Yup, but theres a weakness in Keynesianism, because it cant really explain stagflation(economic stagnation combined with inflation) with this logic. We’re actually seeing it now, the assumption higher inflation, lower unemployment is simply not true. Were seeing the first signs of increasing rates of unemployment and inflation at the same time. Keynes is basically debunked when you have rising rates of unemployment and inflation at the same time. This already happened in the 70s once.

Lets also note that statistics about inflation and unemployment can be inaccurate, there are incentives for governments to make them seem lower than they really are trough several tricks. Which is kinda a weakness when all assumptions should be based on mathematical models.

I think one reason is, because economics is highly dogmatic. Its different to other fields of science, because there is no clear truth. Different philosophies lead to different outcomes. And in the end its more about understanding and shaping human behaviour. Universities currently just teach one dogma, so thats why most agree on it, but not solely.

Austrian economics and Keynesianism are like a clash of two contrary philosophies. Austrian school basically tries to reason and sees shortcomings in statistics, they try to explain things based on what they think they’re seeing in reality without the fancy math. Keynesianism tries to explain everything trough statistics and math. So its really about which philosophy people put more faith in.

I think we shouldn’t generally rule out any kinds of depressions possibly happening in any kind of economical philosophy. Having a better form of money wont simply prevent any causes that can lead to a depression. That being said. Two factors of the great depression were banking failures and shortcomings in the gold standard, something that could be prevented under a Bitcoin standard.

Having a fairer form of money wont automatically lead to bad economic outcomes, but could actually help. Bitcoin will simply reduce the room for human error in monetary policy and strengthen free trade, which i think are factors that are depression reducing. Constant human intervention is the biggest cause for crises, so i expect we would see less under a Bitcoin standard. I dont see how a more stable form of money that is less influenced by humans would lead to worse outcomes. Taking the train is safer for an unreliable individual(policy makers, if economics is imperfect there can never be perfect policy) and the people around him, than driving a car. Fiat is actually showing us how much human policy and economic needs are misaligned. Bitcoins reduces the human factor, so we should expect more stability.

// Edit: Sadly i cant reply to your other thread as im not a full member yet. Something short to the latter point. Control over the money doesnt always solve recession and crisis, in fact problems can be postponed into the future with it. This is exactly how the crisis in 2008 was handled and it wasnt actually solved. There was some bailouts, but no solution. It was just postponed till now and made it worse, and we have to fix it now way into the future. You could also even argue that Bitcoin is the actually democratically controlled money.

Exactly, thats why im saying all these useless regulations should be contested in court by businesses from the beginning, because there isn’t even a way that they could be implemented in a non nonsense way, thats what i tried to point out. Bitcoin is similar to cash, so they should make the case that it should be treated as such and not give in to any bs that these regulators want to push on them.

Sadly yeah, i just hope some legitimate businesses will start to care and do something. It would separate them from the rest. But its unlikely to happen, they all just comply to nonsense.

Agree, if everyone starts to inform their circle we can move something, many newbies simply don’t understand it yet, but they will if we explain it correctly.

Yeah, but laws and regulations also need to be enforceable, having a central register with all business addresses is a nightmare and can also easily be dodged when businesses just create new addresses that arent registered somewhere. Chain analysis isnt sufficient to even decide this, as oeleo already pointed out. And well known addresses neither. Bank accounts are much more static and from central entities, not pseudonymus and traceable even if a business used another account to dodge regulations. Maybe theres some room here to push back against these regulations by pointing out that theyre generally unenforceable and harm their customers and business models in the process. And maybe theres different ways to comply with regulations that dont have these drawbacks.

Yup, but im also asking myself if there’s a possibility for businesses to go against this legally. It could be argued that they can’t really link addresses to specific types of businesses themselves, so maybe there’s some possibilities to get similar statuses to cash businesses.

Really good point, with all these factors there must be a way to make a case against the legitimacy of all these measures. Would love to hear some lawyers opinion about this. Im also wondering why companies are just complying instead of making some cases themselves.

