1CtfHj…zVrZ

/pay @243 $1

/pay @397 $1

/pay @194 $0.5

Thank you all so far, will check out the sources and get back.

Drop your best large block readings, articles, debates etc. Not asking for anyone to convince me, just links that concerns the trade-offs, or simply misconceptions that small blockers have. What 'won you over'. Will pay the best contributors.

Example of misconception I had: Large block failing to propagate, thus getting orphaned. I think many in BTC see this as a failure of the system, when it in fact is a failure of the miner publishing it, if I understood it correctly.

Just as there are Goldilocks blocks, there are Goldilocks trolltolls. Both depend on knowing others. But a good trolltoll is also forward looking - a small investment in your own ability to become more important.

I don't see the point. The dollar is mostly digital already. They are just further wasting tax payer money.

Beyond the event horizon of the best money, there is no escape. You don't have to try to convince anyone to go there nor to stay there; just let the force of thrift do its work.

At the time the merchant tried to make sense of the price increases, the Dauphine's pocketed around 90% of their total revenues from seigniorage.

/trolltoll set @7346 $2

I branch stuff I like, not for reciprocity!

I want to see a person waking up to the fact that he or she has become rich overnight by one viral twetch.

Since central planners have no way of reading our minds, they have nothing concrete to plan around. They are building the castle of maximum on sand, and when that construction fails, they make the sand a graveyard.

Prices make mind reading unnecessary!

I disagree! The track record is still good, it has not in 10 years even been close in derailing from the max cap of 21M. Price movements irrelevant over the long run, you can't control how other people subjectively value a good.

To my understanding, monetary goods can 'behave' this way. An increase in industrial demand can be more than off-set by decrease in monetary demand if the qualities as money deteriorates as a result.

I actually think gold would be worth more if not used in industry. Other uses can be a nuisance. Example: silver stock consumed in industry has made dilution easier. I think Mises made this point but might have been one of the other Austrians.

We can't require anything of prices, they are just the records of economic exchanges of other individuals They have nothing to do with the actual physical or digital good itself. Price depend on fundamentals, not the other way around.

One easy way to observe it is: silver is used massively more in industry than gold. Yet has around 2% of gold's market cap. 'Non-monetary' uses for any MoE is at best a nuisance imo, and at worst fatal. Silver almost fully demonetized soon.

Yes but supply is to a degree consumed in industry. Gold diluted at most 2-3% per year. With silver, the more being consumed and so taken of the market, the less likely it will be with future low dilution numbers, it seems to me.

My fear would rather be: how easy over the upcoming decades would it be for alts to also cement scarcity in the form of the protocol and decentralization. The easier that is, the less distinction BTC has.

I agree with your first two twetches. What I try to understand is if BTC, if failing as money due to tx fees, can still compete with gold's function today despite being digital. In other words, I explore the relevance of the earlier mentioned focal point.

This is misunderstanding the intention of the thread. It is not to defend BTC, but to dissect the framework that may or may not show if digital BTC can be compared to a physical 10T USD good or not - even if failing as money. Seemed important to me.

A similar analogy can be made from the theoretically millions of different alloys possible with gold, silver and copper alone. Perhaps physicality is a red herring, and difficulty to dilute part of the true focal point.

So when Venetians and others ‘cracked’ the monetary code of one tribe, and that area was flooded with such beads (pocketing nice seigniorage for the Europeans), the natives switched to a new, scarcer bead type. Being money was no protection, scarcity was.

We have some empiricism from the physical world - many hundreds of different glass bead types at different times functioning as money in what today is Tanzania. Theoretical number of different beads are infinite (just change colors, shapes and patterns).