8 ms·

Oh, please. Bitcoin is a protocol with no more inherent value than SMTP. Aside from being the Catholic cryptocurrency, it has been surpassed technologically in

by dpiers 2y ago

Oh, please. Bitcoin is a protocol with no more inherent value than SMTP. Aside from being the Catholic cryptocurrency, it has been surpassed technologically in every way by newer and better designed protocols. Why would anyone who doesn't already own Bitcoin choose to use it for anything over, ex. Ethereum? Bitcoin maxis aren't technologists; they're grifters trying to convince you their magic beans are the most special magic beans.

r2_pilot 2y ago
>Bitcoin maxis aren't technologists; they're grifters trying to convince you their magic beans are the most special magic beans. Replace "bitcoin maxis" with any cryptocoin promoter and the statement remains true and equally as useless to those who refuse to consider digital coinage money.
- dpiers 2y ago
  I don’t disagree. Crypto is neat but has no useful (legal) real world applications.
  - npoc 2y ago
    Learn about money supply inflation and its enormous dilutive effects on the value of each currency unit. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
    - r2_pilot 2y ago
      Lol as if BTC or any cryptocoin is a store of value(instead of speculative tulips). One of the reasons why I refuse to accept crypto as money.
      - npoc 2y ago
        Regardless, take my advice
        r2_pilot 2y ago
        I took macro in college, I'm pretty well aware of the extent I do not care about fiscal policy. I even was basically mining bitcoin practically from the start (within months of the launch) for less than a week(and have subsequently destroyed the maybe half BTC I generated) before realizing that I had no desire to contribute to that particular mind virus. Money is close to the worst aspect about humans.
        npoc 2y ago
        Fiat currency is the worst aspect about humans. Money is simply a natural and far more efficient progression from barter and the associated coincidence of wants problem. If you mined bitcoin from the start and then abandoned it, it proves you know very little about what money is at all.
        r2_pilot 2y ago
        > If you mined bitcoin from the start and then abandoned it, it proves you know very little about what money is at all. Every single crypto bro I tell this to always has the same reaction and that does nothing but vindicate my position to me. Thanks for making my week.
friend_and_foe 2y ago
There are reasons why you'd choose bitcoin over your example, ethereum. For one, supply of ethereum is not deterministically predictable. As money, that makes it less compelling. Some other technical details are very short block time means network splits, orphaned blocks, reorgs are very common. In the short term, ethereum finality is not as reliable. Generally I agree with your point though. Money over IP can takeany forms, and the likelihood that the first form it took is the best it could possibly be is miniscule.
- npoc 2y ago
  Bitcoin isn't the first form. Study bitcoin long enough and you'll realise it is the best it could possibly be (allowing for small tweaks, additions that don't change the underlying fundamentals) It's not what it first appears and catches everyone out to start with. Give me any number of negatives and I'll explain with clear reasoning why you're wrong and why they're a strength.
  - friend_and_foe 2y ago
    I've studied bitcoin for over a decade. Deeply. I can talk about ECDSA and the emergent consensus behavior that emerges from the architecture. I can talk about the economics and monetary policy in detail. I like to think I've got a pretty good handle on it. I know it's not the first attempt at internet money, but it is the first form that didn't require a central intermediary for all transactions. That's what sets all this apart. I can give you a number of shortcomings and I promise you I've heard what you have to say, and thought about it too. I'm hoping you have something new for me, I enjoy changing my mind. To start, let's commit blasphemy: the hard cap. It's a bad idea. So is a percentage debasement rate, as is the supposed target of central banks. I'm partial to continuous, linear debasement, which translates to a geometrically decreasing debasement as a percentage of supply. For one, holders free ride the network. Two, no other asset anywhere ever behaves this way. Bitcoin is the most scarce thing in the universe, and that's a good thing until it's not. Something that's always predictably scarce temporally but, taken to infinity, has no hard limit, is superior IMO as long as there's no feedback loops in the supply change. Bitcoin cannot handle enough transactions. Lightning is just fractional banking with extra steps. Again, you're not here to sell layer 2, you're here to convince me (or at least make the case) that this is a strength. All monetary exchange for all of history is public to anyone. For the strongest security guarantee, all history must be stored forever by everyone participating in consensus. Note, if this were solved, block size would be a non issue. It is solved actually, believe it or not, just not in bitcoin. That's what I've got off the top of my head. Bitcoin isn't the best it could be, it could be the best if everyone's commerce was private and historical data was not needed to ensure security. My other point, hard cap, is more contentious and we could argue that one for days and make no progress. Note that I did not mention PoW, ASICs, fees, block size (although one of my points alludes to the possibility of getting rid of that entirely) or any of the usual surface level talking points because I don't think they're worth going over again. I tend to like PoW and think trying to prevent ASICs is counterproductivr, as far as fees go, they're a symptom of a couple of the problems I laid out above.

