pull down to refresh
172 sats \ 14 replies \ @DarthCoin 14 Nov \ on: Bitcoin cold war bitcoin
Guys please stop with these aberrations about "states that stack BTC".
Do you really forget why we are here?
Bitcoin is to dismantle the states.
Bitcoin is for individuals not for the states.
Just a simple question: if all states stack BTC and not use it, what are you going to use? The tokens they will give you ?
Are you out of your mind with this bullshit?
Bitcoin is permissionless, so it doesn't matter who it's "for", anybody and everybody can use it, which necessarily includes state actors.
The thing is that even if nation states capture large Bitcoin reserves and hence capture large amounts of wealth, they still don't get to control Bitcoin. However, in gaining wealth through Bitcoin, they will lose their ability to extract wealth from their productive citizenry via inflation.
A nation state adopting Bitcoin will only have access to the finite amount of wealth that they themselves control, instead of the near infinite "wealth" that they can currently access by inflating their money. A bitcoin state must then either operate at profit or they will soon find that they have no Bitcoin left to spend. The conclusion is that Bitcoin will force states to operate efficiently, and I believe that the only way they can do that is to downsize massively.
A state adopting Bitcoin may be wealthy but it will necessarily be small.
reply
Let's make an analogy:
For thousands of years, states have used gold. For thousands of years, thieves and mafia have used gold. If we consider gold to be a good thing (at least before Bitcoin), does that mean that thieves, mafia and states are good?
Obviously they aren't. This is a fallacy.
It doesn't matter if states use Bitcoin. That doesn't make them good at all.
They are just using a good thing for (very) bad purposes, as usual.
reply
reply
"Nation states will buy Bitcoin because it's permissionless, but this won't give them any more control over the network, and will in fact accelerate their downfall by removing their ability to extract wealth via inflation. A state that ends up operating on Bitcoin will necessarily be much smaller and constrained than it is today."
"STATIST"
I still can't work out if you're a troll or if you're just a bit dense, Darth.
reply
Please answer this simple question:
If a state have the control of a BTC wallet keys, who really OWNS those BTC?
How that state will help YOU just by keeping the keys of that BTC wallet?
WHO is "the state" ?
reply
-
Depends on the arrangement, multi-sig and so on could place ownership in the hands of a group or committee. I don't see how it's relevant.
-
I never said the state would help me by virtue of holding Bitcoin. Rather, by the development of a Bitcoin standard the state will necessarily shrink. This does help me, it stops hindering me, because I don't believe the state is actively helpful.
-
Again, not sure how this is relevant to the point.
reply
He is stating a likely reality, Bitcoin is for Everyone with a capital E... that means states as well.
Please share how you propose stopping states from stacking?
reply
how you propose stopping states from stacking?
Individuals stacking more and stop using fiat. That's it.
Bitcoin is for Everyone
Nope...
reply
That's the beauty of states stacking, they will accelerate the devaluation of their own currencies.
States having sats does not equal states controlling Bitcoin, it does however shift incentives away from fighting Bitcoin, especially if they are competing with each other in order to have some.
We might need to speed up layer 2 improvements if we want to keep decentralization up though, if states do start stacking hard it's going to become very expensive to manage channels.
reply
The more Bitcoin is used, all things being equal, the more expensive it is going to get.
It's like that old saying... "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded..."
NgU and adoption means it's going to be the 'high-powered' money that people save in and that's used for global commodities trading and exhange. It's too powerful, too good to be used on candy bars and soft drinks.
Just my opinion.
reply
If the value per unit becomes too high, we simply divide it again, ever heard of milli sats?
So long as transaction fees aren't an issue, the value per unit doesn't matter to everyday use, just that the value is stable.
reply
I read this as a thought experiment. What if states start to stack and is it likely? Not necessarily supporting or liking the idea, just observing.
reply
I don't think it's realistic to think that states will be dismantled. Maybe that's an aspiration for some, but then there's reality.
reply
What is a state? Let's go back to basics...
Saying that is not realistic it means you love slavery...
reply