Replies (98)
> Inflation being pretty low and things being pretty good is a qualitative subjective statement that doesn't mean much unfortunately. Are you talking about hamburgers, houses, cars, eggs, or something else entirely?
Hamburgers and eggs yes. Food is a good indicator. Housing is like oil in that if the price goes up it's possibly a shortage in supply not too much money in circulation.
> >Your fixed money supply will lead to wildly swinging prices and kill any business quickly.
> I fail to see why this should be so obvious.
The amounts of goods and services offered will vary. If a fixed amount of money chases a varying amount of goods and services the price paid for each good or service will have to vary.
> The reason bitcoiners "obsess" over dollars is because the dollar is the dominant monetary system, not because inflation is low and things are generally speaking good as you seem to think. Should we discard this measurement and start focusing on some imaginary benchmark?
The dollar is dominant because it's the best system we have, not because evil forces don't let you have your Bitcoin economy.
Feel free to come up with a system for more stable prices. If you have one you can rule the world.
>The amounts of goods and services offered will vary. If a fixed amount of money chases a varying amount of goods and services the price paid for each good or service will have to vary
I really don't see why this is concerning to be honest. Can you maybe provide an example? I feel this is somewhat of a crucial point for your argumentation and I don't see how it's so important, thanks
Would you say that, hypothetically, if we were on a gold standard and, for whatever reason, no more gold were to be found for many decades, then the markets would have a hard time doing their thing?
> >The amounts of goods and services offered will vary. If a fixed amount of money chases a varying amount of goods and services the price paid for each good or service will have to vary
> I really don't see why this is concerning to be honest. Can you maybe provide an example? I feel this is somewhat of a crucial point for your argumentation and I don't see how it's so important, thanks
Why are stable prices important? So you can plan financially?
> Would you say that, hypothetically, if we were on a gold standard and, for whatever reason, no more gold were to be found for many decades, then the markets would have a hard time doing their thing?
Yes. We'd have deflation and that'll trigger a massive recession.
I reject the premise that stable prices can only be had with an increasing money supply. There is no logical reason for it
Changing money supply, not necessarily increasing. If the economy grows (as it usually does, that's what we want) the supply needs to increase. But economies can also shrink and then the money supply needs to shrink. During COVID the economy shrank but central banks did the wrong thing and still increased the supply and prices getting all out of whack for a while was the result.
In any case go ahead try to find your magic la-la land with stable prices and a fixed supply. I'm not keeping you. If you fail to find it you can still pull a
@semisol and call your customers "wet wipes". It won't help but you'll feel good for like a minute.
I'm not thinking about that. You're implying that stable means nominally equal from one year to another. So if a beer is 5$ in 2026, stability would mean it will keep being 5$ in 2027, then 5$ in 2030 and so on and so forth (at least if I get your argument right).
This seems to be entirely unnecessary as far as I can see, especially if it is to be obtained by means of a central bank / planning agency that needs to constantly adjust the money supply.
Computers once had prices hovering around 10000$, whereas now you can get a pretty good one for 400$. Is that unstable? Is that problematic?
> I'm not thinking about that. You're implying that stable means nominally equal from one year to another. So if a beer is 5$ in 2026, stability would mean it will keep being 5$ in 2027, then 5$ in 2030 and so on and so forth (at least if I get your argument right).
Correct.
> This seems to be entirely unnecessary as far as I can see, especially if it is to be obtained by means of a central bank / planning agency that needs to constantly adjust the money supply.
How do you plan financially if prices are not stable.
> Computers once had prices hovering around 10000$, whereas now you can get a pretty good one for 400$. Is that unstable? Is that problematic?
They're an exception. Food, housing, transport, health are the things that matter. Just check your monthly budget.
I simply don't think prices have to be *nominally* stable for us to be able to financially plan things. Sure we need to avoid situations where a beer is 5$ one year, 13$ the next, 1.15$ the year after that etc etc
But that could only happen in two scenarios:
- either the money supply changes in crazy ways due to bad central bank planning,
- or the inputs to beer production go from being incredibly scarce to incredibly abundant due to natural disasters or incredibly positive changes in natural conditions, provided demand for beer stays the same of course.
The second case is quite unpredictable, but the first one can be avoided by not having a central bank in the first place.
Nothing makes me think that planning is any easier with a managed money supply. That's because nobody is planning for a generic future, we're all planning that specific goods and services we might need are going to have certain price ranges when we need them.