Yup definitely. Im just trying to make a case for, that if we look at all these measures in a result oriented way, we gotta acknowledge that they don’t achieve anything they’re trying to achieve. Not even something simple as blocking a casino really works, without affecting innocent users. In the end casino money will still reach the service, so nothing was prevented. So why have it in the first place. There’s many good reasons to try to fight illicit activity and it might not even always be ill-intended by businesses. But we have more and more consequences creeping in, without even having solved anything.

There can also be many different views and one person might be ok with something that someone else isn’t, but everyone who uses Bitcoin has certain goals that are aligned with each other. We want Bitcoin to succeed, we want the freedom to transact. Businesses don’t wanna get crushed by regulators and Bitcoiners want businesses to adopt Bitcoin. I think if we agree to one strategy here, that is no coin taint at all(is probably the most efficient solution), then we can achieve our goals much easier and withstand much more pressure together. If Businesses keep going against their customers and get more and pressure from regulators, it will be much easier to crush them. And it makes it harder for Bitcoiners to use Bitcoin. So im thinking that maybe we could use one clear shared strategy in this case, even when there’s differing opinions.

But then the casino could do the same and just transfer their funds to a new wallet and then use them again. Just trying to taint a coin for whatever reason creates a whole lot of unnecessary problems.

In the end its about protecting individuals fundamental right to transact. Blacklists are always subjective, not transparent and ultimately dont prevent crimes from happening. But they violate fundamental rights of individuals, and open the door to abuse and a dysfunctional economy. Money launderers and criminals will always find a way to evade them.

So we should try to reach more social consensus about that its absolutely essential for Bitcoins success to not accept any kind of taint being introduced by anyone. We gotta be completely stubborn here. Innocent until proven guilty, companies can still report criminals to law enforcement and it will be handled in court where it should be. Individuals fundamental rights are essential for a functional society and it starts with the freedom to transact. Even when not personally affected yet this is absolutely crucial for everyone. Privacy solutions can only help, but we also need awareness by many, to really push against it.

Nah man, your analysis is already on point. And thanks for raising awareness to this issue about wasabi, as i think i first read it from your thread. There’s nothing to understand here and no excuses or justifications.

Companies should grow some courage again and maybe work in favour of their customers, instead of harming their customers again and again. It has already been shown that Bitcoin is barely used by criminals and doing so, would just leave a lot of evidence for the police forever. So what’s the point of all these measures. We don’t need blacklists or anything else, as we have law enforcement already and we don’t need private companies overreaching their responsibilities. They’re basically introducing „solutions“ that should solve some 0.1% probability scenarios, but affect 99.9% of users negatively in the process. Also when did we switch from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent? With all these new measures private institutions are introducing, where the customer needs to prove they’re innocent to a non-judiciary institution?

Bitcoin is already perfectly fungible, as each unit is the same as the other. The problem are private companies that start to differentiate between sats. So they’re the ones hurting the fungibility artificially. And are also violating censorship resistance. It’s just obvious and no reality-denying marketing talk will change that. Only thing we can do is stop using these services now, because it’s not really a fungibility problem. It’s a private companies overreaching their responsibilities problem and a fungibility problem only exists on their services, after introducing them themselves.

They can simply ask their customers if they want these things to be introduced, instead of guessing and pushing things down people throats and then selling it as some revolutionary solution. Things are really not that complicated.

100% agree.

I wouldn’t be surprised either, i just left it out because i dont think it’s strictly necessary for tx fees only to work. And if it’s the case that states or other entities will wanna keep Bitcoin secure, there’s so many potential factors like subsidies etc, that would make tx fees only work even more. In the end, every entity in the world has an interest on having a trustless and depoliticised monetary system even if they don’t admit it yet, we see the struggles currently. I just tried to outline some thoughts for people that still don’t think it can and then discuss them.

There’s no unlimited total addressable market in the world, so it can’t rise forever.

Hal finney already addressed this in 2009. Fiat currencies and global wealth are probably a few hundred trillion dollars worth, hard to determine accurately. If Bitcoin outcompetes everything, it will hit a cap at some point. It can’t rise forever, that doesn’t mean it won’t rise for a long time. And when you have a huge marketcap volatility decreases. There’s no absolute stability, but much more than now. Because it will be hard for a few entities to make big moves, with huge marketcaps like this.

