247 sats \ 5 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 26 Oct \ on: On Ossification bitcoin
The White Paper was very specific in what Bitcoins purpose is- primarily a censorship resistant P2P payments protocol.
That primary payments purpose was backed up by a 'hard money' strictly limited issuance never totaling more than 21 million Bitcoins, which protects holders from debasement and thus enables saving.
However the legacy fiat powers have observed this new money and responded slyly - at least in liberal western democracies not imposing an outright ban, which would result in an underground Bitcoin market that would be hard to control, but rather allowing limited CEXes and imposing KYC to enable tracking and tracing of ownership and use.
Secondly they have designated Bitcoin as a commodity- in direct defiance of the white papers very clear description of Bitcoin as a P2P payments system.
By arbitrarily designating Bitcoin as a commodity it has been captured by tax obligations which make use of Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol effectively impractical for anyone wishing to remain within the law.
This has resulted in MoE use of Bitcoin being hugely obstructed and use of Bitcoin as a speculative commodity becoming by far the predominant use and perception.
This has in turn evolved into ETFs and increasing institutional custody, which even further erodes the potential for P2P payments.
The subtle but relentless and progressive capture and control how Bitcoin is used prepares the protocol for an effective shutting down of Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol.
When institutional custody and KYC tracking has captured the greater majority of Bitcoin held then an Order 6102฿ would be most effective.
They do not have to gain custody of all Bitcoin, but by gaining the majority it would be effectively captured and controlled.
So the development of Bitcoin is being steered away from its primary founding purpose and moved toward a model where it can be captured and controlled.
The need is for pressure upon elected representatives to remove the obstruction of Bitcoin for MoW payments.
The need now is for users to demand and apply their right to use Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol.
This requires Bitcoin hodlers to become users of the protocol for both of its original intended purposes not just as a SoV but also as a MoE payments.
If we do not demand and apply use of Bitcoin as a payments protocol it is endangered and there is no apparent mechanism via any change to the protocol internally that can remedy that.
It is a case of requiring Bitcoiners to understand and respond to the attack that is being mounted by legacy fiat monopolists- the banks and governments.
The need is for pressure upon elected representatives to remove the obstruction of Bitcoin for MoW payments. The need now is for users to demand and apply their right to use Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol. This requires Bitcoin hodlers to become users of the protocol for both of its original intended purposes not just as a SoV but also as a MoE payments.
This.
reply
How does owning a majority of tokens help control the system? That sounds like proof of stake.
reply
ETFs do not own Bitcoin token but they do hold custody of them.
CEXes do not own Bitcoin tokens deposited by traders but do hold custody of them and KYC the custody when/if it is transferred to a trader.
ETFs and CEXes deliver institutional custody at zero cost and sometimes profit to the institutions.
Institutional custody means that those institutions control which fork they would follow in the event of a hard fork- all the ETFs explicitly declare they will decide which if any fork they would accept.
Don't take my word for it see how Andreas Antopoulos explains it here-
Beyond giving these institutions the power to decide which fork to follow in the event of one in the case of an Order 6102B institutionally held Bitcoin would be either allowed, or would almost certainly comply with a confiscation order.
The original Order 6102 was highly effective because so much gold was already held by banks on behalf of citizens who had been entrusted with its custody by customers.
The higher the level of institutional custody the more effective any confiscation ban on private custody can be expected to be.
An E.O. 6102B may well allow institutions to hold custody and only ban private citizens to hold. This would effectively end any lawful use of Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol.
They could frame it with AML FUD and protecting the USD.
reply
The fork scenario sounds a lot like the bcash fork. I'd imagine in such a case the price of each side would provide the necessary feedback to show that the institutional coin was inferior.
reply
If the institutional coin has taken the majority of the 21 million with it you might still have a problem...
ETFs will hold custody of more than 50% of the Bitcoin ever issued within a decade at current rates of acquisition.
reply