15/ It then naturally follows that the most qualified devs we want to work on Bitcoin, are likely *already in it*. Their ideological conviction draws them to the project, not the promise of wealth.
-
Show this thread
-
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
16/ TL;DR: Shortage of Bitcoin developers is not a problem you can simply throw money at or add in-protocol incentives for (I described how that’s impossible: https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/985073633419673600 …). It requires ideological conviction & only a tiny tiny number of people are qualified.
Hugo Nguyen added,
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
17/ In late-stage Bitcoin, specifically post-hyperbitcoinization, the benefit of HODLing (to the network, not the individual) will decrease as Bitcoin becomes mainstream. The mere size of the mature market (say 10 trillion) will make any individual act of HODLing insignificant.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
18/ Conviction is most useful when you hold a contrarian view. Conviction is not a big deal when most people already believe in it.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
19/ HODLers in late-stage, post-hyperbitcoinization, are then merely hoarders of a scare & *non-productive* asset. Hoarders also tend to work less & produce less than others, since they believe that their hoarded assets always increase in value.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
20/ IMO the term “free riding”, then, might apply. Late-stage Bitcoin HODLers free ride not off protocol development, but society at large.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
21/ If everyone hoards & starts working less, we might end up with a situation where total production output & total number of things available to buy decrease. In which case, not only you will need to pay more for each product, the economy will stagnate as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
22/ Hoarding without working is free riding. You are free riding off efforts of others to push society forward. The interesting question then, is at the macro level, is there a level of free riding where it becomes unhealthy? But that is a topic for another day.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi
I'm with you up until you start talking about hoarding. Keynesian myth. It's plainly saving for the future and whatever reason you have to save is a fine one. That money will re-enter the economy at some point when you get utility from spending it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ifarnung @hugohanoi
Even if it's gone forever (extreme hoarding), like a stock buyback, it concentrates the value of said money and net increases all other holders wealth.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not talking Keynesian. If it's about more hoarding, less money in circulation (low velocity), I don't see a problem. I'm talking about more hoarding, less *work*.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi
I guess I don't understand what "less *work*" means. I do agree that Bitcoin development is qualitatively different [an order of magnitude(s) more difficult] than average programming work requirements.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
