Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

[Australia Sucks]

You guys seem to be trapped in this libertarian fantasy realm of economic thought that has nothing to do with the real world. There is no such thing as a "trustless" economy.

I am not talking about a libertarian fantasy. I am talking about the real world as it stands today.

You previously spoke about a commodity backed currency something like the theoretical Bancor of Keynes being created in the future.

For a lot of commodities such as gold, silver, etc there is a huge amount of paper derivatives which dwarfs the physical supply.

Obviously if everybody demands physical delivery there is not enough physical product to go around and what will unfold will be the commodities equivalent of a bank run.

Therefore in the long run commodities are only good if you have physical possession of them. This is okay for a portion of your reserves which are more long term but its not convenient for facilitating trade.

For example if Saudi Arabia decided they want gold instead of Euros for their oil if every time Germany has to send physical shipments of gold to receive the oil it becomes slow, cumbersome and expensive, its not an efficient form of payment. And therefore you need something more transactable with less friction. If you use fiat in then goes back to the original problem of trusting the currencies of other countries which no country likes to do inherently and hence de-dollarization. Why do you think gold originally was the global monetary standard? Because it required less trust then trusting the fiat currency of another government. The U.S. only ended the gold standard by a combination of brute force and cunning and defaulting on its obligations for delivery of gold. Hence Bicoin combines the lower trust level (and lower counterparty risk) of gold with the higher transactability of fiat. Hence Bitcoin is excellent for the portion of reserves that will be actively used in international trade (used by governments to buy oil, silver, iron ore, etc)

And again no country in their right mind would prefer the CBDC of another country to Bitcoin. Because if for example China creates a CBDC they can control how much is created and they can control how its spent (tie it to social credit scores, etc), etc so its less neutral and less desriable then bitcoin. Why would any other country want such a CBDC?

Countries prefer something neutral and not under the control of other goivernments hence why gold was originally prefeered as the reserve currency.

 

[scorpion]

You all continue to ignore the most obvious and irrefutable point I've made, namely that if countries ultimately decided that something like Bitcoin was desirable, they would simply make a new version expressly designed for international trade and settlement. Like Bitcoin, the issuance of such a currency could be designed to be outside of the control of any single country or government.

So go ahead and take every positive argument you can make in favor of Bitcoin, and apply it to this theoretical currency as well. And then add on the tremendous incentives and pressures that major governments could apply toward encouraging its use. And then also add on the fact that such a currency would obviously learn from the mistakes of Bitcoin and be more easily used, scalable and secure. This scenario is much more likely than Bitcoin itself becoming a global reserve asset.

Despite the insistence of the maxis, Bitcoin was not some unique discovery and there's absolutely nothing special about it whatsoever, save for the shared delusion of its HODLers (aka its network effect). Like every other form of technology man has ever invented, to the extent that it's actually useful in the first place it will be improved upon and ultimately replaced with newer versions. Anyone who can't see otherwise is simply blinded by their own greed. The expectation of making a lot of money for minimal effort is at the heart of every financial scam throughout history. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[chance vought]

I'm not defending it, I'm just saying it's a reality - one that we've lived with now for quite awhile and which has facilitated the development of modern society. What we've never lived with, however, is a purely deflationary currency that is intended to be hoarded, and which therefore cannot be used to promote economic investment. Fiat currency is flawed, but like I said, at least it has a proven track record. Look around you, every bit of wealth and technology you enjoy was created in an economic system fueled by fiat currency. In contrast, Bitcoin's track record is nothing but a series of pumps and crashes and people trying to scam each other. People want to pretend like fiat currency is the worst thing ever invented, while ignoring the fact that it helped create the modern world. It's like criticizing electricity because it can kill people and burn down houses. Sure it can - but it also does a lot of good.

Modern society was created on a gold standard, not fiat. Instant communications (from messengers for the previous 5,000 years, to telegraph, radio, telephone), rapid transportation (walking for the previous 500,000 years, to trains), airplanes, steam and internal combustion engines, electricity, the list goes on. All zero to one inventions.

