Is he really proposing that you hold one asset versus another? Or is he proposing that state fiat pegged to bitcoin is a likelihood, and provides a similar net impact as hyperbitcoinization in the purest sense?
-
-
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.
-
Better said, if can build greater use on current bitcoin, it'll be hard to fork me off, just as you argued it'd be hard to fork new capacity/protocols on. I say harder even.
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.