It can after enough marketcap, there’s always some volatility as with everything, but much less than now, so it would be stable relative to other goods that are considered stable now, like gold. Also when Bitcoin becomes a dominant unit of account, things change. It has the potential to become the best unit of account ever created one day. I wouldn’t count out the possibility of it being a stable store of value one day, by just saying it can’t. Argue why. Total addressable markets are always limited, the rising forever assumption can’t overcome this.

I should, i love hot weather. And i stayed in this kind of weather without AC many times. Im not saying others should, so maybe show your politicians that you actually understand these problems, so they can’t blame it on others easily and keep fooling you.


There’s no Bitcoin mining around here and yet we have the same problems. Maybe because energy prices have nothing to do with Bitcoin and availability of electricity neither? Where i live we probably already paid 3x as much as texans and it’s still rising, so ik better what it’s like. Just don’t confuse something other people are responsible for with Bitcoin, just because it sounds like an easy solution. So stop confusing the two or prove it.


A communist party that sees their monetary monopoly threatened cares about the environment first, or maybe it could be something else? If you look at their track record you must be naive to think that any of their decisions have any of these considerations.

It secures the network so it’s not wasted, it extends energy infrastructure so it’s not wasted, it’s what allows money to be decentralized so it’s not wasted, it’s a buyer for electricity 24/7 which is needed so it’s not wasted, it triggers PoS shills, politicians and other cringe people so it couldn’t be more worth it.


Lazy to read?

So let’s conclude, let me just build the most outdated grid that can’t even serve the demand of the market and instead of using this investment opportunity to better things, I’ll just use this topic politically and blame people that are not responsible for the grid that it doesn’t work? So let’s not actually better things and use the money i taxed people to do exactly this, but just find a scapegoat that distracts from actual failures. Sounds like they know what they’re doing and serving the people.

They’re on when there’s not enough stress on the grid, so it’s not destabilising. It’s simply using whats built to be used, when it’s not used as much by people. Load profiles vary by season, time of day etc. Peak demand usually occurs in the morning and evening, when people are at home. So you will have a lot of hours during the day/night where this electricity usage isn’t „destabilising“ anything, as energy demand is low during these hours. If miners actually increase demand during these time, they’re helping financing the entire infrastructure for everyone. Also many miners are adding more capacity, that can actually be used in the grid when needed. Regular people are also the highest paying customers, we see them get prioritised every time. Miners are not taking anything from anyone.


They probably need to hook up to the grid, because renewables don’t work 24/7 and so they can give energy to the grid when needed. But if they only use energy during non-peak hours it’s no problem for the grid. It’s already handled trough price, because Bitcoin mining won’t be profitable when people need this energy, so we don’t see them using the energy people need. Miners that completely rely on the grid will probably go bankrupt sooner or later, as they don’t have additional income trough the grid and won’t be able to compete in the future, when lower energy prices are needed for mining to stay profitable. This is all already handled trough Bitcoins incentives.


Nah man if we wanna fix this energy mess we should acknowledge truth. Mining load is flexible, it can be turnt back on when this energy isn’t needed otherwise. And this works perfectly in a decentralised worldwide network.

It’s simple, if the grid can’t handle it they simply won’t get the electricity. So miners actually need to increase the capacity to not go bankrupt with that much competition. Relying solely on the grid won’t work for them, so relax. People will always be prioritised, not miners.


Thanks for the laughs, did you consider working for current governments? You might be a good fit. If this doesn’t work out, i can enlist you in some psychological studies, as this special case deserves some serious studying.


I feel bad for the US, i thought propaganda was already bad where im at.


A cringe mob of hysterical people that doesn’t understand what they’re shouting about, what should someone take from this? It only reflects bad on them. Makes you question how many people in the population can actually use their brain.