The century of fiat has been one-to-many. Just an improvement on existing technology: faster, better, cheaper. But nothing really new, revolutionary, that changes humanity profoundly. Fiat has probably retarded advancement, rather than accelerate it.

 

[scorpion]

Modern society was created on a gold standard, not fiat. Instant communications (from messengers for the previous 5,000 years, to telegraph, radio, telephone), rapid transportation (walking for the previous 500,000 years, to trains), airplanes, steam and internal combustion engines, electricity, the list goes on. All zero to one inventions.

The century of fiat has been one-to-many. Just an improvement on existing technology: faster, better, cheaper. But nothing really new, revolutionary, that changes humanity profoundly.

Fiat is obviously imperfect, as I've stated over and over. The problem is that nothing is perfect as a currency. Not fiat, not gold and certainly not Bitcoin. Gold and fiat can and have been perverted and abused by the wiles and machinations of dishonest men, and Bitcoin - if elevated to the same level of importance - would fare no different. You're delusional if you think otherwise. The best you can hope for (not prove or even argue convincingly) is that Bitcoin would be a superior form of currency. But you really have nothing to base this claim on besides your own bias and supposition. It's pure wishful thinking that is highly clouded by your desire to become wealthy through Bitcoin appreciation. My point in defending fiat (not a position anyone wants to be in, but one I find myself forced into when arguing against Bitcoin maxis) is that at least it has a track record of proven success in enabling the development and ongoing operation of highly industrialized economies that support the lives of billions of people. That is a fact. That is reality as it exists. Your claim that Bitcoin can and would do better is just that: a claim, and is worth as little as the hot air of your breath as you vociferously make it.

Fiat has probably retarded advancement, rather than accelerate it.

A totally unprovable assertion. Maybe we'd be riding around in flying cars by now if we had some other form of money, or maybe not (I'll bet on the latter). It's very typical of Bitcoin maxis to prefer living in this techno-libertarian fantasy world than the one we actually inhabit. I can't blame them for it given the state of the world today - but when thinking critically, I try to constrain myself to the realm of what actually exists.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Like Bitcoin, the issuance of such a currency could be designed to be outside of the control of any single country or government.

If its outside the control of any government or country would be the point of creating it?

Would it not just be the same thing as Bitcoin except it would be starting from ground zero in terms of adoption? Essentially reinventing the wheel.

Unless you think that somehow competing countries which are struggling to co-operate as it is (military tension is increasing as are trade tariffs, etc) will somehow band together and make something that they all jointly control without it devolving into a giant cluster-fuck? That sounds like a recipe for failure.

So you are saying that even though central banks are happy to own gold despite not having control over the physical gold market the same logic doesn't apply to Bitcoin for some reason?

 

[Australia Sucks]

And then also add on the fact that such a currency would obviously learn from the mistakes of Bitcoin and be more easily used, scalable and secure.

You actually believe governments are smart enough to invent something that functions well? Anything the government can do the private sector can do better. Its a basic axiom of capitalism. Or do suddenly believe in communism now?

Its absurd that you are trying to claim the government can be superior to the private sector in inventing new technologies etc. If Bitcoin gets leapfrogged by anything it will be another cryptocurrency created by the private sector not governments. Governments are inherently incompetent.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Like every other form of technology man has ever invented, to the extent that it's actually useful in the first place it will be improved upon and ultimately replaced with newer versions.

Obviously nothing lasts forever but Gold was money for over 5000 years and still is today to some extent. There is no reason Bitcoin cannot be around for a long time before becoming obsolete.

 

[scorpion]

Australia Sucks, please learn to use multi quote. (Highlight a passage of text you want to quote in a post then click the "+Quote" that pops up). You can reply to multiple quotes in the same post this way and don't need to post multiple replies like you have been.

 

[scorpion]

If its outside the control of any government or country would be the point of creating it?

