3 ms·

But is there something fundamental about Bitcoin that makes it unlikely to be usurped by something better? I'm seeing a lot of blind confidence in your comment

But is there something fundamental about Bitcoin that makes it unlikely to be usurped by something better? I'm seeing a lot of blind confidence in your comment.

paulgb 5y ago
There isn't. But if I owned any, I'd sure want to convince you that there was, and I feel like that will cloud any responses you get.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  Well, when one does have skin in the game, it is easy to believe (and want to convince). I would argue that there is something very special about Bitcoin. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate The problem is that everyone is always looking for the next get rich quick scheme. Bitcoin was never this, it is a not get poor slowly scheme.
  - paulgb 5y ago
    The problem I have with the hash rate as an indicator of anything long-term is that it's artificially subsidized in the present from a diminishing pool of reserve Bitcoin (or inflation, if you prefer to think of it that way). Currently to the tune of about 98-99% of the total block reward[1]. For all the talk of Bitcoin being a long-term asset, there's little evidence that the incentive system can work (i.e. fend off a 51% attack) in its terminal state, or even a couple decades from now when the block reward is ~97% lower than today. [1] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.h...
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      That is a fair statement, and I guess we don't know. I suspect a future contentious blocksize change should take care of the fee rewards at the tail end. We are currently about 6sat/byte ($0.40/std tx) for a low priority tx today. Satoshi himself said "I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." That being said, there are plenty of older protocols without financial incentives that operate as expected, like Tor.

But is there something fundamental about Bitcoin that makes it unlikely to be usurped by something better? I'm seeing a lot of blind confidence in your comment.

paulgb 5y ago

There isn't. But if I owned any, I'd sure want to convince you that there was, and I feel like that will cloud any responses you get.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
Well, when one does have skin in the game, it is easy to believe (and want to convince). I would argue that there is something very special about Bitcoin. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate The problem is that everyone is always looking for the next get rich quick scheme. Bitcoin was never this, it is a not get poor slowly scheme.
- paulgb 5y ago
  The problem I have with the hash rate as an indicator of anything long-term is that it's artificially subsidized in the present from a diminishing pool of reserve Bitcoin (or inflation, if you prefer to think of it that way). Currently to the tune of about 98-99% of the total block reward[1]. For all the talk of Bitcoin being a long-term asset, there's little evidence that the incentive system can work (i.e. fend off a 51% attack) in its terminal state, or even a couple decades from now when the block reward is ~97% lower than today. [1] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.h...
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    That is a fair statement, and I guess we don't know. I suspect a future contentious blocksize change should take care of the fee rewards at the tail end. We are currently about 6sat/byte ($0.40/std tx) for a low priority tx today. Satoshi himself said "I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." That being said, there are plenty of older protocols without financial incentives that operate as expected, like Tor.