1CtfHj…zVrZ

I see a 1T USD Bitcoin as a success and an ok victory against future State looters. With today's reward, that's around 50 USD/ tx. Others are more optimistic, but then the quality of the scaling solutions have to off-set the much higher fees.

No one used silver or copper for the fun of it, but out of economic necessity as small demanded tx values made gold unfeasible for the task.

https://medium.com/@bdratings/tales-of-soft-money-the-real-spanish-price-revolution-f26e7fb206d6

The reason I joined is to better understand the arguments of specifically the Austrian strain in the BSV space. Money is essentially zero-sum, which has a tendency of inflicting a high opportunity cost for anyone failing to grasp the angles of it.

Do you have any input of the SPV/full node trade off in that case? Who picks SPV's and who assume extra costs of running full nodes?

For those crowded out on the margin, i see no point of a full node. But this may leave a large economic majority with the ability to resist changes to their money, and it is better than not having this. Do you see any fallacy in the above so far?

Not sure about 'securing the network'. To me, running a full node is an act based on self interest (assessment of txs and rules). A full node gives me better ability to resist stupid decisions by for example miners or devs, like a tax akin to BCH or ZEC.

Well, 'clogging' is not my intention at all. I think monetization of the best medium of exchange is almost completely deterministic, so it would be strange (and uneconomical!) of me to attempt such a sacrifice.

On the margin, full nodes are crowded out. But depending on how good LN works, bear in mind the avg tx fees paid to open and close a channel ought to be divided by the number of txs made in the avg channel. Tx fee/tx may be low, in best case.

Good point! I need to think more about that scenario and whether it matters if a potential economic majority consists mainly of individuals or businesses.

I agree that this dynamic on the whole is way worse for BTC than for gold, why all bets are made on LN now. If LN (more specifically the many implementations of it) does not work well, BTC faces larger blocks or demonetization. Needs to be most saleable!

In other words, this is not necessarily a fatal dynamic, but an expensive inconvenience that manifests itself in the scaling through other monies, or technical layers if possible (silver, LN, gold certificates etc).

In gold's monetization process, the feedback loop described by Menger (while referencing to John Law who described it first), resulted in gold, on the margin, becoming less useful for small txs, why regular people later often dealt with silver or copper.

Hi @109, the unfortunate dynamic of BTC becoming more expensive to use the more people using it is correctly described in your post. But gold has a similar dynamic, albeit a bit different.

https://breakingsatoshi.com/2020/01/18/more-on-digital-gold/

Thanks!

I'm a BTC (economic) maximalist who just joined @852 . The funniest thing about other BTC maximalists potentially getting angry over this is that, if their theories about how Bitcoin works are correct, the clogging of competing chains is in their interest.