Big Barry Bitcoin on Nostr: Okay, here we go: # 1. Transactions are not measured by energy used, the strength of ...
Okay, here we go:
# 1. Transactions are not measured by energy used, the strength of its immutability is.
There is no issue with energy use with bitcoin. Many cite that energy use = pollution, but this is a drastic oversimplification.
In fact Bitcoin is the most green use of energy despite its use of energy and it even incentivises more green sources of energy over traditional energy production in many cases.
Gas flaring, waterfall energy capture, solar, all of these are uniquely better suited to Bitcoin mining because they cannot be captured and transported to cities cheaply, yet they exist and are cheap to use on-site.
So comparing Bitcoin's energy use to city wide use is like comparing bananas to chickens.
Also, the energy usage provides two important features:
1. No man or organisation can be trusted to control Bitcoin. This is the whole thing that has ensured that it never faltered under pressure until now. This energy usage ensures that no man or organisation can afford to take over the network.
2. Competition is natural decentralisation. Bitcoin does not introduce policy restrictions to determine who can mine blocks, it simply uses a clean measure of electrical power. Any attempt to reduce energy usage would involve preventing certain people from expressing their desire to contribute to the network with their time and energy. This is no different than constructing a government of privileged individuals to control Bitcoin.
Any attempt to define who can mine Bitcoin is an attempt to define who are Truth tellers. Therefore it disempowers users who currently dictate the rules. If a new rule is introduced by the powers that be that I dislike, I will refuse to accept blocks of data that break my original rules. If many people agree with me, I then just wait until miners figure out that many of us dislike the rules so they are not earning fees and they switch back to following my rules. In a system where it's not about what you do, but who you are, that determines whether you speak for bitcoin, Bitcoin is a captured system that will no longer be a neutral money. The miners don't care about what we think if they are the truth tellers. If there is competition with a new organisation, how do users know which is the correct group to follow? With such uncertainty, we the users lose and must turn to a leader to tell us what to think.
Its a fine line and a fragile situation, so removing or even dampening the energy usage is disastrous, even if not immediately disastrous.
# 2. Bitcoin's supply limit is not at all like fiat's redistribution of wealth.
Yes funds are lost.
Yes some got in early.
Also many early adopters sold.
Also many early adopters lost Bitcoin and then helped to improve our collective knowledge.
Also many early adopters spent their bitcoin. Money is not a hoarding game, those who wish to change the world, or even just their situation, must spend.
Just like everything in the universe, Bitcoin will naturally disperse over time when there is no active force changing this.
FIAT: when governments and wealthy individuals want to change something, they increase the supply of units to tip the percentage distribution of wealth in their favour so that they can do so.
If I own 50% of the worlds money, but I want to make a change, I want to buy America and Imprison the world. The rest of the world will quickly gather resources to fight me. I could convince many to join me by spending my wealth, but eventually I run out of power.
But what if I could hire 10% of the population by giving each percentage of them 5% of my wealth... I have nothing left, but 10% will fight my cause against 90% of the population.
What if I could then double the money supply... I now have 50% of the wealth again... I can convince more people. I can keep doing this until I have bought almost everyone's favour whether directly in cash, or indirectly in incentives.
Maybe my analogy is too wild. But this IS the world we live in. Why? Because whenever the wealth naturally distributes, someone tips the scale back to maintain control of us.
Take that forcing power away by limiting the supply of money absolutely and we objectively have a fairer system than fiat. We may never see if it naturally disperses wealth among each of us over generations, but I am positive that if you take away the thing that actively resisted it, then it will happen unless we hit a new obstacle... In which case we are at least making progress.
# 3. Volatility.
Volitility is hard to measure. It is relative. Fiat looks stable compared to groceries, but crazy compared to housing.
Also, pricing in a currency helps reduce volatility. If I price tshirts at 25,000 sats each, I probably won't change that price every minute, or every hour. I'll do it daily, weekly, monthly. If my costs are in sats, I can create monthly contracts to keep volatility down. Human action using the currency reduces volatility. Not the money itself.
# 4. Yes, Bitcoin not blockchain.
Blockchain is terrible for most things. But for this one unique purpose, it helps. But blockchain is nothing without all the rules and other innovations arranged the way Bitcoin is arranged... Including proof of work.
There is SOME room for change, but not much, and many cryptos have tried.
# 5. Difficulty adjustment.
We don't know what fees will be like in the future, but know this. Miners shutting down is not bad for bitcoin if it was by personal choice.
Not making enough profit? Personal choice to stop losing money.
The network will still continue to function because of the difficulty adjustment feature that keeps the network running smoothly regardless of if more miners join or leave.
Will it allow someone to take control of the network? Maybe, but there are so many variables. As long as the rules are kept by us users, then someone with more energy than our miners can't just change the rules because they don't control us. Eventually that miner will lose money and run out of resources attempting to lie to us while we ignore them because our nodes don't care. It is a time game.
They could, at worst, destabilize bitcoin... Until they run out of resources.
But users would probably fight back. Pay higher fees, incentivise more mining, even start mining themselves. Just drown out the malicious miner.
# 6. Bitcoin is the natural path.
It does nothing to drive money into the hands of a few.