Let's say I'm building a next generation videogame console but I fail to anticipate that AI demand is going to make GPUs much more expensive. Should I complain about it to the central bank? What if I'm planning to increase the production of cereals but then the strait of Hormuz gets blockaded and fertilizers get so much more expensive, what then?
If anything a fixed money supply allows the price signal to be as clear as possible: prices change only due to demand, supply, and technology. I argue this would allow much better planning than nominal stability.
Its no coincidence that all of the organizations bitcoin was made to combat are now embracing it as an asset/store of value. They know full well what they are doing. The crypto-bro/moon-boy/wen lambo crowd are the biggest threat to bitcoin. They have proven time and again that they are more than willing to sell out the features that make bitcoin great(decentralization, censorship resistance, etc) if it means "number go up".
> I simply don't think prices have to be *nominally* stable for us to be able to financially plan things. Sure we need to avoid situations where a beer is 5$ one year, 13$ the next, 1.15$ the year after that etc etc
Exactly but I think the price swings need to be much lower than that. Current inflation in the single digits already seems too much to some people.
> But that could only happen in two scenarios:
> - either the money supply changes in crazy ways due to bad central bank planning,
> - or the inputs to beer production go from being incredibly scarce to incredibly abundant due to natural disasters or incredibly positive changes in natural conditions, provided demand for beer stays the same of course.
Both are possible but unlikely. The 3rd option is that there is just more production and consumption than before, or less. The inputs stay the same and the central bank money stays the same but people just work more, or less as individuals, or there is more automation, or the population grows or shrinks so the population as a whole works more less. That's the #1 cause for a changing economy.
> Nothing makes me think that planning is any easier with a managed money supply. That's because nobody is planning for a generic future, we're all planning that specific goods and services we might need are going to have certain price ranges when we need them.
Yes and we plan decades ahead e.g. when we're planning for retirement.
> Let's say I'm building a next generation videogame console but I fail to anticipate that AI demand is going to make GPUs much more expensive. Should I complain about it to the central bank? What if I'm planning to increase the production of cereals but then the strait of Hormuz gets blockaded and fertilizers get so much more expensive, what then?
Tech is unusual. We don't have a good way to plan ahead for that but we don't need to as our tech expenses are low compared to everyday stiff. The strait of Hormuz doesn't carry food, food comes from 10,000 individual suppliers spread evenly around the country and the world that makes planning much easier.
> If anything a fixed money supply allows the price signal to be as clear as possible: prices change only due to demand, supply, and technology. I argue this would allow much better planning than nominal stability.
Prices changing due to demand and supply can be planned against by central bank policy and that's what happens and it's good that way.
Peter Schiff is a gold bug.
How should his critique that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme make any sense?
What he fears is competition from a better form of money.
Hal Finney realized this as well.
Retirement means Bitcoin capital in search of a spendable MoE.
We can hope it'll be Monero over CBDCs by then.
Hal Finney wrote on 17th January 2009(!), that he "is looking to add anonymity to Bitcoin".
He understood after 10 days what some Bitcoin maxis barely grasp after 10 years. Without fungibility becoming money is out of scope.
Again, your whole premise is that nominally stable prices are absolutely necessary and I reject it. I think much more damage would be done trying to keep them nominally stable than by simply allowing to go where they may. Have prices for the things that you think matter been nominally stable in the last 20 years? Cars, houses, medical insurance, rent, travel?
I don't see how this is a requirement for a well functioning economy.
You're singling out tech saying it's an exception: why would that be the case? Is it because the rate of technical progress has been higher (however we measure it) in this sector than in other ones? So what? Should only sectors with stagnating productivity improvements count towards the nominal stability you think is so crucial?
Where does NGU come from if not from the masters (FED) printing more units of account (USD)?
Most Bitcoiners have been duped, that NGU means winning.
NGU only means winning when people transact with it as a medium of exchange becoming a unit of account. Else it's temporary speculation where stability gets sold as store if value.
> Again, your whole premise is that nominally stable prices are absolutely necessary and I reject it. I think much more damage would be done trying to keep them nominally stable than by simply allowing to go where they may. Have prices for the things that you think matter been nominally stable in the last 20 years? Cars, houses, medical insurance, rent, travel?
They've been getting more expensive by a few percent a year. It would be better if they didn't change at all but it's the best we can do. The change so far has been small and predictable. Predictable change is the next best thing after no changes.
