It seems entirely accurate to me, at least in a POSIWID sense.
The original theory of Bitcoin was, as described in the paper, decentralized digital cash. But in practice it was never optimized for what normal people use cash for. As system like that would be something like M-PESA.
Even at the time, cash was declining in usage. In the 18 years since, it has declined a lot more. And for good reason, because what most people want for most things isn't digital cash, but digital money. E.g., debit cards and Venmo.
So pretty naturally Bitcoin has value only for a few niche use cases that are not well served by more effective systems. Various sorts of crime, mostly. Digital cash, sure, but the kind that's transferred in unmarked envelopes slid quietly across the table. The kind that is delivered in a briefcase.
As a side note, it also failed in its goal of being decentralized. The mining power is very concentrated. Much more so than the banking industry, for example. And most users keep their Bitcoin on deposit in centralized services. So it's again basically banking but worse.
Although it was originally intended to be cash it actually now is used as a "store of wealth" It allows people to build up wealth and be able to preserve it from government intervention and inflation. If you have stocks the ownerhsip and registration is controlled by a government and can be taken at any time from you.
Look at china where if you have a large company and take a stand against the government all your equity will be wiped out and you will be either imprisoned or banished to another country.
Cash in a government bank account is the same way, you can wake up one day and all your assets will be seized, your credit cards will stop working.
Bitcoin works because you can technically have your wealth memorized. You can memorize a string of charcters that allow you to bring money with you no matter where you go. NO government or other human can steal it from you (except through torture) but you can also easily not memorize it and instead distribute the keys throughout the world in opposing countries meaning even if you are attacked by one country you still have some wealth kept in another.
A store of wealth is what bitcion allows. True freedom from governments stealing your money because you have ideas which they do not agree with.
This in my mind is the main usage of bitcoin.
Other coins like stablecoins, or the btc lightning network have high value because they make transactions much cheaper as traditional banking systems are complex, error prone, and costly.
This is not a common man's dream, but one of privilege and wealthy background. The oppressed masses don't need Bitcoin, they have no wealth to "memorize" and jetset around the world.
It's precisely the opposite actually; If you're wealthy you can switch citizenships, hide your assets in tax havens, and afford property and other assets to store your wealth. For the debanked, or those living in unstable or authoritarian countries it gives them a more stable way to store and transact, especially with massive inflation.
Pretty much everyone I know who talks shit about bitcoin is wealthy and privileged.
Look back in history and there have been many cases of poor people being pushed out of their homes, stripped of their valuable goods and forced to relocate, in that case it would apply to those who were not wealthy.
> Although it was originally intended to be cash it actually now is used as a "store of wealth"
For some definition of "actually", given how much it has dropped recently. When he was still a just a candidate, the current Opposition leader in Canada was very excited about Bitcoin:
> As Poilievre campaigned for the Tory leadership on the way to a landslide victory, he spoke positively about decentralized finance and cryptocurrency. At one point, he argued that crypto would allow Canadians to "opt-out" of inflation, which was soaring at the time. And he famously used Bitcoin to purchase a shawarma at a London, Ont., restaurant in March 2022.
> In 2022, when Pierre Poilievre was a Conservative leadership candidate, he said he’d make Canada the crypto capital of the world. According to him, the Bank of Canada was “ruining” the Canadian dollar, printing money and ramping up inflation to fund COVID-19 relief. His solution? Give Canadians crypto as an alternative currency.
Given the noise that was made about inflation at the time and the (alleged) devaluation of the CAD, I'm curious to know what the inflation rate equivalent would be now (Feb 2026) if Bitcoin is used as the monetary base.
As a former Wikipedia admin, I think the best way to think of it as a massive text-focused battle MMORPG that happens to produce an encyclopedia as a side effect.
Every community is the sum of its members. Each person who joins changes it, at least a bit. And each of those members is changing and growing.
When community members have different needs, forking should be a last resort. It's expensive, and it's wasteful unless two different groups have irreconcilable needs. It should only ever be suggested as a last resort, after other options have been exhausted.
However, it's often used as a first resort to shut down criticism and to protect existing power structures. The person who speaks up is, as here, treated as an outsider and an exploiter.
