Bitcoin demand is not based on intrinsic human needs or instinctual desires

6,253 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by exp
exp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I want to address this statement found in the crypto trading thread, but I'm posting here because this topic has nothing to do with crypto or trading. Bitcoin intrinsic value is a topic worthy of its own thread.

So the poster (who is likely trolling) who stated that "Bitcoin demand is not based on intrinsic human needs or instinctual desires" doesn't yet have a fundamental understanding of what money is or the role it plays in our society. Let me make an honest attempt to address this.

Money is a shared idea, a spontaneous and emergent form of information technology that humans created to optimize skill specialization within the colony. Rather than individual humans surviving by themselves, like a tiger, they were more successful in groups, like lions. Eventually the groups grew larger...the groups realized they were more efficient if certain group members specialized their skillsets. In small groups, there is no need for the technology of money, but when your herd grows into the thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands, you need a system of trust through which specialists can store value across space and time. This initially manifests as barter of goods and services, but the computational challenge of arbitraging every different asset class against each other is inefficient. Trading your apples for a sheep and 3 spears and some bread and a mule and some oranges only takes you so far. Eventually all elements of this society will normalize their barter around some scarce asset that is hard to produce more of.

Money ultimately wants to become one thing. It's the natural end state of this technology. Everything that has value today but is easy to produce more of will inevitably lose its value. What remains as money is the only bubble that doesn't pop.

Human society over the centuries standardized the idea of money around gold because gold was the scarcest element that was impossible to destroy and difficult to make more of. It wasn't perfect on the inflationary front, but it was the best we had. Because of this scarcity and common understanding as "money" it became a great store of value over time.

So before we go any further, let's circle back to the spurious subject of this post. "Bitcoin demand is not based on intrinsic human needs or instinctual desires." This statement is fundamentally wrong and lacks an awareness of what money actually is. Forget about "Bitcoin" or "Gold" or "Dollars"...humanity demands "Money" because it's the only way we know how to store value across time and space such that we can maintain skill specialization that our society depends on. Your strawberries that show up at HEB depend on farmers and truckers and financiers and grocery store owners and architects and construction workers...it's an unimaginable amount of decentralized complexity that allows strawberries to show up on the shelf for you to buy and eat.

Can we agree that humans do demand money by the sheer nature of how we have evolved? Without money we cannot function as a society. Yes we can still survive as individuals off the grid, but we cannot survive as an engineer or an accountant or a football coach if money is not present in our society.

What the debate really is about is *what* is the best money. Most people today are trained to believe dollars, or fiat currency in general, is the best money. It's all we've ever known frankly. It's so deeply rooted in the software programming in our brains that to break the spell is almost like escaping the matrix.

I'm not going to convince most of you that Bitcoin is the right or best money (even though it is), but that's not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to shift and progress the conversation around Bitcoin on this forum to a higher intellectual plane. If you like your steak in the Matrix though, I certainly don't blame you. That's the option most people take.



PS the hostility of this board towards Bitcoin in general is baffling. Aggies are conservative, freedom loving people on average. Bitcoin represents freedom money and a better future for our kids and grandkids. You may not see that yet, but it's absolutely the case. Fiat money is the root of many, if not most of the societal ills we see today. Wake up Aggies!

Goodnight!
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read a blog post about something similar awhile back

https://bitcoinprecept.substack.com/p/money-is-information-technology

Quote:

Money is Information Technology
Why money is the technology that catalyzed the homo sapiens superorganism


What is money? Some might say:

Money is a medium of exchange

Money is a store of value

Money is a unit of account

These are true in the economic frame, but let's take the alien perspective and examine money from a more foundational plane of thought.

Homo sapiens have evolved in 2022 to exist as a superorganism, like an ant colony, more so than a collection of self-sustaining individuals. A superorganism can be understood as a social colony of individuals who, through division of labor, effective communication and self-organization, form a highly connected network that functions as a single organism.

Division of labor describes humanity perfectly. With de minimis exceptions, no individual human being survives in the environment absent coordination with other humans, not unlike an ant.

Do you grow the food you eat?
Do you defend your territorial borders with force?
Did you manufacture your own vehicle, refine the petrol on which it relies, or pave the roads on which it drives?

Of course not, though we were pretty close to this existence during the hunter gatherer epochs.