> I don't see how this is a requirement for a well functioning economy.
So you can plan ahead financially. In order to take up a loan you need to estimate whether your future income -- i.e. the prices for the goods and services you are selling -- will be high enough to pay it off. If you're the lender you're on the other side of the equation. Same for saving for retirement.
> You're singling out tech saying it's an exception: why would that be the case? Is it because the rate of technical progress has been higher (however we measure it) in this sector than in other ones? So what? Should only sectors with stagnating productivity improvements count towards the nominal stability you think is so crucial?
Yes correct the rate of progress has made it unpredictable and that works against maintaining price stability. Every sector should count towards that but if the ones that don't make up a smallish portion of the economy then that's not too bad.
No lies detected.
View quoted note →lol, bitcoin can’t become _perfect_ money if it’s anything other than money. It only goes to show you don’t understand money and by extension Bitcoin.
Yeah, no. The world ain’t the US. Selling /spending Bitcoin is taxable event in most countries, but only in the US people seem to dox themselves for the stupidest thing like buying coffee with bitcoin, i.e. filing taxes. If Bitcoin requires permission from the state, then it’s not what you think it is.
Lots of cope in the comments. It’s almost like a meme.
“It needs tax exemption”
“Fiat needs to die first”
“Bitcoin is more than just money”
Bla bla bla.
I’m becoming more and more embarrassed to call myself a Bitcoiner with each passing day. I don’t know if we got infested with Saylor type fiat bros or this was always the state of things and we were just living in our own bubble for so long, that we started believing our own memes and made idols of the loudest meme lords.
True. Store of value and P2P ecash are to sides of the same coin and some ETfs/treasuries idiots doesn't understand that their "value" hence "store of value" comes uniquely from the capacity to easily spend it without permission needed. So let's just stop focusing on these people that are not interesting.
On the other hand if one wants to change bitcoin at its core each time a new fancy thing is shinning, one also attacks one side of the coin making the whole thing at risk of collapsing.
Bitcoin is already ready to scale to 100 x more people that there are active users today. We are not late. Let's not rush and continue to build.
>They've been getting more expensive by a few percent a year. It would be better if they didn't change at all but it's the best we can do. The change so far has been small and predictable. Predictable change is the next best thing after no changes.
You seem to think that predictable change is still pretty good, so why would it so problematic if change year over year was negative, but still predictable? Imagine all prices, therefore including wages, decreased on average by 0.2% from today until the year 2100 given a fixed money supply.
Where would the difficulties arise in such a scenario? If humans can plan for increasing prices, they can also do so for decreasing ones. Plus I'd argue that for prices to fall is the natural dynamic in a flourishing economy: if we're getting better and better at producing things due to improvements in social organization and technology, why would things end up costing more?
> You seem to think that predictable change is still pretty good, so why would it so problematic if change year over year was negative, but still predictable? Imagine all prices, therefore including wages, decreased on average by 0.2% from today until the year 2100 given a fixed money supply.
Yes predictable change is still pretty good but better predictable increase than predictable decrease. That's why there are target inflation rates of like 1 or 2%. Decreasing prices encourage people to defer spending until later and that leads to a recession and downward spiral and then it's not predictable anymore and the economy will tank in no time. That's why central banks are so worried about deflation. It's better to err a bit on the side of inflation.
> Plus I'd argue that for prices to fall is the natural dynamic in a flourishing economy: if we're getting better and better at producing things due to improvements in social organization and technology, why would things end up costing more?
If we're getting better and better then we should consume more or work less. You can only eat so many loaves of bread but your next vacation can be on Hawaii instead of the campground around the corner. Or the baker that has somehow managed to automate their bread making will still sell the same number of loaves at the same price but work 4 hours a day not 8.
Mind you in addition to what I wrote above, you can't get predictable decrease in prices with a fixed money supply. It'll be unpredictable wild swings.
Why?
>That's why there are target inflation rates of like 1 or 2%. Decreasing prices encourage people to defer spending until later and that leads to a recession and downward spiral and then it's not predictable anymore and the economy will tank in no time
Sorry but this is not logical, you really think that if your purchasing power slowly increased over time you would stop all kind of consumption, and so would everybody else and therefore there would be economic collapse? Please.
The 2% inflation target set by central banks exists because governments have a lot of debt and debtors like it when money loses value over time. There's no need whatsoever to stimulate consumption by artificially lowering purchasing power.
