying or possible grifty one.
In a recent letter to Congress, 21 human rights advocates from 20 countries gave evidence about how bitcoin is actually used. Their report is concrete testimony, not speculation: pure signal, in a world of noise.
The real story is not that bitcoin continues to flourish after fifteen years. Nor is it that SBF is a convicted criminal. It’s that the worlds of credentialed academia and journalism got both SBF and bitcoin exactly wrong. The press darling is in jail. Bitcoin roams free.
I have some heterodox views in philosophy. One is that not everything that happens has a good explanation. But the idea that inflation is one of these unexplainable mysteries — that it can sneak up on us, totally without a cause — is a bridge too far. Truly wild!
Why this paper is wrong: bitcoin's fast and nearly free native payment system, the lightning network, does not suffer more delays the more it's used, unlike on-chain settlements, which use scarce block space.
It shouldn't be this easy to refute academic research about bitcoin.
Let's do a close reading of "stay humble and stack sats". Here are six observations about the slogan:
1. Lowercase: this is advice for everyone, not just monocle people who observe the rules of Queen's English. Anyone can do this.
2. Conjunction: the "and" indicates that these
Wyoming is good. And from August 2025, I'll be a Professor of Philosophy at the new Bitcoin Research Institute at the University of Wyoming.
@rettlerb
and I have long dreamed of building something together; this is a dream come true.
Resistance Money: A Philosophical Case for Bitcoin is now shipping. I'd love to give away copies. Like and retweet this post, and on Friday I'll send five random people free paperbacks. (you'll need to follow me, and be willing to DM a physical address)
Some of these Proof of Work critics have never read The Blocksize War, and it shows.
Here’s the TL;DR: there’s historical, empirical (not theoretical) evidence that miners don’t control bitcoin. In particular, miners were together unable to change the protocol in 2017.
An academic philosopher who shall remain nameless — someone who has no connection to bitcoin, or philosophy of money, or any of that stuff, really — read our book and had this to say. Wow!
Two observations about the Nashville bitcoin conference so far. They probably say as much about me as they do about the thing itself.
First: I've never seen bitcoiners so engaged in electoral politics — lobbying and policy, swing states, marginal votes, factions in this or that
Bitcoin-associated carbon emissions are about 0.09% of the global total. Climate activists would do well to direct 0.09% of their attention towards bitcoin, accordingly. Fixation on bitcoin beyond this proportion distracts us from opportunities for significant harm reduction.
#Bitcoin
is net good for humanity in promoting financial inclusion, freedom from monetary repression, and self-sovereignty. But mining is energy-intensive and emits carbon. Can emissions be reduced without threatening fungibility?
Yes. Thread c/o me and
@thetrocro
. 1/n.
New short chalk'n'talk on bitcoin security from Micah Warren (who recently got the banhammer here). Some of this will be familiar to longtime bitcoin understandoooors; but pay attention to detect the spice too!
In a monetary system operated by convicted criminal
@Lagarde
, you get a say in what color the money is. In bitcoin, you get a say in everything else.
Interesting contrast.
Bitcoiners sneer at academics, degrees, institutional prestige. If you get bitcoin wrong, you're dumb and maybe bad.
As an academic, of course this hurts. But it is very very healthy. We must Do The Work -- not skate on the prestige we've staked.
My experience is that academic philosophers and physicists are quicker to appreciate bitcoin than are economists or computer scientists.
This may not reveal anything about bitcoin at all (or it may reveal something bad!). But I’m curious if my experience generalises. Does it?
Wyoming is good. And from August 2025, I'll be a Professor of Philosophy at the new Bitcoin Research Institute at the University of Wyoming.
@rettlerb
and I have long dreamed of building something together; this is a dream come true.
My libertarian friends worry I’m a statist. Progressive friends fret that I’m a reactionary. Conservative friends suspect dangerous revolutionary impulses.
I’m afraid it’s much worse than any of that, friends: I’m into bitcoin!
A recent Policy Statement on Section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act argues that banks cannot issue stablecoins. If followed consistently, the reasoning would also apply to physical cash.
This is going to be a fun class to teach next year: an entire upper-division seminar on The Philosophy and Economics of Bitcoin.
I will, of course, open source it, for any to use and mutate as they like.
Before going to bed last night, I wrote this to my main group chat:
"It may have been a tactical error, hiring an artist who cares. Imagine... artist discovers he’s being used, that bitcoin ain’t so bad, that bitcoiners are not so bad — and turns on greenpeaceusa"
Avalanche of DMs from the Environmental Bitcoin Crew giving me a lot of hope!
Need some time to reply, reflect and summarize. 🙏
Excited about the discussion I was hoping for!
Sorry if I haven't replied yet.
I reject the slogan "fix the money, fix the world". The world is more messed up than that. But I do accept this one: "if you don't fix the money, you won't fix the world".
And you can't fix the money without a fair founding – like bitcoin's.
Ask not why bitcoin uses so much energy. Better: why do bitcoin users choose to pay for so much energy? They’re getting something out of it — what might that be? This question unlocks many insights!
If you only knew the credentials of the people who email me with bitcoin-curious or bitcoin-positive ideas.
This is not a train you want to stand in front of, hoss.
Many friends find Twitter to be overwhelmingly negative: drama, hate, doomscrolling.
But when I log in, I see good people, working on good things, united by enthusiasm for bitcoin. It is moving, to me, and it inspires hope.
Bitcoin First
This is not the same as “bitcoin only”, or “bitcoin forever” — but it is the thesis I endorse at present.
Bitcoin is the thing, the center of the vortex. So we must look to it before anything else, and return to it too.
Bitcoin First.
Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdoğan, and the Chinese Communist Party oppose bitcoin for an unsurprising reason: it limits their control. Leaders of the free world should think twice before adopting that stance.
Financial privacy is all about consent.
The world does not deserve to know, without permission, what hormones you’re on, your religious views, what books you read. Yet all this and more is revealed by your purchases.
Cash enables privacy. Cash promotes a culture of consent.
Q: If bitcoin is so good, why does it need a marketing team? Why must you sell sell sell?
A: Bitcoin, as a politically disruptive technology, has a long list of autocratic enemies. The marketing team isn’t there to sell bitcoin. It’s to refute misinformation those enemies spew.
Seems like a fine time to meditate on Satoshi's words: "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required... Banks must be trusted to hold our money... but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve."
My top four favorite peer-reviewed academic articles on bitcoin:
- Is bitcoin money? And what that means (Hazlett and Luther)
- Bitcoin’s Academic Pedigree (Narayanan and Clark)
- Synthetic commodity money (Selgin)
- What is bitcoin? (Warmke)
PDFs below. What are yours? Share!
They're starting to get it. Bitcoin as cockroach is as good an image as any. I'd put it this way: suppose someone is trying to squash you. Wouldn't you want access to money that's as resilient as a cockroach?
"We found a strong relationship between the network hashrate and mining difficulty."
(from a new paper on bitcoin's carbon footprint. It is as bad you might guess from just this sentence)
Worldcoin is still stupid and bad, in four points.
1. The team, incredibly, was not prepared for people to sell credentials. It doesn't solve one problem it was supposed to solve.
I focus on bitcoin, because it stands apart. I study everything, because I’m curious. And I’ll use anything that’s useful. I don’t like ICOs. But I’ll make friends with anyone who agrees with me that privacy is good and autocrats are bad. Am I a maxi? Does it matter? 🤷♀️
As banks and neobanks and bankmans implode time and again, remember: "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required... Banks must be trusted to hold our money... but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve."
If it bugs you that a billionaire and his friends and the House of Saud control Twitter; a global information commons — you’re gonna love the way the dollar, a global monetary commons, works!
Things bitcoiners are good at, IMO:
- Dunking on foolish nocoiner takes from 2013
- Central banker memes
- Bitsplaining bitcoin
Things bitcoiners are not so good at, IMO:
- Predicting geopolitical events
- Sound nutritional advice
- Evaluating populist politicians
@thetrocro
@Gemini
Not just stacking. A sustained pattern, without any sell orders for over half a decade, always ending in self custody. Dubious! Dubious!
When I hear SBF talk, I think about a phrase from this old spoken word piece: 'aggressively inarticulate'.
Talking this way is a choice. And it is disrespectful to oneself and one's audience to take up their time with ums and uhs and likes and rights.
Many bitcoiners prefer direct spending of bitcoin over selling bitcoin. That is, they prefer selling bitcoin for stuff over selling bitcoin for money. The usual reason is "support bitcoin's circular economy"
Is this a good argument? Is spending better than selling?
@craigwarmke
and I make something of this in a recent whitepaper for
@btcpolicyorg
, using a particularly galling example (still uncorrected) that appeared in the NYT.
I recently ran a class on the Philosophy and Economics of Bitcoin at Yale-NUS. It's now open source: readings, reflections, practicum assignments.
Instructors: I'm happy to consult if you'd like to integrate this into your classrooms or degree programs.
Pre-order your copy of Resistance Money today! Just $29.95 gets you the most meticulously researched, lively, comprehensive, and measured evaluation of bitcoin to date — peer-reviewed, and published by a leading academic press.
Under contract with Routledge Press: *Resistance Money*, by
@rettlerb
,
@craigwarmke
, and
@resistancemoney
. 200 pages of academic research and argument on the philosophy, politics, and economics of
#bitcoin
.
Book website with chapter previews:
WSJ: "A handful of developers with power to change the cryptocurrency’s software..."
Wrong. Only you have the power to change the software running on your own node.
And that's just the subtitle. It gets worse from there!
Bitcoin is seen as the “decentralized” gold standard of crypto. But behind the scenes, a small community of developers work tirelessly on software that 99% of the Bitcoin network uses. This is the story of their six trusted stewards, known as maintainers.
I'd like for this to be correct, but I don't think it's quite right. It was
@IanAllison123
's reporting on the Alameda balance sheet (from a leaked document, not blockchain analytics) that really started this thing in early November. Good old fashioned reporting, in other words.
Twitter has broken just about every piece of this FTX story using blockchain analytics, while NYT is writing puff pieces on a criminal.
Feels like a turning point for citizen journalism and loss of trust in MSM.
The apparent stabilisation of bitcoin’s value is likely to be an artificially induced last gasp before the crypto-asset embarks on a road to irrelevance.
#TheECBblog
looks at where bitcoin stands amid widespread volatility in the crypto markets.
Read more
Proof of Work: people should be rewarded (with tokens and control over transaction ordering or inclusion) for what they *do*.
Proof of Stake: people should be rewarded for what they *have*.
It is with a heavy heart I announce the sale of my long term ape, Salazar. Most of my early followers know me as this ape. My kids know me as this ape. I met my wife when I WAS this ape and had my first kid when I was still proudly wore this ape. By extension, it is part of me.
Bitcoin has all the right enemies. Sometimes I get too much joy in seeing how upset they get as adoption spreads, one mind, heart, pocketbook – and sometimes, nation – at a time.
The contrast to an ICO or pre-mine is so stark, isn't it?
"Buy my newly minted magical beans!", say the carnival barkers.
Satoshi, meanwhile, quietly mines new blocks, paying all the while (electricity isn't free) for their rewards.