4 ms·
>_Objectively_ better alternatives to Bitcoin are around for at least the last five years. If you truly think this way, you're deluding yourself & this is wher
by elevenoh 5y ago
>_Objectively_ better alternatives to Bitcoin are around for at least the last five years.
If you truly think this way, you're deluding yourself & this is where I stop reading.
Everything has tradeoffs. There's no 'objective' better.
- mandmandam 5y ago> Everything has tradeoffs. There's no 'objective' better. Yes there is. Every chess move has advantages and disadvantages, yes. But some are objectively better. Every algorithm has advantages and disadvantages. But some are objectively better. Believing that nothing can be objectively better than Bitcoin, and calling people who disagree delusional, is less than useful.
- jkhdigital 5y agoChess is an abstract game in a tightly bounded universe. Economics (which includes monetary economics) is concerned with open systems in the real world. The two are not even remotely comparable. You might benefit--expand your mind--by reading some classical economists' thoughts on such things.
- mandmandam 5y agoWe are not just talking about a small difference between BTC and newer gen crpyto. I've stated numbers above. While I appreciate the hilarity of invoking classical economics to justify vague Bitcoin maximalism, we are talking about something 6 million times more energy efficient, with infinitely lower fees, and well over a thousand times faster. It's objectively better on every technical front.
- lottin 5y ago> There's no 'objective' better. Maybe look up 'efficiency'. If we can achieve the same outcome at different costs, then the method that achieves said outcome incurring the least cost is objectively better than the others.