You can't control the supply of goods and services. That's for everyone themselves to choose. I explained it. So you have to continually adjust the supply of money to match the given supply of goods and services.
This does not explain anything. You claim that prices can slowly rise with no consequences, but they absolutely cannot slowly decrease over time or all hell would break loose and the economy would wildly collapse.
Make it make sense please
@Gigi have you ever written or podcasted something about why you believe bitcoin will stay decentralized and secure in the long run? Or do you have any good data sources / dashboards you would recommend on how to monitor its decentralization and security? 🧐
I really hope the world will slowly move towards a better form of money and think BTC could be it. But I don't really know how we are going to keep BTC decentralized and secure, with things like miner centralization and the declining block reward (decreasing the 'security budget'). Other than hoping that fees will eventually start making up for that of course 🤞
I know nobody can tell the future, but I'm looking for some good ideas about why BTC will stay decentralized and secure. Preferably hopeful ones, but hey I'll take what I can get 😂🫶
IDK what the situation is (say) in the EU but in the US it's like question No 1 on the 1040, paraphrasing: "Did you buy anything with crypto this year?"
Answer "no" and congrats, you're lying on your taxes.
Answer "yes" and you're plunged into the labyrinthine task of accounting for the origin of every UTXO you've ever touched.
Do we really think that, pre-fiat collapse, normies are going to be comfortable with either of these options?
So just to clear, your "ask" for normies in America is "yes Grandma lie on your taxes for the Glorious Future of my Magic Internet Money"??
Why can't people who're retiring just convert back their SOV'ed sats to fiat?
What needs to be "sorted out" there?
If retiree makes 1 tx/month converting sats-->fiat that's not overly many txs.
The lie on your taxes! The gubberment is robbing you with them, so you’re just defending yourself. To my knowledge the US has a very rich history of tax evasion and non compliance. Maybe join the statistics on that. Normies ruin everything they touch, so your hope that adoption by normies is a prerequisite for Bitcoin succeeding is misplaced at best.
They need to stay with fiat all the way to have some measure of stability. If they detour via Bitcoin they're at risk of high losses.
Don’t quote me on it but I don’t think anyone in bitcoin has lost any money over a 4 year period. I could be wrong but I think that’s correct.
Yeah but past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Read the original post by
@fiatjaf on top of this thread again. If Bitcoin doesn't deliver as a medium of exchange sooner or later the speculative bubble will burst.
Where did you get this value from? Curious
Well said, NGU should at best tell us that something is wrong in the fiat world, but it cannot be one of the main metrics by which we judge whether Bitcoin is successful or not
> Can't the price of everything else be intentionally set and stabilised in BTC? And with this, it would not matter how the world around fluctuates...
Price fixing has never worked anywhere ever.
> Or is it that economy will never work like that and the exterior will break/crush these intentionalities?
Correct.
> In post modernity nobody depends on each other, but its the zero and the infinite. The individual depending on the giants Big Government and Big Corporations... That's why it keeps fragmenting and people don't come together. No need to depend, no group. Unless we intentionally decide to depend... Is that the future. The coexistence of these two models. Or is there no chance and we will be enslaved?
Depending on big corps instead of your neighbors is a convenience and an indulgence like fast food. It'll go horribly wrong in the long run just like eating (only) fast food will go horribly wrong in the long run. You will need to muster some willpower to resist the temptation in either case.
So far, there has not been any other metric.
Your merchants are pricing in fiat so the Bitcoin price of everything fluctuates wildly. Impossible to do any financial planning based on Bitcoin.
Btc does seem to offer unrivaled trustlessness in trade though. So perhaps even with unlimited swaps...it will still need to be involved in those swaps ( perhaps in batches of pending swaps) to inject some truth and trustlessness to anchor settlement.
Allow us some shame-less self-shilling:
The Bitcredit Project has been working hard for three years to realise the real goal. It's getting closer. Expect a cautious soft launch with small sats later in May, while the new mint network is hardening.
Schiff and Stolfi will soon realise their mistake.
Depndency on the Big State and Big Tech is worse than the fast food example.
Culture is always permeable.
Think about the sisterhood causing/advising for divorce to any marriage in crisis...
The same market forces you admit for troubling price in BTC will act on depndency on the giant. And worse. Think about UBI/Food Stamps/Benefits...
How come people use older tech? Impossible...
Unfortunately the community life is being destroyed quickly. Everyone is internationally mobile (with covid vaccine) and have international access to anyone rich or celebrity level.
