Bitcoin was forged to be unstoppable in a hostile environment, but letâs be perfectly clear: surviving and thriving are two different things. Just because Bitcoin can withstand severe political antagonism doesnât mean we should want that antagonism, nor does it mean we shouldnât do everything possible to foster a favorable environment that accelerates adoption. Believing otherwise is a misreading of the core ethos. The brilliance of Bitcoin is that it remains permissionless and decentralized no matter who fights itâbut that doesnât preclude us from working to ensure we have the most beneficial conditions for its long-term success.
In fact, public policy responses to regulatory and legislative inquiries have consistently reaffirmed these basics: Bitcoinâs strength is open-source software, self-custody, and a wide distribution of mining and node operators. In other words, itâs not about selling out. Itâs about ensuring our governments understand the benefits of Bitcoinâs open design.
Thereâs a difference between âBitcoin was built for a hostile environmentâ and âwe should want a hostile environment.â Having an adversary-resistant architecture doesnât demand that we sit back and ignore opportunities to reduce friction, whether in energy policy or everyday user experience. Yes, Bitcoin can and will survive if politicians and regulators turn hostile. But itâs short-sighted to treat hostility as a virtue.
Hostility might slow adoption, push development offshore, or scare away everyday users who arenât ready for that level of conflict. Meanwhile, measured engagement with policymakers can prevent draconian bans, shape balanced regulation, and offer legitimate pathways for institutional capital to flow inâall of which can speed up global usage of Bitcoin. Itâs not a betrayal of Satoshiâs vision to say, âWeâd like Bitcoin to flourish under transparent, fair laws.â We want people to choose Bitcoin, not be forced into it by some catastrophic breakdown of the legacy system.
There is nothing âun-Bitcoinâ about encouraging legislation that protects individualsâ rights to use and hold their own BTC, or that supports open-source development. We should be unapologetically active in these political arenas, because ignoring them wonât make them go away. It would only allow othersâperhaps with very different agendasâto set the rules in ways that hamper privacy, hamper self-custody, or hamper innovation.
The key is remaining vigilant against compromises that undermine the protocolâs integrity. Building relationships with politicians or regulators doesnât mean weâre begging for favorable carve-outs at the expense of censorship resistance. It simply means weâre making our voices heard. If we see demands for forcing protocol-level changes that are hostile to users, thatâs where we must stand firm and say âNoâ for both practical and ideological reasons. But proactively sharing how Bitcoin mining can stabilize energy grids or how Lightning Network can provide near-instant payments is not a concession of Bitcoinâs ethos. Itâs part of a rational strategy to help the public and policymakers understand the real value behind Bitcoinâs existence.
Misguided concerns about large mining operations kowtowing to regulatory pressure are not new. The reality is, Bitcoinâs design remains adversary-resistant: anyone can mine if they have the hardware and energy, and anyone can run a full node to enforce the rules, ensuring that no single miner can change the protocol. If some mining pools bend to censorship demands, other pools are attracted by fees to include those transactions. Thatâs exactly how Bitcoin is designed: routing around censorship with an anti-fragile, decentralized architecture.
Ironically, positive regulatory engagement can reduce centralization risks if it opens more states, countries, and smaller energy providers to hosting mining facilities. Diversity of geography and jurisdiction means no single entity or government can easily impose sweeping rules on the entire network. Again, âhostile environment survivalâ doesnât mean turning away from pragmatic solutions that help decentralize hashrate.
It is true that privacy, scalability, and accessibility remain pressing challenges. This isnât an either/or proposition: we can both engage with regulators to stave off ill-informed policy and focus on advancing privacy-preserving features and scaling solutions. The key is not to let the everyday politics overshadow the work that needs to be done on second-layer technologies like the Lightning Network or more user-friendly privacy solutions.
Developers are actively tackling these issues, from better cryptography to more intuitive Lightning wallets. We should be championingâpublicly and politicallyâinitiatives that keep self-custody at the forefront and keep third-party custodians optional. Spreading knowledge of ânot your keys, not your coinsâ at the legislative level isnât selling out; itâs ensuring that more people (including politicians) actually grasp the fundamental reasons Bitcoin matters.
Itâs easy to look at the ecosystemâfull of corporate players, lobbying efforts, and social media theatricsâand think it has lost its soul. But Bitcoin has always been full of diverse voices, many of which care about short-term profit. That was true in 2011, it was true during the block-size wars, and itâs true now. It hasnât destroyed Bitcoin. The networkâs fundamental robustness ensures that, if you want to hold your own keys and validate your own transactions, nobody can stop you.
The central promise of Bitcoin hasnât evaporated, and participating in policy doesnât have to mean capitulation. Itâs simply another stage in Bitcoinâs evolution, one where we actively shape a better environment for the technology and the people who benefit from it. We should embrace that fight wholeheartedly, defend Bitcoinâs fundamentals, and keep building toward a future where censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer digital money is the global normânot just a contingency plan for hostile conditions.
