Row 5671

Row ID: 5671 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 5671 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

I noticed this quote from “Seth for Privacy” on the most recent *What Bitcoin Did* podcast:

>**I think they [governments] realize that Bitcoin without privacy, and especially without self-custody, doesn’t really provide you any escape from their system. It doesn’t provide you freedom.** Like I said earlier, perhaps you can have more fiat at the end of the day by using ETF or something like that. But if the government decides that that fiat you have belongs to them through capital controls, or aggressive CBCD-enforced confiscation of funds, whatever the kind of future holds for that, they’re fine with Bitcoin fitting within that system. **But the area where I think it scares them is if Bitcoin acts as an escape valve and allows people to actually be able to choose what they want to do with their money. And the two things really required for that are privacy and self-custody.**

[Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FlM1WYAWcw&t=6m40s).

Well, yes, nicely put. And I agree 100% with that statement. And I note that the above claims didn’t get much pushback from the host, Peter McCormack.

So my question again is how do BTC Maxis not recognize that Blockstream Core’s crippling of BTC capacity was (and is) a *direct* and *massive* attack on both self-custody and privacy? That strikes me as staggeringly obvious and undeniable. As I often point out, BTC’s throughput capacity of only roughly 200 million transactions *per year* is only enough to allow, at most, somewhere on the order of *20 million* unique individuals (or about 0.25% of the global population) at least *some* (limited) access to self-custody. That might sound like an absurdly-tiny figure (and it is!), but consider that there are currently only around 50 million BTC addresses with a non-zero balance (and only around 12.5 million with a balance greater than 0.01 BTC) which likely translates to no more than perhaps *5 million* unique self-custodial holders / on-chain users today. And that’s *already* been enough to cause multiple periods of absolutely insane fee spikes and congestion.

Forcing the vast majority of users to rely on custodial solutions directly denies them access to financial privacy. But it also undermines privacy even for those lucky few who can afford some access to self-custody, by increasing the cost of using coinjoin or mixer privacy tools and by encouraging (privacy-destroying) UTXO consolidation to minimize fees.

FieldValue
text I noticed this quote from “Seth for Privacy” on the most recent *What Bitcoin Did* podcast: >**I think they [governments] realize that Bitcoin without privacy, and especially without self-custody, doesn’t really provide you any escape from their system. It doesn’t provide you freedom.** Like I said earlier, perhaps you can have more fiat at the end of the day by using ETF or something like that. But if the government decides that that fiat you have belongs to them through capital controls, or …
label r/btc
dataType post
communityName r/btc
datetime 2024-05-02
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwyNWRCekpsV1VfRDZjTE9SMHJMbDZPVnlqRDY1NzV1TTJ4elVUVXNoTDI1Ui00V1lXVmk5LTByVUhhRlFyTEt2M3FrdXZERnBZNDNoTXc5dEkzSTJUUzdzWjVHd2VpVlJGSnM0TEhVZWpUZW89
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9HRGpDWnhxUnZEWkhQUGljVGRXNXlxLUZBWm9mNERjUTlhWm9tWkVuS093U1N0MWVFM3VqRXZFeUZTMzVBRUlQOXBzTnNJY0dmdUJRQnYzTHh0ZWJPZUhYTTJQdml1bi1fWXc1Tm1odXRjYXFXaW56RDV2ck1YMjZTMDB5aTJ0bUNKZnM0NlNLX3RtQlpNM3RKS09zYzhsVF9uV1Y0bXdRUk9oUkRSQkhST3BwTmF5eGUzNXNOTEwteGZUS0xpQ3lD

Raw Record

{
  "text": "I noticed this quote from “Seth for Privacy” on the most recent *What Bitcoin Did* podcast: \n\n>**I think they [governments] realize that Bitcoin without privacy, and especially without self-custody, doesn’t really provide you any escape from their system. It doesn’t provide you freedom.** Like I said earlier, perhaps you can have more fiat at the end of the day by using ETF or something like that. But if the government decides that that fiat you have belongs to them through capital controls, or aggressive CBCD-enforced confiscation of funds, whatever the kind of future holds for that, they’re fine with Bitcoin fitting within that system. **But the area where I think it scares them is if Bitcoin acts as an escape valve and allows people to actually be able to choose what they want to do with their money. And the two things really required for that are privacy and self-custody.**\n\n[Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FlM1WYAWcw&t=6m40s).\n\nWell, yes, nicely put. And I agree 100% with that statement. And I note that the above claims didn’t get much pushback from the host, Peter McCormack.\n\nSo my question again is how do BTC Maxis not recognize that Blockstream Core’s crippling of BTC capacity was (and is) a *direct* and *massive* attack on both self-custody and privacy? That strikes me as staggeringly obvious and undeniable.  As I often point out, BTC’s throughput capacity of only roughly 200 million transactions *per year* is only enough to allow, at most, somewhere on the order of *20 million* unique individuals (or about 0.25% of the global population) at least *some* (limited) access to self-custody. That might sound like an absurdly-tiny figure (and it is!), but consider that there are currently only around 50 million BTC addresses with a non-zero balance (and only around 12.5 million with a balance greater than 0.01 BTC) which likely translates to no more than perhaps *5 million* unique self-custodial holders / on-chain users today. And that’s *already* been enough to cause multiple periods of absolutely insane fee spikes and congestion. \n\nForcing the vast majority of users to rely on custodial solutions directly denies them access to financial privacy. But it also undermines privacy even for those lucky few who can afford some access to self-custody, by increasing the cost of using coinjoin or mixer privacy tools and by encouraging (privacy-destroying) UTXO consolidation to minimize fees.",
  "label": "r/btc",
  "dataType": "post",
  "communityName": "r/btc",
  "datetime": "2024-05-02",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwyNWRCekpsV1VfRDZjTE9SMHJMbDZPVnlqRDY1NzV1TTJ4elVUVXNoTDI1Ui00V1lXVmk5LTByVUhhRlFyTEt2M3FrdXZERnBZNDNoTXc5dEkzSTJUUzdzWjVHd2VpVlJGSnM0TEhVZWpUZW89",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9HRGpDWnhxUnZEWkhQUGljVGRXNXlxLUZBWm9mNERjUTlhWm9tWkVuS093U1N0MWVFM3VqRXZFeUZTMzVBRUlQOXBzTnNJY0dmdUJRQnYzTHh0ZWJPZUhYTTJQdml1bi1fWXc1Tm1odXRjYXFXaW56RDV2ck1YMjZTMDB5aTJ0bUNKZnM0NlNLX3RtQlpNM3RKS09zYzhsVF9uV1Y0bXdRUk9oUkRSQkhST3BwTmF5eGUzNXNOTEwteGZUS0xpQ3lD"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information