I have a question about this. Let’s say miners really mine less and the difficulty drops, wouldn’t it weaken their competitive edge?

Now new miners can come in easily, forcing them to mine more again. So how does the incentive really play out in a competitive environment? Miners can’t afford to mine less, if they have running costs, new people could come in and just outmine them. „Kicking“ the ones that decided to mine less out. Idk if a PoS can outincentivize PoW like this.

Aren’t you basically handing over the biggest Bitcoin whales, the control over your network for free?

And in case just newly mined coins can be staked, then there would be no incentive for non miners to use this network. And in case miners mine less on Bitcoin to use this network more, they would be „kicked“ out by new miners, because they became uncompetitive, so they can’t be staking in this network anymore, if they don’t find new blocks.

I think this concept doesn’t play out, or im missing something.

The problem is that you have no clue of macroeconomics and probably just studied one small part of it, and now can’t see anything else, but this. It’s like someone blindfolded you with some bs and now you refuse to see anything else.

I don’t think anyone who’s into Bitcoin isn’t used to fluctuation, but in the long term it just becomes noise. No need for hysteria. If we’re going really long term macro nothing could speak more for Bitcoin. If you think countries can still afford high rates for a long time, then i think you was asleep for the last 14 years. If you think a failing system can be kept alive trough more and more authoritarianism(cbdcs) forever, then you probably also think communism is a great system that just hasn’t been implemented right yet.

Do you get it, no matter what the fed does, it’s just one reason more, people will go into Bitcoin. The fed is the best marketing team Bitcoin ever had, even tho it’s painful and costly and the whole world is paying for it. The only way for them to compete is to act honestly with everyones best interest in mind, now seeing individuals in the government starting to do this, is probably more unlikely than you getting more expertise about economics by just worshipping the fed. Wont happen.

We are fully aware what the fed does, another thing is to care about them. Pro tip: check out what’s written inside block 0.

A person that bases his whole life decisions and thought process around, if someone in a central bank presses a button, calls us a cult.

The problem with backing is that you need to introduce a fixed exchange rate and always need an entity from which you can redeem your assets from. This leads to two problems:

1. You’re limiting the potential of the actual asset(e.g. 1 Tether will never be worth more than 1 usd, 1 backed bitcoin would never be worth more than the backed asset itself), this becomes a problem, because there’s no reason that someone should replace all their usd with tether for example, it just never makes sense to primarily use this asset over the actual backed asset. You can’t use another assets value and discover your own at the same time. You have two give up one of the two. A Bitcoin that is a cheap copy of another asset serves no purpose, so the answer which one to pick is clear.

2. It requires trust, because you will always need to trust an entity to hold enough of the backed assets and redeem them. Even with a digital backing, we saw how well that worked for Luna. This would give up decentralization and would defeat what Bitcoin actually is, and thus make it useless.

Bitcoin is a really cleverly designed system, there’s reason why it is like it this, you can’t just change the properties without changing what made it successful in the first place.

Your backed currency can go to 0 too, that’s what you keep forgetting. Centralized systems are easy to stop by the government, they can lie about their reserves, they can refuse to redeem the backed assets, they can give out more currency than backing exists, they can run away with the money. The list goes on. Everything falls apart with this asset, if someone inside the central entity doesn’t work honestly just once in all its lifetime.

Now you have another asset that is decentralized and doesn’t have the problems i mentioned above. Is designed by computer science, cryptography, math, economics, game theory, psychology and a strong community. Has no need to have something else attached to it. Is the first currency that works trustlessly on the internet. Most successful asset of the last decade. Triggers people worldwide but can’t be stopped. That doesn’t need anyones approval, and is strong in reality and not just with words. Is an actual alternative to the current failing money system, and the only alternative there’s ever been that doesn’t require a central entity to work. Is gaining more and more people every day. Gives you full ownership over your wealth. Hardest asset to confiscate.

Which one of the two do you need to have more faith in to not go to 0? Which one of the two requires less trust of you to work? What you mentioned above is a far worse situation.

This point is redundant with what i mentioned above, Bitcoin is the most decentralized asset there is, so how would the other „decentralized asset“ gain its value then, and be so superior that Bitcoin needs it? There is a logical flaw here. There’s no shortcut to letting people find Bitcoins value themselves, why is this so hard to accept?


Fiat and gold depend on the internet the same as almost anything else does on this planet now. We can’t expect an asset that came out in 08/09 to have the same acceptability, as gold or fiat yet. But over time this will fix itself and we can see this trend already happening. How was the internet used in the 90s and how is it used now? The Unit of account phase comes last and isn’t relevant for the initial adoption stages. Because Fiat is a terrible store of value, and Bitcoin will be adopted as hard money first.

