4 ms·

> You and I have a different idea of "everyone" means, but anyway... I misspoke, everyone who is investing in Bitcoin, ~100 million individuala, is doing so be

by lowkey 5y ago

> You and I have a different idea of "everyone" means, but anyway... I misspoke, everyone who is investing in Bitcoin, ~100 million individuala, is doing so because of it's store of value and inflation-hedge properties > Because if it's value depends on a large number of people agreeing to its value, then it's not a store of value. All it takes is for the miners to decide to dedicate their resources to something more profitable, and suddenly the network is worth zero. Can you tell me a single asset or commodity (including USD) whose value does not depend on a number of people agreeing to it? Yes the US gov determines that fiat has value by accepting it for taxes, but how much value it has to purchase real goods is determined by the market. > It's so unique, it has spun how many forks already? Often imitated, never replicated. No one has ever come close to replicating the hashpower that makes Bitcoin secure. > You are literally using circular logic here. It is a $1 Trillion asset that started out as a worthless technology experiment almost 13 years ago > "Blockchain, not Bitcoin". ;) No, just no. Blockchain without Bitcoin, meaning the game theory that led to the rise of the network and the supercomputer network that protects it, is just a nice academic theory. Other Blockchains do not enjoy the hashpower or the security budget of Bitcoin and are therefore not competitive. (Name one other Blockchain that is more secure than Bitcoin) > BTC was a good prototype. That's it. A prototype that is now worth $1 Trillion in market cap, moving more value than Visa every day. How can we call that a prototype? Are there any competitive blockchains that are aiming to replace this Bitcoin 'prototype' and providing a decentralized digital currency with a fixed a pre-determined monetary policy, protected by the most secure super-computer ever created? > BTC already failed as a currency, the activists and cypherpunks that first got into it would be mortified to see how now current proponents end up cheering for a dictator in a Banana Republic that is pushing "their" coin. I'm sorry Bitcoin didn't conform to your 'allowed' definition of a 'currency'. Bitcoin is no more a currency than the automobile was a mechanical horse. Bitcoin is a radically different way of solving the same problem traditionally solved with money. There is overlap, but it isn't going to be 100%. I think you are overly focused on the medium of exchange and unit of account use case. These unfortunately are dead on arrival for any country that taxes Bitcoin as property rather than treating it like a currency. In El Salvador, Bitcoin can be a currency, not in the US or Europe. > The "digital gold" narrative switch was an attempt to save it and now we are all playing this game of "Emperor has no clothes" with something because some people are trying to be rich without building any wealth. I appreciate your perspective. Have fun staying poor.

rglullis 5y ago
- USD is not a commodity or an asset. - "security by hashpower" assumes that PoW is the only way to go, when the important feature of blockchain is that it works to BFT consensus. A security system that is expensive to maintain and consumes so much resources in a non-renewable fashion (and I am not talking about energy production, I am talking about energy itself) is a bad system, period. We should not be looking at how much hashpower it is using and thinking "that's a good thing", we should be thinking "how can we have a consensus system that is more efficient and less wasteful".
- lowkey 5y ago
  - USD is not a commodity or an asset. And yet the point stands. The value of the USD depends on a large number of people collectively agreeing that x dollars are worth y loafs of bread. - "security by hashpower" assumes that PoW is the only way to go, when the important feature of blockchain is that it works to BFT consensus. Yes, security by hashpower assumes that PoW is the only way to go because so far that is the only thing proven to be resistant to a wide range of attacks that made previous attempts to solve the Byzantine General's problem fail. Do you really believe that Satoshi Nakamoto didn't consider PoS as an option? > A security system that is expensive to maintain and consumes so much resources in a non-renewable fashion (and I am not talking about energy production, I am talking about energy itself) is a bad system, period. Bitcoin mining is one of the most concentrated sources of renewable energy demand in the world today. The game theory economics unlocked by the availability of a high demand for low-cost electricity without regard to it's location or proximity to a population center is a game changer. It will reshape nations and society over time. > We should not be looking at how much hashpower it is using and thinking "that's a good thing", we should be thinking "how can we have a consensus system that is more efficient and less wasteful". I agree. Until we find those solutions we have Bitcoin and PoW.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > USD depends on a large number of people collectively agreeing that x dollars are worth y loafs of bread. Hum, no. That is horribly reductionist. USD is a currency, who has a central bank enacting monetary policies. It also has a very big government behind it that wants to have some oversight over the economy. > PoW (...) is the only thing proven to be resistant Again, no. PoS is doing just fine, it allows for a much larger and diverse pool of nodes. Meanwhile in PoW systems you have hardware manufacturers who "test" their equipment on mainnet before delivering to the buyers and quite frequently gets scared with the concentration of hashpower by one pool or another. > mining is one of the most concentrated sources of renewable energy demand Can you provide one example of a place where has cheap, renewable energy and that can make the energy distribution more profitable than bitcoin mining? Do you understand that it doesn't matter if the energy production is 100% clean (which is not, and likely will never be given that energy is cheaper in countries with bad environmental records), the problem is that if mining is more profitable than selling the energy, any excess energy will always go to mining and all of the "advantage" you are talking about is ending up in a closed-loop system? > Until we find those solutions we have Bitcoin and PoW. Let's pretend for a moment that there are no better alternatives today: suppose that there will be one day in the future (2, 5, 10 years? Doesn't matter...) where there is a chain that demonstrated to be more efficient, can make more transactions and is just as secure as PoW. Let's for the sake of argument assume that the new tech is so undeniably superior, even BTC's core team announces plan to adopt it. How do you think the transition will happen? (a) BTC users will continue using only BTC's until the devs manage to create and implement a migration plan? (b) BTC users will slowly migrate away to the new chain? (c) BTC devs will just freeze the old chain and make a new genesis block on the new chain? (d) BTC users will panic-sell and move to the new currency on the new chain? (e) BTC users won't even be able to notice the new chain resurgence until it is too late? For the question above: what about the miners? Are they just going to dump their mining rigs and get on board with the new system, or do you think that their operation is just too profitable for them to let it go? What I am trying to show is that - if you assume today that there can be something better than BTC and can supplant it - then the future price of BTC is ZERO. Given that BTC does not pay any kind of dividends, and that the future price of BTC is ZERO, then there is no point of holding it. Every bag holder is just playing a game of chicken now.

