If bitcoin is 0% supply growth+tech, That would require governments to continuously *contract* the money supply to be on par
& 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.
-
Even if I agreed with you entirely, it's politically unfeasible to put bitcoin into a box, even one so ideal. I think your vision is highly feasible, and likely to play out initially. I don't think that means ideal money is the end game. It could be ideal money + more.
-
Nono. YOU need consensus for change. Social entropy grows. Bitcoin gets harder to change as it grows, this is especially so as people of Nash's proposal.
-
You don't need to change bitcoin to build on top of bitcoin. You can send compute through BTC Txs today. An innovation can grow atop bitcoin that enhances the value of bitcoin. Use of that innov could break value trends with fiat, and bias to BTC as further dominant asset.
-
If I can build a distributed computation system on top of bitcoin now, you can't stop me without changing your protocols. Harder to change btc to prevent greater use case than money, than to change btc to enable greater uses.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
why hold Fiat pegged to X imperfectly and arbitrarily managed by the state when you can have self-sovereign, unseizable, private ownership of X itself? It makes no sense
-
If bitcoin becomes a value standard for fiat, then fiat is not being arbitrarily managed by the state - it is becoming comparable to a decentralised, apolitical value standard as determined by the cost of mining and its difficulty adjustment algorithm
-
Fiat always was governed by propriety, the will of the people, if we demand our central banks to print trustworthy money then they will.
-
This is the message that will eventually reach out
-
Bitcoin is going to eat the world. It probably won't be with the banks on fire, but it is coming.
End of conversation
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.