1CtfHj…zVrZ

No, I just meant, getting financially rewarded for having a trolltoll thrown at me felt weird. 🙂

This is a very good point. Scarcity can be replicated (to various degrees of success) in crypto, but only one will first be money, as in commonly used MoE. Great Schelling point that gold obviously didn't need.

Why am I getting BSV when people trolltoll me? That's not the punishment I had hoped for.

This explanation doesn't say anything though.
Me: "Why is physicality the source of value in context of high valuation of gold?"
You: "Gold is good because its physical."

Thank you! This is what I was after. Now I understand your argument much better.

You explaining a 10T USD mkt cap of gold sounds very much akin to BTC people explaining why BTC is great.

"BTC is digitally scarce and 'durable'. It won't wear out at all and there won't be that much new of it coming in. Unlike most other things, therefore, you won't lose value much if you keep it and do nothing with it."

Yeah BTC hodlers are basically unthinking, unimaginative cavemen. Can't even grasp the dead-simple details of Mises's imaginary Evenly Rotating Economy construction, and how the value of money in that system changes conditional to deviations from it!

I just don't get the leap you are doing when you differentiate between the two. It's sort of: 'Gold is valuable for bad times while not being money, but BTC can't be valuable for bad times since it can't be money.'

What if you change 'gold', for 'BTC' in the above. Why is it that being digital is so negatively impacting the essence of the factors you attribute gold's extremely high value to? Because digital scarcity can be replicated, and so is not scarce in itself?

They are not "my" devs. And not all are what you would consider meat chomping maxis. Rusty Russel for example.

But I assume you see this as an opportunity. If your judgement is correct you may soon be a very wealthy snake charmer.

Perhaps double price? I honestly don't know, and would have to study it more.

Can you list some of those reasons? I think that would be very educational for other Austrians following the discussion, as that statement, to me, contradicts the monetary theory of Carl Menger.

I do! Check this base money comparison.

https://twitter.com/crypto_voices/status/1260212096568082432

Not sure if I saw that one, will check it out. But have seen some others. They are great!

Yes, no economic exchange.

Yeah but over the decades, seigniorage may sometimes be too tempting, after a bad war or two, and exploding national debt. They may opt to destroy Bitcoin and maximize short term profits. Some nations had 90% of state revenues from money monopoly!

I interpret that list as currently losing to a Fibonacci Technical Analyst.

Very bad things can happen. In the collective minds of the shitty totalitarian governments for example Europe has produced time and time again is not exactly the thought of collecting Bitcoin GitHub stars. I like can't more than won't!

I definitely agree that, all else equal, scale helps protect Bitcoin. So to answer your question, the 2nd is easiest to ban. Your Uber example is good. I just like to try to understand what other attack surface increase with the code allowing such scaling.

I have mentioned this before, but good to bring up again for clarity. Withing the framework you describe, how does one square the enormous mkt cap of gold when little to none new production is sold in exchange for it?

The discrepancy of your certainty, and competent LN devs' certainty, is fascinating to me. I can just say that it leaves a fantastic future for you if correct, and if BTC also refuses to scale on-chain. The market will be judge in the long run.

Even if the miner building the block has majority hash rate? Sounds very strange. Can't they just keep building on the chain?

Hold on, that didn't save gold. Confiscations and outright bans to own it, despite incredible long history of popular use. Bitcoin can't build a future on the hope of a nice State. Such a thing must be seen as a likely temporary bonus.

Sorry, I was thinking of the final state of rest when sending away that twetch(?). Yes, I agree with your description. No uncertainty means no use of money.

Although fun, throwing monetary trolltolls around can also seem a bit aggressive. Wouldn't Boost work for this... Someone pesters you? Yeah he gets to do some hashing and then come back.

While the pesterer's computer is humming away on SHA256 toiling, he can sit there and think about his behavior.

"Its value is future new production." This is where you lose me. Is this in reference to some Austrian econ reading I have missed, or is it just you formulating normal Mengerean monetary theory in the most complex way possible?

Within a Mengerean framework, BTC only fails IF the scaling attempts fail. Block size limit and no scaling would mean low saleableness and thus useless as money.

Lol