by dpiers 2y ago

r2_pilot 2y ago

>Bitcoin maxis aren't technologists; they're grifters trying to convince you their magic beans are the most special magic beans. Replace "bitcoin maxis" with any cryptocoin promoter and the statement remains true and equally as useless to those who refuse to consider digital coinage money.

dpiers 2y ago
I don’t disagree. Crypto is neat but has no useful (legal) real world applications.
- npoc 2y ago
  Learn about money supply inflation and its enormous dilutive effects on the value of each currency unit. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
  - r2_pilot 2y ago
    Lol as if BTC or any cryptocoin is a store of value(instead of speculative tulips). One of the reasons why I refuse to accept crypto as money.
    - npoc 2y ago
      Regardless, take my advice
      - r2_pilot 2y ago
        I took macro in college, I'm pretty well aware of the extent I do not care about fiscal policy. I even was basically mining bitcoin practically from the start (within months of the launch) for less than a week(and have subsequently destroyed the maybe half BTC I generated) before realizing that I had no desire to contribute to that particular mind virus. Money is close to the worst aspect about humans.
        npoc 2y ago
        Fiat currency is the worst aspect about humans. Money is simply a natural and far more efficient progression from barter and the associated coincidence of wants problem. If you mined bitcoin from the start and then abandoned it, it proves you know very little about what money is at all.
        r2_pilot 2y ago
        > If you mined bitcoin from the start and then abandoned it, it proves you know very little about what money is at all. Every single crypto bro I tell this to always has the same reaction and that does nothing but vindicate my position to me. Thanks for making my week.

friend_and_foe 2y ago

There are reasons why you'd choose bitcoin over your example, ethereum. For one, supply of ethereum is not deterministically predictable. As money, that makes it less compelling. Some other technical details are very short block time means network splits, orphaned blocks, reorgs are very common. In the short term, ethereum finality is not as reliable. Generally I agree with your point though. Money over IP can takeany forms, and the likelihood that the first form it took is the best it could possibly be is miniscule.

npoc 2y ago
Bitcoin isn't the first form. Study bitcoin long enough and you'll realise it is the best it could possibly be (allowing for small tweaks, additions that don't change the underlying fundamentals) It's not what it first appears and catches everyone out to start with. Give me any number of negatives and I'll explain with clear reasoning why you're wrong and why they're a strength.
- friend_and_foe 2y ago
  I've studied bitcoin for over a decade. Deeply. I can talk about ECDSA and the emergent consensus behavior that emerges from the architecture. I can talk about the economics and monetary policy in detail. I like to think I've got a pretty good handle on it. I know it's not the first attempt at internet money, but it is the first form that didn't require a central intermediary for all transactions. That's what sets all this apart. I can give you a number of shortcomings and I promise you I've heard what you have to say, and thought about it too. I'm hoping you have something new for me, I enjoy changing my mind. To start, let's commit blasphemy: the hard cap. It's a bad idea. So is a percentage debasement rate, as is the supposed target of central banks. I'm partial to continuous, linear debasement, which translates to a geometrically decreasing debasement as a percentage of supply. For one, holders free ride the network. Two, no other asset anywhere ever behaves this way. Bitcoin is the most scarce thing in the universe, and that's a good thing until it's not. Something that's always predictably scarce temporally but, taken to infinity, has no hard limit, is superior IMO as long as there's no feedback loops in the supply change. Bitcoin cannot handle enough transactions. Lightning is just fractional banking with extra steps. Again, you're not here to sell layer 2, you're here to convince me (or at least make the case) that this is a strength. All monetary exchange for all of history is public to anyone. For the strongest security guarantee, all history must be stored forever by everyone participating in consensus. Note, if this were solved, block size would be a non issue. It is solved actually, believe it or not, just not in bitcoin. That's what I've got off the top of my head. Bitcoin isn't the best it could be, it could be the best if everyone's commerce was private and historical data was not needed to ensure security. My other point, hard cap, is more contentious and we could argue that one for days and make no progress. Note that I did not mention PoW, ASICs, fees, block size (although one of my points alludes to the possibility of getting rid of that entirely) or any of the usual surface level talking points because I don't think they're worth going over again. I tend to like PoW and think trying to prevent ASICs is counterproductivr, as far as fees go, they're a symptom of a couple of the problems I laid out above.