Would it not just be the same thing as Bitcoin except it would be starting from ground zero in terms of adoption? Essentially reinventing the wheel.

To increase its legitimacy, adoption rate, security and ease of use. There are a myriad of ways in which Bitcoin could be improved upon while still retaining its strengths.

You actually believe governments are smart enough to invent something that functions well? Anything the government can do the private sector can do better. Its a basic axiom of capitalism. Or do suddenly believe in communism now?

Its absurd that you are trying to claim the government can be superior to the private sector in inventing new technologies etc. If Bitcoin gets leapfrogged by anything it will be another cryptocurrency created by the private sector not governments. Governments are inherently incompetent.

While I generally agree with you, there are things that governments do better than the private sector, such as building and maintaining public infrastructure, operating the military and police forces and regulating markets and industries to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the public. There are many areas of modern society where the private sector has no profit making incentive and thus cannot or will not operate. Saying that, "Everything the government does automatically sucks," makes you sound like an edgy 14 year-old internet libertarian and kills your credibility.

Obviously nothing lasts forever but Gold was money for over 5000 years and still is today to some extent. There is no reason Bitcoin cannot be around for a long time before becoming obsolete.

Given that gold is literally a fundamental element of the universe and Bitcoin is a software program totally reliant on popularity to maintain even a modicum of value, it's extremely difficult to believe that Bitcoin will have anywhere near the same run of success that gold has enjoyed historically. Remember twenty years ago when DVDs were the hottest new technology and everyone had a collection of DVD movies? Nowadays you can barely find a DVD player and can buy old DVDs for 50 cents at the flea market. Bitcoin could be replaced much, much easier than gold can.

 

[chance vought]

There are many areas of modern society where the private sector has no profit making incentive and thus cannot or will not operate. Saying that, "Everything the government does automatically sucks," makes you sound like an edgy 14 year-old internet libertarian and kills your credibility.

If there is no profit, that means the market doesn't demand it. You are literally taking resources from things that are in demand, and consuming those resources to do something that no one really wants compared to the other things those resources can produce. Central planning is much dumber than the collective intelligence of a free market. The USSR tried that and millions starved to death, before it finally collapsed.

Given that gold is literally a fundamental element of the universe and Bitcoin is a software program totally reliant on popularity to maintain even a modicum of value, it's extremely difficult to believe that Bitcoin will have anywhere near the same run of success that gold has enjoyed historically. Remember twenty years ago when DVDs were the hottest new technology and everyone had a collection of DVD movies? Nowadays you can barely find a DVD player and can buy old DVDs for 50 cents at the flea market. Bitcoin could be replaced much, much easier than gold can.

Bitcoin is much more than a software program!

 

[scorpion]

If there is no profit, that means the market doesn't demand it.

Not everything that people desire can be served by a market or incentivized by a profit motive.

How is the free market going to enforce child labor laws? Or regulate industries to prevent corporate malfeasance? Or break up monopolies? Or raise and maintain a military? Or operate water and sewer systems? Build roads and bridges? Maintain a system of courts and enforce laws/public safety? Regulate border security and immigration?

Saying that people don't want these things is ludicrous. And just as ludicrous is comparing these basic sort of government functions to communism. Words have meanings, use them accurately if you intend to be taken seriously. I'm a very much an advocate of the free market, and would love to see our federal government drastically shrunk down. But government still has a vital role to play in a functional society. Our founding fathers certainly agreed - they wrote us a constitution laying out the proper role of government, defining it largely as attending to public order and wellbeing, as delineated primarily in Section 8 of the Constitution (see spoiler below). They were Republicans in the classical sense of the word, not libertarians or anarchists.

Spoiler

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

You guys seem to be trapped in this libertarian fantasy realm of economic thought that has nothing to do with the real world.

Bingo. Yeah, nobody cares. People are too busy trying to eat and keep a roof over their head. And that's the whole point of The System, of which bitcoin is part of. You keep talking about BTC as if it's something "different" and "special" and "separate" when it's just the latest form of JQ-style usury.