It’s simple supply&demand as has been explained to you many times. Miners build energy infrastructure and when there’s high demand in the grid, it will be more profitable to give power to the grid than to mine Bitcoin. So miners just turn off their machines and help the power infrastructure out. Over 1000 megawatts can already be put into the texan grid like this dynamically, simply when needed. 1000 megawatts gives us 1.000.000 kW, this are 24.000.000 kWh in a day, the average texan household uses 39.2 kWh in a day¹. So it can power an additional 612.244 households when needed, doesn’t sound like something negative to me. We could actually need more of this. Even if the electricity usage is much higher in summer for the average household, there’s still a lot of people helped out trough Bitcoin mining infrastructure, even if it was just half of that in summer. No need to develop energy phobias and to become hysterical. Extension of energy infrastructure is actually what will help the grid out, and Bitcoins incentives is what makes this possible in an uncomplicated way.

[1] https://www.texaselectricityratings.com/blog/what-is-the-average-daily-kwh-usage-per-household-in-texas/

And as you can see here, that’s exactly what’s happening.

As there is more and more discussion about the time when Bitcoin will mostly rely on transaction fees, i wanted to discuss some thoughts.

I think there are three possible scenarios in the future:

• Bitcoins price will keep increasing forever.
• Bitcoins price stabilises at some point.
• Bitcoins price falling till zero.

---

Bitcoins price will keep increasing forever. - Unlikely if we’re taking thiers law into account(explanation below), Fiat will likely be replaced one day. Bitcoin can only rise to infinity as long as fiat operates like now, but then fiat would implode - so we will either see a Bitcoin standard in some countries, or new legal tender soft moneys replacing current fiat; This will likely differ from country to country, but Bitcoin will likely not rise forever as fiat is too unstable and becoming worthless.

In this scenario mining compensation would be fine and mining stays decentralized, similar to now. The constant increase in price makes it possible for less competitive players(with higher energy costs, worse locations) to stay profitable and keep mining. No intervention needed.

---

Bitcoins price stabilises at some point. - This scenario is most likely to me. Either trough a Bitcoin standard emerging, when fiat fails and we start to use Bitcoin as unit of account, then we simply use Bitcoin directly without an exchange rate. Or when Bitcoin hit a huge marketcap and were starting to see other investments outperform Bitcoin, for example when Bitcoin only increases 1% a year but stocks would increase 7% a year, then we would we see a massive stabilisation in the price of Bitcoin and the high volatility phase is mostly over, because for this to happen the market cap needs to be huge and would be hard to still influence.

This scenario comes with some special implications that will likely fundamentally change the economics behind mining. We will see a highly competitive mining market that will only have razer thin profit margins. Most less competitive miners will get beat and mining wont stay economical for them. Mining will probably centralize to the locations with near zero, or below zero¹ energy costs.

This in turn means that the contribution margin is always positive, no matter how small the block reward is, and thus it will always profitable to mine in certain locations. This can likely vary during the day, and mining wont happen 24/7 in every location anymore, so it would likely be combined with some other energy related economic activities. Having such a competitive market would actually help the security of the network. We still need a lot of miners, but in different locations now, as mining would mostly only be profitable for a limited time during the day when energy prices are this low. So different time zones are needed, which in turn helps decentralization. Mining margins being really thin, would be a key to success here, as mining would need to become more distributed over the world to still be profitable. But this only works under the basis that asics costs are cheap and theyre highly available, because otherwise it would take long times for miners to break even in this model and we could see too much centralisation. The network would still be secure, as attacks from the outside will be multiple times more expensive than the „security budget“ itself, as electricity prices near or below zero are limited around the world. The initial design can work even with lower rewards, if were able to reduce asic costs in the future and make them more available. Not even a tail emission could influence the distribution of mining in this scenario and the same players would simply run more machines, but it would create softer money which opens up the possibility to compete against Bitcoin in the hard money category again. Transactions fees only can actually work and i think it will. We have a long time now to work on improving the asics market.

Additional thought:
If asics are cheap there might also be more altruistic miners again, and the generated heat could be used in some productive way.


[1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative

---

Bitcoins price falling till zero. - To me this scenario is basically impossible, except if major mess ups happen and Bitcoins monetary properties were changed fundamentally for whatever reason. As it stands now, Bitcoin is the hardest and most immutable money in the world, so it would keep its spot, as there will only be one hardest money. Governments cant even possibly compete and bring out a harder money, as their solution will always be mutable. They’re more interested in soft money anyways, as they can simply print more of it. So theres only one real spot for a winner in the hard money category and that is Bitcoin. There is no real second or third spot, as you have to compete against absolute scarcity. And to stay this way you need to be immutable, no shitcoin or government issued money will be able to compete against this any time soon. And Proof-of-Work requires hashrate which is limited around the world, so it would be hard to even compete against Bitcoin in immutability, good luck getting that hashrate even when choosing PoW. So they have to compete for the soft money spot, and there the government has the upper hand trough legal tender laws.