I rarely see good faith engagements being immediately shut down with "just fork it" (you'd never accept issues / MRs!). Instead it's usually used as a last resort when the "exploiter" doesn't get their way and starts whining about it.
If a change is proposed that's completely counter to a community's stated values, then I guess "fork it" is a more appropriate immediate response, because it's hard to see how such a clash could be resolved without fundamental change.
Edit
> Every community is the sum of its members
A community is much more than the sum of it's members.
> Instead it's usually used as a last resort when the "exploiter" doesn't get their way
I am not saying the phrase can't be used legitimately. Like the article's author, I just think it's often used in a way that isn't. Perhaps we're sampling from different areas of open-source culture, but when I think specifically of HN, I think just-fork-it style responses of the kind that the author is criticizing are common.
> A community is much more than the sum of it's members.
Sure, I agree with that. But you write it as if it's in contradiction with my point, which I'm not seeing.
> But you write it as if it's in contradiction with my point, which I'm not seeing.
My point was that a community is members + values + practices + other stuff. In the case where one member who wants to upend the values and practices of an existing community, "just fork it" is an entirely reasonable response.
I imagine with coding agents, maintaining private forks (reapplying patches on upgrade) will be a lot easier. Though, a plugin architecture would be better, where feasible.
If there there's a big enough community swapping patches that upstream isn't accepting for some reason, that's when a public fork becomes reasonable. (This is the Apache web server's origin story.)
Ooh, this is gold: "The slogan pretends to be anti-authority, but in practice it is used to protect informal power."
Spot on. I almost never see "just fork it" brought up in a context that acknowledges what that would actually take. It mostly shows up as a way of shutting down discussion, and often has a flavor of victim-blaming to me.
I agree it’s often used to shut down discussion, but most often I’ve seen it when a contributor is losing an argument (their PR isn’t getting merged, or their feature request is rejected, or their bug is marked wont-fix) and they don’t agree.
“Victim blaming” is an odd phrase here. Could you clarify what you mean?
As background, when power is misused, you'll often find somebody immediately showing up to explain why it was the fault of the person harmed. In the US, for example, this happens basically any time a cop kills somebody. In analyzing the situation, the agency of the person with power is minimized or ignored; the agency of the person harmed is maximized.
Open-source project are often run as little fiefdoms. Power is concentrated; checks and balances are minimal or nonexistent. Note that I'm not saying that this is bad or good; that's just how it is.
The "just fork it" style of response that the article is addressing, which I don't ever think I've seen in an issue but often see here on HN as a response to some complaint about a project. It's not part of a careful analysis about the costs and benefits of forking. There's also little or no attempt to understand who a project's audience and community is, or the value of the complaint in that context. It's a drive-by response to shut-down a complaint in a way that treats the complain as illegitimate, suggesting that person is wrong for wanting something different from what's on offer.
I still don’t understand how someone who wants something different from what’s on offer is “a victim”.
I do agree that “just fork it” is a flippant and pretty unhelpful thing to say, but just because a piece of software is open source, that doesn’t necessarily automatically mean that its development should follow the designs of a committee of its users.
You are absolutely correct that often, open source projects are indeed run with the maintainers exercising absolute control. I think this is where the tension comes in, because sometimes, folks expect that to be different, and approach the project with a sense of entitlement that somehow the project should change to fit their needs.
“Just fork it” is a way of saying “if you need it to fit your needs, feel free to take what we’ve done so far and add what you need, but we aren’t going to”.
The author’s core argument seems to be summarised here: “In social terms, it’s the equivalent of saying: “If you don’t like society, go start your own civilisation.”
It’s not at all equivalent though. It’s more like “I invited everyone round for dinner, and I don’t want my house to smell of fish, so I’m not cooking fish. If you want to cook fish, you can borrow my pans, but invite everyone round to your house instead.”
> Power is concentrated; checks and balances are minimal or nonexistent.
Is power concentrated? What power do maintainer of FOSS projects have over people who would like to use that project? How can they compel people to do what they want as it relates to the project?
> It's a drive-by response to shut-down a complaint in a way that treats the complain as illegitimate, suggesting that person is wrong for wanting something different from what's on offer.
It can't possibly be suggesting that the person is wrong for wanting something different. The "drive by", "fork it" comment is saying. If you want something different, then make the different thing exist, no one will be able to stop you from making the thing that you want.