@chance vought and @Blade Runner why can't you be happy that you've "made it" and that you "understand" bitcoin and that the value you are pulling out of it stems in large part from the fact that others don't understand it? Again, nobody cares. Great, you guys are early adopters of BTC and are killing it, but there are a 1000 ways to skin a cat. Getting rich via BTC is no different than getting rich via LLC's and holding companies, stocks and bonds, and real estate... It is simply high IQ people (you guys) out smarting lower IQ people (the masses). Good for you. But if everybody could become a millionaire then a million dollars would be worth nothing so stop pretending that everybody can succeed financially if they'd just read a book about bitcoin. JQ systems of wealth generating (Israel) are predicated on JQ systems of poverty (Palestine). You cannot have high levels of wealth without high levels of poverty. And therein lies the existential dilemma.

You are going to bat for BTC like zealots complete with being hyper-defensive over the slightest criticism. This is your hobbie, you enjoy it, you are better than most BTC-ignorant people, we get it... but the majority of humans make money, spend money, and save money without any concept of "what it is." They simply don't care, and yet even in their "ignorance" they can still be happy and financially successful.

 

[chance vought]

Bingo. Yeah, nobody cares. People are too busy trying to eat and keep a roof over their head. And that's the whole point of The System, of which bitcoin is part of. You keep talking about BTC as if it's something "different" and "special" and "separate" when it's just the latest form of JQ-style usury.

@chance vought and @Blade Runner why can't you be happy that you've "made it" and that you "understand" bitcoin and that the value you are pulling out of it stems in large part from the fact that others don't understand it? Again, nobody cares.

This is the bitcoin thread, so that's what we discuss.

Great, you guys are early adopters of BTC and are killing it, but there are a 1000 ways to skin a cat. Getting rich via BTC is no different than getting rich via LLC's and holding companies, stocks and bonds, and real estate... It is simply high IQ people (you guys) out smarting lower IQ people (the masses). Good for you. But if everybody could become a millionaire then a million dollars would be worth nothing so stop pretending that everybody can succeed financially if they'd just read a book about bitcoin. JQ systems of wealth generating (Israel) are predicated on JQ systems of poverty (Palestine). You cannot have high levels of wealth without high levels of poverty. And therein lies the existential dilemma.

It is different. It is not a zero sum. Yes, some people will always have more than others, but they should have more because they provided so much extra value to others, not because they stole it. The only way to acquire bitcoin is to provide value to others - it eliminates the parasite class.

You are going to bat for BTC like zealots complete with being hyper-defensive over the slightest criticism. This is your hobbie, you enjoy it, you are better than most BTC-ignorant people, we get it... but the majority of humans make money, spend money, and save money without any concept of "what it is." They simply don't care, and yet even in their "ignorance" they can still be happy and financially successful.

People are oblivious because the money works, mostly, for now. Most here have no love of banks or government, so I am simply doing my best to educate.

The real power of bitcoin is not the monetization of it (though that tends to be the first draw for most people.) The real power is the sovereignty it gives you: it is something that cannot be taken from you, that you can take anywhere, send to anyone...while nearly everything else in this world requires daddy government's permission, especially when it comes to money.

You and @scorpion are correct: if people stop liking bitcoin, it won't be worth anything and it won't become money. But my contention is that more people are going to start liking it, especially with the increasing aggression of governments around the world against their own people. Governments that are weakening, because the century of fiat is ending, are lashing out. Censorship, surveillance, and even financial punishment (EU, UK, and Canadian banks).

I'm not special, or especially intelligent. I was successful enough to have some money to put into bitcoin, but not so successful that I didn't have a need for it. It was an accidental series of events and circumstances that led me to study bitcoin.

 

[Blade Runner]

Bitcoin could be replaced much, much easier than gold can.

Then why is BTC demonetizing gold as we speak? Answer: It's better money. You're already incorrect.

