The Great Digital Asset Schism: A Philosophical Analysis of Bitcoiners and Altcoiners

Image depicting bitcoiners camp and altcoiners camp

I. Summary: The Ideological Divide in Digital Assets

The digital asset market, a rapidly maturing and politically charged ecosystem, is defined by a fundamental ideological schism between two dominant schools of thought: the philosophy of Bitcoin Maximalism and the more heterogeneous philosophy of Altcoin Holders (Altcoiners). This article provides a comprehensive analysis of these competing worldviews, grounded in the public discourse found on platforms like X and other internet publications. The analysis demonstrates that this divide is not merely an investment choice but a profound disagreement on the very purpose, future, and ethical underpinnings of digital money.

The Bitcoin Maximalist, or “Maxi,” philosophy is rooted in an unwavering belief that Bitcoin is the only digital asset with long-term viability. This perspective is a direct intellectual and ideological descendant of the cypherpunk movement, born from a deep distrust of centralized financial and governmental institutions. For maximalists, Bitcoin’s core virtues — unparalleled security, absolute scarcity, and radical decentralisation — are non-negotiable and sufficient for it to become the singular, global “digital gold”. Their investment strategy, encapsulated by the term “HODL,” is an ideological commitment to wealth preservation and an act of faith in Bitcoin’s inevitable success. All other digital assets are viewed with profound skepticism, often dismissed as centralised, insecure, or fraudulent distractions from Bitcoin’s core mission.

In contrast, the Altcoin Holder philosophy is a more diverse and pragmatic collection of beliefs centered on the value of innovation and specific utility. Proponents of this view reject the maximalist thesis of a single-asset future, instead advocating for a vibrant, multi-asset ecosystem where different blockchains and tokens can solve a wider range of technical and real-world problems. This philosophy frames altcoins not as competitors to Bitcoin but as a complementary “innovation engine,” offering advancements in speed, scalability, and functionality through technologies like smart contracts and decentralised applications (dApps). Their investment strategy is based on diversification and a pursuit of asymmetric returns, seeking out new and emerging projects with high growth potential.

The foundational event that solidified this schism was the contentious “Block Size War” of 2017. This technical debate over how to scale Bitcoin’s network created a permanent ideological split, with the victory of the “small blockers” confirming Bitcoin’s path as a secure, decentralised store of value rather than a fast, low-cost payment system. This historical event continues to shape the narratives of both camps. A more recent debate, the Saylor-Buterin clash over institutional custody, reveals a critical, modern schism within the Bitcoin community itself. This conflict exposes a deep divide between “pure” cypherpunks such as Adam Back who champion radical self-sovereignty and “pragmatic” institutionalists who believe Bitcoin’s future lies in its integration with traditional finance. The broader analysis reveals that while Bitcoiners are driven by a singular, anti-establishment ethos, the altcoin community is motivated by a more varied set of goals, from technological progress to portfolio diversification. Ultimately, these competing philosophies define the market’s dynamics, influencing everything from investment patterns to regulatory landscapes.

II. Introduction: The Great Digital Asset Schism

2.1. The Foundation of Disagreement

The debate over Bitcoin versus altcoins is a central organising principle of the digital asset world, and an examination of its public discourse reveals two distinct and often opposing philosophies. At the heart of this conflict lies a fundamental disagreement over the ideal nature of money and technology.

Defining Bitcoin Maximalism A Bitcoin Maximalist is an individual who holds the conviction that Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency with long-term viability and that all other digital assets are, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, fundamentally flawed or fraudulent. This ideology is often described as “Bitcoin dominance maximalism” by figures like Vitalik Buterin, who characterised it as the view that a multi-currency environment is undesirable and that Bitcoin is destined for a monopoly position due to its inherent superiority. Maximalists believe that other cryptocurrencies fail to align with the core ideals established by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. This perspective is not a simple preference for Bitcoin; it is a profound belief that building on any other blockchain is an unethical deviation from the correct path.

Defining the Altcoin Holder Philosophy The philosophy of the Altcoin Holder is not a single, monolithic ideology but a more varied and pragmatic school of thought. It is defined by a belief in a multi-asset ecosystem where cryptocurrencies can serve a multitude of purposes beyond being a simple store of value. This philosophy rejects the maximalist premise, arguing that a diverse set of assets is necessary to address the wide range of technical and real-world challenges that Bitcoin cannot or will not solve. Altcoin holders view diversification as a key risk management strategy, distributing their investments across different assets to mitigate the impact of market volatility. They believe that the market is a dynamic engine of innovation where new projects with unique use cases will continue to emerge and thrive, co-existing with or even surpassing Bitcoin in specific domains.

