1CtfHj…zVrZ

It's kinda like, even when I visit cities I will likely never return to, I still cross the street to throw the trash in the trash bin. It might be convenient for me to simply throw it on the ground instead and not bother, but that's not a valid reason.

Personally I have never really understood the whole vote-boycott thing. For me it takes at most 5-10 minutes, and it helps prolong the road to socialist serfdom, even if just a little. It's not quite the same as consenting to the system.

Thanks a lot Matt for all your answers, I have to read it again and think about it more.

Anyone holding Bitcoin for the purpose of spending later. Just as the users of gold coins are those holding them for future uncertainty.

If users don't have a say in the what version of Bitcoin they want, that seems counter to how entrepreneurship works in the real world. Producers try to satisfy wants of consumers. Where do I go wrong in this logic?

I'm struggling to understand the power dynamic that you describe. Users want the Bitcoin that is stipulated by the code of their full node clients. Exchanges profit by facilitating trading in that Bitcoin. Miners profit by facilitating transacting in it.

If I run a non-mining node, don't update to client that forks, and then after the fork tries to transact by attaching a tx fee, any SHA256 miner will keep an eye on that fee. Can't we assume some miner will 'break' to simply sweep up a lot of Bitcoins?

Certain assets may minimize friction for low t:s, others for long t:s. Money and gold are used for different purposes.

https://twitter.com/fnietom/status/1293790134886739968

BTC and BSV have different fundamental properties. One can easier be used as money (low tx fees), the other can in my opinion easier be used as digital gold (low assessment costs, ability to defend against protocol tinkering).

Gold would be worthless if miners or chemists or any other group could easily change the chemical and physical composition of the element, and impose this change on gold they themselves did not own. A Bitcoin full node helps guard against this dynamic.

I am sure I have not. I know that cults exists and that you should be on guard against them and against your own biases. But having I think successfully understood your arguments against BTC by now, I still believe digital gold is a valid simplification.

The history of cryptocurrencies, including that of BTC, leaves room for not a little bit skepticism on that part. You might think big blocks nearly immunize the protocol from tinkering, but I doubt it. All else equal, a larger network is better though.

Being both money and 'digital gold', similar to how real gold worked before 19th-20th c. demonetization would be optimal of course, but the universe does not owe you optimal solutions. It might be the case that you can't have both for one medium, yet.

BTC will likely stabilize between 50k-100k per coin (of today's USD) over the decade. This is my prediction and I will branch this when it occurs.

BTC has a very low chance in becoming global money though, because its simply not good enough for that.

Becoming money is conditional for hyperbitcoinization, obviously. But I don't see how becoming money is conditional for becoming "digital gold".

I think you are underestimating the focal point of being the largest, most liquid cryptocurrency. BTC may not become money since LN has other costs dragging down saleableness, but BTC can become digital gold (despite so many cringing at the expression).

As the Song fell to the Mongols, the dying dynasty inadvertently planted a seed of revenge. This seed was the imploding Song paper money, seized, admired and converted by the Mongols at a factor 50:1.

The Mongol dynasty ended in 1368.

So did you guys start studying Thai yet? Relevant phrases: "No, don't do that", "I want to get out of here", "Satoshi, why??"

Saylor's 'cyber-hornets' comparison is almost on point; he should have referred to 'angry cyber-bees' instead, as bees die when they sting in protection of the hive.

People are against deflation on principle, that no one must gain by "doing nothing." But such is capitalism already! Even if you do nothing, real wages available to you increase with an ever deeper production structure under division of labor.

What happens if you trolltoll without any set amount?

Yeah, I saw that! Another good example is the impersonators on Twetch, asking general questions that attract many answers. That's gonna increase too.

On Twetch, memes fund themselves with your money!

I like your game, but find it even more interesting how such games may spawn from interactions being monetized. Not that I think it's your intention, but I suspect there will be some very clever interaction memes on Twetch going forward. :)

Daniel Webster was a candidate in the 1836 American presidential election. Can you imagine a candidate saying this today:

Pelatiah Webster, known by a few as “America’s Adam Smith” and “a Forgotten Founder”, about the paper money used during the American Revolution:

I think so yeah, in theory. Talked to James a few months ago and he was then very clear about the fact that current ~4mb limit was not due to SegWit soft fork limitations, as most people seem to think.

Few know this about SegWit. BTC could apparently have had any block size in practice, without a hard fork. The 4mb practical limit BTC has today, was rather arbitrary and could just as well have been set to 8mb, or 100mb.

https://twitter.com/digi_james/status/1308379377013530625

Actually, with Luke Dash Jr involved with BTC, there might be future violence involved in one way or another. But apart from that, ok!

I never cared much for the comparison that BTC is socialist/communist because of the block size limit; no violence involved. To the contrary, such complaints sounds vaguely similar to complaints about the exploitation of the working class under capitalism.