Country side girl pretty like a model, married going will now on Instagram accept the invitation from Drake or NBA celebrity who will fly her to the party. And so on...
Gen Z is all influncer. They need remediation English when they enter Uni levels.
I am pretty sure in the human level we are not coming together. After covid and now with Ai, soon robotics, the accelerationists are setting the pace.
Sorry if I dont have a markets and economist brain. If you may please explain a bit more how an outside currency would affect prices in bitcoin? What makes these strange prices that dont go down? Its a bit of a winner takes it all, correct? Its a bit of the largest on the room always wins and determines the economy and prices, right? Can you explain to us with bazaar/market examples as we were 5yos?
Thank you in advance.
Or how much does adoption and boycott play a role?
Could not zap you. Wallet not configured. Maybe the easy primal app....
My profile says "dollars only" and it's pretty funny you'd be trying to send me Bitcoin after I've spend all these words arguing in favor of fiat lol.
Okay! 🤣 Will send you cash on envelope.
I was just trying to follow the general Nostr etiquette.
I am just a Computer Engineer... I have life experience, but no economic conviction. Just trying to understand.
> If you may please explain a bit more how an outside currency would affect prices in bitcoin?
No one lives on an island. You're always dependent on the "outside". You'll have to deal with their economy. The closer your economy and your prices are aligned to the outside the better you can do that.
> What makes these strange prices that dont go down?
What are these? Is this something I said? There is intentional inflation of 1 or 2% yes, by increasing the money supply mostly, it keeps prices from slipping into deflation which would cause a downward spiral.
> Its a bit of the largest on the room always wins and determines the economy and prices, right?
No? In a democracy the actions of the government are determined by the people, including all departments of the government like the central bank. This of course requires involvement and that's a fair piece of work so a lot of people are just opting out of the process but that's their choice.
Taller is for merchants...
What do you mean by zaps in fiat? What is the issue with crypto?
There's bitcoin and then theres Monero... How hard it is to treat crypto as a payment system?
Theres USDT if you like the Fed's quantitative easing...
Well... Government is one of the large ones in the room...
I see price is a very complicated thing..
Crypto crowd brought a very interesting idea. That deflation should happen and it would be great.
It does make sense as a lot of stuff gets cheaper and cheaper to be produced or to own, and all the leverage our economy uses makes some things unaffordable (e.g. housing).
I guess I am trying to wrap my head around these things.
I guess 85% of consumer decisions are made by women and without them theres no capitalism or expansion of futility...
Of course we need incentives to innovate... But does it need to be due to loans? - I am not sure... I want to form an opinion on that...
I guess the recent deregulation and domination of Private Equity activity brought us to the point of being doomed....
> It does make sense as a lot of stuff gets cheaper and cheaper to be produced or to own, and all the leverage our economy uses makes some things unaffordable (e.g. housing).
How is cheaper better? I'm completely mystified. What products and services are you selling? Getting paid less and less every year is somehow a good thing? Do you have loans? Isn't this going to make paying them off harder and harder?
We are arriving on the opposite extreme of deflation...
Now all is a subscription. A tractor for your field? Subscription!
Not even lease anymore... The whole life will be subscriotion or remotely shutdown... I call it slavery...
You're not obliged to buy or subscribe to their products.
"Taler is for merchants" it seems to be some sort of p2p system.
All crypto "currencies" lack a price stabilization mechanism.
USDT seems stable but you have the counterparty risk. There is a counterparty risk with Taler too similar to the cashu mints people are promoting here but it's simpler and doesn't need a blockchain.
As for the quantitative easing, inflation for USD and other similar currencies is in the low single digit % I can live with that.
Untrue... Trucks for farms are subscription model for a long time check since when, search Johnniee Deerie upgrades/subscription...
Cars are going the same route. And for long time now its either service them on their own shop or no parts, no service, no telemetry. And the Ultra Low Emission Zones (London), and the 15min cities attempts (Oxford) - UK, Australia and Canada always Guinea pig, test space for how public opinion can be drawn into this...
More and more the right to maintenance is fringe and that's why the EU tries to force it on Big Tech.
Black Swan events such as covid push all this dystopia further...
No on needs to be a rocket scientist to know that a loan with interest is selling the future to have a better present... It is selling the future generation to have it good right now...
Its impressive you think larger prices are better. Thinking at own business or maybe own real state. And can't see there will be always a bigger fish applying same poison to you.