2.2. A Tale of Two Narratives

The philosophical divide between these two camps traces its origins to the earliest days of the cryptocurrency market. While Bitcoin was the sole digital asset for its first two years, the emergence of the first altcoins around 2011 marked the genesis of this conflict. However, the debate’s foundation was truly solidified by the “Block Size War” of 2017. This highly contentious period of internal strife within the Bitcoin community led to a permanent schism and the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH), a separate cryptocurrency designed with a different philosophy on scalability. This event is a critical moment for understanding why these two philosophical camps have grown so distinct and why their narratives diverge so sharply.

The public arena for this debate is primarily online, with platforms like X (formerly Twitter) serving as the main battleground. Prominent figures from both sides use these channels to advance their arguments, rally supporters, and publicly criticise opposing viewpoints. The analysis in this article is grounded in the public discourse of these influential voices, tracing how their statements and writings contribute to the broader ideological conflict that shapes the entire market.

III. The Bitcoin Maximalist Philosophy: ‘Digital Gold’ and Uncompromising Principles

3.1. The Foundational Ethos: The Pursuit of ‘Sound Money’

The Bitcoin Maximalist philosophy is more than a financial strategy; it is a political and ethical statement. The movement is deeply rooted in an anti-establishment, cypherpunk ethos, born from the disillusionment that followed the 2008 global financial crisis. From this perspective, the traditional financial system is inherently flawed and prone to corruption, with central banks able to manipulate the money supply for political agendas, leading to inflation and economic instability.

A core tenet of this belief system is the rejection of human-controlled institutions in favour of mathematically verifiable technology. The philosophy posits that Bitcoin’s immutable, transparent, and decentralised protocol is more trustworthy than any person, bank, or government. Robert Breedlove, a prominent Bitcoin philosopher, articulates this by arguing that Bitcoin’s technology is a “truth system” that can never lie or go back on its word, thereby instituting a different, more transparent model of sovereignty. This trust in technology over people is a foundational pillar of the “True Bitcoiner” ideology, which reduces perceived risk and uncertainty by relying on the code’s integrity rather than human fallibility.

3.2. Core Tenets and Arguments

The maximalist worldview is built upon a set of firm convictions about Bitcoin’s inherent and insurmountable superiority. These arguments are frequently advanced on X and other platforms by prominent maximalists.

The Supremacy of Security and Decentralisation: Maximalists argue that Bitcoin’s robust, decade-plus track record of security is its single most valuable attribute. The network is secured by its energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism, which requires immense computational power to attack, making it prohibitively expensive to tamper with the ledger. Proponents contend that this level of decentralisation, with no single leader or central authority, is unmatched by any other cryptocurrency. They believe that sacrificing speed or scalability to maintain this security and decentralisation is a necessary trade-off. This core belief leads them to critique competing networks like Ethereum for having a more centralised mining or validator structure.

Scarcity as a Moral and Economic Imperative: The “digital gold” narrative is central to the maximalist philosophy. Bitcoin’s hard-coded, fixed supply of 21 million coins is seen as a perfect hedge against the devaluation of fiat currencies caused by “uncontrolled money printing”. This scarcity is viewed as a deliberate, ethical counterpoint to inflationary government policies. For maximalists, this limited supply ensures Bitcoin’s long-term value appreciation and establishes it as a superior form of “hard money” that cannot be manipulated at will.

The Network Effect and Unwavering Dominance: Maximalists consistently point to Bitcoin’s first-mover advantage, largest market capitalisation, and most extensive network as evidence of its inevitable dominance. They argue that the network effect — where the value of a network increases as more participants join — creates an insurmountable lead over any other digital asset. This extensive user base, developer ecosystem, and infrastructure make it resilient and viable as a global monetary standard, a feat they believe no other project can replicate.

The ‘Pseudo-Anonymity’ of a Public Ledger: The philosophy holds that Bitcoin’s transparent and public ledger is a feature, not a vulnerability. While all transactions are publicly verifiable, users can remain pseudo-anonymous by not linking their real-world identities to their wallet addresses. This provides a balance between transparency, which helps to prevent corruption, and privacy, which protects individual financial freedom.

