4 ms·

Simply because something is intangible and invisible, like atoms, does not make it any less valuable. It's a system with an immutable monetary policy. Literall

Simply because something is intangible and invisible, like atoms, does not make it any less valuable. It's a system with an immutable monetary policy. Literally unprecedented in human history.

lottin 5y ago
> Literally unprecedented in human history. Hardly unprecedented, considering that until very recently nations did not have a monetary policy.
- javert 5y ago
  Monetary policy goes at least as far back as the Roman Empire, which adulterated their money supply over time.
  - lottin 5y ago
    I don't think this what economists understand by monetary policy.
meribold 5y ago
> It's a system with an immutable monetary policy. Is it though? It seems minor protocol tweaks aren't uncommon and hard forks managing to eclipse the original protocol in popularity are also conceivable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_forks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_forks
- javert 5y ago
  Every time there is a fork, the market decides how much to value each of the forks. Personally, I think people will value bitcoin as good money if fiat money fails. And because they are seeking good money, will value the fork(s) that preserve bitcoin's prior monetary policy. A fork that changes the monetary policy drastically (particularly, changing the 21M cap) would obviously make for bad money in practical terms.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    > Every time there is a fork, the market decides how much to value the forks So literally the same as every monetary policy change involving every currency that didn't use PoW in history...
    - rufusroflpunch 5y ago
      No, not true. Nodes can literally just choose to use the version of software that provides the best money. You can’t choose to use the US monetary policy from 1960, for example. This has happened multiple times with attempted hard forks of Bitcoin which have failed because once you change the monetary policy once, the promise of hard money effect disappears. So the original monetary policy remains in place and the original network continues as the reigning champion.
      - meribold 5y ago
        I imagine the idea of a hard fork of Bitcoin may become more popular as the supply limit is approached and transaction fees go up. The current transaction fee is only a few dollars but the cost is over a hundred. Eventually the fee will have to cover the full cost and a hard fork may start to look more interesting. If this happens I can technically stay on the original protocol, but that would be rather pointless if a sufficient majority abandons it.
        javert 5y ago
        The natural scenario is that as the mining reward goes down, hash rate will dwindle until mining is profitable again. The only real problem with that is that with a small hash rate, bitcoin can be attacked more easily. If bitcoin is the monetary backbone for many nations, they will subsidize miners to maintain the balance of power. That is the actual scenario that I'm optimistically predicting. If bitcoin isn't the monetary backbone for many nations, by then, then it's probably a failure, and should probably be allowed to die. It's also very possible that transactions fees alone actually will be sufficient to support a high enough amount of hash power to secure the network.
smolder 5y ago
Everything is mutable with the possibilty of physical destruction and long time scales. Even the existence of humanity is mutable when we play stupid games in MAD geopolitics, have foolish energy policy, and lack an ability to cooperate to mitigate tragedy-of-the-commons problems like, for example, what Proof of Work is causing. If we do not bound the growth of PoW energy usage, I think it could easily destroy itself in a roundabout way: by destroying the fragile global order that keeps humanity going.

Simply because something is intangible and invisible, like atoms, does not make it any less valuable. It's a system with an immutable monetary policy. Literally unprecedented in human history.

lottin 5y ago

> Literally unprecedented in human history. Hardly unprecedented, considering that until very recently nations did not have a monetary policy.

javert 5y ago
Monetary policy goes at least as far back as the Roman Empire, which adulterated their money supply over time.
- lottin 5y ago
  I don't think this what economists understand by monetary policy.

meribold 5y ago

> It's a system with an immutable monetary policy. Is it though? It seems minor protocol tweaks aren't uncommon and hard forks managing to eclipse the original protocol in popularity are also conceivable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_forks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_forks

javert 5y ago
Every time there is a fork, the market decides how much to value each of the forks. Personally, I think people will value bitcoin as good money if fiat money fails. And because they are seeking good money, will value the fork(s) that preserve bitcoin's prior monetary policy. A fork that changes the monetary policy drastically (particularly, changing the 21M cap) would obviously make for bad money in practical terms.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > Every time there is a fork, the market decides how much to value the forks So literally the same as every monetary policy change involving every currency that didn't use PoW in history...
  - rufusroflpunch 5y ago
    No, not true. Nodes can literally just choose to use the version of software that provides the best money. You can’t choose to use the US monetary policy from 1960, for example. This has happened multiple times with attempted hard forks of Bitcoin which have failed because once you change the monetary policy once, the promise of hard money effect disappears. So the original monetary policy remains in place and the original network continues as the reigning champion.
    - meribold 5y ago
      I imagine the idea of a hard fork of Bitcoin may become more popular as the supply limit is approached and transaction fees go up. The current transaction fee is only a few dollars but the cost is over a hundred. Eventually the fee will have to cover the full cost and a hard fork may start to look more interesting. If this happens I can technically stay on the original protocol, but that would be rather pointless if a sufficient majority abandons it.
      - javert 5y ago
        The natural scenario is that as the mining reward goes down, hash rate will dwindle until mining is profitable again. The only real problem with that is that with a small hash rate, bitcoin can be attacked more easily. If bitcoin is the monetary backbone for many nations, they will subsidize miners to maintain the balance of power. That is the actual scenario that I'm optimistically predicting. If bitcoin isn't the monetary backbone for many nations, by then, then it's probably a failure, and should probably be allowed to die. It's also very possible that transactions fees alone actually will be sufficient to support a high enough amount of hash power to secure the network.

smolder 5y ago

Everything is mutable with the possibilty of physical destruction and long time scales. Even the existence of humanity is mutable when we play stupid games in MAD geopolitics, have foolish energy policy, and lack an ability to cooperate to mitigate tragedy-of-the-commons problems like, for example, what Proof of Work is causing. If we do not bound the growth of PoW energy usage, I think it could easily destroy itself in a roundabout way: by destroying the fragile global order that keeps humanity going.