The market keeps talking

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 claims, I inferred that these spaces had become branches of some kind of cult. I found it hard to believe 100% of what he told 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 barrage of responses, almost all containing mockery and insults. But not all. The only argument they presented to me was a striking one: “the market has already spoken.” They implied to me that, due to the large 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's 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 any revolutionary innovation, it generates skepticism and many, many questions.

But those who allow themselves to doubt and patiently investigate 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 “specialists” predicted the swift extinction of Bitcoin.

Those who mocked bitcoiners at the beginning, pointing to the temporary 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, and they do so using the same arguments that were previously used by supporters of fiat money and central banks.

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

However, it is necessary to reiterate the question that Majamalu asked in one of the episodes of the podcast: 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 conduct transactions of thousands or millions of dollars; or if it had been presented as an alternative for conducting transactions that are as slow or slower than bank transactions; or if sending bitcoins at a lower cost had required appealing to intermediaries; or if its promoters had 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 economic knowledge. And since the price increase of BTC does not exactly promote reflection among this kind of investors, they react defensively to anything that might force them to reconsider their decisions, such as BCH, which still keeps the project of Satoshi Nakamoto 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 is going to change, either does not understand how the economy works, or is trying to make a (poor) defense of their investment.

This point can be exemplified by the competition between Whatsapp and other messaging applications. I remember that years ago, when only text messages could be sent through Whatsapp, other apps also offered voice messages and even video calls. But, as they say, the first to strike gets twice the reward. The market, which as I mentioned earlier is constantly communicating, could have also punished Whatsapp if it hadn't advanced, and that's why the company improved its service. In fact, recently, the doubts regarding the privacy that Whatsapp offered were capitalized by other companies in the sector, 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 talking nor will it ever. Whatsapp decided to take action, improved its service first, and then provided explanations to try to clarify the issue with privacy. BTC developers do the exact opposite: they proudly continue on the same path, 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 though they want to silence it.