4 ms·

>bitcoin supply is limited to 21 million. that's key. No, this is another falsehood pushed by crypto promoters. For a user only trying to make a payment, the 2

>bitcoin supply is limited to 21 million. that's key. No, this is another falsehood pushed by crypto promoters. For a user only trying to make a payment, the 21 million is just a magic number. Technically the miners can coordinate to soft fork the protocol to increase the number of bitcoins, and this has been proposed several times already. An uncoordinated group can also hard fork the network and suddenly the 21 million becomes 42 million; this has actually happened several times already to both bitcoin and ethereum. The idea that bitcoin is inflation proof is simply nonsense, even ignoring all the analysis, you only have to look at its price activity over the last few months to see how much of a lie that is. Another difference is that the bitcoin miners don't need to actually print more bitcoins to experience hyperinflation, the stablecoin issuers can cause that themselves just by printing infinite numbers of stablecoins and dumping them onto the bitcoin market. So it's in multiple ways worse than whatever you think is happening to the US dollar.

cowtools 4y ago
How could the miners soft fork to increase the bitcoin supply? That would be a hard fork, because they will not be able to spend those "higher" coinbase outputs, which are seen as lower to the rest of the network. >An uncoordinated group can also hard fork the network What are you talking about? An unintentional hard fork, or an intentional one like BCH? >The idea that bitcoin is inflation proof is simply nonsense, even ignoring all the analysis The idea that you can make inferences based on technical analysis alone is based on flawed assumptions. The bitcoin block reward distribution is not finished yet, so it is too early to say. But I predict that it will be too deflationary, which will harm the network in the long run by creating incentives for selfish mining attacks [0]. >the stablecoin issuers can cause that themselves just by printing infinite numbers of stablecoins and dumping them onto the bitcoin market That only works insofar as users (irrationally) trust stablecoins disproportionately compared to bitcoin. Eventually they will cash out and the ponzi scheme will fall apart. [0] https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/094.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/094.pdf
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  >That would be a hard fork, because they will not be able to spend those "higher" coinbase outputs, which are seen as lower to the rest of the network. If the majority of miners agree to it then the rest of the network either goes along with it, or they're forced to do a hard fork themselves. >An unintentional hard fork, or an intentional one like BCH? For the end user just trying to make a payment, it's irrelevant whether it's intentional or not, either way he is now faced with the spitting of his coins and the resulting chaos. >The bitcoin block reward distribution is not finished yet, so it is too early to say. But I predict that it will be too deflationary This is also a useless distinction for users, either way hyperinflation or hyperdeflation are both catastrophic. >That only works insofar as users (irrationally) trust stablecoins disproportionately compared to bitcoin. Any trust in any cryptocurrency is irrational, there's nothing that actually guarantees any of these coins won't collapse tomorrow. They're all based on ponzi economics. What's the actual value of a bitcoin? There just isn't one.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    >If the majority of miners agree to it then the rest of the network either goes along with it, or they're forced to do a hard fork themselves. The only the hashrate attacks can do is alter the order of transactions (for example allowing them to replace their past transactions and double-spend). They cannot change the way in which users interpret blocks (for example, they cannot spend another user's outputs, change the value of a given output such as a coinbase output, or otherwise alter the tokenomics). I recommend watching 3blue1brown's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 >For the end user just trying to make a payment, it's irrelevant whether it's intentional or not, either way he is now faced with the spitting of his coins and the resulting chaos. Any reasonable vendor will wait for X amount of blocks to pass before accepting a transaction. You're describing a well known vector called a "Finney Attack", which becomes exponentially less likely for every block you wait. >What's the actual value of a bitcoin? There just isn't one. Take the number of pizzas that are being sold for bitcoins, and divide that by the number of bitcoins in circulation. I think you may find that the value of BTC/Pizza has not changed much over the last decade. I mean, what is the actual value of a dollar. It is not like we use the gold standard anymore. The dollar is valuable because it is a connected to a useful payment system. You don't mind holding some liquidity in US Dollars because you have an expectation that you will be able to spend your dollars somewhere in the near future, not because you trade it in for shiny yellow ingots.
throw8383833jj 4y ago
whether you fork from bitcoin or just create another alt coin, they just don't have enough critical mass to compete with the originals. > worse than whatever you think is happening to the US dollar. Bitcoin is risky: it's down over 70% from it's highest point. But the dollar is down over 98%! (from 100 years ago) and let's not forget, the rate at which the dollar and other fiats are crashing is getting faster and faster. at 10%, you'll loose half your purchasing power in just 7 years.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  I'm sorry, can't you see what you're saying? Bitcoin can crash over 70% in the span of a month, that's significantly more than the dollar's inflation over 50 years. And unless you're trying to retrieve your great-grandparent's piggy bank from 1922 and spend its contents, then the dollar inflation from 100 years ago is irrelevant. Even over a year the small level of inflation in USD is inconsequential for the use of a currency. The thing about the inflation of the dollar is that the rate of inflation has become relatively stable and predictable, this is what actually makes it useful as a medium of exchange. With the way bitcoin is now, its inflation or deflation will never be stable, it always will be completely random making it useless as a currency; bitcoiners simply are philosophically opposed to anything that could control the rate of deflation/inflation, like having capital controls and a reasonable monetary policy.

