This is one of the clearest explanations of the current structural problem in Bitcoin. Jimmy is absolutely right about these things: The conflict isn’t personal, it’s structural Monopoly creates bad incentives Two implementations create tribalism And yes—goals are unclear But here’s the gap. The proposed solution is: 👉 More implementations 👉 Let the market decide But what exactly is the market deciding? Because as Jimmy himself points out: “Goals are generally unclear.” So now we have: multiple implementations different goals different policies different visions of Bitcoin That doesn’t resolve the problem. It multiplies it. Users choosing software doesn’t finalize Bitcoin. It expresses preference between interpretations. So instead of: 👉 one Bitcoin We get: 👉 multiple believable Bitcoins That’s not consensus. That’s a market discovering disagreement. And that’s why the conflict feels political. Because without a shared definition: every implementation claims legitimacy and every other implementation disputes it This isn’t a failure of Jimmy’s logic. It’s where the problem goes deeper than structure. Before the market can decide… Bitcoin has to be defined. That’s the missing step. @jimmysong @Excellion @LawrenceLepard @giacomozucco @Handre @AaronSepulvedaC @NickSzabo4 https://t.co/VVKDiYDxBB