1CtfHj…zVrZ

Perhaps if you Boosted your critique, people would be much more inclined to try to understand your points.

/trolltoll remove @7346

Some likely knew but didn't care. Some suspected or knew it hurt the economy. Remember. today almost all economists agree debasements are good.

Persian Shas debased while still spending 10% of state budget on their harem. The state itself is the disease.

Then Bitcoin is your enemy. Congratulations.

If searching for causality, soldiers getting paid in debased coinage is a good place to start. From Byzantine Empire, evidence that type of coins paid to regiments were most debased. Defense deteriorates.

The fact that screwing around with the money negatively affects everything in a society deeply involved with commerce. We cannot know alternative history, but my guess is the debasements were more cause than effect.

Once it's started it is rather difficult to control. One of the main culprits starting the showed decline was a megalomaniac renaming all twelve months after himself. These are not rational decisions, but an eye for short term financial gains, seigniorage.

I would be very cautions though with regards to viewing protocol invulnerable just because it grows. I've been writing much about various monies that were destroyed in the end. Skepticism is the starting point.

https://www.bdratings.org/

I love the free market of monies. The truth shall be revealed for all to see.

Yes, it can greatly diminish the use of the old network in the short-medium term. But over the long term, it may still be beneficial to stay away from the newer chain if the changes made that money worse. A debasement would be the most extreme example.

With that said, yes, if BSV grows the risk of a bad protocol change is likely decreasing. So unless that looks probable, the cheap tx costs will attract more holders of BSV.

What I'm trying to get at is the 'black hole' effect of money, that it always tend to one medium - the best medium fit for that purpose. Multiple simultaneous monies may be considered a temporary phenomenon, and the same is true for cryptocurrencies.

If the path to not scale on-chain turns out to have been bad, BTC market cap will be punished despite the network effect. No one escapes economic realities indefinitely, same for BSV. This is why we are here trying to assess the various monies.

Yes, producers follow the wants of consumers.

BSV can be bad or good no matter if CSW is bad or good. The general concern is, if he is bad and has influence over protocol, future can be messy. 'Locking the protocol' is just words. We have to wait and see.

Appreciate all the input so far!

I agree it is disruptive, but only short term. I am convinced that it is very likely that the best money wins, no matter disruptions. If BCH really is worse than BSV, the ticker is not going to help it. People like economic exchange to be friction-less.

When BSV forked from BCH, it was because users (what you call consumers) demanded such a good. Where there is demand and restricted supply, there is price. Price is attracting profit seeking SHA256 miners.

That a full node doesn't matter if it can't even afford to transact. That is true. Such a node would be irrelevant.

A new iphone, if bad enough, will be discarded by the users under capitalism. I'm afraid that, absent full nodes, the users have no say in the matter, and will have to use the new model. There is an argument to be made concerning too high tx fees though.

You can think of it in terms of BSV. If BSV is future money, the current boycott of it by large exchanges is just a nuisance, as there will be entrepreneurs trying to seek profits in the end. The service of USD/BSV trading would in the end be provided.

I don't see it as collective action. If for example the newly released Bitcoin Core 0.20 contained a bad future hard fork, I would chose to simply not run it. Others choosing the same course of action would be my future trading partners.

I meant economic rules. One example would be to constantly verify that no dev fund or extended mining fund has suddenly mired its way into the code. I realize that understanding SPV is key, will check the link.

Value is subjective, so there are incentives for exchanges to not go along with just any proposed fork. Even if most of them discarded the non-forked BTC, the forked BTC is worse money, and the 'investors' will have exchange opportunity built for them.

/pay @39 $1

To me, the limit does not primary represent subsidizing uncompetitive miners. Has this been the main stated reason? To me, a lean full node was always for assessment of rules and txs, as those not assessing money were always defrauded historically.

/pay @189 $0.5