17zmPibuXUuDsPnW5B4UVsV9jin35HWWU2
That's just straightforwardly incorrect. I suspect some kind of aprioristic reasoning error. If Amazon accepted BSV, it would obviously be a massive win and cause the price and utility to immediately jump up.
And "the masses" can just buy BSV with fiat...
This is a common abuse of aprioristic reasoning in Austrian Economic circles. I used to think the same way, but then I saw the mistake.
I wrote an article about it here:
Ceteris paribus is misleading.
"An increase in merchant acceptance, ceteris paribus, does not increase the value of the coin. Therefore, an increase in merchant acceptance does not increase the value of the coin."
I think this is the fundamental confusion.
Lots of things are new information.
If Bezos decides digital currency X is a worthy currency for their platform, then the world has new, valuable information.
If Amazon accepted BSV for payments, they would distribute new information to millions or billions of people that BSV is a worthwhile digital currency, and its value and utility would immediate shoot up.
But strategy is different from theory. It's one thing to say "grassroots adoption probably won't work." It's another thing to say that, in principle, any merchant that exchanges for fiat doesn't help the Bitcoin economy.
If I am unsure whether my BTC is worth saving for the future, I might want to see whether it's accepted now (and works) as a medium of exchange.
If it fails - or worse, if it undergoes anti-adoption - then it's a signal to not save in that currency.
As a matter of either strategy or theory, would you claim that Amazon accepting BSV for payment wouldn't be "doing anything" for BSV, if they cashed out to fiat?
This is incorrect. The easier a currency is to exchange for other goods, services, or currencies, the better a medium of exchange it is.
If the USD wasn't easily exchanged for other currencies, it wouldn't be as valuable around the world.
Could pitch it by encrypting some photos you already have public with your public key, which means the service couldn't even decrypt it themselves.
"Here's a public photo of you that is uploaded to the blockchain that only you can access. Pay for more?"
I think the trouble would be private key management. If you lose access to your moneybutton encryption / private key, you're screwed.
I would like this post, but it hurts my heart too badly.
Honestly this was the highlight for me too. It's tiring arguing about BTC, and to be honest, things have gotten so stupid over there that laughter is more appropriate.
If you knew what you don't know, you'd know that you don't actually know what you think you know.
Exactly. Turns out, fevers happen for a reason.
I'm writing a new book about Bitcoin. It's my first ghostwriting project.
Big-blockers have a story to tell.
To be honest, I agree with him...
Deryk, Isaac, and TK are a bunch of moronic children. But maybe not that handsome feller in the bottom left.
Theory: the mental template that our culture labels as "intelligent" essentially has a brain dysfunction due to severe intellectual myopia.
In other words, the increased brain-sensitivity of autistics gives them increased mental focus at extreme cost.
Listen to your confusion. Teach it, so that it is no longer confused, or be taught by it, so that you are no longer confused.
If I were a Prince, I would see mandatory mask-wearing as an excellent opportunity to identify threats to power.
Since we aren't the first to discover this, imagine the lies that have been told...
There's essentially nothing that humans won't believe in the right social environment.
Mass delusion is so much easier than I used to think, and scales up incredibly.
"How could so many be so wrong" means you're still deluded.
Real question is how being right is possible.
True in society and bitcoin. @24 interview made me think of this.
What does scientific progress look like? Is it steady progress, or does it go in waves?
What about cases where the foundations of a theory we’ve been building on turned out to be wrong? Is that still progress?
What does scientific progress look like? Is it steady progress, or does it go in waves?
What about cases where the foundations of a theory we’ve been building on turned out to be wrong? Is that still progress?
I have a suspicion that Greg's motivation to sabotage Bitcoin is to prove himself right. He's trying to make a point.
Can Bitcoin really overcome extreme social engineering, manipulation, and propaganda? If it can't then he was right all along.
“When bitcoin first came out, I was on the cryptography mailing list. When it happened, I sort of laughed. Because I had already proven that decentralized consensus was impossible.”
EXPONENTIAL
Reminds me of Mike Tyson's "Spinal."
I would prefer to live in a world in which nobody can decide "when to re-open the economy" since nobody had the power to shut it down.
Don't you know, your libel is saved forever in the blockchain! Say "hi" to me from Thai prison!
