rich1.0alberdioni8406 (npub1q7…pfzcf)https://yabu.me/npub1q7etlfzq8e4wyks6jxgx5hgqwcsvhhvm0p5rwvf9z96jne4ms9jq3pfzcfnjumphttps://yabu.meThey say Bitcoin is “neutral money” and Nostr is “uncensorable speech.” But then you watch what actually happens in practice. People talking about BCH, tipping in BCH, or building with BCH on Nostr start getting labeled as “bots,” “spam,” or “coordinated actors.” Some even get quietly removed or banned from relays. So much for neutrality. The irony is hard to miss. A system designed to resist censorship starts reproducing social gatekeeping the moment real economic alternatives show up inside it. Not because BCH breaks the rules — but because it breaks the narrative. It shows that: payments can still be fast and cheap on-chain peer-to-peer money still works in the real world users don’t need custodians or permissioned layers to interact economically And that’s where the discomfort starts. Because if people can freely tip, transact, and coordinate value using BCH inside open networks like Nostr… then the idea that “only Layer 2 or custodial systems scale Bitcoin” starts looking less like fact and more like preference. So instead of debate, you get labels. Instead of engagement, you get bans. Instead of curiosity, you get “you’re a bot.” Classic cypherpunk pattern: when the system can’t stop the signal, it tries to discredit the sender. But here’s the part they miss: You can’t ban an idea whose time is already showing up in usage. BCH isn’t asking for permission on Nostr. It’s already there — transacting, tipping, building. And that’s the part that doesn’t fit neatly into old narratives. nostr:note1a3djxgzvhhxpugt4wzwwlm4eg5u09uax36pdmy9j7lfugw547t8sy0dmts