Wow https://youtu.be/dbLHXOipQN4?feature=shared

The fact that Carlson is giving Roger a stage is very telling.
But I am not sure yet, what it actually tells.
Will watch it tomorrow, thanks!

I still hold onto the fantasy that Craig rage-quits and Roger buys n-Chain.
Roger has a realistic view of the status quo while Craig the boomer statist still thinks the state is his dad even (or especially?) after the spanking he received.

First divided Bitcoin onto BTC and BCH. Everybody here knows who was on the right side and who was the attacker.
Then they even managed to divide big block Bitcoin into BCH and BSV.
Who was the attacker in this fork?
Back then many thought Craig was trying to save Bitcoin. Largely because he made great announcements on how he was gonna destroy BTC.
But now that everything he said has turned out to be complete bs, in retrospect, Craig looks like the attacker, doesn't he?

The fact that Carlson is giving Roger Ver a platform is a red flag for me.

The irony is, that Roger Ver complains about bitcoin-reddit and bitcointalk being censored and moderated back in the days in favor of small-block-BTC by some private/anonymouse individual (theymos) while he constantly pushes and advocates for anonymity/high-privacy himself.
He wants an anonymous system? Why isn't he able to deal with the consequences of the lacking accountability? He is complaining about the very things he advocates for.

In my opinion he is right about the hijacking in general, but the rest is kinda weird.

In my mind Tucker is really the guy who "Just started paying attention".
This is absolutely a story he would, and should, cover: A bitcoin billionaire who right after publishing a book describing how bitcoin got hijacked gets arrested and faces a century in prison over ridiculous charges.
What's not to love for someone who naively decided he could dare some journalism in 2024?
Personally, I see no contradiction whatsoever in promoting privacy coins and pointing out the censorship and propaganda attack against bitcoin.

Maybe Tucker is real, maybe not.
I don't know.

I don't think it is a contradiction in general but I am not sure if Roger Ver really understands the implications of anonymity/high-privacy.
Again: I do not know, it is just an interview and I haven't seen much of him over the last years.

Hit Shift+Entert by accident again, sry^^.
I am not sure if Roger Ver made any statements regarding the difference between the need for identity and transaprency and high-privacy/anonymity.
I think there is a usecase for both.
But for me Roger always sounded like 100% anonymity.
But he also said in the interview that he is always "pro choice", so it seems like he wouldn't mind.
I am just not sure, if he really thought his "anonymity is great narrative" completely through.

Privacy coins have cons, no doubt. Pretty much the only danger in kidnappings, blackmail etc lies in the money handover.
Privacy coins take this risk away.
But it starts to look like a good trade off when compared to increasingly totalitarian governments watching every transaction we make.

It is not the only downside.
In a system where you have high-privacy/anonymity everybody can rugpull everybody else without any consequences, in the best case scenario (or worst case, depending on your point of view, but I hope you know what I mean).

I think there will always be a demand for anonymity and therefore there will always be a supply.
So fighting it is kinda useless.
But it makes more sense for certain niche areas in my opinion.
For the rest bitcoin is probably good enough.

Or maybe transparency will be the exception to the rule instead of anonymity, I do not know.
But there is a usecase for both.
I just think that Ver concentrates too much on the "anonymity" part.