4 ms·

Bitcoin is scarce by consensus, and not your consensus as the small-scale hodler. It is scarce by the consensus of the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem -

by Nursie 4y ago

Bitcoin is scarce by consensus, and not your consensus as the small-scale hodler. It is scarce by the consensus of the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem - large mining outfits and a handful of major exchanges. Such players could come to a consensus that the scarcity rules don't work for them, and may do so in future if, for instance, they decide that block rewards are too low. Sure, it would be a hard fork, but if the major players decided to go with it, the small players would be dragged along, or they could cling on to "Bitcoin classic" and see a major drop in the value of their coins. The ending line here is pure grandstanding- > (BTC) transcends all other monies that came before it, by introducing something that cannot be improved upon further, something that did not and can not exist in the physical world: absolute limitation via zero terminal inflation. BTC scarcity is not some emergent property of the universe, it is a property of a protocol. A protocol controlled by people, some of whom have disproportionate amounts of power over the system. You have exchanged trust in a government for trust in a shadowy and unnaccoutable group of loosely connected wealthy folks. Best of luck with that.

Ekaros 4y ago
And nothing really stops exchanges grouping together and starting to do things with fractional reserves. It is all digital anyway, so blocking the few big askers from taking their coins out with various reasons wouldn't be big thing. And average user wouldn't really care how their money works...
- New_California 4y ago
  Fractional reserve is already a thing and will only increase from here. Bitcoin's scarcity relates to the base money supply and obviously cannot coerce the higher economic layers. That said bitcoiners are somewhat resistant to extreme fractional reserve because of the strong "not your keys, not your coins" ethos.
New_California 4y ago
It's much more than exchanges and miners as exemplified by the 2017 block size war, won by the users. The scenario you are describing - while possible in principle - is unlikely. Stakeholders understand that scarcity and change-resistance is Bitcoin's very definition. Take that away and there is no value left, Bitcoin becoming another malleable shitcoin.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > It's much more than exchanges and miners as exemplified by the 2017 block size war, won by the users. Was it? Did you get to vote on that? Or was it decided by a handful of pools and large players? > The scenario you are describing - while possible in principle - is unlikely. Whether it's likely or not is beside the point. It's possible in theory, therefore (and this is my main point here) the digital scarcity of bitcoin is not some emergent mathematical property of the universe, it's a social phenomenon. However unlikely, it only takes a critical mass of people to change their minds and it can be changed. The article talks about this property as if it is something akin to a hard universal property or mathematical axiom, but it's not, it's a very human property and very malleable as a result.
  - New_California 4y ago
    > Whther it's likely or not is beside the point. It's possible in theory, therefore (and this is my main point here) the digital scarcity of bitcoin is not some emergent mathematical property of the universe, it's a social phenomenon. Correct. > Was it? Did you get to vote on that? Or was it decided by a handful of pools and large players? Yes, I got to vote on that with the economic full nodes I ran.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      Nodes don't vote on anything. You can spin up as many nodes as you want, they aren't an authority on how to order the transactions, only the miners do that.
      - Vecr 4y ago
        Yeah, but if they publish non-standard blocks your nodes will reject them. What miners can do to their blocks is very limited.
        CyberDildonics 4y ago
        If the other miners accept those block and keep building on the chain, then that's the chain. Thinking that non mining nodes do anything is like not watching a TV show and pretending you canceled it from being made anymore. It's absurd. I don't know where people have gotten this idea that nodes do anything but help broadcast the chain decided by the miners.

by Nursie 4y ago

Ekaros 4y ago

And nothing really stops exchanges grouping together and starting to do things with fractional reserves. It is all digital anyway, so blocking the few big askers from taking their coins out with various reasons wouldn't be big thing. And average user wouldn't really care how their money works...

New_California 4y ago
Fractional reserve is already a thing and will only increase from here. Bitcoin's scarcity relates to the base money supply and obviously cannot coerce the higher economic layers. That said bitcoiners are somewhat resistant to extreme fractional reserve because of the strong "not your keys, not your coins" ethos.

New_California 4y ago

It's much more than exchanges and miners as exemplified by the 2017 block size war, won by the users. The scenario you are describing - while possible in principle - is unlikely. Stakeholders understand that scarcity and change-resistance is Bitcoin's very definition. Take that away and there is no value left, Bitcoin becoming another malleable shitcoin.

Nursie 4y ago
> It's much more than exchanges and miners as exemplified by the 2017 block size war, won by the users. Was it? Did you get to vote on that? Or was it decided by a handful of pools and large players? > The scenario you are describing - while possible in principle - is unlikely. Whether it's likely or not is beside the point. It's possible in theory, therefore (and this is my main point here) the digital scarcity of bitcoin is not some emergent mathematical property of the universe, it's a social phenomenon. However unlikely, it only takes a critical mass of people to change their minds and it can be changed. The article talks about this property as if it is something akin to a hard universal property or mathematical axiom, but it's not, it's a very human property and very malleable as a result.
- New_California 4y ago
  > Whther it's likely or not is beside the point. It's possible in theory, therefore (and this is my main point here) the digital scarcity of bitcoin is not some emergent mathematical property of the universe, it's a social phenomenon. Correct. > Was it? Did you get to vote on that? Or was it decided by a handful of pools and large players? Yes, I got to vote on that with the economic full nodes I ran.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Nodes don't vote on anything. You can spin up as many nodes as you want, they aren't an authority on how to order the transactions, only the miners do that.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      Yeah, but if they publish non-standard blocks your nodes will reject them. What miners can do to their blocks is very limited.
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        If the other miners accept those block and keep building on the chain, then that's the chain. Thinking that non mining nodes do anything is like not watching a TV show and pretending you canceled it from being made anymore. It's absurd. I don't know where people have gotten this idea that nodes do anything but help broadcast the chain decided by the miners.