I've noticed from comments on my post and another day in the world of CT (Crypto Twitter), the crypto world is still a bit concerned about that N. American Miner's Council worked up by Saylor's meeting with Elon Musk.

I think the response to Saylor's idea is just as important as anything that might actually come from the organization of the miners present. When we think of decentralization, we think of the necessity that a technology meant to place the power of money in the hands of people, removing it from the manipulations of the traditional greedy fiat sector, be at the control of those who's philosophies align in the form, function, design and implementation of a better money system.

Bitcoin was designed to be better money. It was designed to be resistant to tyranny. There are a lot of ideals that we have placed on top, and Satoshi made this clear, that certain things about Bitcoin would be idealized above its primary design. First, it had to resolve double-spend, it had to keep things private that need to be private, and keep a ledger in-chain, in sequence, in the hands of every single person who wants to run a node, and especially person who wants to be eligible to snag a reward for transacting.

We have come to hold decentralization up on a pedestal, sometimes not fully certain how it is being defined. I think for some, and perhaps just in certain cases, decentralization means simply not in the hands of a few tyrants, not led by oligarchs, certainly not central banks, and not a single global governance. But consider, if many people believe that Bitcoin will be the one global currency, can they imagine this truly happening while the current mast of governments exist? Look at how much they constantly talk of regulation, KYC/AML. Bitcoin, and whatever alts continue to ripen in these early years, are not going to simply peacefully reside under the surface of whatever else is happening in the world. If 'it' is out there, and being manipulated by all sides of political aisles, trust me crypto will be used in the same ways.

We are going to hear, pardon me, SO much crap about how money has to be socially just, how it has to be "fair", how it has to be friendly to the environment, how it has to be accessible, how it is a basic human right, how it shouldn't be hoarded, how speculative markets are just about greed etc. Are certain coins more racist than others? Who are the founders? Are they a proper blend of genders and ethnic make-up?

You may take the paragraph above and think every item on the list should be a requirement. I personally believe there is a vast difference between decentralization and equity, but both of them are the most pure, in their truest form, when they occur naturally as a result of use and merit. If a coin is truly good in the ways it is designed to be good, it will find its way to the purposes for which it is designed. If a coin is truly good for poverty, it will find its use for the poor without the need to be advertised as such. If a project is made by brilliant minds and benefits from having a wide network of people contributing to debugs, hacks, git and bit, we will find more often than not, there isn't a single person in the the vast community who cares whether one guy's a jew and whether there are exactly the right percentage of dames and rainbow-clad identifiers.

Likewise, if you find these comments offensive, you may not be noticing the fact that the true lack of bias, is when people gather because they care about the true intention of a project. I have a very strong feeling that the coalition is amazingly, resoundingly, pleasantly inclusive and diverse, and the mere fact that a project like Bitcoin relies on energy, means that mining Bitcoin is going to rely on clever operations that manage energy well, and get it cheap, fast, and efficiently.

So, when people stress over the idea of a mining council, I get it. I think people are concerned for the right reasons. They don't want to see this welcome in a barrage of regulation. They don't want the mere idea or identification of a council to start making 'official' things out of something that thrives on de-organization by humans, from humans. I see this response as very positive. The fact that people want to see the vision work in its own design, meaning that we are removing central control and decision making out of the hands of individuals, and placing it in the hands of code spread across a ton of computers. Again, I believe firmly that the intention of forming the council is for the right intentions. It is a defense of Bitcoin and its network from outside manipulations in the press and government who want to turn the argument of PoW into a green energy issue. I don't personally believe the Pope owns Bitcoin, but if he does, I don't care, and don't expect him to have good intentions with it. I have yet to hear something truly Christian or benevolent about his position on money and freedom through the goodness of sound financial systems. But, that's just me.

I do not trust councils. I do not trust coordinated efforts. I do not blindly trust the intentions of man. I do not trust collaborations or coalitions. Having said that, there isn't a whole lot anyone can do without them to some degree. The best thing that can happen for Bitcoin is for more retail investors to take charge of their decisions to find a way to invest and remain steady to DCA when they can. We want a strong, and growing industry in Bitcoin mining. We want friendly states and friendly countries to spread the control of the network by fewer and fewer operations connected with China. Really and truly, we want independent hardware manufacturers capable of making semiconductors and ASIC's.

Gordon really doesn't care what side you choose regarding climate change. He's done a mountain of research on the topic and has fewer opinions than facts, but the facts alone speak that there are more concerns about how the topic can be used to squeeze money and control, power and manipulation towards the top tiers of tyranny, than there are concerns about the actual environment. The greater issue is, that Bitcoin has done just find for the past 11+ years growing into exactly what it was designed to do. Still enough power for humans? Yep.

So, that council thing; Saylor pretty much stated that his intention was what I was guessing, that he did not wish for the debate about Bitcoin's energy use to be left to the opposition to control the message, when that position is largely biased and inaccurate. Better have the actual operations involved, who have the most at stake, weigh in on what it is they are actually doing. If this blooms into something worse, something that impacts the Bitcoin network, it will certainly be at the opposite of intentions, since people like Saylor have the most to lose by harming what Bitcoin represents.

At the end of the day, humans are flawed, which is a good reason to leave the majority of the Bitcoin network alone to process data and spit out proper results. When we get further down the road we will face the challenges that come with self-learning software, updates to the Bitcoin code, quantum computing, government alliances and their initiatives, and the incoming manipulations we have yet to see unveiled.

For now, let's not assume that more is coming from the mere impact of the word "council" and instead give the benefit of the doubt, that it was in fact formed out of a meeting that we were all told about, and consists of the people who have the most to gain from keeping it real with Bitcoin.

If it does have the adverse result to call for even more attention to the issue of energy efficiency, then hopefully we won't find hubris shortening the cycle of freedom all of this is designed to offer.

For now, I am at least comforted by the fact that so many people care about the decentralization of the network and its ideals. The more people who understand the importance of something like Bitcoin to remain unbiased in issues outside of its resilient design, the more confidence I have that people truly understand how important this time is for the history of freedom for man.

And on that note, for now, crypto Gordon Freeman... out.