Pretty solid read.
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bitcoin functions well as money except for its continual wild price swings and the fact that it's price is driven by FOMO and the greater fool theory, and not it's utility as money.

As money, it's not yet established that Bitcoin has enough advantages to be anything more than a highly volatile speculator driven hodling.

As money, every new blockchain causes inflation of blockchain money supply, because these other blockchains offer similar features and they are interchangeable regarding their ability to function as a medium of exchange.

The remark about the adopting in the developing world in the trading thread is good insight and perhaps the best evidence of utility driven demand. But it's not clear if that adoption is from its utility, or also FOMO driven. I would be interested to see how bitcoins value has changed relative to other goods people are purchasing with Bitcoin in developing markets.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Money wants to be food.
Mas89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well what about doggycoin. Who wants some?
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Haven't been on that thread for a while so I might be missing context around the topic.

I would say I have an intrinsic human need and instinctual desire to (1) not have my money inflated and devalued, and (2) have a system of money that is not wholly owned and controlled by the government thereby putting your life and livelihood at the whim of a bureaucracy that could decide you are persona non grata.

See the US Dollar right now for (1) and Trudeau in Canada for (2).

That is why I have a bet on BTC and hope and pray it gets adopted in at least some fashion. I don't know that it will; it's probably a lost bet. However, I think (1) and (2) are more than enough to counter the statement in the OP.
txaggie_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It seems like you said a whole lot without really saying anything.

There are the fanboys of Bitcoin and the skeptics. I'm a little more skeptical, but maybe one day it will have some value. At this time though it's way too volatile to be considered any kind of currency, that is unless you tie it to the value of the dollar. The wild swings in prices don't make for an easy and stable way to trade using bitcoins.
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
txaggie_08 said:

It seems like you said a whole lot without really saying anything.

There are the fanboys of Bitcoin and the skeptics. I'm a little more skeptical, but maybe one day it will have some valueI'll recognize its value.
fify
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To nitpick, you might have to replace "bitcoin" with "money" in the thread title to have it be a more literal argument. To be fair, it was mentioned later in the OP that we humans need money and that it is the OP's opinion that bitcoin is the best form of money currently available.

Also, the topic sentence includes "intrinsic human needs" and "instinctual desires" and while the OP described how humans have moved to money in order to develop large, organized civilizations it should be noted that humans (homo sapiens) have been around 300,000 years while money in the form of currency has only been around 5,000 years. I'd agree that bartering for goods and services, which has dominated human history compared to the blip of money and currency, doesn't work to grow large, complex civilizations. Is there an intrinsic and instinctual need for money in the species, or is money necessary to support our true need which is to grow large tribes? Again, nitpicking, because even if you say the true need and instinct of the species is to grow large tribes then you can argue that everything necessary to do that could be part of the instinct. However, in a post apocalyptic (meteor/volcano/nuclear/whatever) human existence, if reduced to sparse pockets of humans, we would return to bartering for goods and services.

Fiat currency, the concept, has been around about the last 1,000 of those 5,000 years, but really only taken off in the last century. If you look at the rate of human technological development and increase in productivity, it also has really taken off in the last couple of centuries. Is there any relation between the two, I don't know but they happened in the same time frame.

The OP states that fiat currency is all anyone has ever known and that it's rooted in the software programming of our brains (instinct?), but in reality there are many people still alive who lived through the conversion of money backed by a commodity to severing that backing and moving to pure fiat. Certainly for people born after 1971 in America, like me, it's all we've ever known and we fully accept it (not sure if it's software programming in our brains, but I get the main point).

Certainly money/currency has evolved a lot over the past 5,000 years, and while money is a blip in human existence it also can be said fiat currency is a blip in the history of money. Are there better options? Will money evolve? Almost certainly, as human civilizations have evolved so have the functionality needs for our agreed to forms of money. So fiat currency most likely won't be around forever, but knowing what is best for the future needs of civilization is complex. Bitcoin is ingenious and has created, through technology, a form of "perfect commodity" that we think can't be hacked and there will be a limit beyond which more can't be created. There is some concern that our concepts of what can or can't be hacked, or the coding rules that limit total bitcoin, won't be manipulated by future processing power, technological advances, AI, etc. So the security and stability of what some refer to as a technology is a bit unknown, and will cause some people reticence to move to agreeing with others that it is an acceptable form of barter - that societal agreement is needed, and may come with time.