3.3. Investment and Behavioural Philosophy: The HODL Mandate

The most visible manifestation of the maximalist philosophy is their investment behaviour, which is defined by the term “HODL”. Originating from a simple typo for “hold,” “HODL” has evolved into an acronym for “Hold On for Dear Life,” signifying a long-term commitment to a cryptocurrency regardless of short-term price swings. For Bitcoiners, HODLing is not just a buy-and-hold strategy; it is an ideological commitment to the project’s long-term vision. It represents a rejection of the short-term trading that defines much of the broader crypto market and an act of faith in Bitcoin’s inevitable success in creating a new social and financial order.

This unwavering conviction leads to deep skepticism toward altcoins. Maximalists are unapologetically in favour of a Bitcoin monopoly and view other digital assets as “inferior,” “unethical,” or outright “scams”. The belief that the price of Bitcoin tends to influence all altcoin prices reinforces the maximalist argument that investing in them is a “questionable way of diversifying” a portfolio.

3.4. Key Voices from the Public Sphere

The maximalist philosophy is personified by a number of influential figures who leverage platforms like X to evangelise their beliefs.

Michael Saylor: The CEO of MicroStrategy, Michael Saylor is an outspoken Bitcoin evangelist who has led his company to accumulate a multi-billion dollar Bitcoin treasury. He frequently argues that Bitcoin is a superior asset class to traditional holdings like gold or stocks and believes it will eventually take over as the world’s primary store of value. His public statements on X and in media interviews consistently frame Bitcoin as the only asset worthy of corporate and institutional adoption.
Jack Dorsey: The founder of X and Block, Jack Dorsey is a leading maximalist who has openly stated his belief that Bitcoin will eventually replace the US dollar. He has used his platform to promote Bitcoin-only projects and has been a vocal critic of Ethereum and other altcoins.
Anthony “Pomp” Pompliano: As a co-founder of a major crypto-focused venture firm, Anthony Pompliano is a prominent voice in the maximalist camp. Known for his pro-Bitcoin commentary and deep insights into macroeconomic trends, he uses his large following on X to argue for Bitcoin’s place as the future of money.

IV. The Altcoin Holder Philosophy: Innovation, Utility, and Diversification

4.1. Beyond the Monolith: A Philosophy of Evolution

The Altcoin Holder philosophy is a direct repudiation of the maximalist view that Bitcoin is a perfect and unchangeable system. Instead, this perspective is founded on the belief that innovation is an ongoing process and that the proliferation of new digital assets is a sign of a vibrant, healthy ecosystem, not a signal of inferiority. Proponents of this view see Bitcoin as a technologically static “dinosaur” and argue that its limitations — such as slow transaction speeds and high energy consumption — necessitate the development of alternative solutions.

The philosophy is not about a single “Bitcoin killer” but about creating a diverse landscape of digital assets, each with a specific purpose. This pragmatic view sees the crypto market not as a single currency but as a new financial and technological frontier where different protocols, consensus mechanisms, and use cases will emerge to address a wide variety of problems.

4.2. Core Tenets and Arguments

The Altcoiners philosophy is built on several key arguments that are frequently advanced by its proponents on social media and in online publications.

The Innovation Engine: The central argument is that altcoins are the primary drivers of innovation in the crypto space. They are designed to improve upon Bitcoin’s technology by offering enhanced features such as faster transaction speeds, lower fees, greater scalability, and more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms. For example, altcoins like Solana and Ethereum offer far higher transaction throughput than Bitcoin, making them more suitable for high-volume applications.

Functionality Over Scarcity: While acknowledging Bitcoin’s role as a store of value, altcoin holders emphasise utility and functionality as the true measure of a digital asset’s value. They highlight platforms that enable smart contracts and decentralised applications (dApps), which have given rise to entire new sectors like Decentralised Finance (DeFi) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). They argue that this programmability and utility make these networks the foundation of the next generation of the internet, a use case that Bitcoin, by design, cannot fulfil.

Portfolio Diversification as a Key Strategy: A core principle of the altcoin holder philosophy is diversification as a means of risk management. Unlike the maximalist “concentration” model, which views other assets as distractions, altcoin holders believe that distributing investments across a variety of assets — from large-cap coins like Ethereum to stablecoins and sector-specific utility tokens — can mitigate market volatility and provide exposure to different high-growth sectors. This approach is seen as a more sensible and pragmatic way to navigate the inherently volatile crypto market.