But if everybody could become a millionaire then a million dollars would be worth nothing so stop pretending that everybody can succeed financially if they'd just read a book about bitcoin.

I don't, but my point is that people should at least be aware of the (arguments for) truth. Should I stop telling people about Jesus Christ? I guess I would if they kept arguing and denied him or me, then I'd take my message elsewhere. This is a place where people can learn at scale by just reading messages, so I'm happy if they see good reasoning, learn, and take advanatage.

You cannot have high levels of wealth without high levels of poverty

Incorrect. That's the usurious system you talking about creeping up inside of you.

They simply don't care, and yet even in their "ignorance" they can still be happy and financially successful.

They'll be forced to care, or forced to undergo tradeoffs, and those usually aren't good when authoritarianism comes along.

it is something that cannot be taken from you, that you can take anywhere, send to anyone...while nearly everything else in this world requires daddy government's permission, especially when it comes to money.

How one can argue that a trustless, permission-less network of value transfer that can't be debased by central authorities (thieves and abusers) doesn't have value, I will never understand. I think they do understand the value, but they don't want to answer that reality, because they'd have to admit that there IS value. So what we have here are egos denying both the obvious value logically, and the value confirmed, and ever increasing, as stated by the market. Amazing.

 

[chance vought]

The notion that Bitcoin is a static program, that will in time be replaced by a better one, is flawed. It’s not a closed network with closed source software, like MySpace vs Facebook.

It is free and open source software, open to anyone, like Linux, BitTorrent, and SMTP. If improvements can be made with positive tradeoffs, they will be made. Bitcoin evolves, just like Linux did. Now Linux, developed by a Finnish university student, is on 100x more devices than iOS and Microsoft (closed source) combined.

Bitcoin is adaptable and evolves. The claim that it can’t do something, but yet another crypto can come along and do it better is laughable. It will simply evolve to suit the needs of its users, like Linux, or the English language. Esperanto did not replace English, or pose any significant challenge to it, just like any government crypto will be launched and quickly abandoned. The value of an established network/language is too great to overcome.

 

[Based_Christian_Dude]

Payments is putting the cart before the horse, unless you live somewhere where banking is not universal. That said, I make 10x more Bitcoin transactions than credit card, from cents to thousands of dollars. For me it is faster and easier and cheaper, than legacy system. Try buying some sport coats from a guy in Australia? A 6% paypal fee on $500 isn’t nothing. These guys talk like they are hoping to someday use their goldbacks, monero, and bch. I’m using bitcoin daily.

Bitcoin lightning blows everything else out of the water. If you thought maybe some alt-coin has a use case because bitcoin is too slow and can’t scale, you’ve never used lightning.

The “psy-op captured bitcoin” theory comes from Roger Ver, trying to sell his pre-mined “bitcoin cash.”

This isn’t going to reverse…compared to bitcoin, XMR and BCH are already dead.
View attachment 12217View attachment 12218

“I think this guy’s dead, but…let’s check for a pulse.”
View attachment 12223
If you want to see the truth, price it in bitcoin.

They also seem to be worried about politics, CBDCs and global technocracy. Once I understood Bitcoin, I realized how irrelevant politics and the state will become, and seem even now. From my point of view, it’s a complete waste of time to think about. Better to educate yourself and go where you are treated best. Game theory. Nostr is winning, Bitcoin is winning, the “elites” continue to make fools of themselves. I’ve never felt better about the future. In stark contrast to the tone of the video.

Trying to “do everything” on the base layer only makes it less decentralized and more fragile. Small transactions don’t need the same level of security as large ones. Increasing block size or everything else that has been tried makes all transactions less secure. Just look at the hashrate of bitcoin vs anything else.

BSV was already destroyed by its lack of security. If XMR or BCH fail, Bitcoin will be fine. If Bitcoin fails, all other crypto will be destroyed with it. They call Bitcoin maxi’s delusional. Let’s look at the data.

