With Bitcoin you are 100% you have the value of Bitcoin, with your central bank targeting, you can only be 75% sure. Why take the unnecessary risk when you can own Bitcoin in a self-sovereign, unseizable manner? You’re taking unnecessary counterparty risks in your thesis
-
-
But asset preference may be biased towards bitcoin if there is additional utility enabled.
-
If the value trends are perfectly comparable, how could u suggest the markets prefer one over the other? Even if one killed you and the other made you superman?
-
I meant individual preference. Even if Fiat becomes perfectly stabilized internationally, some bitcoiners are never coming back.
-
& in the on chain computation explosion scenario I mentioned, while bitcoin and well managed fiat could be stable and economically indistinguishable, Bitcoin holders benefit as bitcoin as more than money evolves its valuation, limiting the parallel that well managed fiat provides
-
Unless we decide to never evolve bitcoin any further.
-
I think the environment collectively agreeing to stop evolving bitcoin is less politically likely than central banks collapsing this decade, which I also agree is unlikely.
-
Part of bitcoins anti fragile nature is in its potential for forks as a result of consensus failures. Are you suggesting the community voluntarily decides bitcoin is at an ideal peak and chooses to no longer evolve it?
-
I have been suggesting that for years yes. Based on Nash's insights, that are quite founded and logical. Bitcoin is gold, and we value it because it doesn't evolve, not because it does.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.