6 ms·

Of course he isn’t Satoshi. Satoshi isn’t a big mystery, but the person(s) deserves the anonymity they can maintain. Bitcoin is the one true thing that has not

Of course he isn’t Satoshi. Satoshi isn’t a big mystery, but the person(s) deserves the anonymity they can maintain. Bitcoin is the one true thing that has not been corrupted in this world, despite the decade of FUD thrown at it. Bruce however has shown my esteem for him was misplaced, worse by linking to WIRED, which long ago became an ideological propaganda site with no interest in advanced technology. Bitcoiners would love a good anti-bitcoin argument. It’s a tragedy nobody has any.

theparanoid 5y ago
Bruce linked to his own opinion piece in Wired.
- cyphertruck 5y ago
  That’s much worse. A shame he has proven to be corrupt, not even able to be honest in criticizing bitcoin.
  - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
    In fact it’s not worse at all. I guess when your attack on WIRED failed, you needed to find another target, huh?
gnabgib 5y ago
He linked to his own essay published by wired.
pope_meat 5y ago
A fixed supply that always grows in value doesn't encourage investment, just "hodl". And I ain't an economist, but hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding wealth isn't good for society. If you have to invent another coin to encourage investment/spending rather than hoarding...well why not use that coin. I'm not entirely anti-crypto, I think Monero is neat.
- spurgu 5y ago
  I've always seen this as a weird argument. Most people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the option to hold even if they wanted to. And those that have extra income will invest it in whatever gains them interest, with the explicit intent of not spending those funds in the short term. I don't see why crypto's deflationary properties would play any practical role at all. Well except that you could actually just hold your income (if you were paid in crypto) instead of having to go through the hassle of figuring out what to invest in. Edit: But yeah, if only looking at those people who would refrain from investing in stocks and just hold crypto, then yeah, that would leave money out of circulation stimulating the economy. But just overall, for the normal person, it's a moot point.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    You know, this is actually a studied phenomenon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral
  - cyphertruck 5y ago
    They live paycheck to paycheck because the central bank has enslaved them.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      I always find this argument extremely weird. The era before the creation of the US Central bank wasn't exactly a worker's paradise, was it? The gilded age was an era so tough for workers that actual gun fights over labor issues were the norm, and the late 19th century saw repeated financial panics every decade or two.
- worrycue 5y ago
  That’s the nice thing about fiat money, hoarding it does nothing since the central bank can at will increase/decrease the money supply. There will always be enough money in circulation if the central bank isn’t asleep at the wheel.
- 5y ago

theparanoid 5y ago

Bruce linked to his own opinion piece in Wired.

cyphertruck 5y ago
That’s much worse. A shame he has proven to be corrupt, not even able to be honest in criticizing bitcoin.
- monkeyfacebag 5y ago
  In fact it’s not worse at all. I guess when your attack on WIRED failed, you needed to find another target, huh?

gnabgib 5y ago

He linked to his own essay published by wired.

pope_meat 5y ago

A fixed supply that always grows in value doesn't encourage investment, just "hodl". And I ain't an economist, but hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding wealth isn't good for society. If you have to invent another coin to encourage investment/spending rather than hoarding...well why not use that coin. I'm not entirely anti-crypto, I think Monero is neat.

spurgu 5y ago
I've always seen this as a weird argument. Most people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the option to hold even if they wanted to. And those that have extra income will invest it in whatever gains them interest, with the explicit intent of not spending those funds in the short term. I don't see why crypto's deflationary properties would play any practical role at all. Well except that you could actually just hold your income (if you were paid in crypto) instead of having to go through the hassle of figuring out what to invest in. Edit: But yeah, if only looking at those people who would refrain from investing in stocks and just hold crypto, then yeah, that would leave money out of circulation stimulating the economy. But just overall, for the normal person, it's a moot point.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  You know, this is actually a studied phenomenon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral
- cyphertruck 5y ago
  They live paycheck to paycheck because the central bank has enslaved them.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I always find this argument extremely weird. The era before the creation of the US Central bank wasn't exactly a worker's paradise, was it? The gilded age was an era so tough for workers that actual gun fights over labor issues were the norm, and the late 19th century saw repeated financial panics every decade or two.
worrycue 5y ago
That’s the nice thing about fiat money, hoarding it does nothing since the central bank can at will increase/decrease the money supply. There will always be enough money in circulation if the central bank isn’t asleep at the wheel.
5y ago