This argument is just weird \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

674 sats \ 10 comments \ @crrdlx 14 Sep 2023 bitcoin

One of the people who is making a cottage industry out of attacking Bitcoin wrote, "There is an infinite number of things in finite supply." This seems like a click-bait hot take of a statement.

I guess his argument is: just because something is finite in supply doesn't mean it necessarily holds value. However, the way he makes that argument is...just...weird.

Article: https://u.today/bitcoin-scarcity-argument-smashed-by-black-swan-author-heres-how

view all related items

687 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 14 Sep 2023

Taleb is a noted douchebag, and it's been obvious that his criticisms of btc are undertaken in bad faith, but he's not wrong about this. I actually like the point, because it requires the reader to figure out what's special about scarcity, or rather: when scarcity is special, under what circumstances do people value things that are scarce?

Clearly, being scarce, and nothing more than that, is not the answer to anything. Getting to the bottom of the issue is actually quite nuanced, and philosophically, psychologically, and sociologically interesting.

352 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Sep 2023

It sounds like the concern I had about Bitcoin that was somewhat common in Austrian circles early on. The idea is that while Bitcoin is scarce, there is no limit on how many blockchains with Bitcoin's properties can be created.

The problem with that is assuming each of those blockchains will be valued identically just because they have the same properties. In actuality, the blockchain with the greatest adoption will end up being valued and the others will go to zero.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 14 Sep 2023

Yes, people just don't get network effects or never heard of that term.

Same reason why having access to the code of Twitter, Facebook, Google does not mean that you can create a company as valuable as Twitter, Facebook, Google (ignoring other factors for the sake of the argument).

Also, regarding this:

there is no limit on how many blockchains with Bitcoin's properties can be created.

If you don't change anything, you just connect to the bitcoin network.

So there must be some consensus difference between what this new chain with "bitcoin's properties" is doing and bitcoin.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Sep 2023

there is no limit on how many blockchains with Bitcoin's properties can be created.

I'm not smart enough about the actual programming to make that point any more articulately. Are there some trivial consensus differences that wouldn't alter the functionality, but would prevent integration with the bitcoin network?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 14 Sep 2023

Are there some trivial consensus differences that wouldn't alter the functionality, but would prevent integration with the bitcoin network?

i think you could just create a new genesis block since which blocks are part of the longest (= includes the most work) chain is also part of consensus. then everything would be the same except the history would start from scratch.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Sep 2023

That's basically what I was imagining.

72 sats \ 2 replies \ @badabing 14 Sep 2023

Indeed, my poop is also limited in supply. However, my poop lacks some fundamental monetary properties to be considered money, unlike Bitcoin.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Sep 2023

Divisible...check Scarce...check Uniform...more or less Portable...never leave home without it Durable...not unless medical attention is required Acceptable...that's gonna be your main problem

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 14 Sep 2023

Ha! That's the same example I use sometimes. :)

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 14 Sep 2023

Taleb will buy bitcoin at the price he deserves :)