4 ms·

I don't get why someone would think that Bitcoin would have long-term viability. Seems like it's more of a question of when/how it'll fade out rather than if.

by _Nat_ 5y ago

I don't get why someone would think that Bitcoin would have long-term viability. Seems like it's more of a question of when/how it'll fade out rather than if. The only real unique property that Bitcoin would seem to have in the long-term would be its history, especially its initial-distribution that concentrates wealth in the hands of few. And that's not an advantage but a liability: if it went mainstream, most folks would probably just say, hey, let's use some alt-coin instead so we all have more wealth (which obviously wouldn't be true for the minority of people who are Bitcoin whales, but why would the majority of people who aren't care?). Anyway, just commenting to ask: > There are several things happening, which is reducing confidence. Of course, as a permabull, I believe that these things are transitory. As far as I can tell, it's all transitory; that much seems plainly obvious. So if you're a permabull, well, why? What future might you imagine in which Bitcoin, specifically, remains a preferred system? In particular, what reason might you have to believe that a Bitcoin you might buy today would have any significant value in systems 20 years from now? I'm not even asking for a reasonable prediction, but what's even a plausible best-case scenario? For example, let's say cryptocurrency goes mainstream, and everyone everywhere starts using it -- what sequence of events might lead to Bitcoins available today being relevant in such a future system?

reginold 5y ago
This seems like a massive question outside the scope of what this thread can deliver. Recommend reading "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas Antonopoulos!
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  Reading a pop-culture piece won't help; I get the technical stuff. Rather, I'm curious why someone who appears to have followed Bitcoin a bit might self-identify as a "permabull".
  - reginold 5y ago
    Ah okay! Well, in case the OP doesn't respond, and because this is a much larger question, perhaps there's another book that fits the bill. I haven't read "The Bitcoin Standard" but believe it addresses some of your curiosities.
rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
I can explain a few points for a long term view. Bitcoin is a protocol, primarily, as well as an ecosystem, a unit of account and a new paradigm in digital value transfer. The cryptoeconomic model is to create new coins every 10 minutes until the year 2140. The energy committed to protect the ledger is unmatched, and thus it is the most secure. 8 Million of the 18M coins that exist moved in the last year. I don't think the concentration is quite what people believe. As the years go on, there are less and less large holders. Everyone gets antsy when seeing large swings to their savings. The development philosophy is one of caution, of incremental and well tested changes. "Only soft forks", as opposed to forced consensus changes by developers (EIP1559 comes mind). Radical changes are rejected and even small upgrades take time to stick. This is a good thing, as the base layer of money needs to be simple, work reliably and be very secure. I only trust a peer to peer monetary network that I can run myself. Most newer 'next generation' blockchains are for datacenters only. Being able to run a full Bitcoin Core node will remain within the reach of most users for quite some time, hopefully forever. Inflation is a pressing concern for all countries and people right now. The 'Bitcoin Standard' scenario seems like less of fantasy in 2021. And this is still the beginning, we are quite early!
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  But why not a random Bitcoin clone? I mean, we all get why folks with a lot of Bitcoin want it to be adopted: they'd get rich. The problem for everyone else is that they'd be the ones subsidizing that wealth. Which the majority could avoid by just adopting an alt-coin instead. So why Bitcoin, specifically? This is, in Bitcoin's ideal scenario where it would win out globally and everyone would love it -- even in that extreme case -- why would everyone use Bitcoin instead of starting a new block-chain where they'd get more personal wealth? Are Bitcoin-HODL'ers basically just praying that the majority of the world's population would just be oblivious to that possibility, choosing to instead buy into Bitcoin at their own loss out of sheer ignorance? (Sorry if that sounds dismissive, just, it seems so far-fetched to me; I don't get belief-system behind it.)
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    Ahh. Its the energy consumed and security provided by Proof of Work. Anyone can fork the bitcoin source code. (thousands have). Anyone can fork the ethereum source code (handfuls have, and some are quite successful so far: BNB, AVAX, MATIC and TRON are all examples of this). Proof of stake is a scam, and reinvents oligarchies, and introduces systemic censorship and consensus enforcement risks. You can't clone Bitcoin, the network, the users or the ecosystem.
tromp 5y ago
> The only real unique property that Bitcoin would seem to have in the long-term would be its history, especially its initial-distribution that concentrates wealth in the hands of few. > let's use some alt-coin instead The problem is that it's hard to agree on which one to use, with 15000 to choose from :-( My vote would be for the one that doesn't concentrate wealth in the hands of few...