Maybe the genius move was big capital allowingba whole generation to have it easy (boomers) and the generation after to have useless university degrees, no job and no housing... The clash of generations does no allow them to unite against who created this system...
Inflation good?!?! For whom?!?!? For how long?!?!? How come...
When I asked it, I was expecting some deep economics answer on supply/demand/ innovation / productivity... But then I get a greed based answer?!? 😳😳🙄🙄
There are literally zero farm trucks to buy that don't require a subscription?
> No on needs to be a rocket scientist to know that a loan with interest is selling the future to have a better present... It is selling the future generation to have it good right now...
No it isn't. Loans are just for having any future at all, not a better one. The farmer borrows to buy "inputs" (seed, fertilizer) so they can sow then harvest & sell & payback later. The merchant borrows to buy merchandise they can sell later etc. Students borrow to learn so they can sell their skills later.
Loans are just a fact of having to spend first before earning in any business.
> Its impressive you think larger prices are better. Thinking at own business or maybe own real state. And can't see there will be always a bigger fish applying same poison to you.
Mild inflation is the best we have. I don't see how it benefits the big guys.
> Inflation good?!?! For whom?!?!? For how long?!?!? How come...
> When I asked it, I was expecting some deep economics answer on supply/demand/ innovation / productivity... But then I get a greed based answer?!? 😳😳🙄🙄
Don't know how that makes me greedy. The economic rules apply to everyone and don't benefit me in particular.
I'm a few years in now. Happy to pay and receive it for goods and services.
Naturally skewed that way as it became a larger portion of my cash balance since it felt like I was going to buy it anyway so why not earn it. And then spending sure I'd have to convert out to fiat anyway so why not
Time helped and I am spending more than ever
Can already do that pretty easily. No one wants it though. I'll implement if you wanna pay me to do it. It'll only be you using it though... And I want to be paid a lot. Because I don't care about it and I have more important stuff to work on.
Of course not. You are correct. It's just hard and he doesn't want to build his own tractor or pay someone to make one for him.
> Storing value should make the value go up over time because technology is deflationary.
Where do the advancements in technology come from, if the money is all in cold storage? Technological deflation is a return on investment. It isn't magic.
If you financially starve a market, the price of goods goes up, not down, over time. As the means of production and service capabilities collapse. That is why things in poorer countries tend to be more expensive: they don't have the industrial capacity to produce at high and increasing efficiency.
I think there's another issue, tho.
The value of Bitcoin, like the value of anything, is subjective. If you put your savings into Bitcoin, but other people don't want to use it (because of the toxic combination of low velocity and shrinking supply; i.e. there isn't much of it, they aren't really making any more of it, and what exists hardly moves), then it loses purchasing power because other people value it lower.
We can already see Bitcoin losing out to gold, for instance.
The narrative used to be that Bitcoin was superior to gold, in large part because it is digital and highly divisible and therefore better for commerce. And then there was no commerce. None. Zero. Zip. We can barely get 1 SAT zaps going. I am one of the biggest zappers on here, and I am an unemployed shrimp with no car.
I haven't given up. I still spend Bitcoin. But I am aware that I am in a tiny and shrinking demographic. And I know every time I buy some, I am just pumping some millionaire's or billionaire's bags. Hardly any normal people own any.
You can imagine how motivated I am to keep stacking. These were not the droids I was looking for.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that it becomes something only rich people have or care about, like Bugattis or Picassos. Digital pet rocks. Engrave a monkey JPEG on it, and call it a day.
Most civilizations collapsed, and the people in them died out or were sold into slavery. People lost the ability to read or to use the wheel. It happens quite quickly.
We progress toward Heaven, not toward Utopia.
The M2 money supply for US$ is currently around 23 trillion and that's just US$.
So far for "no one wants it".
You think they want it or do you think they have to use it? They want money. They're forced to use the dollar.
Then where is the line of people offering to pay me to implement it?
People come and want to zap me like the nostr user on top of this thread. I didn't ask for anything.
No? They can just use Bitcoin?
They just *prefer* fiat just like me.
You cannot pay taxes in Bitcoin
We're talking about zapping here.
yeah... would be so good to pay Jo taxes at all. and have a minimum state.
Stolfi. I almost forgot about him. He was the best Bitcoin critic we had. I really liked his attitude as he tried so hard to find failures in the Bitcoin construct.