I hope it became clear now why it can’t be backed by anything else but itself.

Sorry man i should’ve checked before, i didnt follow this before, but i took the time read to everything now. And it kinda cleared up the things i had in my mind, thanks for the thread. Let’s see what the future holds.

This is possible and i have it set up that way. Theres actually an easy guide, that worked flawlessy for me, you might wanna look into it. You dont need a script btw.

https://raspibolt.org/guide/bitcoin/bitcoin-client.html#create-the-bitcoin-user

Idk man, i just checked out the model.

The basic assumption is:

I think we can agree that there is some correlation between SF and value, because a high SF indicates scarcity. But thinking it directly drives the value is just foolish, it ignores so many other economic principles or other dynamic factors.

Scarcity alone was never the determining factor, just check out the gold chart. This whole model tries to predict price just with the supply side, but we know the demand side can be dynamic af and unpredictable.

  1. It’s not even possible to accurately determine the total supply(stock) or yearly flow of gold and silver.
   2. The SF of gold and silver are constantly fluctuating, taking a mean doesn’t prove an accurate model.
   3. SF cant even predict the price of gold or silver.

Despite this can still see how it’s generally correct about gold gaining value over time, but still inaccurate when we want it to be precise.

I would advise against basing price expectations/ predictions on some oversimplified model in the first place. It’s like trying to predict the weather in 30 years by dividing the total rainfall/ yearly rainfall, wrapped in some power law that uses oversimplified assumptions again. See how it won’t work.

It fails at trying to predict the price, but i still think it’s valuable by visualising some supply side dynamics. Even if it’s right for some time, it just wouldn’t matter, because it’s trying to solve something impossible. So let’s just note that it just shows us something we can expect about the supply side in the next years, if we make the separation here, we can actually still work with this information.

Also golds SF is probably way higher than calculated in the model , and Bitcoins a lil lower(lost coins). Still not everyone is running into gold, because there’s more factors than just this. Fundamental analysis is way more efficient. Both are money, Bitcoins monetary properties are way superior to golds. Even if gold wouldn’t be mined anymore in this decade, i still expect Bitcoin to rise more, for this reason alone. The highest saleable good becomes money, fiat beats gold(more people hold wealth in fiat than in gold, even if it’s dumb), and bitcoin will beat fiat, and rise for this reason alone, not just because SF.

It’s not circular your assumptions are just off. The two criterias for a store of value are:

1. Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods).
2. Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use).

These two alone don’t determine if the market will assign value to it, or if this will be used as money over everything else, but you can determine how good of a store of value it is with these. But to be actually used as one, it needs actual use by the market, and for this other conditions need to be met first.

There’s a good theory of what actually becomes money by carl menger, he noticed that different goods have different degrees of saleability(marketability, how easy it is to do trade with a good), the most saleable good becomes the dominant money naturally, because it will become easier and easier to exchange with it. (That’s why fiat replaced gold).

Money wasn’t founded by the state, it came into play naturally before all of this. There’s different degrees of quality of money, and if a central authority starts abusing it, it looses its beneficial function for everyone(Fiat). These are things menger predicted generations ago.

Your toxic waste is scarce and durable, but terribly hard to do trade with, so the market won’t use it as money and it doesn’t get more and more value assigned to it. Bitcoin is scarce and durable, and becomes easier and easier to do trades with over time(the more the acceptability rises), so it’s on its way to become more dominant money, and will have more value assigned to it over time. We’re still in the first stages, that’s why the price will keep exploding, until it’s relatively stable.

Bitcoin is becoming the highest quality money we have, and all that naturally, no state is needed for this. If you don’t get why it’s winning, you didn’t compare it to other forms of money yet.

First of all, decentralization and backing are two things that are almost incompatible with each other, because who is the central entity you will be redeeming from? How will you verify the reserves? What about the fungibility issues of gold? Who stores the gold and keeps it safe?

Second of all, you would have to tie the value of bitcoin to a fixed amount of gold, you would need to create a fixed exchange rate, which brings in new economic problems and attacks.

Third of all, this will always fail and makes 0 sense, it makes the primary asset useless. It just becomes a servant for gold, it will never become worth more than gold, because the fixed exchange rate. Why should we spend all this energy to mirror the gold price, when this can already be done more easily. It doesn’t actually help Bitcoin and we gotta go trough these huge fluctuations in the beginning, shortcuts won’t help.
 
Bitcoin is better money than gold or fiat.

I think we should never expect a model to predict the exact future, but it can be nice to visualize things, start discussion or get ideas and orientation across. Math cant predict politics, manipulation or human decision making, so to me its ridiculous to bash a model, because it suggest that people expected it to be able to do these things in the first place. From my point of view Bitcoin is undervalued rn, so did it really fail?