4.3. Investment and Behavioural Philosophy: The Pursuit of Asymmetric Returns

Altcoin holders are generally more risk-tolerant and view the market as a landscape of opportunities for significant growth. Their investment behaviour is characterised by a “hunt for the next altcoin to explode,” a search for assets with high-growth potential that can yield substantial returns, especially during bull cycles. This stands in stark contrast to the maximalist focus on long-term wealth preservation.

The narrative surrounding altcoins has evolved over time. While some early altcoins were positioned as “Bitcoin killers,” the modern altcoin narrative is often more nuanced. Prominent altcoin advocates now often frame their projects as complementary to Bitcoin, seeing it as the “foundation” of the ecosystem while altcoins provide the “wings” for innovation and growth. This shift from a confrontational to a more co-existing narrative reflects a maturation of the market and a recognition of Bitcoin’s established role as the industry’s benchmark asset.

4.4. Key Voices from the Public Sphere

The altcoin holder philosophy is championed by influential figures who use their public platforms to advocate for a multi-chain future.

Vitalik Buterin: As the co-founder of Ethereum, the largest altcoin by market capitalisation, Vitalik Buterin is the most prominent voice in the altcoin camp. He has been a consistent critic of Bitcoin Maximalism since 2014 and has used X to argue for the necessity of smart contracts, scalability, and other innovations that he believes Bitcoin lacks.
Erik Voorhees: A self-described “crypto-preneur” and a true “OG” of the space, Erik Voorhees is a vocal advocate for a multi-coin future. As the founder of ShapeShift, a crypto exchange platform, he has long promoted the idea of an open, permissionless ecosystem where multiple digital assets can coexist and provide value.

V. Points of Ideological Collision and Nuanced Debates

The philosophical divide between Bitcoin Maximalists and Altcoin Holders is not static; it is constantly shaped by key historical events and ongoing debates that reveal the core values of each camp.

5.1. The Block Size War: A Seminal Event for a Philosophical Split

The most significant event in the history of this schism was the contentious “Block Size War” of 2017. The debate was a technical disagreement over a seemingly simple question: how should Bitcoin scale to handle a growing number of transactions? However, this technical problem served as a proxy for a fundamental ideological conflict about Bitcoin’s purpose.

On one side were the “big blockers,” who advocated for increasing the block size limit to allow for more transactions and lower fees. This faction, which eventually forked to create Bitcoin Cash (BCH), saw Bitcoin as a payment system that needed to be fast and cheap to achieve widespread adoption. On the other side were the “small blockers,” who prioritised preserving the decentralisation and security that came from small blocks, arguing that a larger block size would increase the resources needed to run a full node, leading to centralisation of mining and control. The small blockers ultimately prevailed, with the implementation of SegWit, a solution that increased transaction capacity without fundamentally altering the block size limit.

The legacy of this “war” is profound. The victory of the small blockers solidified Bitcoin’s identity as a secure, decentralised store of value rather than a fast, cheap currency for daily transactions. This event created a permanent schism in the community and is the single most important moment for understanding why Bitcoiners today prioritise security and decentralisation above all else, while altcoin holders are focused on building networks that are more scalable and functional for specific use cases. The creation of Bitcoin Cash marked a literal and philosophical split, with BCH proponents continuing to advocate for a vision of Bitcoin as a fast, peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

5.2. The Custody Conundrum: A Schism Within the Schism

A more recent debate has highlighted a new, nuanced division, this time within the Bitcoin community itself. This conflict came to a head in a high-profile exchange between Michael Saylor and Vitalik Buterin over the institutional custody of Bitcoin.

Saylor has publicly argued that entrusting Bitcoin to “too big to fail” regulated financial institutions like BlackRock and Fidelity is a safer and more stable approach. He has dismissed the concerns of self-custody advocates as the views of “paranoid crypto-anarchists” who disregard government authority and tax obligations. Saylor believes that these established institutions provide a legitimate and secure pathway for Bitcoin to achieve mass adoption and dampen its volatility.

In a swift and sharp response, Vitalik Buterin lambasted Saylor’s stance as “batshit insane”. Buterin, along with other crypto pioneers like Erik Voorhees, argued that endorsing third-party custody fundamentally undermines the core decentralised and self-sovereign principles upon which Bitcoin was built. They view Saylor’s position as an argument for “regulatory capture,” where powerful entities would hold undue influence over the crypto space, a direct betrayal of the original ethos of trustlessness and censorship resistance.

