For SIG members
A practical note for members who need to discuss the motion fairly, keep Bitcoin in scope, and explain the strongest public-interest case while keeping the objections visible.
Read this page in order, or jump straight to the section you need.
The aim is to give members a fair, bounded way to discuss Bitcoin and adjacent topics while avoiding price talk, generic crypto branding, or hand-waving.
These are the main themes the handbook now uses to organise the discussion.
Access without bank permission, minimum balance rules, or heavy documentation barriers.
The possibility that who receives new money first matters as much as tax and spending policy.
Wages lag, savings decay, and workers lose purchasing power while the monetary base expands.
The ability to freeze, debank, or deny access is treated as a civil-liberties issue as well as a banking detail.
A practical tool where people face capital controls, frozen accounts, or hyperinflation.
“Too big to fail” is treated as structural, rather than merely as a case of regulators missing a few bad actors.
The money system is part of the peace question if it enables debt- financed war without upfront democratic consent.
The strongest defence starts with real energy use and asks whether flexible mining load may help renewables, methane capture, and grid balancing in some places. [R12][R13]
Use the pages below when you need the narrower specialist material.
These are the shortest stable lines for meetings or short conversations.
Inequality, debanking, bailouts, and eroding purchasing power are real concerns.
If new money reaches insiders first, then taxation alone may be treating the symptom rather than the source.
Wage lag and decaying savings are part of the case, rather than a side issue.
If lawful people can be debanked or frozen out, access is still conditional on political approval.
If money can be printed to rescue banks or finance conflict, the monetary layer is already political.
Use the strongest version: flexible load, methane, and local grid arithmetic. Never pretend energy use is fictional. [R12][R13]
Keep these short. Aim for accuracy and grounded language.
A Green-friendly case should be able to answer these plainly.
These are useful if you want to show the same pattern in adjacent systems.
This is where the strongest energy criticism and the strongest flexible-load argument meet.
The honest question is whether a flexible Bitcoin load can support the system often enough to justify the electricity it uses. Close that loop in the energy and grid page. [R3][R12][R13]
These pages are optional. They exist for readers who want the technical detail after the core case is clear.
The protocol itself: transactions, proof of work, and where the network works best or runs into limits. [R2]
Proof of existence before a time, with authorship and truth left to separate evidence. [R6]
Payment channels, routing, and the limits of fast Bitcoin payments. [R5]
IPFS content addressing and Blossom media storage, kept separate because they are specialist material. [R6][R9]
Signed events over relays, with portability and moderation trade-offs. [R7][R8]
A grouped page of the articles, videos, podcasts, and threads shared around the briefing work.
Keep the replies short and fair. The strongest criticism should stay visible inside the answer and receive a direct reply.
It can be. That is why the strongest version of this case avoids price talk and starts with access, censorship, inflation, bailouts, and monetary rules. See the talking points. [R3]
The energy use is real. The fair question is whether the load is flexible enough, whether methane or curtailment claims are real, and whether the comparison against incumbent systems is honest. Send people to the energy page rather than leaving it abstract. [R12][R13]
Because this argument says the failures are partly upstream in the money and settlement layer. If that is true, reform on top may leave the root cause untouched. See the core themes section.
Consumer protection still has to apply, and any decentralised system still needs clear responsibility, disclosure, and honest discussion of self-custody risk. See the policy tests. [R3]
Use this before a branch discussion, SIG call, or conference conversation.