As block rewards shrink every 4 years by half (like this week), transactions must increase to cover the miners costs. The Digital gold concept can only destroy the network because it encourages hodl aka hoarding and not spending.
Post by twetch#21877
How often do people really ship real quantities of gold that matter? I think Nick Szabo sees it this way. If there is a demand for a gold standard, with a public that trusts the banks but thinks the government might seize the bank's gold, BTC would help.
What the chain says
- Block
- 634 372
- Time
- 2020-05-11T04:12:48Z
- Signer
- 16SgJCRH7fB5ny6wCHabmiGaa6wcbve6WS
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#21877
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
16SgJCRH7fB5ny6wCHabmiGaa6wcbve6WS VerifiedReplies (6)
Just to be clear, I have no strong opinion of BTC vs gold or BSV vs. Ether. But the pricetag on BTC doesn't have to be a bet on adoption by the layperson. Actually the value of bitcoin is not proportional to how many people buy pizza with it at all.
It makes sense for despots, kleptocrats, internationally wanted criminals and lunatic billionares to keep at least some percentage of their networth in crypto even if there is a high chance of network collapse. And it can work as a network for them.
They might be better off with BSV or ZCash, but the point is that crypto doesn’t need anything like mass adoption to have a real use for some people, and the current price tag gets even more reasonable when you realise there aren’t supposed to be many tx.
I could go on all day, but BTC is a fascinating experiment that helps clarify the true price of bitcoin, what if the point was to prevent the metanet? Helps me to think about the difference between miners, nodes and users while applying Metcalfe's law.