Debating Whether Bitcoin Maximalism is Toxic or the Force Behind its Survival?
On August 17 and 18, a Bitcoin conference, “BitBlockBoom! A TRUE Bitcoin Event,” took place in Dallas that featured exclusively Bitcoin maximalists.
From Jimmy Song, Saifedean Ammmous, Pierre Rochard, Tone Vays, Michael Goldstein,
Mike Schmidt, to Marty Brent, Matt Odell, and Justin Moon among others joined this event.
And a never-ending debate stirred yet again.
Crypto Twitter exploded with people divided into two, those who support Bitcoin Maximalism and those who find it toxic for the crypto space.
Maximalists disparaging all other cryptos sound an awful lot like nocoiners disparaging Bitcoin. Scam. Ponzy. Bagholders. It’ll never work. Whats the use? We already have X, why do we need Y? Blah blah blah. Embrace the diversity, this is what an open market in finance looks like
— Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees) August 16, 2019
People against Bitcoin Maximalism says the market needs competition to thrive and that it just does more harm than good for the mainstream adoption.
#Bitcoin maximalists run the risk of doing more harm than good for “mainstream adoption.”
It is the fringe of society that gets excited at the prospect of joining an angry, online mob, not the mainstream.
— Chris Burniske (@cburniske) August 18, 2019
“Bitcoin is a religion,” says Dan Held, Director of Business Development at Kraken.
According to him, the “most strong adherents/intolerant minority” is the primary reason being Bitcoin’s survival.
Though, “patience will be ideal.”
If Bitcoin's success depended on bitcoiners being nice, it would have already failed.
Shitcoins, having all already failed, have nothing but the niceness of their virtue-signalling buzzword-bots who got in at the pre-sale. https://t.co/XYoa1dxKec
— Saifedean Ammous (@saifedean) August 18, 2019
However, some would argue as did one such user,
“Bitcoin Maximalists saved me from shitcoins.”
Meant sincerely, Chris:
I've met many regular people (with no expertise in crypto) who've told me they're glad to have found these maximalists, who've saved them from being scammed into the many coins that promise what cannot be achieved.
This is a very important service, imho.
— Vijay Boyapati (@real_vijay) August 18, 2019
“It all makes sense when you realize there is an organized effort to attack anyone who is not a maximalist. You dare question Bitcoin. You dare support Ethereum. You dare dissent. You must be crushed. You deserve no mercy. Maximalists becoming the thing they sought to overthrow,”
This Jeff Garzik, co-founder of Bloq, says goes back to the earliest days of Bitcoin Foundation, circa 2010 when,
“Litecoin and other first-gen ICOs released: “Attack anything not Bitcoin” were/are the unwavering marching orders.”
Litecoin founder Charlie Lee disagrees with this as he says there was no such thing or orders as “The idea of maximalism only started after Ethereum came on the scene. It was a defensive reaction triggered by the Ethereum flippening Bitcoin talks.”
Whale Panda, “Crypto OG. Toxic Monetary Bitcoin Maximalist,” supported Lee in this saying that it was a defensive reaction to Ethereum founder Vitalik Buetrin’s using ‘Bitcoin Maximalist’ as a “pejorative” term.
Actually it was a defensive reaction to @VitalikButerin using "Bitcoin Maximalist" as a pejorative term while the Ethereum Foundation pushed ETH everywhere as 'Bitcoin 2.0' and an 'improved version of Bitcoin'.
After that Bitcoiners started to use the term maximalist and own it.
— WhalePanda (@WhalePanda) August 18, 2019
According to the coder, Udi Wertheimer, Bitcoin Maximalist just hate “scams” and
“If you say that your shitcoin is the next bitcoin, you’re a scammer.”