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.
Post by twetch#21877
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.
What the chain says
- Block
- 634 399
- Time
- 2020-05-11T05:56:48Z
- 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 (3)
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.
Yes it makes sense- the metanet could not work on btc at all. Its like having a slow internet connection. This is exactly what Craig Wright has been saying all along but noone is listening in the mainstream.
It was deliberately decided to always leave BTC as just for BTC, and let other things fork off. Hence why NMC was a fork. Then all tokens started going on ETH. But yeah, blockchains should be tokens for something in the chain-BSV is a token for the metanet