cowtools 4y ago

How could the miners soft fork to increase the bitcoin supply? That would be a hard fork, because they will not be able to spend those "higher" coinbase outputs, which are seen as lower to the rest of the network. >An uncoordinated group can also hard fork the network What are you talking about? An unintentional hard fork, or an intentional one like BCH? >The idea that bitcoin is inflation proof is simply nonsense, even ignoring all the analysis The idea that you can make inferences based on technical analysis alone is based on flawed assumptions. The bitcoin block reward distribution is not finished yet, so it is too early to say. But I predict that it will be too deflationary, which will harm the network in the long run by creating incentives for selfish mining attacks [0]. >the stablecoin issuers can cause that themselves just by printing infinite numbers of stablecoins and dumping them onto the bitcoin market That only works insofar as users (irrationally) trust stablecoins disproportionately compared to bitcoin. Eventually they will cash out and the ponzi scheme will fall apart. [0] https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/094.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/094.pdf

hnthrow1010 4y ago
>That would be a hard fork, because they will not be able to spend those "higher" coinbase outputs, which are seen as lower to the rest of the network. If the majority of miners agree to it then the rest of the network either goes along with it, or they're forced to do a hard fork themselves. >An unintentional hard fork, or an intentional one like BCH? For the end user just trying to make a payment, it's irrelevant whether it's intentional or not, either way he is now faced with the spitting of his coins and the resulting chaos. >The bitcoin block reward distribution is not finished yet, so it is too early to say. But I predict that it will be too deflationary This is also a useless distinction for users, either way hyperinflation or hyperdeflation are both catastrophic. >That only works insofar as users (irrationally) trust stablecoins disproportionately compared to bitcoin. Any trust in any cryptocurrency is irrational, there's nothing that actually guarantees any of these coins won't collapse tomorrow. They're all based on ponzi economics. What's the actual value of a bitcoin? There just isn't one.
- cowtools 4y ago
  >If the majority of miners agree to it then the rest of the network either goes along with it, or they're forced to do a hard fork themselves. The only the hashrate attacks can do is alter the order of transactions (for example allowing them to replace their past transactions and double-spend). They cannot change the way in which users interpret blocks (for example, they cannot spend another user's outputs, change the value of a given output such as a coinbase output, or otherwise alter the tokenomics). I recommend watching 3blue1brown's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 >For the end user just trying to make a payment, it's irrelevant whether it's intentional or not, either way he is now faced with the spitting of his coins and the resulting chaos. Any reasonable vendor will wait for X amount of blocks to pass before accepting a transaction. You're describing a well known vector called a "Finney Attack", which becomes exponentially less likely for every block you wait. >What's the actual value of a bitcoin? There just isn't one. Take the number of pizzas that are being sold for bitcoins, and divide that by the number of bitcoins in circulation. I think you may find that the value of BTC/Pizza has not changed much over the last decade. I mean, what is the actual value of a dollar. It is not like we use the gold standard anymore. The dollar is valuable because it is a connected to a useful payment system. You don't mind holding some liquidity in US Dollars because you have an expectation that you will be able to spend your dollars somewhere in the near future, not because you trade it in for shiny yellow ingots.

throw8383833jj 4y ago

whether you fork from bitcoin or just create another alt coin, they just don't have enough critical mass to compete with the originals. > worse than whatever you think is happening to the US dollar. Bitcoin is risky: it's down over 70% from it's highest point. But the dollar is down over 98%! (from 100 years ago) and let's not forget, the rate at which the dollar and other fiats are crashing is getting faster and faster. at 10%, you'll loose half your purchasing power in just 7 years.

hnthrow1010 4y ago
I'm sorry, can't you see what you're saying? Bitcoin can crash over 70% in the span of a month, that's significantly more than the dollar's inflation over 50 years. And unless you're trying to retrieve your great-grandparent's piggy bank from 1922 and spend its contents, then the dollar inflation from 100 years ago is irrelevant. Even over a year the small level of inflation in USD is inconsequential for the use of a currency. The thing about the inflation of the dollar is that the rate of inflation has become relatively stable and predictable, this is what actually makes it useful as a medium of exchange. With the way bitcoin is now, its inflation or deflation will never be stable, it always will be completely random making it useless as a currency; bitcoiners simply are philosophically opposed to anything that could control the rate of deflation/inflation, like having capital controls and a reasonable monetary policy.