So your strategy is rather to worship the printer than to find a way out of it, while being a crash prophet at the same time, sounds inspiring. And then you call other people emotional.

Idk if you’re aware that your crash strategy requires huge amounts of capital to pull of, because it’s hard to stay liquid during economic collapse. Also you can’t know the political consequences it will have on assets, there’s no bailouts for shrimps. You definitely have a winner’s mentality and long term vision, you’re outsmarting the whole world.

You probably already lost more opportunities to make profit by waiting for a crash, than an actual crash can bring you. And in the years you wait for crashes, inflation will already outrun you.

This is a positive note, with your motivations you just mentioned.

You can always keep an old unchanged copy somewhere, or run 2 nodes with 2 different versions, but this change would probably noticed before the majority downloaded it.

Now this is a better example and you have a point, im not specifically against the idea of competing implementations, but how do we make sure they run perfectly in sync with each other, this could open different risks in return. The devil lies in the details. But still im not necessarily against it, it just depends on the execution, that i cant evaluate if they’re not here.

It could also mean bugs in both implementations tho, because this is just part of software development. We could argue that it’s more beneficial, to come to a consensus in one implementation and get this one right. It all depends on the implementation in practice and i cant say core didn’t got us trough everything well enough.

Too much segmentation of development can also mean that the projects drift apart, maybe it’s not a bad idea to be forced to go trough the core process, because we can’t forget that it’s also about getting consensus in the community.

Franky, i have nothing against you and no connection to anyone here, and also i didnt use or run anything else than core yet, but lemme give you another perspective, because we should be working together instead of fighting. And you still have a right to your opinion regardless.

Im just coming out of a development project with terrible project management and almost nonexistent communication inside the team and let me tell you, this is terrible for both the devs and the product. Making any changes becomes a nightmare and is nerve wrecking, everyone just implements things without informing others, the architecture changes every few commits, and you constantly gotta try to understand undocumented and changing code and the product becomes half assed as a result. You can’t even time the changes others are making, if there’s no processes in play, you have to rely on parts of code that you don’t even know how they will be implemented or when they’re finished. If this is already a problem in a team of 10, then imagine this on a bigger scale in an open source project. It doesn’t matter how good of a dev you’re, because you can’t take on work of many people alone without going insane.

When i see the processes core uses it actually makes a whole lot of sense, and im sure any dev appreciates this, if they want to deliver the highest quality software possible. Communication and good planning are necessities, not gates. These processes were probably developed out of a necessity and not to keep others out. It actually enables you to make contributions, because good luck contributing to a messy, ever changing, undocumented software that has no contribution processes in play, it kills the fun and motivation in development fast, but also leads to low quality software that can’t scale well. I was just in this hell for a few months and don’t wanna go trough this again.

K im out. You obviously have some sort of cognitive dissonance to work on first, before you can understand more challenging things.

How? You can’t even separate between someone who is discussing with arguments, and someone who wants to scam you out of your money. Idc what you invest in, or how you handle your money, you should decide it yourself anyways. You assume everyone who doesn’t fit your own reasoning is a scammer, which makes you incapable of intellectual debate. This world is too complex to understand for you, so you gotta assume everyone is nefarious, to not get overwhelmed, a big sign of weakness. It’s just laughable, when people that are way older than the younger generation, aren’t even capable to engage in debate, when they’re supposed to be the ones who teach us.

Like i said its not an economic resource, just stop trying. The lack of fungibility is a real problem, wanna see it in action?
Here:
https://www.emk.com/en-us/gold/#navigation:q=&attrib%5Bcat_url%5D%5B0%5D=%2Fgold&order=shopsort+desc&first=0

Which one of these would you accept over another? Which one do you choose to best store your money? The answer will always be an subjective decision, but if we wanna enable universal trade this becomes a problem. This problem doesn’t exist with Bitcoin, because each unit is the same. Im not using abstract semantics, this actually relates to the real world. It actually influences how well something can be used as money, not everyone will want your jewellery, not everyone will want ur gold coin the same, because there’s too many differences. The same problem exists in fiat, who will accept your yen, who will accept your euros, who will accept a 500€ bill? The desirability varies if fungibility isnt good enough.

I don’t even want you to invest in it, even if you start to understand it. Im discussing with you because you’re working with wrong assumptions and bending concepts to fit ur needs, instead of staying objective. Scepticism towards something new, against any rational argument is a repeating pattern in society, people are just too hesitant to leave their conformity bubbles.

Sadly i dont have 10 merits to give.

Because it wouldn’t be.

