Bitcoin has been fake Can't stop In hostile environments, but let's be completely clear: survive, prosperity They are two different things. Just because it's bitcoin can Enduring serious political antagonism does not mean we should want That hostilities also do not mean that we should not be able to do everything to develop a favorable environment that accelerates adoption. Otherwise, believing is a misreading of the core mind. The brilliance of Bitcoin remains unauthorized and even though it is involved Who is Fighting it – but it's not that we let us work to ensure the most beneficial conditions for its long-term success.
In fact, we have consistently responded to public policy to regulatory and legislative inquiries. Reconfirm These basics: Bitcoin strength is a broad distribution of open source software, self-reliance, and mining and node operators. In other words, it's not sold out. It is for the government to understand the benefits of Bitcoin's open design.
“Bitcoin was built for a hostile environment” and “We should. want An hostile environment. “Having an enemy-bearing architecture does not require you to ignore opportunities to reduce friction, whether it's energy policy or the everyday user experience. Yes, Bitcoin can survive when politicians and regulators become hostile. However, treating hostility as a virtue is shortsighted.
Hostility can slow adoption, postpone development, or scare everyday users who are not dealing with that level of conflict. Meanwhile, measured engagement with policymakers can prevent radical bans, form balanced regulations, and provide a legitimate pathway for institutional capital to flow.all In the future, you can speed up your global use of Bitcoin. “I want to make Bitcoin flourish under transparent and fair laws” is not a betrayal of Satoshi's vision. We are not forced by catastrophic failures in our legacy systems.
There is nothing “non-Bitcoin” about encouraging laws that protect the rights of individuals to use and hold their own BTC or protect laws that support the development of open source. These political fields require acquiescence and active activity in these fields. It only allows others – perhaps and very Various agendas – Set rules in ways that interfere with privacy, become independent, or in ways that interfere with innovation.
The key is to be vigilant against compromises that undermine the integrity of the protocol. Building relationships with politicians and regulators does not mean that you are seeking favorable sculptures at the expense of censorship resistance. It simply means we are listening. If we see a request to force a hostile protocol level change on the user, that is when we have to stand firmly and say “no” for both practical and ideological reasons . But we actively share how bitcoin mining stabilizes the energy grid and how lightning networks offer payments that are closer to instant do not have Bitcoin's spirit concessions. This is part of a rational strategy that helps the public and policymakers understand the real value behind the existence of Bitcoin.
False concerns about large-scale mining operations with respect to regulatory pressures are not new. In reality, Bitcoin design is to withstand the enemy. Anyone If they have hardware and energy you can mine me, and Anyone You can run a full node to enforce rules and ensure that a single miner cannot change the protocol. If some mining pools bend to meet censorship requests, others will be attracted to fees that include those transactions. That's exactly how Bitcoin is designed. Routing censorship using an anti-crazed, distributed architecture.
Ironically, positive regulatory involvement can be done. reduce Centralization puts risks whether or not to open up more states, nationals, and small energy providers to host mining facilities. Diversity of geography and jurisdiction means that a single entity or government cannot easily impose drastic rules across a network. Again, “surviving an adversarial environment” does not mean that we are leaving us away from practical solutions that help decentralize hashrates.
It is true that privacy, scalability, and accessibility continue to face challenges. This is not either or proposition: we can both Engage with regulators to stop informed policies and It focuses on driving privacy-providing capabilities and scaling solutions. The key is to ensure that everyday politics doesn't overturn the work that needs to be done with layer 2 technologies, such as the Lightning network and more user-friendly privacy solutions.
Developers are actively tackling these issues, from better cryptography to more intuitive lightning wallets. We need to openly and politically defend ourselves to keep our self-reliant state at the forefront and to keep third-party custodians an option. Spreading knowledge of “not a key, not a coin” at the legislative level is not a sell-out. It ensures that more people (including politicians) understand the basic reasons why Bitcoin is actually important.
It's easy to see the ecosystem (many corporate players, lobbying, social media theatres) and I think it's soulless. But Bitcoin is always full of diverse voices, many of which are interested in short-term profits. It was true in 2011, true during the block size war, and now it is true. It's not destroying Bitcoin. Due to the basic robustness of the network, if you want to keep your own keys and verify your own transactions, No one can stop you.
Bitcoin's central promises have not evaporated, and participating in the policy does not need to mean surrender. It is another stage in the evolution of Bitcoin, a stage that actively forms a better environment for technology. and Those who benefit from it. We need to fight with our hearts, defend the foundations of Bitcoin, and continue to build towards a future where hostile peer-to-peer digital money is the global standard.
This is a guest post by Pierre Rochard. The opinions expressed are entirely unique and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