Unless you feel that the different thing is the person who is complaining, is entitled to having other people do what the complainer wants, instead of what the maintainer wants?
On the internet; if you wanted to suggest that someone's complaints or suggestions are illegitimate, you wouldn't say "fork it" you would say, "no, that's stupid, you're stupid, how could you suggest such a dumb, stupid, crazy, insane thing?!" surely followed by a series of extra expletives, or angry rage posts.
Or the just fork it comment is from a maintainer. Who has decided that they do not want the suggested changes. In which case, it's still not saying the changes are illegitimate, it's saying that the maintainer objects to them; so they're offering the only remaining solution for the complainer to get the changes they want.
Well, this is explicitly public ridicule. The penalty isn't just feeling shamed. It's reputational harm, immortalized via Google.
One of the theorized reasons for junk AI submissions is reputation boosting. So maybe this will help.
And I think it will help with people who just bought into the AI hype and are proceeding without much thought. Cluelessness can look a lot like shamelessness at first.
No society can function without enforced rules. Most people do the pro-social thing most of the time. But for the rest, society must create negative experiences that help train people to do the right thing.
What negative experience do you think should instead be created for people breaking these rules?
Temporary or permanent social exclusion, and consequently the loss of future cooperative benefits.
A permanent public internet pillory isn’t just useless against the worst offenders, who are shameless anyway. It’s also permanently damaging to those who are still learning societal norms.
The Ghostty AI policy lacks any nuance in this regard. No consideration for the age or experience of the offender. No consideration for how serious the offense actually was.
Drive-by PRs don't come from people interested in participating in the community in question. They have infinite places to juke their stats.
I see plenty of nuance beyond the bold print. They clearly say they love to help junior developers. Your assumption that they will apply this without thought is, well, your assumption. I'd rather see what they actually do instead of getting wrapped up in your fantasies.
Thanks to Social Media bubbles, there's no social exclusion possible anymore. Shameless people just go online find each other and reinforce each others' shamelessness. I bet there's a Facebook group for people who don't return their shopping carts.
I think it's better to say that LLMs only hallucinate. All the text they produce is entirely unverified. Humans are the ones reading the text and constructing meaning.
Setting aside the concerning level of anthropomorphizing, I have questions about this part.
> But we think that the way the new constitution is written—with a thorough explanation of our intentions and the reasons behind them—makes it more likely to cultivate good values during training.
Why do they think that? And how much have they tested those theories? I'd find this much more meaningful with some statistics and some example responses before and after.
And on top of those things, I'd add that good artists use that time to deepen the work and their understanding of the work.
If you're doing, say, factory work, you can just zone out. You do the same thing over and over, and you do it well enough, but your mind is somewhere else.
But somebody who's truly during art is present in the work as they're doing it. They're up to something. I think that's a big part of why the work of serious artists changes over time. It's an exploration.
In contrast, look at some kitch producer like Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light™. He was clearly successful financially. But I'd argue that there is little more to it than "AI" "art".
For me appreciating art always involves reaching for an understanding of the artist and the humanity we share. An Ansel Adams print is lovely, but ultimately I end up thinking not just about the image or the landscape. I think about being in the landscape. About the process of getting that one perfect photo. About what drives a person to seek that and to go to such incredible lengths. About how Adams saw the world.
If I'm going to think hard about some GenAI output, I'm going to appreciate the technology that went into it. But there's no more to think about the prompter than there is about somebody picking out clip art.
The original theory of Bitcoin was, as described in the paper, decentralized digital cash. But in practice it was never optimized for what normal people use cash for. As system like that would be something like M-PESA.
Even at the time, cash was declining in usage. In the 18 years since, it has declined a lot more. And for good reason, because what most people want for most things isn't digital cash, but digital money. E.g., debit cards and Venmo.
So pretty naturally Bitcoin has value only for a few niche use cases that are not well served by more effective systems. Various sorts of crime, mostly. Digital cash, sure, but the kind that's transferred in unmarked envelopes slid quietly across the table. The kind that is delivered in a briefcase.
As a side note, it also failed in its goal of being decentralized. The mining power is very concentrated. Much more so than the banking industry, for example. And most users keep their Bitcoin on deposit in centralized services. So it's again basically banking but worse.
reply