It was once said, “A soldier is a political tool, nothing more.” The Boss realized the abuse of soldiers to advance political agendas. She believed politicians were merely the embodiment of the social values of a nation, and as such, “People aren’t the ones who dictate the missions…The times [do]. People’s values change over time. And so do the leaders of a
country. So there’s no such thing as an enemy in absolute terms. The enemies we fight are only in relative terms, constantly changing with the times.”
This makes loyalty to the end a slippery slope, as “the only thing we can believe in with absolute certainty is the mission”. And of course the greatest soldiers are the ones who complete the mission by any means necessary. From the politician’s view, these great soldiers are indeed effective tools. Loyalty to the end is a powerful concept – it implies one is willing to give their life than betray said loyalty.
Why be loyal to a nation which cares not for you? Why give your life for a nation which would use your undying loyalty as a political symbol?
Bitcoin has never hardforked, may not hardfork this decade, or even next decade. This realization has made a lot of people angry, including former captains of Bitcoin industry loudly vocalizing their desire to see a hard fork, that recklessly changes the Bitcoin consensus rules.
The hard fork missile crisis has developed into a hard fork cold war, with a false dilemma. Predictably, consumers began to revolt, against an unclear threat. The block size debate began, and those playing Bitcoin politician vocalized only on this issue – citing it as the most critically needed upgrade.
Mainstream discussions of disincentivizing centralizing factors in Bitcoin have started to become completely ignored, or seen as non-issues. Any hard fork that could achieve near unanimous consensus would require these issues to be addressed, solved, and deployed.
The early sphere of Bitcoin attracted harmful venture capitalists. When you look at the early drama timeline most individuals and “companies” that raised Bitcoin capital ended up losing it – an unacceptable liability. Coinbase was the first company to take a different approach, raising fiat capital as Bitcoin venture capital is a greater liability, than raising fiat capital. I mean what’s the worst that happens if you lose fiat capital? They just print more of it.
I often hear underbanked Africans as a citation for increasing the block size limit in Bitcoin. It is claimed they won’t be able to purchase their goods at the local bazaar in a retail fashion, which usually isn’t how many tribes in the so-called third world tend to barter. After much thought, it seems the system as designed and functioning can still highly empower the underbanked tribes in the remote areas of Africa. In fact it is possible the transfer of wealth Bitcoin could potentiate, would facilitate a never before seen era of prosperity in a land that was raped by 19th century imperialism.
I will attempt to break up the fallacies utilized as pseudo-arguments to increase the block size in relation to the third world, as most of these arguments completely ignore, or even deny the existence of imperialism in Africa during the 19th and 20th centuries.