View attachment 12219View attachment 12221

The intention of Bitcoin back in Satoshi's active development era was to become a peer to peer payment system, not become an alternative store of value. Roger Ver was trying to point that out and wanted to fix the block size issue, but the autistic cult following of leaving Satoshi's Bitcoin as-is sperged out into a literal Bitcoin civil war. Definitely sounds like a bloody psy-op.

The notion that Bitcoin is a static program, that will in time be replaced by a better one, is flawed. It’s not a closed network with closed source software, like MySpace vs Facebook.

It is free and open source software, open to anyone, like Linux, BitTorrent, and SMTP. If improvements can be made with positive tradeoffs, they will be made. Bitcoin evolves, just like Linux did. Now Linux, developed by a Finnish university student, is on 100x more devices than iOS and Microsoft (closed source) combined.

Bitcoin is adaptable and evolves. The claim that it can’t do something, but yet another crypto can come along and do it better is laughable. It will simply evolve to suit the needs of its users, like Linux, or the English language. Esperanto did not replace English, or pose any significant challenge to it, just like any government crypto will be launched and quickly abandoned. The value of an established network/language is too great to overcome.

Bitcoin is only adaptable as the miners and nodes in the network allow it. They didn't want to improve Bitcoin's usability as illustrated in this video:

^
@scorpion This is definitely something for you to refute Bitcoin-maxis.

Monero, aside from the privacy, already solves this usability issue with dynamically scaled block size based on certain conditions within the network at the time. There's really no need for a Lightning Network extension on XMR because the base protocol does what it's suppose to do.

 

[Blade Runner]

Monero, aside from the privacy, already solves this usability issue with dynamically scaled block size based on certain conditions within the network at the time. There's really no need for a Lightning Network extension on XMR because the base protocol does what it's suppose to do.

It doesn't have the monetary properties AND network effect BTC does, though, so people by definition will NOT hold it. This is where you are missing the point on store of value, and appealing to some "intention" means nothing. It's either the best money ever discovered, with an unbeatable network, at this point, or it isn't.

It is.

 

[chance vought]

The intention of Bitcoin back in Satoshi's active development era was to become a peer to peer payment system, not become an alternative store of value. Roger Ver was trying to point that out and wanted to fix the block size issue, but the autistic cult following of leaving Satoshi's Bitcoin as-is sperged out into a literal Bitcoin civil war. Definitely sounds like a bloody psy-op.

Increase the blocksize enough that everyone can transact a UTXO, and you destroy the decentralized nature of the protocol, because the hardware and bandwidth required to run a node become too expensive.

Look at what happens when transaction throughput is prioritized over security: Solana has shut down how many times? Etherium is completely controlled by Vitalik, to the point where the chain was rolled back unilaterally with the DAO hack in 2016, any forks are forced through with the difficulty bomb, and there are so few nodes that there is basically no security from governments (which is why ETH foundation is cooperating with government on OFAC compliance.)

Monero, aside from the privacy, already solves this usability issue with dynamically scaled block size based on certain conditions within the network at the time. There's really no need for a Lightning Network extension on XMR because the base protocol does what it's suppose to do.

There is no need to weaken the base layer for throughput, when lightning exists...
Lightning isn't an extension or add-on, it is simply a UTXO owned by 2 people that follows the rules of the bitcoin protocol.

It is becoming becoming a peer to peer payment system...he didn't say it was going to happen in a month!

In order for it to be able to be a peer to peer cash system, it must first have value. Or be backed by something that has value (which has counterparty risk).

I like the idea of Monero, but even Monero can't scale to 1 billion users on the base layer. Bitcoin, in its current state (with lightning, fedimint), can.

Do you seriously think this trend is going to reverse?

 

[Australia Sucks]

Monero, aside from the privacy, already solves this usability issue with dynamically scaled block size based on certain conditions within the network at the time. There's really no need for a Lightning Network extension on XMR because the base protocol does what it's suppose to do.