Because money is not an economic resource and not supposed to be an productive asset. Your gold that gets used on computers or as jewellery becomes useless as money. Gold holders will never convert their gold into anything different, they will even make sure no bare hand touches their bar or coin, because it hurts the fungibility of it. You can’t just use it for various things and then sell it as before, this is a myth beginners don’t get.

But there’s different reasons for it, someone who buys gold bars or coins doesn’t think about, if it satisfies different needs they won’t be using it for. They will use a similar evaluation model that i outlined above, its completely different from jewellery buyers or makers. Gold isn’t valuable, because it’s used for different things. Different things use gold, because it’s valuable.

I think you’re almost there to understand Bitcoin, if you can start to separate between money and economic resources. In economics a clear distinction between the two is made, and money is explicitly excluded to be counted as an economic resource. If you get this concept we’re there and it will make sense to you.

Money is what allows the trade of economic resources without doing barter(more efficient). It is not an economic resource itself and it’s not its job to become a product, it should just allow us to trade more efficiently. Some forms of money can be used as an productive asset, but then loose their purpose in return(it’s not money anymore then, or becomes a worse form of money).

Bitcoin is just the purest form of money there is at the moment, and so it might seem weird that it can’t be used for anything else, but exactly this is what money is supposed to be. It’s cool that gold can be used for many things, but it hurts its monetary properties when used for something else.

It will take me and others a few seconds to go back to version 23 then. What you forget is that the dev group isn’t homogeneous, they have differing views and so on, they’re not sitting in a back room together somewhere. And in the case you mentioned, where some nefarious code would be injected, they would split into different groups and then you have the alternative dev group, it forms naturally.

The probability that this change would go unnoticed is extremely low and that no devs would step up to open a different repository, even lower. There will always be an amount of honest devs that can be relied upon, that’s the beauty of decentralization, because there can be bad actors, but we can just go around them, they will never get control over the majority.

There’s also a big amount of coders, that didn’t work on core yet, so even if someone controls all core devs(which will never happen). There will never be a shortage of honest actors, even in the worst case. The majority will just go to them, because it wouldn’t make sense for them to keep running a broken version. It will never make sense for the majority to run a version that works against them. There’s just no scenario where people couldn’t react to this. That’s what makes decentralization different from centralization.

I’ll research about this, i wasn’t around at that time, so im not qualified to speak on it.

This is the market man, the degree of adoption is still low, you gotta pioneer trough it. Taking shortcuts gets back to you many times in life and bitcoin didnt take them yet. It all depends on the degree of adoption, if it reaches closer to 100% in the future, then it becomes the worlds unit off account and you can divide all worlds assets(400 trillion) by 21 million and then you know what it can be worth. So it’s up to you to speculate how many people it can reach in what timeframe, i just showed you the max potential, it will be somewhere between this and where we’ve already been, if we already knew we would be there already.

This would play out differently in practice, tying yourself to an asset also means you can never outperform it. So Bitcoin 2 would just be a worse version of the real world asset and not outperform it. If it can’t even outperform the asset it’s backed by, then it won’t be able to outperform bitcoin too.

The price fluctuations of bitcoin will become less and less anyways as the degree of adoption rises, pure money doesn’t need bs tied to it, like i said. The fluctuation will be zero once the unit of account phase sets in, so bitcoin 2 didnt actually solve something that wasn’t already being accounted for and actually limits it’s potential for some temporary price stability.

There’s a saying nothing good in life comes easy, if the market gave you a stable asset, it also means it will stay in the place where it’s at, you can’t have both at the same time here. So if Bitcoin 2 is just a worse version of gold for example, why should someone use it over gold? Comfort is never free, it means you’ll be giving up something else, everyone would love something that never bears a risk, but to win you gotta beat the competition and not bow to them for some temporary comfort and stability.

Essentially bitcoin 2 would just stick a different label to an asset and bitcoin, but is neither of the two. Sure i could name my son lionel ronaldo in the future, but it doesn’t mean he would perform like them. This is the catch here.

Politics will always be involved no matter what, but was there really cases where a really beneficial proposal was made that went trough the process and then got rejected for no reason? I think from these contrarian views in discussions like now, it actually shows that we had hit a good middle ground. When change is really necessary there will be consensus, im sure, because then game theory kicks in.

But this isn’t set in stone forever, this privilege can be lost quickly if they do iffy things. We as a network can react to things when necessary, this is not a dictatorship.

Real world examples show that 65% of ethereum nodes already run in the cloud, so much about decentralization. Their node count is also much lower than Bitcoins. You can’t criticise something, then bring on another example and just ignore it’s effects, and then accuse people of lying. Scalability won’t be fixed by what sounds cool on paper.

https://ethernodes.org/network-types