21 sats \ 0 replies \ @KoreaComK 13 Jun \ on: Sats4Likes is dead bitcoin
It was good while it lasted. It's a shame that the service will be discontinued. :(
The question that remains is: now that Wasabi is no longer coordinating the mixing, is this step by step valid?
With the increase in remote work, this is a good way out, especially for bitcoiners. Thanks for sharing.
The only possible prediction for any currency other than bitcoin is that it will always tend to zero.
It is interesting to realize that it is not the emerging countries that are becoming developed, but the developed countries are becoming emerging.
I believe that first it is necessary to verify its viability. Maybe if you made one and left it free for a while it would be interesting. However, it is important to remember that this can cause a rain of use, which can cause it to be blocked in the relays.
Most people don't stop to ask themselves what is going wrong with society, and consequently with fiat currency. They have their day to day to resolve and make decisions. I count by hand how many people are concerned about something that goes beyond a few months, let alone these same people ask what is wrong with our money.
Unfortunately, this is reality. However, the good part about bitcoin is that they won't have to worry about it in the long run. When bitcoinization happens, they won't need to change their lives much. They will probably have to download an app to be able to send and receive sats through it and that's it.
The problem is, they won't reap the rewards that we newcomers are reaping. It's a shame, but it's reality.
Socialism by definition precludes individualism, which is an inherent part of being human. This simple fact already shows his basic flaw.
Do you really want to burn it all down? Do you really think there's no role for government in the future you want? Do you really think taxation is theft, and prefer a world without it? Do you really think that all fiat is bad?
TL;DR
No. Yes. Yes. Yes.
I believe that no one wants the world to fall into disgrace. Even Christians, who know that the world is in decay after Christ's death and resurrection, do not want a worse world for their children. (Not going into religious issues, just using a practical example that most people understand).
The world I desire does not exist the State. Governance and governments are something else. It is something that many believe to be the same thing, however they are not. Similar to Republic and Democracy. Two things that normally go together but are totally different.
EVERY STATE WILL TEND TO AUTHORITARISM. That's why I don't want any kind of state, other than governance and government, which are entities that are not, a priori, authoritarian. A certain city may have its governance and a government defined and structured based on the definitions of the contracts of that place, but that does not mean that you are obliged to be part of that city. There is the possibility of not accepting the contract and going on with your life without the services and products of that location.
About tax, by definition, it is theft, after all, I never agreed to pay for that. What's the difference between a tax and a thief robbing me of a hundred dollars and giving me back a massage worth fifteen dollars? None!
All fiat currencies are bad, precisely because you need to trust that the entity responsible for it will be reputable. In addition, there is an obligation for you to accept (imposition) to use it as a means of exchange.
@sn that would be interesting.
No, it's not. It is the opposite.
Only you realize that Magic card collectors. Many keep their rare and very rare cards stored as SoV. Only after they use them as MoE.
No, it's not. Most merchants in El Salvador don't accept bitcoin. By your definition I can say that the US Dollar is the only MoE in El Salvador at this moment.
Using the premise that most people use dollars instead of Bitcoin, then ok. Bitcoin is not MoE.
How is a society supposed to reach consensus on bitcoin as MoE? Gresham's Law dictates that people will choose the weaker currency as the MoE; therefore it is impossible that bitcoin ever becomes MoE.
First, we let people acquire bitcoin for its SoV power. Then, over time, people will slowly use it as a MoE. Currently, there are people and companies that use it, so it is purely a matter of time for the whole society to use it.
In truth no. During the days of gold, silver and copper were also used, but later, with the loss of their SoV, they all succumbed to the use of gold as MoE. As I said, it's a matter of calm and time.
How is bitcoin supposed to ever be used as a MoE if nobody develops the necessary infrastructure (mining, software development, Lightning nodes, channel liquidity, merchant apps, wallets...) because the only thing that matters is HODLing?
I didn't say the only thing that matters is Hodling. I'm saying we're in the SoV moment, that's all.