This debate is a microcosm of a larger, more subtle philosophical tension. It exposes a fundamental divergence within the Bitcoin community itself, between those who believe in radical, individual financial sovereignty and those who believe Bitcoin’s future lies in a pragmatic integration with the existing traditional financial system (TradFi). This is not a simple binary of Bitcoin vs. altcoins; it is a more complex philosophical spectrum where the definition of “decentralisation” and “trustlessness” is being contested from within.

5.3. The Problem with “The Other Side”: A Polemical Divide

The ideological schism manifests in a mutual and often polemical condemnation of the “other side.” Bitcoin Maximalists use a variety of arguments to dismiss altcoins. They often rely on the concept of “network effects” to argue that Bitcoin’s supremacy is insurmountable and that altcoins are merely inferior ventures that lack the same level of security or decentralisation. They frequently criticise altcoins for being centralised, prone to pump-and-dump schemes, or lacking a clear, defensible ideological foundation.

In return, altcoin advocates criticise Bitcoin for what they see as its ideological rigidity and technological stagnation. They point to its slow transaction speeds, high energy consumption, and lack of innovative features, claiming that it is “losing” the innovation race to more dynamic and agile networks. The mutual skepticism underscores the depth of the philosophical divide. Maximalists see altcoin holders as speculators who are missing the point of “sound money,” while altcoin holders see maximalists as dogmatic purists who are hindering the progress and utility of the entire digital asset space.

VI. Conclusion: A Synthesis of Insights and Forward Outlook

The philosophical war between Bitcoin Maximalists and Altcoin Holders is a defining feature of the digital asset landscape. It represents a fundamental divergence in values and a competition between two distinct visions for the future of money and technology. The Bitcoin Maximalist philosophy is a purist, uncompromising creed that prioritises security, scarcity, and decentralisation as the ultimate virtues. This worldview is deeply rooted in the anti-establishment ethos of its origins and views Bitcoin’s role as the single, uncorrupted store of value for an increasingly complex world. In contrast, the Altcoiners philosophy is a pragmatic and pluralistic approach that champions innovation, utility, and scalability. This perspective embraces the idea of a multi-asset ecosystem, where different protocols and tokens can address a wide range of real-world problems and provide opportunities for high-growth returns through diversification.

This analysis reveals that the ideological schism is not a simple binary. The internal debate over institutional custody, as exemplified by the Saylor-Buterin clash, demonstrates a more complex philosophical spectrum. It shows that even within the Bitcoin community, there are deep divisions over whether the asset’s future lies in its radical separation from traditional finance or its pragmatic integration with it. This dynamic suggests that the debate will continue to evolve as the market matures and as institutions and regulators play a more significant role.

For investors, understanding these philosophies is crucial for anticipating market sentiment and comprehending the long-term trajectory of digital assets. The narratives advanced by each camp have direct implications for market dynamics, including portfolio allocation and risk management. As the market continues to develop, it is likely that the ideological war will shift from direct confrontation to a coexistence, with each asset class carving out its own role in the global financial landscape. Bitcoin may maintain its position as the premier store of value and macro asset, while altcoins continue to function as the “innovation engine” for dApps, DeFi, and other use cases.

The following tables summarise the core philosophical frameworks and the key figures who champion them, providing a high-level reference for the analysis presented in this report.