by lowkey 5y ago

rglullis 5y ago

- USD is not a commodity or an asset. - "security by hashpower" assumes that PoW is the only way to go, when the important feature of blockchain is that it works to BFT consensus. A security system that is expensive to maintain and consumes so much resources in a non-renewable fashion (and I am not talking about energy production, I am talking about energy itself) is a bad system, period. We should not be looking at how much hashpower it is using and thinking "that's a good thing", we should be thinking "how can we have a consensus system that is more efficient and less wasteful".

lowkey 5y ago
- USD is not a commodity or an asset. And yet the point stands. The value of the USD depends on a large number of people collectively agreeing that x dollars are worth y loafs of bread. - "security by hashpower" assumes that PoW is the only way to go, when the important feature of blockchain is that it works to BFT consensus. Yes, security by hashpower assumes that PoW is the only way to go because so far that is the only thing proven to be resistant to a wide range of attacks that made previous attempts to solve the Byzantine General's problem fail. Do you really believe that Satoshi Nakamoto didn't consider PoS as an option? > A security system that is expensive to maintain and consumes so much resources in a non-renewable fashion (and I am not talking about energy production, I am talking about energy itself) is a bad system, period. Bitcoin mining is one of the most concentrated sources of renewable energy demand in the world today. The game theory economics unlocked by the availability of a high demand for low-cost electricity without regard to it's location or proximity to a population center is a game changer. It will reshape nations and society over time. > We should not be looking at how much hashpower it is using and thinking "that's a good thing", we should be thinking "how can we have a consensus system that is more efficient and less wasteful". I agree. Until we find those solutions we have Bitcoin and PoW.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > USD depends on a large number of people collectively agreeing that x dollars are worth y loafs of bread. Hum, no. That is horribly reductionist. USD is a currency, who has a central bank enacting monetary policies. It also has a very big government behind it that wants to have some oversight over the economy. > PoW (...) is the only thing proven to be resistant Again, no. PoS is doing just fine, it allows for a much larger and diverse pool of nodes. Meanwhile in PoW systems you have hardware manufacturers who "test" their equipment on mainnet before delivering to the buyers and quite frequently gets scared with the concentration of hashpower by one pool or another. > mining is one of the most concentrated sources of renewable energy demand Can you provide one example of a place where has cheap, renewable energy and that can make the energy distribution more profitable than bitcoin mining? Do you understand that it doesn't matter if the energy production is 100% clean (which is not, and likely will never be given that energy is cheaper in countries with bad environmental records), the problem is that if mining is more profitable than selling the energy, any excess energy will always go to mining and all of the "advantage" you are talking about is ending up in a closed-loop system? > Until we find those solutions we have Bitcoin and PoW. Let's pretend for a moment that there are no better alternatives today: suppose that there will be one day in the future (2, 5, 10 years? Doesn't matter...) where there is a chain that demonstrated to be more efficient, can make more transactions and is just as secure as PoW. Let's for the sake of argument assume that the new tech is so undeniably superior, even BTC's core team announces plan to adopt it. How do you think the transition will happen? (a) BTC users will continue using only BTC's until the devs manage to create and implement a migration plan? (b) BTC users will slowly migrate away to the new chain? (c) BTC devs will just freeze the old chain and make a new genesis block on the new chain? (d) BTC users will panic-sell and move to the new currency on the new chain? (e) BTC users won't even be able to notice the new chain resurgence until it is too late? For the question above: what about the miners? Are they just going to dump their mining rigs and get on board with the new system, or do you think that their operation is just too profitable for them to let it go? What I am trying to show is that - if you assume today that there can be something better than BTC and can supplant it - then the future price of BTC is ZERO. Given that BTC does not pay any kind of dividends, and that the future price of BTC is ZERO, then there is no point of holding it. Every bag holder is just playing a game of chicken now.