None of the above is disagreeing with the OP, but just nitpicking some wording and discussing what we truly need for our civilization, and wondering if what we need now will greatly change. Money, like everything, continues to evolve quickly and this is a very interesting and complex topic. What if AI and robots could do everything for us, produce all that we need, maintain themselves, would we still need money or form of exchange? Is it truly instinctual?

I do have some questions, and perhaps some disagreements with OP based on the answers, around the "bitcoin represents the best future for our kids and grandkids" and "fiat money is the root of many of our societal ills today".

What societal ills are inherently caused by fiat money? Can you list a top 3 or 5? Did they not exist when we used a commodity backed money?

As far of the future of our kids and grandkids, are you literally talking about the kids of you and I or talking more in general about the children of the world? When you live in the country whose currency has been the dominant currency (due to our productivity, financial management, and having perceived high quality and stable economic and political governance), and your country is able to print that currency to it's heart's content, you can argue it has been very advantageous to residents of that country. The US has had many advantages due to natural resources, geographic isolation, human capital, etc but the strength of the US dollar, controlled by our own government, and it's becoming the dominant reserve currency. If bitcoin is deemed the best money, and not the US dollar, would that have any impact on the US's position in the world? Would it not matter, as the US would have the most bitcoin and it's the strength of our economy - productivity and human capital - and stability and global respect for our political system that would allow us to retain a dominant position in the world? The global dominance by the US over the past century has led to (on average) incredible opportunities for our US children, if replacing our dominant fiat currency with bitcoin in any way erodes our global dominance then you could argue it is not the best future for our kids and grandkids. If bitcoin "levels the playing field" in some way it might bring up other societies which could be good for humanity overall. You might look at bitcoin as freeing us from the control of our US government, but the world will look at it as freeing them from the US dollar. I am curious how you would quantify "better future" for future US generations through adoption of bitcoin.


I don't think a movie meme is effective in arguing something as complex as currency, but I watched it (mostly curious if it was at least produced well - it was - or was completely cringey). It seems that it is playing on a fear that we are controlled through the fiat currency financial system, and it's all a fraud - as if we can't own anything, or advance our position within the fiat controlled world, and that somehow we are being manipulated towards an outcome where the entity (government) controlling the fiat currency will declare it worthless causing us to lose everything, or seize it from us, or what have you. I guess I can understand that as a vague fear, anything I don't fully control is a risk. Somewhat like the rights given to me by the 2nd amendment, does owning 10 guns allow me to protect myself from the government? Does having $500,000,000 US Dollars give me freedom and protect me from the US government? No, I can still be destroyed physically or financially by our government, if it so chose. Just like we would like a physical force field around our families that would guarantee safety, looking at bitcoin as a financial force field protecting us from government intrusion on our wealth is certainly appealing.

If the fear is being under the control of others, and bitcoin is fully adopted as the dominant means of exchange worldwide (you might not be arguing exchange, perhaps store of value) then we should look at the fact 19 million bitcoin have been mined of presumed total amount possible of 21 million. So, it's about 90% "printed". Currently, 0.01% of the overall number of addresses (10K out of 100 million, roughly) control 1/3 of the currency. It's difficult to know what that means - an individual, or specific entity (government, hedge fund, etc), could have multiple addresses. About 0.1% of miners, about 50 miners, control 50% of overall mining capacity. In the fiat world, the US top 1% (not top 0.01% as with bitcoin) hold a third of the US wealth (measured not only by the currency they hold but many other items of value). So we have a very, very small percentage of people or entities holding a very large amount of the total finite commodity, that's a lot of concentrated power. Were they elected? Do we agree they would hold our own children and grandchildren's best interest in mind? Do we know who they are? Are they altruistic, trustworthy? I'm not in the current top 1% and I'm not in the bitcoin top 0.01%, and I'm not at top 50 miner, and if we agree forms of exchange/money are an intrinsic human need, then I feel I won't have any more power or freedom in the bitcoin world than in the current fiat world dominated by the US dollar. The people in control may change, but I will still be controlled. That's my humble opinion, as of today, based on being a complete idiot with limited knowledge of these vastly complex societal systems.
exp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a very thoughtful post with many good questions in it. I wanted to first acknowledge that and thank you for the engagement. I'll circle back in an attempt to provide an equally thoughtful response as time allows but it will take some time.