by _Nat_ 5y ago

reginold 5y ago

This seems like a massive question outside the scope of what this thread can deliver. Recommend reading "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas Antonopoulos!

_Nat_ 5y ago
Reading a pop-culture piece won't help; I get the technical stuff. Rather, I'm curious why someone who appears to have followed Bitcoin a bit might self-identify as a "permabull".
- reginold 5y ago
  Ah okay! Well, in case the OP doesn't respond, and because this is a much larger question, perhaps there's another book that fits the bill. I haven't read "The Bitcoin Standard" but believe it addresses some of your curiosities.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago

I can explain a few points for a long term view. Bitcoin is a protocol, primarily, as well as an ecosystem, a unit of account and a new paradigm in digital value transfer. The cryptoeconomic model is to create new coins every 10 minutes until the year 2140. The energy committed to protect the ledger is unmatched, and thus it is the most secure. 8 Million of the 18M coins that exist moved in the last year. I don't think the concentration is quite what people believe. As the years go on, there are less and less large holders. Everyone gets antsy when seeing large swings to their savings. The development philosophy is one of caution, of incremental and well tested changes. "Only soft forks", as opposed to forced consensus changes by developers (EIP1559 comes mind). Radical changes are rejected and even small upgrades take time to stick. This is a good thing, as the base layer of money needs to be simple, work reliably and be very secure. I only trust a peer to peer monetary network that I can run myself. Most newer 'next generation' blockchains are for datacenters only. Being able to run a full Bitcoin Core node will remain within the reach of most users for quite some time, hopefully forever. Inflation is a pressing concern for all countries and people right now. The 'Bitcoin Standard' scenario seems like less of fantasy in 2021. And this is still the beginning, we are quite early!

_Nat_ 5y ago
But why not a random Bitcoin clone? I mean, we all get why folks with a lot of Bitcoin want it to be adopted: they'd get rich. The problem for everyone else is that they'd be the ones subsidizing that wealth. Which the majority could avoid by just adopting an alt-coin instead. So why Bitcoin, specifically? This is, in Bitcoin's ideal scenario where it would win out globally and everyone would love it -- even in that extreme case -- why would everyone use Bitcoin instead of starting a new block-chain where they'd get more personal wealth? Are Bitcoin-HODL'ers basically just praying that the majority of the world's population would just be oblivious to that possibility, choosing to instead buy into Bitcoin at their own loss out of sheer ignorance? (Sorry if that sounds dismissive, just, it seems so far-fetched to me; I don't get belief-system behind it.)
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  Ahh. Its the energy consumed and security provided by Proof of Work. Anyone can fork the bitcoin source code. (thousands have). Anyone can fork the ethereum source code (handfuls have, and some are quite successful so far: BNB, AVAX, MATIC and TRON are all examples of this). Proof of stake is a scam, and reinvents oligarchies, and introduces systemic censorship and consensus enforcement risks. You can't clone Bitcoin, the network, the users or the ecosystem.

tromp 5y ago

> The only real unique property that Bitcoin would seem to have in the long-term would be its history, especially its initial-distribution that concentrates wealth in the hands of few. > let's use some alt-coin instead The problem is that it's hard to agree on which one to use, with 15000 to choose from :-( My vote would be for the one that doesn't concentrate wealth in the hands of few...