In this scenario nothing could secure the economic incentives for mining to work and Bitcoin would have failed, not even a tail emission would make a difference here.

Maybe i took it differently, but fine let’s not discuss about this one.

I get it, but that’s just the nature of the thing. There’s certain opportunities to get something for way below it’s worth, but that’s only possible if you’re there earlier than most other people. They went in when it was barely worth anything and needed to hold it for a long time and trough a lot of uncertainty to make gains. I don’t think there’s another way to handle this, as you need some incentives for earlier holders so this thing takes off in the first place. These opportunities will be there again for other things, for people who missed this one. One door closes and another one opens. This only matters for people who wished to get rich from Bitcoin tho. To me that’s not the goal, i just think the soundest money will benefit society the most, no matter if average workers or millionaires. But the real benefit being for regular people.

On an individual level Bitcoin still offers the same properties to everyone in a time where it couldn’t be needed more, that’s valuable. Just having a money that won’t inflate over time could be huge for the average family over time. It doesn’t matter if someone holds 1000x more than us, because Bitcoin still serves everyone and the potential is still huge, with a lot less uncertainty than back then.

It could be considered unfair, the same way you could consider it unfair that older people had the opportunity to buy apple and amazon shares at pennies, but the future is uncertain and we have expenses in the present, there was a reason they were traded at this price in one point in time and people had to take real risks. I would focus on future opportunities instead of missed opportunities, as there will be plenty. Mining costs will even increase in the future and people will look the same way at us now and think it’s unfair and we’re lucky. But it’s not easy to just go in and mine for most people, even tho we know that we have a unique opportunity rn.

There are parts that are known and public, but not to everyone.

Similar to studying physics, i probably wouldn’t be able to propose any future changes in our physics models, because i only studied parts of it and my knowledge doesn’t go deep enough. Yet i still know enough about it to understand how it works and to use it where i can. And it’s enough to catch my interest in certain areas.

If i tried to propose some change or start to do accusations that physics is a scam, it would become clear quickly that there are holes in my knowledge and it’s not true. That’s how i wouldn’t be able to fake my way into physics and change the way of thinking. For my ideas to have weight, it requires some heavy work and studying to really change the way people think, because ultimately the truth outweighs lies and bs. Similar to how epicycles got debunked.

Yet anyone is open to contribute to physics and we have people trying to say flat earth is real and we’re being scammed. Then it’s a question if i value stephen hawkings work more, than some idiot where it’s obvious that they didn’t spend more than 5 minutes thinking about it. It’s not even necessary to trust hawking, just verify his claims. And this is probably the only way to fully get physics, by verifying everything individually. And yet it’s still impossible to convince them of the truth, you could probably send them into space and they would still deny it. But the majority will still follow the truth and make use of physics even if they don’t fully get it themselves.

Bitcoin is similar to this in some way. Sometimes its even challenging to get for highly educated people, for whatever reason. It’s highly interdisciplinary, but they also have ties to the current system, similar to how long it took to change consensus about earth not being the center of the universe, because people benefited from it politically. Our current models aren’t accurate enough to fully get Bitcoin, having specialised knowledge in just one field isn’t enough. Similar to how it wasn’t enough to just study the bible to understand the universe. And it took a long to make people realise that the earth isn’t the center of the universe. Bitcoin is open to anyone for contribution, similar to science. And it thrives the more proof based, open to everyone and willing to follow the truth it is, that is where both Bitcoin and science thrive the most. Previous forms of money thrived on their users being uneducated and uniformed about it. Just think about fractional reserveing, it completely works on the basis that not everyone can withdraw their money, just until people realise this. Gold coins have also been debased trough cheaper metals troughout history. These forms of money thrive on people not understanding it. And in these opaque systems it isn’t immediately clear to separate between bs knowledge and truth. In Bitcoin it’s obvious fast, similar to when science follows it’s core principles. That’s when the two shine. The more great minds we have studying Bitcoin, the easier it will be to preserve what made Bitcoin great troughout time and implement great ideas for the future.