Hopefully trolls do not derail the conversation before then.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I also don't understand the entire trolls "gold bugs vs crypto" wars..

seems insane to really care one way or another.

those that want to invest in gold- good for them.

those that want to invest in crypto- good for them.

it seems like only a mentally ill person would ever be upset at someone else's investment decisions.
exp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

I also don't understand the entire trolls "gold bugs vs crypto" wars..

seems insane to really care one way or another.

those that want to invest in gold- good for them.

those that want to invest in crypto- good for them.

it seems like only a mentally ill person would ever be upset at someone else's investment decisions.


Goldbugs and Bitcoiners actually mostly agree on the diagnosis of the problem. They only disagree on the best prescription.
TriAg2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've held the position for probably 5-6 years now that BTC has a sustainable market value alongside other mainstream currencies. It will certainly never be a reserve currency, but it has a value that makes it worth holding for some. That value is largely the ability to conduct crimes. Crimes of predation - like ransom and murder for hire - that should be illegal. But enough people have bad intentions that BTC can sustain itself as the lubrication for black market economies that in the past would just transact cash.
aggiepaintrain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with Gates

and this sounds like a classic pump and dump
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Adverse Event said:

txaggie_08 said:

It seems like you said a whole lot without really saying anything.

There are the fanboys of Bitcoin and the skeptics. I'm a little more skeptical, but maybe one day it will have some valueI'll recognize its value.
fify
Would you agree that the value of the current bitcoins in circulation is based on people seeing them as having value? For example as compared to a new instance of the bitcoin network/technology that works in identical fashion as the main one current in use?
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GE said:

Adverse Event said:

txaggie_08 said:

It seems like you said a whole lot without really saying anything.

There are the fanboys of Bitcoin and the skeptics. I'm a little more skeptical, but maybe one day it will have some valueI'll recognize its value.
fify
Would you agree that the value of the current bitcoins in circulation is based on people seeing them as having value?



I'm not really clear on your question, but the bitcoin in circulation (being moved not stored) is USEFUL but undervalued, imo.

Quote:


For example as compared to a new instance of the bitcoin network/technology that works in identical fashion as the main one current in use?



What? Is this asking that an identical ****coin is rolled out and this devalues bitcoin in some manner?
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Those that attempt to copy bitcoin fail to understand the properties that make bitcoin valuable or viable as money.

Anyone choosing to speculate in a copy of bitcoin is making the irrational decision to voluntarily opt-in to a less liquid, less secure monetary network. https://t.co/18Jh3aopAR


Maybe this answers the 2nd part of your question?
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Adverse Event said:

Quote:

Those that attempt to copy bitcoin fail to understand the properties that make bitcoin valuable or viable as money.

Anyone choosing to speculate in a copy of bitcoin is making the irrational decision to voluntarily opt-in to a less liquid, less secure monetary network. https://t.co/18Jh3aopAR


Maybe this answers the 2nd part of your question?


What about Litecoin? It seems superior…

And another pitfall of blockchain, most aren't truly fungible, including Bitcoin. Being able to trace wallet history is a big negative. The government probably already allocated some super computers to mapping wallets since inception.
Post removed:
by user
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ac04 said:

litecoin? hoping that is a joke, no way you are that confused.

Seriously, why do you like Bitcoin but dislike Litecoin?
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Adverse Event said:

GE said:

Adverse Event said:

txaggie_08 said:

It seems like you said a whole lot without really saying anything.

There are the fanboys of Bitcoin and the skeptics. I'm a little more skeptical, but maybe one day it will have some valueI'll recognize its value.
fify
Would you agree that the value of the current bitcoins in circulation is based on people seeing them as having value?



I'm not really clear on your question, but the bitcoin in circulation (being moved not stored) is USEFUL but undervalued, imo.

Quote:


For example as compared to a new instance of the bitcoin network/technology that works in identical fashion as the main one current in use?



What? Is this asking that an identical ****coin is rolled out and this devalues bitcoin in some manner?

It was my understanding that any number of bitcoin networks could be setup with the identical characteristics as the current one. Other than shared belief among participants, what is it that prevents other people from jointly agreeing that a different bitcoin network or another ****coin as you say should be "the network"?
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You can only invent absolute scarcity once, regardless of how many copycats exist. So there's one characteristic that's unfathomably complex and irreproducible unique to only bitcoin.

