Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

What's unfamiliar to me is how the device gets mobile internet access, in over 60 countries, without roaming or monthly fees:

Amazon does something similar for Kindle readers (they claim 100 countries). I don't know who is being paid or what the payment model looks like.

Bought the wife a Kindle DX while we were living in Asia. At the time she spent 2-3 hours a day on buses and subways traveling to various jigs.

The Kindle DX connectivity was both free and worked flawlessly everywhere she went. It was one of the few times we've been pleasantly surprised by how well something worked beyond our expectations.

But the connectivity was only useful for purchasing and downloading kindle ebooks and not much else. That's a several MB's per month at most and why the model works. Doubt you'd be allowed to run a Bitcoin node over that free connection...

Yup, but considering that sending and receiving transactions is a matter of kb I can see that model being adopted by Case to fit the need of their device.

It's a very nice proposition in fact and I would certainly be willing to pay a premium for this.

[1714173266]

1714173266

[1714173266]

1714173266

[NewLiberty]

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

If Side Chains run adequately on say LTC for long enough to see some of the tail risks play out, and we figure out how to handle those, then I would see that as a beneficial outcome.

On the other hand, some of the pernicious effects may take a very long time to work out, but we'd see them on LTC well before we'd see them on BTC.  (Or even better some new coin designed with this as its purpose.)

Say for example, what happens when a SC becomes more valuable than its MC and stays more valuable?
What happens when it approaches this circumstance and it upsets the equilibrium (where it may become profitable to attack a SC with already sunk resource from merge mining ASICs that are funded through MC emission)?

These are economic circumstances that would be highly disruptive, but might not manifest for possibly many years after it were implemented.

The point here is that the big win should not be jeopardized for tertiary wins, (I think we agree on this at least), especially when the same thing can be accomplished without such jeopardy.  A Side Chain valuation may approach LTC valuation much more swiftly and there are enough economic analogs that the experience of handling it could be highly instructive.  We may learn that the currently proposed side chain structure isn't viable, or that it is.
We may get to see the reaction from the various regulatory entities that attempt to govern securitisation.   Throwing it onto Bitcoin without a proof of concept elsewhere would be a non-voluntary "taking" (also true for LTC).

At a minimum, this is the sort of thing that a responsible development team would engage.
I like the innovation.  I think it holds great promise.  It is not the big win, but it is a very significant win none the less if it works.

tl;dr
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

[rocks]

for those assets, what are the advantages of decentralization?

Lots of advantages in reliability and assurances.  More fundamentally it obsoletes some functions of auditing and government along with the associated costs to society.
It automates many of the administrivia of corporation management.

If you have ever run a public company, the advantages are more immediately apparent.

the pt that i was getting at is that until Bitcoin fulfills Satoshi's visions as a generally accepted and large enough form of currency or money, there will be no such trust or confidence given by the masses or larger financial institutions to embed asset derivatives into the blockchain as the "legal" ledger.

what will drive Bitcoins growth is a maintenance of its Sound Money function along with transactional growth which we are fortunately beginning to see w/o a doubt.  once it becomes a generally accepted global and apolitical public good as money, then it might be used to embed more riskier assets within the blockchain as with CP.

otoh, the blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money.  in which case, all those speculative assets may just be bought and sold with BTC as they will become denominated as such with the records continuing to be maintained by those organizations responsible for enforcing those contracts.

if we use Bitcoin to win the Money Game, we win Everything.  that is where the problem lies.

Yes Yes...
This is why I would like to see SPV side chains implemented on some altcoins.  
In matters such as these, it is not as important to see how things work, as it is to see how they fail and under what circumstances.

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

I'm quite sure NL was referring to a SPV proof trial test on an altcoin before merging it into Bitcoin.

