The market is still talking: Reflections on the direction of Bitcoin's development.

Source: ElBitcoin Original Title: The market keeps talking Original Link:

I used to listen to Majamalu talk about what was happening in the Bitcoin-BTC forums: the deleted posts and messages, the systematic blocking of users, the insults, etc. From his statements, I inferred that these spaces had become affiliates of a kind of cult. I found it hard to believe 100% of what he was telling me, until I decided to leave an opinion in a Facebook group: all I did was point out, without disrespecting anyone, the reasons why I believed that Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is better than Bitcoin-BTC.

Majamalu had already warned me about what to expect, and I must say he was right. I received a flood of responses, almost all containing mockery and insults. But not all. The only argument presented to me was a striking one: “the market has already spoken”. They implied to me that, due to the significant difference between the price of bitcoin-BTC and that of bitcoin-BCH, people had already decided in a free market which one was better.

It is true that in the world of cryptocurrencies there are no impositions and everyone can choose freely. That said, I think it is worth clarifying something that blind BTC fans insist on ignoring. The vast majority of people are still trying to understand what cryptocurrencies are, how they work, how they are issued, what advantages they have over alternatives, etc. They were created not long ago and, like all revolutionary innovations, it generates skepticism and many, many questions.

But those who allow themselves to doubt and investigate patiently are often the ones who reap the rewards in the long run, just as those who delved into the subject from the beginning did. These pioneers were labeled as naive or delusional, if not criminals, while the “experts” predicted the swift extinction of Bitcoin.

Those who mocked bitcoiners at the beginning, pointing to the transient low value of the cryptocurrency, or to the dramatic drops in its price, are now the ones mocking those of us who criticize the negative change that occurred in BTC, using the same arguments that were once used by proponents of fiat money and central banks.

We used to defend BTC from attacks coming from all fronts. We did this because we understood its advantages and believed that this currency had the potential to compete with fiat money, not to support it as BTC supporters propose today. For us, the existence of a form of p2p electronic cash is essential to limit the expansion of state power. That’s why we have fought from the very beginning.

However, it is necessary to reiterate the question that Majamalu asked: would BTC have taken off as a project if Satoshi Nakamoto's proposal had been what today's BTC supporters propose? That is, if a cryptocurrency had been created with extremely high fees to force people to use it as a store of value or to only make transactions of thousands or millions of dollars; or if it had been presented as an alternative for making transactions as slow or slower than bank transactions; or if to send bitcoins at a lower cost it would have been necessary to appeal to intermediaries; or if its promoters invited us to continue using fiat money for almost all our transactions… What would have happened?

Upon entering the current BTC scene, one gets the feeling that many of its members arrived late to the crypto ecosystem and invested in BTC without really knowing what they were doing, and without basic knowledge of economics. And since the increase in the price of BTC does not exactly promote reflection among this type of investors, they react defensively to anything that might force them to rethink their decisions, such as BCH, which still keeps the Satoshi Nakamoto project alive.

Claiming that the market “spoke” is nonsense. The market is talking all the time; nothing is definitive for the market. Whoever believes that there is no turning back, that nothing will change, either does not understand how the economy works, or is trying to make a (bad) defense of their investment.

This point can be exemplified by the competition between different messaging applications. I remember years ago, when text messages could only be sent through one platform, other apps also offered voice messages and even video calls. But, as they say, the early bird catches the worm. The market, which, as I mentioned earlier, is always talking, could have punished that platform if it hadn't advanced, and that's why the company improved its service. In fact, recently, the privacy concerns were capitalized on by other companies in the industry, which achieved unexpected visibility and a surprising increase in the number of users in a very short period of time.

And the punishment for the consumer may even be more severe in the future, as the market has not finished speaking nor will it ever. Successful companies decided to take action, improved their service first, and then provided explanations to try to clarify the issues. BTC developers do the opposite: they continue down the same path proudly, assuring us that this is just the beginning; that fees will continue to rise and that we should celebrate it.

Meanwhile, the market keeps talking, even if they want to silence it.