Bitcoin is Ariadne by allen (npub1sfh…ymqt)
"比特币经常被认为是与法定货币的 "竞争"。从某种意义上说，这是正确的，但我担心，这种 "竞争 "是错误的。例如，这不是一场战斗。没有冲突。比特币没有试图损害或破坏它的对手，因为它没有尝试任何东西，也不认识任何对手。它不知道谁会反对它，也不知道为什么。它只是一个替代选择；一个出口阀门；一个退出选择。只有当它被证明是一种优越得多的替代方案时，它才会参与竞争。它不是忒修斯对抗弥诺陶洛斯的利剑，而是走出迷宫的线索。比特币就是阿里阿德涅。
在反对比特币的声音可能越来越大的情况下，将这一言论正常化是非常有价值的。反对者必须被迫解释人们自由互动有什么问题，以及为什么在他们的理解中，真正的善只能来自强制。那些已经从资本剥离开采的难以忍受的迷宫中找到出路的人，难道不应该走这条路吗？他们欠弥诺陶洛斯什么？
难道真的有人相信，在完全理解了自己所面临的选择之后，会有人选择存入自我反省定价错误的有毒贷款，而不是存入可以证明是健全的数字无记名资产吗？或者，更简单地说，他们会认为持有纯粹资产的货币比持有字面定义为负债的货币更没有意义？为什么不选择加入一个建立在不可信任的可验证性而不是不可验证的信任基础上的金融体系呢？
......任何以真正敌对的方式与比特币打交道的决定，都值得仔细斟酌，因为它肯定会到来。麦克尼尔提醒我们，即使在七百多年前，"对大多数目睹者来说，既定行为模式的崩溃总是令人遗憾的"。在这个问题上，我绝不是乌托邦式的观点--相反，接受乌托邦式偏执狂的非零效用是一种知识分子的成人礼。比特币将会被禁止，在很多地方被禁止很多次。但禁令是对实际和道德失败的公开承认，可以说是最好的广告。禁令就是柏林墙；任何禁令的碎片总有一天会成为镇压的愚蠢和残酷的纪念品。比特币不会强迫任何人留下。他们来，然后留下，因为他们愿意--因为比特币在实际上和道德上都是优越的"。
quotingWhenever I see statists like the ECB get upset about Bitcoin, or when I see more brazen regimes try and actually implement an all-out ban or crazy tax scheme, I turn to my favorite bit of writing anywhere on Bitcoin and remind myself that a ban is the Berlin Wall and that “fragments of any ban will one day become souvenirs of the folly”
note1qq8…6cgt
Bitcoin is Ariadne by allen (npub1sfh…ymqt)
“Bitcoin is often framed as “competing” with fiat currency. This is true in a sense but I fear there is a rhetorical danger of invoking the wrong kind of “competition”. It is not a fight, for example. There is no conflict. Bitcoin is not trying to damage or sabotage its opponents, because it isn’t trying anything and it knows no opponents. It has no awareness whatsoever of who might oppose it or why. It is simply an alternative; an exit valve; an opt-out. It is competing only insofar as it is proving to be a far superior alternative. It is not a sword for Theseus to fight the Minotaur, but a thread to follow to exit the labyrinth. Bitcoin is Ariadne.
There will be tremendous value in normalizing this rhetoric amidst the likely growing chorus of opposition desperate to smear Bitcoin as inherently nefarious, or hostile, even. Opponents must be forced to explain what is wrong with people interacting freely, and why true goodness can only follow from coercion, in their understanding. Should those who have found a way out of the unbearable labyrinth of capital strip mining not take it? What do they owe the Minotaur?
Does anybody really believe that, having fully understood the choice they face, any individual would choose to save in a self-referentially mispriced toxic loan rather than a provably sound digital bearer asset? Or, more simply still, that they will think it makes less sense to hold money that is a pure asset than money that is literally defined as a liability? Why not opt into a financial system that is built on trustless verifiability rather than unverifiable trust?
… It is worth working through the optics of any decision to engage with Bitcoin in a truly hostile manner, because it is certainly coming. McNeill reminds us that, even some seven-hundred-or-so years ago, “the breakdown of established patterns of conduct always appears deplorable to a majority of those who witness it.” By no means do I have a utopian outlook on this subject — rather, it is something of an intellectual rite of passage to accept the nonzero utility of dystopian paranoia. Bitcoin will be banned, many times, in many places. But a ban is an open admission of practical and moral failure and is arguably the best advertisement of all. A ban is the Berlin Wall; fragments of any ban will one day become souvenirs of the folly and cruelty of repression. Bitcoin doesn’t force anybody to stay. They come, and then they stay, because they want to — because it is both practically and morally superior.”