I have addressed this point before way earlier in this thread. Its not always about technological superiority. Network effect is far more important. Also natural human inertia is a powerful force. As are switching costs.

Venture capitalists understand all this. That is why Peter Thiel in his book zero to one explained that for a new technology, software company etc to revolutionize an industry it has to somehow (in a meaningful way) be 10 times better or 10x cheaper, simply being incrementally better is not enough. Originally Amazon disrupted brick and mortar bookstores by providing more than 100 times the product range of a traditional brick and mortar bookstore (almost infinite book range at Amazon) and with fast delivery.

For another token to dislodge Bitcoin it would have to be not just technically superior but an order of magnitude superior. Like 10x superior to Bitcoin. Even if you can make the argument that Monero or some other token is technically superior to Bitcoin (I am not saying that is the case by the way) none of them (including Monero) is 10 times better than Bitcoin, at best they are merely incrementally better.

 

[Based_Christian_Dude]

It doesn't have the monetary properties AND network effect BTC does, though, so people by definition will NOT hold it. This is where you are missing the point on store of value, and appealing to some "intention" means nothing. It's either the best money ever discovered, with an unbeatable network, at this point, or it isn't.

It is.

I have addressed this point before way earlier in this thread. Its not always about technological superiority. Network effect is far more important. Also natural human inertia is a powerful force. As are switching costs.

Venture capitalists understand all this. That is why Peter Thiel in his book zero to one explained that for a new technology, software company etc to revolutionize an industry it has to somehow (in a meaningful way) be 10 times better or 10x cheaper, simply being incrementally better is not enough. Originally Amazon disrupted brick and mortar bookstores by providing more than 100 times the product range of a traditional brick and mortar bookstore (almost infinite book range at Amazon) and with fast delivery.

For another token to dislodge Bitcoin it would have to be not just technically superior but an order of magnitude superior. Like 10x superior to Bitcoin. Even if you can make the argument that Monero or some other token is technically superior to Bitcoin (I am not saying that is the case by the way) none of them (including Monero) is 10 times better than Bitcoin, at best they are merely incrementally better.

While Bitcoin does have the better network effect, which is apparent on normies, it's viewed as just a quasi-forex speculation for fiat wealth rather an actual asset to exchange peer to peer. This type of pump and dump won't leave a good impression on people after awhile, which I'm already seeing throughout the anglosphere. Also, most people are retarded twats who don't contextually understand the correct value of many things in this world and where they should actually focus their time on in case we're forgetting about the last few years of meme stocks and mRNA vaccines.

@Blade Runner How does Monero not have good monetary properties????????????

Increase the blocksize enough that everyone can transact a UTXO, and you destroy the decentralized nature of the protocol, because the hardware and bandwidth required to run a node become too expensive.

Look at what happens when transaction throughput is prioritized over security: Solana has shut down how many times? Etherium is completely controlled by Vitalik, to the point where the chain was rolled back unilaterally with the DAO hack in 2016, any forks are forced through with the difficulty bomb, and there are so few nodes that there is basically no security from governments (which is why ETH foundation is cooperating with government on OFAC compliance.)

There is no need to weaken the base layer for throughput, when lightning exists...
Lightning isn't an extension or add-on, it is simply a UTXO owned by 2 people that follows the rules of the bitcoin protocol.

It is becoming becoming a peer to peer payment system...he didn't say it was going to happen in a month!

In order for it to be able to be a peer to peer cash system, it must first have value. Or be backed by something that has value (which has counterparty risk).

I like the idea of Monero, but even Monero can't scale to 1 billion users on the base layer. Bitcoin, in its current state (with lightning, fedimint), can.

Do you seriously View attachment 12443think this trend is going to reverse?

Technology is always improving and the price of hardware decreases as time goes on; we now have 40 TB hard drives while 10TB hard drives are now reasonably priced for example. The full size Monero blockchain is about 400GB currently from what I hear. Anyways, Monero has some growth rate caps to prevent random spammers from suddenly increasing the blocksize.