WHAT WE’RE READING: Blockspace Media

A recent Blockspace article deeply resonated with me as someone who’s lived in Asia and the West. It examined how Asia-based Bitcoiners are mostly profit maximalists, not philosophically driven Bitcoin maxis.

This rang true from my experience. When I meet Asian Bitcoiners, money and profit seem to be the primary motivators. Contrast that to Westerners, who often cite the cypherpunk, privacy, and political ideals behind Bitcoin.

Of course, this is a broad generalization. Many exceptions exist across both continents, but the general lens is that each side’s views on Bitcoin differ substantially.

Cultural and economic differences likely drive this divide. Western Bitcoiners are often born into prosperity with strong infrastructure. Money itself doesn’t captivate them, as it’s abundantly available. Thus, they have the luxury of prioritizing loftier Bitcoin goals like privacy, censorship resistance, and decentralization.

Meanwhile, many Asian Bitcoiners grew up poor, struggling for money amidst crumbling infrastructure. When they discover Bitcoin, it understandably represents financial opportunity above all else. After lacking money their whole lives, profits take precedence over philosophical concerns.

A prime example is the common maxi argument against altcoins – that they lose value against Bitcoin over time. This philosophical stance falls flat in Asia where people judge investments based on empirical results measured in fiat gains. If an altcoin generates a 20x fiat return, Asians won’t care that it dropped 98% against Bitcoin. Their profit-centric framework renders certain Western philosophical arguments ineffective.

You can see the results where Bitcoin maximalism thrives – predominantly in the West. Asia has practically no maxis comparatively. Again, incentives align. When your sole goal is profit maximization, altcoins and tokens become fair game.

That’s why we are seeing more Bitcoin season 2 projects emerging from Asia, which will continue to be the case.

This isn’t to say one mindset is superior. Both are integral to Bitcoin’s success. Asian business drive adoption at all costs, and provide the capitalist engine. Western idealism keeps the protocol ethos on track. Together they produce the checks and balances Bitcoin needs to thrive.

Observing Asia’s profit-first mentality versus the West’s ideological leanings provides insight into Bitcoin’s cultural landscape. Neither outlook is right or wrong per se. By understanding both mentalities, Bitcoin can synthesize the best of both worlds.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

The smell of fall in the air, this weekend I indulged in apple delicacies, watched the changing leaves, and oh yeah, traveled to make sure my Bitcoin custody is up to date…

If you follow me on X, you know that I hold Bitcoin with Casa, a multisig security provider, and that I use the service to manage a few different multisig vaults for various purposes.

This requires keeping a number of keys and wallets up to date, and since I don’t keep any key materials at home, it requires some degree of routine and dedication. 

I’ve self-custodied my Bitcoin since 2020, and I’ve built up some good habits along the way. That said, something that always strikes me is just how much more nerve-wracking it is than trusted set-ups.

One thing that always gives me pause: the firmware update.

As I’ve written before, I’m not super technical. My specialty in Bitcoin is history, and while, sure that necessitates that I know about network theory and architecture, there is something about watching digital gears and a loading bar that just makes me super uncomfortable.

I say this all because it’s a less-known issue with the Bitcoin hardware wallets most use to self-custody. These devices, termed “signing devices” by Coldcard creator NVK, do just that, they manage your key material, and they sign on your behalf when making a transaction.

But, being live digital devices, they’re not infallible. They require some upkeep. All you need to do is to scroll past a few updates of people losing Bitcoin on firmware updates to know the drawbacks

It’s a common problem, and the culprit is always a corrupt hardware device (and a lost back-up). Add that multisig vaults, which require a combination of keys to sign a transaction, aren’t yet the norm, and the number of lost Bitcoin just seems to always be up and to the right.

The most common issue – the user doesn’t update their firmware often, waits, and later borks their device, thereafter finding they’ve also misplaced their seed phrase. 

Here’s Andreas explaining firmware updates in more detail, though he doesn’t actually update his firmware, he just manages his seed phrase.

Suffice to say, it’s an example of why the world of self-custody, however improved it is, still makes me uneasy. In my case, I updated my wallets without much of an issue. Only one of the wallets even needed a firmware update, and it was simple. (Taking all of a few minutes to prove my coins are safe).

That said, I had to make sure to check my other keys beforehand, and that I had a plurality of the multi-sig keys needed in a worst-case scenario, as well as my seed backups.

This is what makes Bitcoin custody such a high-octane process: you can never be too careful. When you’re your own bank, there’s always a chance that something might go wrong.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

As a longtime Bitcoiner, I had to roll my eyes when I saw HBO release a trailer for an upcoming documentary, teasing to reveal Satoshi’s identity. Speculation arose that it would reveal who is Satoshi Nakamoto. After seeing many half-baked attempts to “unmask” Satoshi over the years, I’m certain this latest one won’t provide definitive proof either.

If you’ve been in Bitcoin long enough, you know the drill — someone claims they know or are Satoshi, theories start swirling, but no convincing evidence ever materializes. Inevitably it ends with embarrassment for the accuser. We’ve been through this rodeo too many times now.

With Bitcoin becoming a $1.2 trillion asset class, the allure of outing Satoshi is understandable. His stash alone is supposedly 1.1 million BTC, worth over $65 billion currently. 

The usual suspects like Adam Back, Hal Finney or Nick Szabo will likely be resurrected as prime candidates. And the accused will again firmly deny the allegations. Our favorite Bitcoin historian, Pete Rizzo, already made $200 bets with Shinobi, Nikolaus, Frank, and I that Back ends up named and denies it.

Yet ideally, Satoshi should remain anonymous as he clearly desired. Bitcoin succeeds on the merits of its decentralized design, not based on any single personality. Unmasking Satoshi risks undermining Bitcoin’s mystique and independence.

As Bitcoin grows into a global asset, the stakes around identifying its creator rise exponentially. The richest person on earth makes for an attractive bounty. But true proof remains elusive.

These periodic media frenzies claiming to crack the case produce great hype yet always disappoint. They act as amateur sleuths following flawed hunches rather than impartial investigations seeking truth.

So I advise fellow Bitcoiners to take next week’s “big reveal” with a huge grain of salt. It will likely be more sensationalism than substance, repeating familiar theories that fall short of definitive evidence. 

The only person who can conclusively prove they are Satoshi is Satoshi himself. Until then, the mystery continues – as it should.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.