in Dallas, TX in July I was curious as to what the kerfuffle was about. In addition to Daniel co-founding the SNI in 2013 and providing much of its original content, Daniel has:

in Dallas, TX in July I was curious as to what the kerfuffle was about. In addition to Daniel co-founding the SNI in 2013 and providing much of its original content, Daniel has:

When it became public a few days ago that one of the co-founders of the

When it became public a few days ago that one of the co-founders of the

Daniel's experience is one that many (if not most) early public bitcoin developers, adopters and promoters can and have told. Great excitement and success in growing and educating the rest of us as to what

Daniel's experience is one that many (if not most) early public bitcoin developers, adopters and promoters can and have told. Great excitement and success in growing and educating the rest of us as to what

Roger Ver - CEO of Bitcoin.com and the first investor in bitcoin and arguably bitcoin's biggest proponent since 2011. Some of his story

Roger Ver - CEO of Bitcoin.com and the first investor in bitcoin and arguably bitcoin's biggest proponent since 2011. Some of his story

), but there is much more as well that many have discussed elsewhere.

), but there is much more as well that many have discussed elsewhere.

to their view of bitcoin. Much of this has had it roots in the scaling debate (Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase discusses

to their view of bitcoin. Much of this has had it roots in the scaling debate (Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase discusses

We created the website in 2013 for two reasons. We thought that at the time there was a movement in bitcoin to forget Satoshi Nakamoto because he was too controversial and that people wouldn't accept bitcoin, [it] looked too anarchist. We also wanted to bring in ideas from Austrian economics, which we thought were lacking in the bitcoin community.

We created the website in 2013 for two reasons. We thought that at the time there was a movement in bitcoin to forget Satoshi Nakamoto because he was too controversial and that people wouldn't accept bitcoin, [it] looked too anarchist. We also wanted to bring in ideas from Austrian economics, which we thought were lacking in the bitcoin community.

" We created the website in 2013 for two reasons. We thought that at the time there was a movement in bitcoin to forget Satoshi Nakamoto because he was too controversial and that people wouldn't accept bitcoin, [it] looked too anarchist. We also wanted to bring in ideas from Austrian economics, which we thought were lacking in the bitcoin community. "

Daniel was spot on in his thoughts then and this has only become vastly more of an issue since that prophetic thought 5-years ago!

Daniel was spot on in his thoughts then and this has only become vastly more of an issue since that prophetic thought 5-years ago!

Daniel was spot on in his thoughts then and this has only become vastly more of an issue since that prophetic thought 5-years ago!

Many have used (including myself) the SNI site as a go-to reference for Satoshi's original writings, emails and more as well as lots of original content created by Daniel and others such as

Many have used (including myself) the SNI site as a go-to reference for Satoshi's original writings, emails and more as well as lots of original content created by Daniel and others such as

. This may seem like a very obvious conclusion given how many words I took to arrive at it, but it has some funny implications that are hard for a lot of people in Bitcoin to accept because they have money riding on a presumption that the opposite is true.

. This may seem like a very obvious conclusion given how many words I took to arrive at it, but it has some funny implications that are hard for a lot of people in Bitcoin to accept because they have money riding on a presumption that the opposite is true.

" In short, money becomes more useful the more people use it . This may seem like a very obvious conclusion given how many words I took to arrive at it, but it has some funny implications that are hard for a lot of people in Bitcoin to accept because they have money riding on a presumption that the opposite is true. "

Some [of my articles] have been removed though; I'm not sure how many.

Some [of my articles] have been removed though; I'm not sure how many.

" Some [of my articles] have been removed though; I'm not sure how many. "

" A fork should not be something for an investor to get worked up about. An investor is automatically diversified on both chains. There is conflict, but it does not need to be his conflict. Eventually one chain will dominate. As long as he takes no action, he doesn’t have to worry which it will be. He can let them fight until one of them kills the other, knowing that he will always have the same fraction of the total. "

" Whichever Wins is the True Bitcoin "

" It is just like Darwinian evolution. I don’t know for certain who has the better rules, but they will fight it out until one is victorious. If you choose sides, you enter the Darwinian conflict. You are red in tooth and claw. On the other hand, if you do not choose sides, then both sides fight for your glory. You can watch the superior Bitcoin emerge, which will be your gain at no additional risk. Whoever loses, you win. That is exciting! That should make investors feel bloodlust! "

" During this conflict, an investor will be tempted to buy one or the other by people who don’t have his incentives as he does. If you believe that you must take sides to save Bitcoin, then you have been duped. You should leave your position of safety only to the extent that you can protect your immortality. On the other hand, the esteemed position which the core dev team currently enjoys is not safe in the event of a fork. The core dev team is not safe. They can fade away while the investors stay strong. Investors should not be swayed by pleas from the core devs to give them loyalty. That’s not in the investors’ interest. I will enjoy watching them win and I will enjoy watching them be defeated. "

" Bitcoin can be developed in two ways: by a rational plan or a Darwinian struggle. Either way is fine by me, as long as the process is responsive to the investors. A single development team can build according to a rational plan as long as they learn to build what will please the investors the most. If they can do this, then they will defeat any contenders easily. However, if they anger enough investors, they invite challengers. A team which maintains its position must be subservient to the investors to do so. If a dev team behaves well, then they get to keep their position. Otherwise, they should be made to fight. If they lose, then effectively they are fired. I think that is fair. If I am not presented with rational decisions, I subject the dev team to Darwinian forces ."

" That is the future I want for bitcoin. In order to achieve it, investors must be willing to become angry when they do not feel in control, and rational when they are. This is behaviorism. The investors must punish when they are disobeyed and reward when they are obeyed. If it is known that there will be conflict whenever the investors are not appeased and cooperation when they are, then no one will want to displease them ."

" The scaling debate is by far the most tedious period of time that Bitcoin has ever had since I became involved. Investors should not have to deal with this kind of headache. The debate was not rational. The conflict between Core and Cash is not only about the block size, but about a completely different team of developers, and about a conflicting vision of what Bitcoin is supposed to be. "