agreed ❤ I'm just confused about what the maxi position is exactly. do you really think it's plausible that supply is NEVER going to be guaranteed by cryptography? I understand people feeling it's too early or too untested. but I don't understand thinking that it's okay to use cryptography to guarantee ownership and transferability, but that supply verification is something that is absolutely taboo. it's not an intellectually consistent position. I don't think it's any different than people at the beginning of the 20th century refusing to ride in cars. " I don't trust it because I don't understand an engine. show me the horse, I need my transportation to be easily personally verifiable. " and sure, I get it. people died in those early cars. but we figured it out and now it's normal. trust in technical advancements increases over time.

Replies (1)

I'm still learning how the verification would actually occur and be verifiable. I'm too ignorant to have an opinion. I get how Bitcoin currently works in the sense that all the transactions can be traced and have basic math operations performed on them to get a total supply. I can say that I don't particularly like that anyone can see my holdings and transactions and trace everything I've ever done. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to never make even a single mistake at any point ever lest they dox their entire history. I've considered the implications of having sats linked to some crime or identity and getting wrapped up in something that had nothing to do with me. I get that side of the issue. I don't understand why verification can't occur in some way that doesn't put everyone into clear houses. And this is an issue for individuals as well as governments, if they're to adopt sound money like most of us non-anarchists probably want them to.