proudhon is the reason why de-meriting should exist.
Hey @proudhon, would you mind explain me this:
bitcoin price cannot be sustained above $10k <---- scientific fact
What's the “scientific” fact that proves the quoted statement? What's the fact that proves that a product cannot pass a certain (arbitrary) price?
I mean, no one really expected to see BTC at these level back in 2011, but this guy was pessimistic right from the start. It really baffles me what's keeping him here...
LOL! Thanks for the quoted message.
There are some people who truly want to be proven right when the rest of the society believes otherwise. They're not psychologically fine. One could say that they're
diseased.
Well the truth is, my sig line is too generous. I don't want to shake people up too much when I deliver scientific and mathematical facts that are counterintuitive but 100% true. But here it is.
Bitcoin actually has a present value of $0. It's just that the market has deluded itself temporarily.
Taleb and I have proven this with 100% certainty.
1. If enough miners don't mine, then bitcoin's value will be $0.
2. When all bitcoin are mined, then miners will only earn transactions fees.
3. Transactions fees are not enough to keep miners mining.
4. Therefore, in the future bitcoin's value will be $0.
5. If there's a even a small constant probability that bitcoin will be worth $0 in the future, then it's present value must be $0.
6. There is
at least small constant probability that bitcoin will be worth $0 in the future.
7. Therefore, bitcoin's present value must be $0.
8. If something's present value must be $0, but it's trading at >$0, then the market is delayed in knowing the truth.
9. If the market is delayed in knowing the truth, and the truth is the asset must be worth $0, then you should take a highly leveraged short position to maximize profit.
Beautiful. Elegant. True.
Love it haha. You just "proved" that nothing has any value! It's fun to see how absurd conclusions can be logically made when you just insert a single false premise or false fact! This (I'm assuming sarcastic comment of yours) is a great example of being careful in drawing conclusions if your premises & every step of your logic aren't completely solid. Reminds me of the 1+1 =/= 2 "proof" haha.
In this case, if there are any total noobs here taking proudhon's comment seriously, the obviously false step there is the premise that Bitcoin will be $0 if there aren't enough miners - for you noobs out there, this is false because Bitcoin's difficulty adjusts according to the mining hashrate so there is never a scenario in which "enough miners don't mine". All that would happen if miners drop out is that Bitcoin would be less secure, and as we've seen from every single other PoW coin which are all far and away less secure than Bitcoin, they still have value, hence fewer miners doesn't equal $0 value. We also just saw a mass drop of miners as the hashrate plummeted over 50% as China banned mining, and while that caused the market to sell off (probably partially panic selling and partially Chinese miners liquidating all their holdings as Bitcoin is effectively banned in China now), it didn't actually do anything detrimental to Bitcoin other than slow down transactions for a bit.
Furthermore, since the halving gradually moves miners to a system of more and more of the reward based only on transactions fees, there is no cliff at which suddenly many miners will drop out, the reward of bitcoin will decrease over many decades as the price rises enormously over many decades. The whole system was specifically designed to not allow proudhon's argument to happen.
Eventually there will be many thousands of cheap transactions taking place off-chain (third party / second layer txs on a many-to-1 basis, which already happens but will increase greatly in the future to allow Bitcoin to scale to global usage) for every one expensive on-chain transaction, thus keeping the cost per tx low while keeping the strong economic incentive to keep the blockchain security high. Bitcoin is ultimately the settlement layer for a much higher velocity structure of networks operating on it, just like other monetary networks already work - secure slower base layer and cheap faster layers that plug into it. The non-rich will just transact in bitcoin cheaply off-chain and the occasional on-chain transaction may be hundreds of dollars but that'll be spread over so many off-chain transactions that the real price of transacting in bitcoin will be pennies. Thus miners continue to make plenty of money, even when the reward moves from a few satoshis to no reward, the difference of a few satoshi's will be nothing compared to how much is being made through transaction fees. So the switch from primarily reward to primarily tx fees takes place over many decades and the reward stopping in the future is not an argument for bitcoin doom or a low or zero price. Logic is fun but you have to not use false premises!
To show some Math for anybody who actually thinks the eventual end of mining will be bad:
Today tx fees are roughly $3/tx, and roughly 300k txs daily, with 900 BTC reward daily:
$3 x 300,000 + 900 x $40,000 = ~$37 million a day for miners.
So imagine in 120 years or so when there is no mining reward, and thousands of transactions are done per second on 2nd layers and third party networks which occasionally hit the blockchain, assuming there are no block size increases let's keep the daily tx amount at 300,000, but let's say 4000 txs happen for every single on-chain transaction (easily doable between LN and off-chain financial company networks while still keeping the transactions not far removed from the bitcoin blockchain), and the tx fee average is $200, thus effectively making off-chain transactions cost 5 cents (far cheaper than today's credit cards fees):
300,000 x $200 = $60 million a day for miners
That's almost double the current income in which we already have a globally secure blockchain and highly prosperous mining sector, despite coming entirely from tx fees. Sure, most txs will take place off chain, on-chain will be for moving lots of money around, it'll never be for spending, but that's simply the nature of bitcoin, and it's perfectly fine, all technologies are built in layers that focus on only doing a subset of the desired feature-set very well, so that when stacked together the entire feature-set works great.
