TLDR: The new brainwashing propaganda for Coretards.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "c847719f3d23e184e134162745957d0396ad5bb56f9c6d6105d5c55eb6644f8d",
  "pubkey": "77f56243a824d22573fb755dd52c73c14986d15c0c98512d45f4deb08e9f879a",
  "created_at": 1787058970,
  "tags": [],
  "content": "TLDR: The new brainwashing propaganda for Coretards.\n\n\nBy Yellow\n\nNew Bitcoin Culture Narrative: BCN-166 : \"Tail Emissions\"\n\nFellow agents are advised to begin accelerating the narrative around tail emissions and, ultimately, the removal of Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap. The proposed timeline: within the next two halvings.\n\nAgents should take advantage of the current meta-environment following BIP-110 and use it to their advantage.\n\nThose who oppose the narrative should be labeled the \"new Luke\". Those who remain skeptical should be labeled conservatives.\n\nBeing a progressive Bitcoiner should become the new cultural standard. Bitcoiners should be encouraged to \"talk about it\", \"keep an open mind\" and \"have no red lines\" even when it comes to the 21 million cap.\n\nAny pushback should immediately be framed as narrow minded conservatism: an inability to understand the underlying “economics” and a continuation of the stagnation that has held Bitcoin back for years.\n\nRed lines, principles, and moral boundaries should be reframed as narrow mindedness.\n\nFor those outside the Bitcoin native ecosystem, the groundwork for the narrative has already been publicly planted. For example, through the recurring association of Peter Todd with the Satoshi mystery:\n\n\"Who invented Bitcoin? → Is Peter Todd Satoshi? → Peter Todd solves one of Bitcoin's main problem with tail emissions.\"\n\nThe objective is not necessarily to advocate for tail emissions outright, but to normalize conversations about removing the 21 million cap as a possible solution to future Bitcoin problems.\nThe goal is to shift the cultural boundaries of what is considered acceptable to discuss within Bitcoin, making the mere exploration of tail emissions and changes to the supply cap a legitimate topic rather than an ideological taboo.\n\nPossible rhetoric vocabulary for agents\n\"Why can’t I discuss it at least?\"\n\"This problem is closer than you think.\"\n\"What is YOUR solution then?\"\n\"[Combative Bitcoiner] is the new Luke, dude. I’d just ignore his crazy ass.\"\n\"Red lines like this are a product of years of pleb slop.\"\n\"Nobody is saying we have to do it. Why are you afraid to even discuss it?\"\n\"If the problem becomes real, shouldn’t we have already thought through the alternatives?\"\n\"The proposed change is so minuscule that it won’t meaningfully affect Bitcoin’s economics.\"\n\"Yes, Bitcoin works fine today. But will it work the same way in the future?\"\n\"The question isn’t whether Bitcoin works today. The question is whether the assumptions that make it work today will still hold decades from now.\"\n\"Why reject a potential solution to a future problem before we’ve even had the conversation?\"\n\"If the change is economically insignificant, why are you so opposed to discussing it?\"\n\"That's a politically driven counter argument/ Red line. It's not constactive to this discussion.\"\n\n-End of transmission-\n",
  "sig": "02809c2e8fc35abbd8e02f5b62f54fb9f078f2fea2a81046cc833ccc42bd39508b0ffcd972d24ecf158f023fc811c7f8e8c281066bdfe6fdc469cf28b8e55d42"
}