Also Roger Ver comes yo mind. Maybe it's an irony of history that we are forced to meet again with our past critics trying to understand the essence of their messages.
“Weapons weren’t meant to be ornaments on a wall.” ~ C.Mantis
bitcoin is a weapon against the State & the Central Banks… use it as money & learn to live on it daily as much as you can… it is the way we starve and defeat the enemy who weaponizes our own currencies against us
If you do not use bitcoin as money (as a weapon) but simply a store of value (an ornament), then you aren’t in the fight… you’re hanging up a weapon as a decoration, waiting for it to appreciate in value… and perhaps, if enough of us do so, in time, it will it will rust and break when finally brought to bear against our enemy
View quoted note →The value of a currency is the value of the market using this currency, that's what most fails to realize
I paid in bitcoin for a Gyro at a food truck yesterday (square terminal) in front of a small group of co-workers. There were no oohs and aahs, (although the merchant seemed excited about it!), no questions asked, just me subtly imprinting on them what the future looks like. Proving my point tasted great, gryo was just okay
Yeap
Make them wrong again !
View quoted note →Gold is used as a financial instrument and most of its value come from that.
It would be same with Bitcoin, as long as it was perceived as money by normal people. The moneyness of Bitcoin would form the core of its value on top of which other types of demand would be stacked.
With Gold I believe it has a fundamental demand for jewelry and other small use cases, and on top of that there is a vast amount of financial use cases that make its value be much bigger than that of other rocks.
In both cases if you remove the fundamental source of value the thing tends to zero.
The utility value of gold is like 10% of its market cap. Most of its market cap is imputed monetary premium (speculative). Its intrinsic value argument is moot and not a meaningful floor for price.
I hate complacency and I think we have to push for MoE but I also think the store of value argument is much stronger for bitcoin which has a lower issuance rate than gold.
Louder for the cunts in the back
Gold is something that many people are evolutionarily attuned to irrationally desiring. Millennia of gold being the common store of value has an effect that is kind of like seeing the characters in The Treasure of Sierra Madre. It’s like teen strippers or cured pork fat, in that there is a deeply wired reward pathway that fires when you come in contact with it. You know that it’s something that you want. A sack of krugerrands calls to some basic ancient urge in most people in a way that a duffel bag full of banknotes or a balance in a database does not. I know because I have a fair number of them even though they generally give dogshit return longterm versus other assets. I can’t stop myself. There’s a magic to gold. Looking at it, running your fingers through piles of it. Bitcoin has to compete against gold on its merits, which, for most, do not include natural physiological responses honed from countless millennia of evolution governed by the autonomic nervous system and central amygdala.
I don't disagree about the primal nature. But the bottom line is that it is possible to have an asset that is not primarily used for MoE.
And that gold on a technical level does not have a particularly good:
1. Control of supply issuance
2. Intrinsic value as a floor
Which actually make it inferior to bitcoin as a store of value. Bitcoin has the added bonus of being better as a MoE, collateral and programmable money.
> the bottom line is that it is possible to have an asset that is not primarily used for MoE.
well of course, virtually no assets are used as medium exchange. I generally don’t pay for goods or services with equities, bonds, or real estate.
Stored of value necessitates NgU because nation state monies are constantly debased. So to store value the unit must appreciate at least in proportion to debasement.
Right. What I meant is you can be a $20T asset like gold without being an MoE even though the MoE AND store of value is more desirable. In some cases they are in conflict i.e. if someone is HODLing really hard but I think people need to start getting over that.
Commerce adoption is by far the most important goal.
mostly because the SoV bitcoiners do not use lightning, meanwhile the MoE bitcoiners live entirely on lightning thanks to the Jacks 💫
Find a way to buy non-kyc sats and spend them. It gets easier and less intimidating each time. It becomes fun and you want to do it more and more. You will meet great, like minded people. It is a good thing that will make you happy happy happy. 😊
View quoted note →Come on over to #thebullishmarket or www.takemysats.com to find some of the hottest PoW your precious sats will buy! We work on a Bitcoin standard,
Living Bitcoin as money every day as it was intended. The question is.. when will you all join the party and fill your pantries with Bitcoin backed goodness!
Bitcoin will almost certainly lose because of the cult mentality holding it back from being used as money.
nah they both get used up pretty quickly
Bitcoiners can get over it by using Monero.
Just keep hodling your BTC (like gold)) and spend the other. Buying and selling Monero gives it great stability, while appreciating slowly against USD.