"Bitcoin is not yet a currency. It's in the store of value phase. It's no use forcing him to be a currency, if he's still at a level prior to that."
You creating solutions for it to be MoE does not mean you are forcing it, you are just anticipating an inevitable need that will appear. Currently, hodler solutions are more used than PoS solutions. This is a fact. Over time, this will reverse. My point, again, is to wait and let bitcoin transform from SoV to MoE.
Do you even want bitcoin to become MoE?
This is not up to me and yes, it will become like me or not. But I would really like it to become, especially with merchants using LN instead of onchain transactions.
The main post says: SPEND & REPLACE is what we need to be shouting in the fiat + bitcoin convoluted world we currently live in, imo.
I disagree. Swap "need" for "should" and the sentence gets a little better. There are people who want to rush bitcoin so that it becomes UaC soon, but it is not by forcing it to go to the next stages that we will achieve this. First, we need to get everyone on the platform, ensure that society has a consensus at each stage of the process. Gold took almost 2000 years, we won't make it in just 20 years and we shouldn't
I hope that your rationale is not that you are right simply because Saifedean Ammous says so.
Of course not, I just showed that his arrogance in this phrase "WTF? Maybe we should be happy that the 'ordinal wizards' have finally got the ball rolling" just denotes that you say that these stages are thrown from a Mankiw book or you of any other mainstream economist, when the truth was a summary of Ammous.
And, again, bitcoin has been used as MoE since almost its very beginning. Even before the pizzas, Satoshi sent bitcoin to Hal Finney. This happened only a few days after bitcoin's inception.
I say it again: What defines something to be MoE is the consensus on using it as currency. By his simple definition of "if I transfer bitcoin to someone, then he is MoE", then, there was no barter in society. After all, at that time, everything was MoE, however, by definition of what an MoE is, its concept is wrong. MoE for you may be that, but it is not what the consensus is for other people.
Gold was a MoE in the past and arguably even a UoA. I believe that gold is on its way out, in the process of devolving from Stage 3 (or maybe 4) back to Stage 1. First, the UoA was captured by sovereigns, because they had the power to dictate the units of weight, measure and value in their territories (in order for gold to be a UoA, value must be expressed in weigh or volume of gold -- and account for purity). Then, gold's role as MoE was supplanted by fiat currency. As bitcoin grows, I believe it will steadily absorb gold's premium as SoV. Eventually, gold will only retain some value as an industrial commodity and beautiful shiny metal and that's it.
This does not invalidate what I said.
I don't understand how this ties into the rest of the discussion.
What defines whether something is MoE is the consensus on its use given a society. I can't say that a chicken is an MoE just because I used it to buy my neighbor's eggs. For it to be an MoE, the society where I am inserted must also accept it, so that it can be given as an MoE.
Example: Bitcoin is an MoE in El Salvador. He is not an MoE in the US or Brazil.
Dude, this diagram is basically saying what Saifedean Ammous says in his book The Bitcoin Standard. If you think this is wrong, argue with him, not me.
Another point, they are not interdependent. A prime example of this today is gold. It is a store of value, but it is not a currency. So this proves that interdependence does not exist.
The fact that you have one or another thing being used as exchange does not make it currency. What defines it as a currency is the consensus when using it, as well described by Ammous in the book.
FedNow is similar to PIX here in Brazil. You have ease and practicality at the expense of losing your privacy and autonomy of your own money.
It's not CBDC, but it's close to being. Therefore, it is important to be careful when using it.
In addition, it is not obligatory for financial institutions and banks to use it, because in the US it could cause the failure of small banks in any rumor of a liquidity problem.
I'm studying about Wasabi Wallet and I'm increasingly happy with how well the project is evolving. The care they take to be user friendly is excellent, especially for non-IT users who would like to use a good and safe mixer.
The problem in my view is that you are using an exchange. Maybe if you use a decentralized solution like Robosats you don't have this problem. Communications can be made directly with the user without a trusted third party.
About credit card in another country, I believe it can help, however, it is important to check that the countries and the company do not share information with the country in which you gave your information, because if they do, it could be a problem too.