The code could be the exact same, but it's missing the users, and the hashpower, and without those the consensus the network demands doesn't exist... and those can't be turned on overnight
GE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IAdverse Event said:

You can only invent absolute scarcity once, regardless of how many copycats exist. So there's one characteristic that's unfathomably complex and irreproducible unique to only bitcoin.

The code could be the exact same, but it's missing the users, and the hashpower, and without those the consensus the network demands doesn't exist... and those can't be turned on overnight
Is each coin produced on the 2nd hypothetical bitcoin network any less scarce than on the original? I would think not.

As to your second point, I'll take your word for it as I don't know what the miner to market participant ratio has to be for the market to function
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's only one bitcoin network. Regardless of any future affinity scammers.
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Adverse Event said:

There's only one bitcoin network. Regardless of any future affinity scammers.


But if you want to transfer or store money with blockchain you can do it with Etherium, Litecoin, Chainlink, or any number of blockchains. There are alternatives with the same function, and there is what I call "blockchain inflation" as additional blockchain currencies gain adoption. It increases the blockchain-money supply. Every time a new crypto is added to an exchange, or a wallet service like PayPal for example, it is inflation of blockchain money. Literally, new blockchain money appears out of nothing.

And Bitcoin isn't even the best when it comes to cost, transfer times, or fungibility. Believing Bitcoin can never fall to the wayside just because it's currently well positioned takes an act of faith.

Being the only Italian restaurant in town doesn't mean you don't compete with the new Mexican, Mediterranean, and German restaurants when they open up.
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes apples equal oranges, from your perspective. Both fruit.

Or is it potato tomato? Everything just looks/sounds the same to me.

It's like if 50 different restaurants opened at the same time, bitcoin was a self-sourcing farm to table restaurant with 195 5 star chefs trying different cultural styles with the same fresh local ingredients (no seed oils for sure)....and all the other restaurants were full of promoters that claimed if you started eating at their restaurants everyday the menu would change from some straight from the can spam, into the local/fresh ingredients and a 5 star chef would be attained afterwards...

People that ate at the bitcoin restaurant became slimmer, healthier, with more appreciation of different culture/cuisine.

People eating at the spam factories, well they got the calories, And never saw the promised upgrades.

@NFLPlayerProps
How long do you want to ignore this user?
****coins are not bitcoin and they never will be. Strongly suggest you read this: https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/sites/default/files/documents/bitcoin-first.pdf
OilManAg91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What's the fundamental difference between bitcoin and tulips in the 1630's…serious question.
Ragoo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OilManAg91 said:

What's the fundamental difference between bitcoin and tulips in the 1630's…serious question.
tulips die and decay within a few days then must be discarded.
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OilManAg91 said:

What's the fundamental difference between bitcoin and tulips in the 1630's…serious question.


What length of time did tulip mania actually occur?
Is tulipmania far more story telling than reality?
What percentage of the global population participated in "tulipmania"?
What percentage of global wealth was involved in tulipmania?
How were tulips used to avoid/usurp overbearing government economic policy?
How much hashrate did the world's largest super-tulip-computer create?
Were tulips in 1630s using SHA-256?
How did tulips change the energy policy of cities and countries?
Which governments converted to a Tulip standard for their currency?


Answering one or 3 of these questions might get your mind right, if it needs righting of course.
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems pointing out that other blockchains can compete with Bitcoin and increase the total supply of blockchain money really struck a cord.

Also of note, when demand for blockchain money drops, Bitcoin drops. When ****coins tank, so does Bitcoin.

All of the blockchain monies are correlated. It's very obvious there is more than just Bitcoin supply and demand, it's demand for blockchain money in general that has been having booms and busts. Printing of new blockchains increases supply causing inflation. Bitcoin doesn't exist in a vacuum despite the insistence of some.
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OilManAg91 said:

What's the fundamental difference between bitcoin and tulips in the 1630's…serious question.


Tulips aren't fungible, aren't scarce, are easy to grow, aren't durable, aren't malleable, can't be traded instantaneously to anybody, anywhere in the world.

Bitcoin is fungible, is scarce, has barriers to entry to mine, don't decay, can be divided into smaller units, can be used by any industry, can be traded instantaneously to anybody, anywhere in the world.

Deluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bmks270 said:

Seems pointing out that other blockchains can compete with Bitcoin and increase the total supply of blockchain money really struck a cord.

Also of note, when demand for blockchain money drops, Bitcoin drops. When ****coins tank, so does Bitcoin.

All of the blockchain monies are correlated. It's very obvious there is more than just Bitcoin supply and demand, it's demand for blockchain money in general that has been having booms and busts. Printing of new blockchains increases supply causing inflation. Bitcoin doesn't exist in a vacuum despite the insistence of some.
I think you're actually pretty close to having your light bulb moment. You're barking up the right trees. You just need to pursue them a little bit further.

Pointing out that other blockchains can compete with bitcoin doesn't strike a chord. Not in the least. It's more just evidence that you haven't fully dove into what separates bitcoin from centralized application tokens. I think it's pretty common for someone with a novice-level knowledge of the space to think the same thing. I know I did before dug deeper.

To your other point, not even a Bitcoin maximalist can deny that the conversion rate of Bitcoin to USD has been correlated to the s***coin to USD conversion rate. But it's not because of a broader supply/demand dynamic for "blockchain money".

It's because 1) Bitcoin is used as a unit of value/purchase mechanism for s***coins and 2) it's cross collateralized in high lev/high yield defi products. The unwinding is occurring as we speak. It's led to multiple cascades in the past few months and hopefully we have a few more as the system cleanses. I'd be happy to see $5k Bitcoin if it means all the Bitcoin that was previously locked up as collateral in scam defi has been unlocked.

Lawsuits have already begun to rain down on unregulated security products and soon there will be more clarity in the space. The SEC is coming and there will be many days of reckoning ahead for s***coin casino operators, s***coin management teams and leaders of defi products. Bitcoin has been held hostage and I'm looking forward to seeing it freed from association with these scams.

Though I'll concede the irony in regulators saving Bitcoin when it was founded on a cypherpunk borderline anarchic movement!
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bmks270 said:

Seems pointing out that other blockchains can compete with Bitcoin and increase the total supply of blockchain money really struck a cord.

Also of note, when demand for blockchain money drops, Bitcoin drops. When ****coins tank, so does Bitcoin.

All of the blockchain monies are correlated. It's very obvious there is more than just Bitcoin supply and demand, it's demand for blockchain money in general that has been having booms and busts. Printing of new blockchains increases supply causing inflation. Bitcoin doesn't exist in a vacuum despite the insistence of some.

Bmks,
the tortuous chord, obliviously struck, caused the crowd to leave the room and the folks left are throwing rotten tomatoes at the offending musician.
Deluxe said:


Though I'll concede the irony in regulators saving Bitcoin when it was founded on a cypherpunk borderline anarchic movement!


Bitcoin doesn't need saving, in fact left to it's own devices bitcoin creates more bitcoin maximalists everyday as more people get scammed by ****coinery.

As AdminErrors has stated over and over. Maturity is earned through blood and sweat not milk and honey.
deadbq03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BTC as a viable currency is a pipe dream, for two key reasons:

1) The prevalence of ****coin erodes public trust in BTC… for no good reason mind you, but people are stupid. A core tenant of BTC is public trust and it simply can't happen while all the ****coin is out there. And I firmly believe that most BTC miners aren't in it to be currency transaction hubs in the future, they're in it to get rich quick now. Once it becomes too hard to mine BTC, these guys are gonna use their hardware to get rich quick on ****coin, and then pimp out their ****coin and trash BTC, which erodes public trust.

2) Deflation is an economic problem that's arguably worse than inflation (increased debt burden; de-incentivization of investment and discretionary spending). BTC would be inherently deflationary if it ever became stable enough to become a currency. I've seen tons of spin and misinformation from BTC pumpers trying to pen-whip the definition of deflation to make it sound like BTC won't be deflationary but the cold hard fact is that if you only have a fixed number of BTC, it will absolutely be deflationary as long as the number of people who need to rely on it as a currency keeps rising. It's simple supply and demand. Theoretically, most population growth models show that global population growth will eventually flatten and decrease slightly, so it is possible to imagine a world where BTC (or something like it) could function as currency, but it's unlikely that this occurs in any of our lifetimes (best case models show global population peaking in 2070, most estimate closer to 2100).
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.