This is another common misconception: that the value of Bitcoin/gold is *purely* social. A big part of it is social, but to get there, the monetary asset needs to have the required properties first. Most importantly, unforgeable costliness. Other reqs exist such as portability.https://twitter.com/belowsearcher/status/1046486502954463237 …
-
-
> I don’t get the gold comparison; gold is scarce, but energy isn’t. The scarcity of Bitcoin comes from the high energy requirement to break the 21-million-bitcoins limit. The same way gold is scarce because it would take a tremendous amount of energy to synthesize gold.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do you think this theory can apply to cryptocurrencies that have inherent protocol limits? Or do you think the demand side of money will necessitate that multiple cryptocurrencies exist to serve different demand cases?
-
That's a great question. I do think feedback loops/network effects will still play a very strong role (BTC forever king). But I also agree with the view that cryptocurrencies are inherently limiting because of Nakamoto consensus AND because they're software protocols. We'll see.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I also think things like confirmation times are almost irrelevant. What matters is credibility of consensus rules and security.https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/956270294854811648?s=19 …
Thanks. 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.
