Without MoE Bitcoin is not money. It is simply a speculative commodity.

This is exactly what the fiat debt slavery bankers cartel want- to see Bitcoin defined as a speculative commodity where it is both relatively harmless and can be easily captured and controlled.

They have already largely succeeded in this and very few Bitcoiners seem to even notice- dazzled by their speculative commodity gains perhaps- how easily the revolution was slyly diverted.

Sure you can still use bitcoin as a P2P payment protocol but fuck all people do- thus bitcoin is failing to perform the function of money and unless this changes bitcoin poses little threat to the legacy fiat power structures....that are based upon thier hegemony over MoE. Think of SWIFT as an example.

The stronger the bitcoin as a speculative commodity narrative grows the easier it would be to impose a ban on private custody.

The apologists say MoE use will follow SoV- there is no guarantee of that- there is certainty that without strong MoE use Bitcoin is more easily captured and controlled.

Does real estate need to be an MoE in order to remain a SoV?

Ich don't think so.

value to me means valor, strength, valuable lessons, knowledge. the money aspect of bitcoin is like a necessary evil, which is better than fiat money, but still not an ideal use case for living a good life.

i want the idea of money to go away forever. i cannot imagine enlightened beings with superior intelligence to ever need money. have the pyramids and cathedrals been built for money, or even with money? nah, there were probably other incentives at play.

at this time, in the age of A.I. bots, i would love for bitcoin to be more like a spam filter, similar to how stacker.news is trying to do it. then, a store of rare knowledge, which can be acquired by staying humble and stacking enough sats to get thru the paywall.

oh yea, a payment is not money. payment is performance according to an agreement.

It may be wrong but I hold the view that decentralization is roughly proportional to MoE usage. Running a node mostly matters when it comes time to accept someone sending me bitcoin so I can make sure that when I need to spend it I can send the best Keynesian beauty. If I’m not accepting or spending bitcoin, I’m producing no signal about my preferred consensus. So I run a node and try use bitcoin noncustodially wherever I can, hoping I’m adding my little part to contention over consensus so that when Bitcoin’s most valuable properties are threatened, I’m ready to “fight.”

So I think Booth’s reasoning goes: if we aren’t using bitcoin as MoE, it likely isn’t very decentralized, censorship resistant, and inflation resistant, so it won’t store value very well.

Obviously wrong that SoV is under threat. Bitcoin works way better as SoV than MoE and always has. I don't see this changing until there's a significant tax exemption and I don't see THAT changing until the dollar fails.

I like how he always brings any question back to "technology trends to zero".

Not sure I've heard much of Jeff talk about Bitcoin being a MoE.

I think it happens later where price has found somewhat of a range and the volatility goes down.

He's definitely right about Bitcoin needing to stay decentralized.

I disagree with Jeff's Booth idea that it essentially must be used as a medium of exchange. During the high upward volatility in adoption, it is understandable that the MoE side of it is not in wide use. I do think it will eventually in upcoming decades be up for widespread adoption again, but first I think it needs to become universal measure of value (unit of account), when most people start to think in sats around the world, it also makes it easier to pay with sats instead. And I think the MoE think is likely to happen outside U.S. and dollarized countries quicker.

I agree with Booth. SOV and MOE seem inseparable regarding bitcoin.

I think maybe being a unit of account would make more sense to maintain store of value.

It must stay decentralized and secure, and its use as a MoE is part of that, due to the nature of the protocol: if people don't use it, the tx fees will not fund much security, which will undermine its value proposition as a SoV.

But if we put the tech aspects aside, assuming security, and only consider the monetary properties, I don't think an asset needs to be a widely adopted MoE to be a good SoV. Just the fixed supply and the ability to spend it permissionlessly are sufficient to make it a good SoV, because they're an improvement over other SoVs, and will siphon monetary premia from other assets.

For it to store value it doesn't need to be the money you use to pay for coffee, if you can sell it for something else (e.g. fiat clown tokens) and use that to pay for your coffee. If fiat on- and off-ramping becomes too much of a choke point, merchants can start accepting it directly. As long as people can sell it or spend it, it can be used as a SoV.

An example to prove that would be gold. You can't pay for coffee by shaving off a piece of a gold bar, but it is a SoV, because you can sell it.

Another example would be foreign currencies. The Norwegian krone is not widely adopted on this planet. No restaurant in NYC will accept it. But you can exchange it for dollars and therefore it has value.

There's a big problem while considering bitcoin the MoE because it's always rising in value. The crooks want us to stick to the crap fiat because that keeps on falling. Choice is in our hands. If you want stay poor, don't use Bitcoin as MoE.