14/ Another example: Vitalik trying to bring Turing-completeness to Bitcoin in the early days. That *sounds like* it’s something useful- how bad can it be right? Wrong. Not only “world decentralized computer” is a dubious vision, it’s a total distraction.
-
Show this thread
-
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow 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 -
Replying to @hugohanoi
I think this is a misunderstanding. To the degree that people hoard, the rate of improvement in the standard of living in society falls to the point that hoarding is no longer appealing or viable. The amount of hoarding will adjust to supply the demanded rate of progress.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reardencode
It's not hoarding per se that might worsen the standard of living. It's hoarding *combined with the proclivity to work less* (and reduce net production output) that might do it. Adjusting the level of hoarding (by spending more) won't do anything in that case.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Sure, some people might step up & produce more when standard of living worsens, but the majority of hoarders will choose to wait for someone else to do it, aka "free-riding".
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.