Any attempt to control bitcoin to force a distribution of wealth causes negative outcomes. And often leads to a few distributing money to themselves above all.
# 1. Transactions are not measured by energy used, the strength of its immutability is.
There is no issue with energy use with bitcoin. Many cite that energy use = pollution, but this is a drastic oversimplification.
In fact Bitcoin is the most green use of energy despite its use of energy and it even incentivises more green sources of energy over traditional energy production in many cases.
Gas flaring, waterfall energy capture, solar, all of these are uniquely better suited to Bitcoin mining because they cannot be captured and transported to cities cheaply, yet they exist and are cheap to use on-site.
So comparing Bitcoin's energy use to city wide use is like comparing bananas to chickens.
Also, the energy usage provides two important features:
1. No man or organisation can be trusted to control Bitcoin. This is the whole thing that has ensured that it never faltered under pressure until now. This energy usage ensures that no man or organisation can afford to take over the network.
2. Competition is natural decentralisation. Bitcoin does not introduce policy restrictions to determine who can mine blocks, it simply uses a clean measure of electrical power. Any attempt to reduce energy usage would involve preventing certain people from expressing their desire to contribute to the network with their time and energy. This is no different than constructing a government of privileged individuals to control Bitcoin.
Any attempt to define who can mine Bitcoin is an attempt to define who are Truth tellers. Therefore it disempowers users who currently dictate the rules. If a new rule is introduced by the powers that be that I dislike, I will refuse to accept blocks of data that break my original rules. If many people agree with me, I then just wait until miners figure out that many of us dislike the rules so they are not earning fees and they switch back to following my rules. In a system where it's not about what you do, but who you are, that determines whether you speak for bitcoin, Bitcoin is a captured system that will no longer be a neutral money. The miners don't care about what we think if they are the truth tellers. If there is competition with a new organisation, how do users know which is the correct group to follow? With such uncertainty, we the users lose and must turn to a leader to tell us what to think.
Its a fine line and a fragile situation, so removing or even dampening the energy usage is disastrous, even if not immediately disastrous.
# 2. Bitcoin's supply limit is not at all like fiat's redistribution of wealth.
Yes funds are lost.
Yes some got in early.
Also many early adopters sold.
Also many early adopters lost Bitcoin and then helped to improve our collective knowledge.
Also many early adopters spent their bitcoin. Money is not a hoarding game, those who wish to change the world, or even just their situation, must spend.
Just like everything in the universe, Bitcoin will naturally disperse over time when there is no active force changing this.
FIAT: when governments and wealthy individuals want to change something, they increase the supply of units to tip the percentage distribution of wealth in their favour so that they can do so.
If I own 50% of the worlds money, but I want to make a change, I want to buy America and Imprison the world. The rest of the world will quickly gather resources to fight me. I could convince many to join me by spending my wealth, but eventually I run out of power.
But what if I could hire 10% of the population by giving each percentage of them 5% of my wealth... I have nothing left, but 10% will fight my cause against 90% of the population.
What if I could then double the money supply... I now have 50% of the wealth again... I can convince more people. I can keep doing this until I have bought almost everyone's favour whether directly in cash, or indirectly in incentives.
Maybe my analogy is too wild. But this IS the world we live in. Why? Because whenever the wealth naturally distributes, someone tips the scale back to maintain control of us.
Take that forcing power away by limiting the supply of money absolutely and we objectively have a fairer system than fiat. We may never see if it naturally disperses wealth among each of us over generations, but I am positive that if you take away the thing that actively resisted it, then it will happen unless we hit a new obstacle... In which case we are at least making progress.
# 3. Volatility.
Volitility is hard to measure. It is relative. Fiat looks stable compared to groceries, but crazy compared to housing.
Also, pricing in a currency helps reduce volatility. If I price tshirts at 25,000 sats each, I probably won't change that price every minute, or every hour. I'll do it daily, weekly, monthly. If my costs are in sats, I can create monthly contracts to keep volatility down. Human action using the currency reduces volatility. Not the money itself.
# 4. Yes, Bitcoin not blockchain.
Blockchain is terrible for most things. But for this one unique purpose, it helps. But blockchain is nothing without all the rules and other innovations arranged the way Bitcoin is arranged... Including proof of work.
There is SOME room for change, but not much, and many cryptos have tried.
# 5. Difficulty adjustment.
We don't know what fees will be like in the future, but know this. Miners shutting down is not bad for bitcoin if it was by personal choice.
Not making enough profit? Personal choice to stop losing money.
The network will still continue to function because of the difficulty adjustment feature that keeps the network running smoothly regardless of if more miners join or leave.
Will it allow someone to take control of the network? Maybe, but there are so many variables. As long as the rules are kept by us users, then someone with more energy than our miners can't just change the rules because they don't control us. Eventually that miner will lose money and run out of resources attempting to lie to us while we ignore them because our nodes don't care. It is a time game.
They could, at worst, destabilize bitcoin... Until they run out of resources.
But users would probably fight back. Pay higher fees, incentivise more mining, even start mining themselves. Just drown out the malicious miner.
# 6. Bitcoin is the natural path.
It does nothing to drive money into the hands of a few.
Any attempt to control bitcoin to force a distribution of wealth causes negative outcomes. And often leads to a few distributing money to themselves above all.