Works cited

Bitcoin Maximalism: Definition, Philosophy, Advantages, and Obstacles — Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin-maximalism.asp
The Ethics and Philosophy of Bitcoin by Robert Breedlove, https://btcprague.com/the-philosophy-and-ethics-of-bitcoin/
Bitcoin Maximalism: The Philosophy of One True Cryptocurrency — Lightspark, https://www.lightspark.com/glossary/bitcoin-maximalism
Bitcoin vs Altcoins: Which One Should You Choose? — Deccan Chronicle, https://www.deccanchronicle.com/business/bitcoin-vs-altcoins-which-one-should-you-choose-1874604
Bitcoin Maximalism | Glossary, https://bitcointreasuries.net/glossary/bitcoin-maximalism
Understanding HODL: How “Hold On for Dear Life” Shapes Crypto Investing — Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hodl.asp
(PDF) “The Most Trustworthy Coin”: How Ideological Tensions Drive …, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337129843_The_Most_Trustworthy_Coin_How_Ideological_Tensions_Drive_Trust_in_Bitcoin
What Is a Bitcoin Maximalist? | Ledn Blog, https://www.ledn.io/post/what-is-a-bitcoin-maximalist
Crypto Portfolio Basics: The Key to a Well-Balanced Portfolio in 2024 | Caleb & Brown, https://calebandbrown.com/blog/balanced-crypto-portfolio/
What are Altcoins? Pros, Cons, and Types Explained — NuFi, https://nu.fi/blog/what-are-altcoins-pros-cons-and-types-explained
Bitcoin Vs. Altcoins: An In-depth Comparison | ZebPay, https://zebpay.com/blog/bitcoin-vs-altcoins-comparison
10 Important Cryptocurrencies Other Than Bitcoin — Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/tech/most-important-cryptocurrencies-other-than-bitcoin/
MYX Finance, Worldcoin, MemeCore Set New All-Time Highs — These Altcoins Could Be Next, https://cryptodnes.bg/en/myx-finance-worldcoin-memecore-set-new-all-time-highs-these-altcoins-could-be-next/
Bitcoin Maximalist: Overview, Philosophy, Pros, and Cons | The Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/terms/b/bitcoin-maximalist/
Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: What’s the Difference? — Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/tech/bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-cash-whats-difference/ 16. Bitcoin Maximalism vs Altcoins: Key Insights for Crypto Investors — CoinShares, https://coinshares.com/us/insights/knowledge/the-debate-on-bitcoin-maximalism-exploring-arguments-for-and-against/
Top 10 Crypto Accounts to Follow on X — 101 Blockchains, https://101blockchains.com/top-crypto-accounts-to-follow-on-x/
Top 10+ Crypto Influencers on Twitter to Follow in 2025 — Blockchain-Ads, https://www.blockchain-ads.com/post/crypto-influencers-on-twitter
Top Crypto Influencers on X (Twitter) You Should Follow in 2025 | Coin Wallet, https://coin.space/top-crypto-influencers-on-x-twitter-you-should-follow-in-2025/
The Best Crypto X (Twitter) Influencers to Follow in 2025 — Coinbound, https://coinbound.io/best-crypto-influencers-on-twitter/
Cryptosovereignty: The Political Philosophy of Bitcoin — YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CxinUXC9a8
Bitcoin Maximalists | Binance Academy, https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/bitcoin-maximalists
Bitcoin vs Altcoins: Key Differences, Trends & Investment Tips, https://komodoplatform.com/en/blog/bitcoin-vs-altcoins-which-has-the-stronger-long-term-potential/
Bitcoin and ether: levels of decentralisation | ForkLog, https://forklog.com/en/bitcoin-and-ether-levels-of-decentralisation-2/
Why is Bitcoin referred to as digital gold? — 21Bitcoin, https://21bitcoin.app/en/blog/why-is-bitcoin-referred-to-as-digital-gold
Why is Bitcoin digital gold? — 21Shares, https://www.21shares.com/en-us/research/why-is-bitcoin-digital-gold
Should I Invest in Altcoins Instead of Bitcoin? — Daily Emerald, https://dailyemerald.com/160416/promotedposts/should-i-invest-in-altcoins-instead-of-bitcoin/
Understanding Altcoins: Types, Benefits, and Market Potential — Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/altcoin.asp
The Three Major Evolutionary Narratives of Ethereum — Moomoo, https://www.moomoo.com/news/post/55877843/the-three-major-evolutionary-narratives-of-ethereum
Visions of Bitcoin. How major Bitcoin narratives changed… | by Nic Carter — Medium, https://medium.com/@nic__carter/visions-of-bitcoin-4b7b7cbcd24c
Top 19 Crypto Influencers to Follow for Insights and Trends — Ninja Promo, https://ninjapromo.io/top-crypto-influencers
Block size limit controversy — Bitcoin Wiki, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
Crypto Clash: Vitalik Buterin Labels Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin Comments ‘Batshit Insane’, https://www.mitrade.com/insights/news/live-news/article-3-427875-20241024
Vitalik Buterin Slams Michael Saylor’s Call for Big Banks to Custody Bitcoin — Changelly, https://changelly.com/blog/vitalik-buterin-slams-michael-saylors-call-for-big-banks-to-custody-bitcoin/
Michael Saylor’s comment on regulated bitcoin custody draws criticism from Vitalik Buterin, https://www.theblock.co/post/322578/michael-saylor-paranoid-crypto-anarchists-vitalik-buterin
Vitalik Buterin Slams Michael Saylor’s Push for Institutional Bitcoin Custody, https://cryptodnes.bg/en/vitalik-buterin-slams-michael-saylors-push-for-institutional-bitcoin-custody/

The Great Digital Asset Schism: A Philosophical Analysis of Bitcoiners and Altcoiners was originally published in The Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Source link