In general we don't like pushing errors to the stop of the stack, preferring to push the gems and roses to the top. However we have had some mileage in this channel by pointing out some of the top errors people make when talking about bitcoin.
So without further ado here are some of the top errors made by bitcoin toxicalists:
1: "Unconfiscatable"
Yeah, you've heard it. There's even a conference by this name. Top pundits (who I have great respect for) have used this word. But is this an accurate word which helps our cause of public coin adoption? Consider e.g. this list of confiscated coins for resale. Coins are regularly confiscated and resold. We could go further here and point out the plethora of thefts and confiscations that were not made by people wearing government hats, but is there any need? Sure, bitcoin can be stored and transported incredibly securely, much more easily than almost any other asset. So maybe we should say that instead, what do you think?
2: "The scarcest asset ever"
Yeah megascarce. Scarcissimo. 最缺。 Except, what does this even mean? Somehow I don't think there's anything about bitcoin that is more scarce than say, the original Mona Lisa by da Vinci. Or maybe even it's not as scarce as 42coin. 1909vdb pennies. Tritium. You know what else is scarce? Humility and introspection amongst some bitcoin toxicalists. Stock to flow models might be useful for comparison, but they don't in any sense I can see justify the phrase "scarcest asset". Correct me if I'm wrong please.
3. "There can only be one".
This is one of the wetware bugs that keeps popping up despite being immediately broken by inspection. There always have been more than one, always will be. Sure, there are a lot of coins out there and it's worth telling people they shouldn't invest in them, but really - there is more than one use case for money. Am I going to fast here? Maybe not every transaction in the world needs to pay high fee to get in small block BTC. Just maybe. Just maybe a strong ecosystem of many public currencies is what we have and what we need. Maybe attacking coins that don't have the biggest market cap on principal represents some subconscious cry or help. Seigniorage in private issuance squanders hundreds of millions of BTC worth of assets per year and we are wasting our time trying to name-call on small public blockchains??
Lets stop there shall we? Thanks for reading!