Geist on Nostr: UTXOs today are as uniform as gold was before the minted coin, before which the gold ...
UTXOs today are as uniform as gold was before the minted coin, before which the gold could have been better traced to origin by its melt and form. Coinjoins and payjoins strip identifiable information out and can provide uniform outputs. Upgrades to the network will bring cross input signature aggregation, allowing these functions to be performed in a very decentralized manner.
You could say that the total supply of fiat is limited at any single moment, but I would argue this does not constitute scarce.
-Scarce would imply a marginal cost of production that fiat does not have, more can be created by political means.
-your definition of scarcity here would imply that nothing is *not* scarce, a jpeg may only have been copied to a million harddrives, but could be copied to 10 million more at essentially zero marginal cost.
Bitcoin on the other hand cannot be created without the marginal cost of production, determined by your computing power (linked to physical cost by your price of electricity) and the total computing power of the network. Further, even taking your arguement at face value, fiat still fails in its centralized issuance and control.
I would be highly skeptical that you could find a crypto that offers these points in better spades than bitcoin. Monero for instance could be said to be more private, but your privacy set, the total number of transactions yours is hidden behind, is limited compared to bitcoin. You would be better off using a coinjoin, a payjoin, or even liquid, compared to using cryptos that lack the economic activity to properly hide amongst the crowd. Further, any additional feature set you find in a crypto will sacrifice a more fundamental feature that bitcoin has, like decentralization, monero would not be able to maintain any sense of decentralization if there transaction volume did go up, because their scaling solution is allowing bigger blocks.
You could say that the total supply of fiat is limited at any single moment, but I would argue this does not constitute scarce.
-Scarce would imply a marginal cost of production that fiat does not have, more can be created by political means.
-your definition of scarcity here would imply that nothing is *not* scarce, a jpeg may only have been copied to a million harddrives, but could be copied to 10 million more at essentially zero marginal cost.
Bitcoin on the other hand cannot be created without the marginal cost of production, determined by your computing power (linked to physical cost by your price of electricity) and the total computing power of the network. Further, even taking your arguement at face value, fiat still fails in its centralized issuance and control.
I would be highly skeptical that you could find a crypto that offers these points in better spades than bitcoin. Monero for instance could be said to be more private, but your privacy set, the total number of transactions yours is hidden behind, is limited compared to bitcoin. You would be better off using a coinjoin, a payjoin, or even liquid, compared to using cryptos that lack the economic activity to properly hide amongst the crowd. Further, any additional feature set you find in a crypto will sacrifice a more fundamental feature that bitcoin has, like decentralization, monero would not be able to maintain any sense of decentralization if there transaction volume did go up, because their scaling solution is allowing bigger blocks.