Nick Szabo  🔑

Strong disagree. That's like saying "baseball fans aren't a community" because we don't all share a favorite baseball team.

False equivalence. Bitcoin is bigger than a single sport. Bitcoin Twitter is a community. But bitcoin is not Bitcoin Twitter.

Bigger in what sense? At present I'd say many sports are "bigger" than Bitcoin by any metric other than *potential*.

Yes, potential is part of a categorical difference between bitcoin and baseball. Bitcoin potentially scales to be critically meaningful to all humans regardless of community, baseball can't do that.

So because, *potentially*, Bitcoin could become ubiquitous...the tiny minority of humans who currently care about Bitcoin don't constitute a community? #MakesNoSense

A while back, yes, bitcoin was a single community of a small number of people discussing it but it's far beyond that now. Bitcoiners are part of many different communities now. Bitcoin doesn't have *a* community, communities have bitcoin. And its potential further sets it apart.

True/False: Except in the narrow sense of a physical municipality, when people say "community," they're normally using it as a shorthand for "community of interest."

To me, that's an obvious "True." And if it's accurate to use terms like "the Law Enforcement community" or "the LGBTQ community," then one could absolutely say "the Bitcoin community." A community's being comprised of sub-communities is no contradiction.