The Enemy is Outside the Gates
A week in review from the Editor
You’re standing on the city walls,
torchlight flickering across the weathered stone, and an argument breaks out amongst the guards. One insists the castle wall should be painted blue for better morale; another argues it should remain gray for historical accuracy when King Alphonse was in power. Meanwhile, outside the gates, a siege engine rolls ever closer.
The noise of debate drowns out the low rumble of threat.
That, in short, is us right now.
For months, the conversation across the digital realm: Twitter, Telegram, conferences, even within developer circles, has turned inward and bitter. People are fighting over node versions, debating the moral status of JPEG inscriptions, and accusing one another of betraying “the mission.” But, the biggest enemy isn’t inside the gates. It’s not the dev who disagrees with you on Ordinals, or the ETF analyst who doesn’t know what a UTXO is. The enemy is out there, advancing steadily while we waste precious energy on the wrong battlefield.
Developers are being charged and imprisoned for conspiracy, in reality, for writing code. Governments are tightening surveillance on digital transactions. Financial institutions are quietly redefining “ownership” by offering paper claims on Bitcoin that never leave their custody.
That’s where the battle is—over whether freedom technology remains free, whether the next generation inherits a truly open protocol or a neutered version blessed by bureaucrats (elected or not).
“The price of freedom,” Dwight D. Eisenhower once said (maybe Thomas Jefferson?), “is eternal vigilance.” He wasn’t talking about GitHub pull requests, but the spirit applies.
The defense of freedom technologies doesn’t depend on unanimity about every line of code; it depends on vigilance against capture. The more we fight each other, the less we’re watching the perimeter.
There’s a kind of intellectual atrophy setting in.
Instead of onboarding new users, teaching self-custody, or building censorship-resistant tools, many are sinking into endless debates that mean nothing to the average person who just wants to understand why Bitcoin matters.
The irony is painful: while some are arguing over image formats on-chain, new holders, millions of them through ETFs, have no idea what Bitcoin even is. They think they own it, when in truth they hold a ‘promise’ from BlackRock.
It undermines the ethos when a new buyer treats their Bitcoin the same way they treat a stock pick.
That’s where the energy should be going: education, tools, decentralization, sovereignty. Making sure that the next person who buys Bitcoin learns to withdraw it, hold their own keys, and understand what “don’t trust, verify” actually means.
If Bitcoin is a living organism, these are its vital signs.
The eternal debate over consensus and policy rules are akin to arguing about muscle definition while the body starves.
Not everyone needs to be a core developer, and that’s okay. We need communicators, educators, builders, miners, artists, even critics, so long as they push toward resilience and freedom. The strength of Bitcoin has always come from the diversity of its defenders, not the uniformity of their opinions. The protocol doesn’t require consensus on culture.
When you get out of the Bitcoin industry bubble, the absurdity becomes clear: while politicians vilify privacy, and central banks quietly test digital currencies that can track every purchase, we’re yelling at each other about inscriptions.
The enemies of freedom technology are well organized, well funded, and patient. They don’t need to attack the code directly; they just need us distracted, divided, and disillusioned.
The moment we forget that freedom is the point, they’ve already won.