This is a guest post by Pierre Rochard. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Full story here:
In fact, public policy responses to regulatory and legislative inquiries have consistently reaffirmed these basics: Bitcoinâs strength is open-source software, self-custody, and a wide distribution of mining and node operators. In other words, itâs not about selling out. Itâs about ensuring our governments understand the benefits of Bitcoinâs open design.
Thereâs a difference between âBitcoin was built for a hostile environmentâ and âwe should want a hostile environment.â Having an adversary-resistant architecture doesnât demand that we sit back and ignore opportunities to reduce friction, whether in energy policy or everyday user experience. Yes, Bitcoin can and will survive if politicians and regulators turn hostile. But itâs short-sighted to treat hostility as a virtue.
Hostility might slow adoption, push development offshore, or scare away everyday users who arenât ready for that level of conflict. Meanwhile, measured engagement with policymakers can prevent draconian bans, shape balanced regulation, and offer legitimate pathways for institutional capital to flow inâall of which can speed up global usage of Bitcoin. Itâs not a betrayal of Satoshiâs vision to say, âWeâd like Bitcoin to flourish under transparent, fair laws.â We want people to choose Bitcoin, not be forced into it by some catastrophic breakdown of the legacy system.
There is nothing âun-Bitcoinâ about encouraging legislation that protects individualsâ rights to use and hold their own BTC, or that supports open-source development. We should be unapologetically active in these political arenas, because ignoring them wonât make them go away. It would only allow othersâperhaps with very different agendasâto set the rules in ways that hamper privacy, hamper self-custody, or hamper innovation.
The key is remaining vigilant against compromises that undermine the protocolâs integrity. Building relationships with politicians or regulators doesnât mean weâre begging for favorable carve-outs at the expense of censorship resistance. It simply means weâre making our voices heard. If we see demands for forcing protocol-level changes that are hostile to users, thatâs where we must stand firm and say âNoâ for both practical and ideological reasons. But proactively sharing how Bitcoin mining can stabilize energy grids or how Lightning Network can provide near-instant payments is not a concession of Bitcoinâs ethos. Itâs part of a rational strategy to help the public and policymakers understand the real value behind Bitcoinâs existence.
Misguided concerns about large mining operations kowtowing to regulatory pressure are not new. The reality is, Bitcoinâs design remains adversary-resistant: anyone can mine if they have the hardware and energy, and anyone can run a full node to enforce the rules, ensuring that no single miner can change the protocol. If some mining pools bend to censorship demands, other pools are attracted by fees to include those transactions. Thatâs exactly how Bitcoin is designed: routing around censorship with an anti-fragile, decentralized architecture.
Ironically, positive regulatory engagement can reduce centralization risks if it opens more states, countries, and smaller energy providers to hosting mining facilities. Diversity of geography and jurisdiction means no single entity or government can easily impose sweeping rules on the entire network. Again, âhostile environment survivalâ doesnât mean turning away from pragmatic solutions that help decentralize hashrate.
It is true that privacy, scalability, and accessibility remain pressing challenges. This isnât an either/or proposition: we can both engage with regulators to stave off ill-informed policy and focus on advancing privacy-preserving features and scaling solutions. The key is not to let the everyday politics overshadow the work that needs to be done on second-layer technologies like the Lightning Network or more user-friendly privacy solutions.
Developers are actively tackling these issues, from better cryptography to more intuitive Lightning wallets. We should be championingâpublicly and politicallyâinitiatives that keep self-custody at the forefront and keep third-party custodians optional. Spreading knowledge of ânot your keys, not your coinsâ at the legislative level isnât selling out; itâs ensuring that more people (including politicians) actually grasp the fundamental reasons Bitcoin matters.
Itâs easy to look at the ecosystemâfull of corporate players, lobbying efforts, and social media theatricsâand think it has lost its soul. But Bitcoin has always been full of diverse voices, many of which care about short-term profit. That was true in 2011, it was true during the block-size wars, and itâs true now. It hasnât destroyed Bitcoin. The networkâs fundamental robustness ensures that, if you want to hold your own keys and validate your own transactions, nobody can stop you.
The central promise of Bitcoin hasnât evaporated, and participating in policy doesnât have to mean capitulation. Itâs simply another stage in Bitcoinâs evolution, one where we actively shape a better environment for the technology and the people who benefit from it. We should embrace that fight wholeheartedly, defend Bitcoinâs fundamentals, and keep building toward a future where censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer digital money is the global normânot just a contingency plan for hostile conditions.
This is a guest post by Pierre Rochard. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Full story here:
![[DK]](/data/avatars/s/57/57999.jpg?1720990206){kind=avatar}