Bitcoin needs a saviour?

Im not even an early holder, but saying early coins were acquired unfairly is kinda insanity.

How does this matter when you’re actually decentralized?

Cringe, when soft and hard money circulate together, the hard money will be hoarded and circulates less, aka bad money drives out good money. Until the soft money lost too much value and then hard money starts to be used as a means of payment, aka good money drives out bad money. Simple economic principles, no need to insult people for doing what’s rational or trying to fiddle with things that can’t be solved artificially. There’s speculators and gamblers but over 60% of Bitcoin is being hodld even now, ridiculous to assume the majority of people are gamblers or speculators. Simply storing value is a legitimate use case when inflation is over 10% and we’re still early in the adoption cycle.

We didn’t even reach a point yet were TPS hindered mass adoption, mass adoption is a long process that depends on many factors outside of this. Just increasing tps alone isn’t what will make mass adoption happen overnight.

I would love to have a discussion about your claim, but you’re not here to discuss in the first place. So either show me you’re able to do it or i won’t waste my time.

You changed your claims multiple times, you tried everything you can, but all of it got disproven. And then you just come up with another claim. And now your last resort is calling people cultists again, but if you understood how decentralized Bitcoin is this doesn’t even make sense and just shows that you indeed have no clue what’s going on. And nah people don’t read from the same book, they verify individually, people here are not even linked to each other. We don’t even know each other or have ever talked with each other before. Just verify everything individually, that is the only way to get it. You won’t get around education to understand Bitcoin, that’s the real problem here for the haters. Because they’re unable or lazy to do it. But it’s positive for Bitcoin as it keeps the people out, that just won’t take the time study it, naturally. So we will reach higher quality results in the end, as you can’t fake your way in.

How much studying did you put into Bitcoin? We know the answer is astronomically low, or else prove that you understand it. Calling yourself rational is a stretch, this is not some fiat toy that takes 5 minutes to fully get. What you described below is what’s happening in the shitcoin space, people here warn against this again and again.

Is that really all you guys got?

Waiting for the good evidence. You call the people that just compare two competing systems cultists, frauds, ponzi advocates etc. Just because they didn’t come to the conclusion that the current system is better. You never even respond to anyones answer or are willing to any discussion, the only thing you do is to make claims, it’s not a discussion.

What you’re doing is actually cultist like, you don’t even have dynamic thoughts. „Bitcoin is ….[useless, worthless, not backed by anything, has no value, volatile, no intrinsic value, needs fools to work, wastes energy, manipulated, a ponzi, will be banned, a tulip bubble, a pyramid, a risk stock, is controlled by the …]“ - everytime the same bs that anti bitcoin shills are mindlessly repeating, and no matter what arguments are being brought up, the same bs will be repeated again and again, and counter arguments will just be ignored. Everything has been explained to you 1000 times, your evidence is disproven. Stop the hypocrisy now. Actually discuss or stop it.

Im not sure if this quote is actually from twain, but the point is still correct. Even after being provably wrong he just stays ignorant and doesn’t even get the idea to question the basis of his arguments, or to have any serious discussion.

Dunning kruger effect striking again, he still overestimates his competence and knowledge, it’s impossible in his mind that he is wrong, even tho all of this bs got factually debunked. He literally worked with wrong assumptions, like saying the information doesn’t get verified, and yet there’s nothing in his mind that even makes him question, if he is really right or wrong. It’s just impossible to discuss with an idiot, because he’s unable/ or unwilling to do it. He just assumes he is the absolute source of truth, and everyone else could only be wrong. He’s literally unable to recognise deficiencies in his own abilities. That is the problem, we can’t even seriously discuss like this, because the result is already set before the discussion for him, everyone else can only be wrong before the discussion even started. So this bs would never end.

It’s not really, we’ll just let the readers decide and stop it here.

Nice try, but „Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.". I think we should skip reading the op for the 1000th time or even go down to the argument you just tried to make again. The readers can decide for themselves now.