Lysander Spooner on Nostr: It's faux-mining. Mining is exploration for existing resources. BTC pops into ...
It's faux-mining. Mining is exploration for existing resources. BTC pops into existence as a separate reward function, arbitrarily chosen. Why I keep pointing out the number is arbitrary (coulda been 42M just as easily, without costing any more or less to produce, if the central planners preferred that vibe) is because that's a telltale sign of a fiat product (one generated by decree). It wasn't assembled from lower order goods. The number coming into existence was simply decreed to be so. That the decree was made in code doesn't make it not-a-decree. Bitcoin is a fiat without a traceless physical option and with a grand unified central database tracing every transaction and every sat, forever. It consider it to be the CBDC you worry about. How convinced are you about the perfectly mysterious back story? A database with one authoritative version can be distributed (hosted on multiple nodes) but can never truthfully be called decentralized, like Nostr.
Re. "If bitcoin was to get more expensive (which to your latest point, it hasn’t in over a year) then wouldn’t that be limited to the time frame of adoption?" Maybe, but what won't be limited to the time frame of adoption is volatility -- due to a fixed rate of supply which can't counteract market determined changes in demand -- and it is volatility that corrupts something's use case as an exchange currency.
Published at
2023-02-06 21:10:40Event JSON
{
"id": "3127bb7b3ee4f72d4e73a410d7f31b8bacba1a76d74995827a8c93edf3558fca",
"pubkey": "eb362a4ad5c55e5ff02ceda83eaab5dbf4e8be07abec25615bb2e3ebbff7bd61",
"created_at": 1675717840,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"888229388c1bb3594e1ee64ee477f3ed88a14477cc930d1387214772c2cf401a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a882aa808fc7871addda053cc647c5976765acf1cb8154950248e57b5898b1ec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"eb362a4ad5c55e5ff02ceda83eaab5dbf4e8be07abec25615bb2e3ebbff7bd61"
],
[
"p",
"f80a184e793bbde7e3590c186bdc88ec356879fd7c168e06e171c489d8cbe986"
],
[
"p",
"eb362a4ad5c55e5ff02ceda83eaab5dbf4e8be07abec25615bb2e3ebbff7bd61"
],
[
"p",
"eb362a4ad5c55e5ff02ceda83eaab5dbf4e8be07abec25615bb2e3ebbff7bd61"
],
[
"p",
"2a9c6813e2cd86dced47191f24de8b1a05bf098bfcb0667b577a056e1495994e"
]
],
"content": "It's faux-mining. Mining is exploration for existing resources. BTC pops into existence as a separate reward function, arbitrarily chosen. Why I keep pointing out the number is arbitrary (coulda been 42M just as easily, without costing any more or less to produce, if the central planners preferred that vibe) is because that's a telltale sign of a fiat product (one generated by decree). It wasn't assembled from lower order goods. The number coming into existence was simply decreed to be so. That the decree was made in code doesn't make it not-a-decree. Bitcoin is a fiat without a traceless physical option and with a grand unified central database tracing every transaction and every sat, forever. It consider it to be the CBDC you worry about. How convinced are you about the perfectly mysterious back story? A database with one authoritative version can be distributed (hosted on multiple nodes) but can never truthfully be called decentralized, like Nostr.\n\nRe. \"If bitcoin was to get more expensive (which to your latest point, it hasn’t in over a year) then wouldn’t that be limited to the time frame of adoption?\" Maybe, but what won't be limited to the time frame of adoption is volatility -- due to a fixed rate of supply which can't counteract market determined changes in demand -- and it is volatility that corrupts something's use case as an exchange currency. ",
"sig": "0e82812545b318d7e07ea451171495c6aec3c4a31cdb964ca237c6f529a0322587bceaef0e3c23cc85f0f467118c6136d08fa7c1c197b35e8c57d53032b9cfdc"
}