By the time such a trial test had enough time to prove out the various risks of having a multitude of side chains offering new functionality below an established coin, you might just find that usage and gravity inadvertently shifted to that altcoin over bitcoin. I still believe alts are the highest potential threat to the whole experiment. Network effects and the economic need for interoperability between users have successfully kept alt coins at bay so far, but if SC's prove successful network effects might just shift to the tested altcoin.

[Adrian-x]

this sounds pretty amazing.  anyone see any holes?

http://blog.choosecase.com/

Yes, that's very cool!  

What's unfamiliar to me is how the device gets mobile internet access, in over 60 countries, without roaming or monthly fees:

The device doesn’t piggy back off your phone for Internet access. It has a dedicated GSM chip and a multi-IMSI embedded SIM card that allows us to hop from carrier to carrier without roaming fees. Bitcoin is a global currency so it seemed silly to have a wallet that didn’t work globally as well. At launch, Case will work in over 60 countries without any monthly fees so you can use it to execute unlimited transactions around the world for the life of the device.

Does the hardware manufacturer somehow pay the carriers so that the devices "just work"?  

Here's some literature on multi-IMSI SIM cards:

http://www.racowireless.com/multi-imsi-sim/

Almost all GSM pay as you go accounts can receive SMS's free of charge Canada and the US being exceptions, but it looks like they have 2 way communication so someone has to pay the carrier charge. I'm not sure who pays.

Would it be correct to think of this idea as a sig-safe that uses multisign by validating your fingerprint?

[cbeast]

for those assets, what are the advantages of decentralization?

Lots of advantages in reliability and assurances.  More fundamentally it obsoletes some functions of auditing and government along with the associated costs to society.
It automates many of the administrivia of corporation management.

If you have ever run a public company, the advantages are more immediately apparent.

the pt that i was getting at is that until Bitcoin fulfills Satoshi's visions as a generally accepted and large enough form of currency or money, there will be no such trust or confidence given by the masses or larger financial institutions to embed asset derivatives into the blockchain as the "legal" ledger.

what will drive Bitcoins growth is a maintenance of its Sound Money function along with transactional growth which we are fortunately beginning to see w/o a doubt.  once it becomes a generally accepted global and apolitical public good as money, then it might be used to embed more riskier assets within the blockchain as with CP.

otoh, the blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money.  in which case, all those speculative assets may just be bought and sold with BTC as they will become denominated as such with the records continuing to be maintained by those organizations responsible for enforcing those contracts.

if we use Bitcoin to win the Money Game, we win Everything.  that is where the problem lies.

Yes Yes...
This is why I would like to see SPV side chains implemented on some altcoins.  
In matters such as these, it is not as important to see how things work, as it is to see how they fail and under what circumstances.

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

I'm quite sure NL was referring to a SPV proof trial test on an altcoin before merging it into Bitcoin.

By the time such a trial test had enough time to prove out the various risks of having a multitude of side chains offering new functionality below an established coin, you might just find that usage and gravity inadvertently shifted to that altcoin over bitcoin. I still believe alts are the highest potential threat to the whole experiment. Network effects and the economic need for interoperability between users have successfully kept alt coins at bay so far, but if SC's prove successful network effects might just shift to the tested altcoin.

The get rich quick crowd will pump and dump these experimental coins from the alt coin. Nothing more. They would be the ones jumping on them from Bitcoin as well. The waters will be muddied either way, it might as well be the altcoins. The network effect would still prefer the stability of Bitcoin over smaller forks. Besides, the side chains are about counterparty risk, so they are unlikely to even be accepted until Bitcoin itself gains wider acceptance. Let ApplePay experiment with SC technology, it could be their chance to break into crypto.

[smooth]

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

If Side Chains run adequately on say LTC for long enough to see some of the tail risks play out, and we figure out how to handle those, then I would see that as a beneficial outcome.

On the other hand, some of the pernicious effects may take a very long time to work out, but we'd see them on LTC well before we'd see them on BTC.  (Or even better some new coin designed with this as its purpose.)

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

[NewLiberty]

for those assets, what are the advantages of decentralization?

Lots of advantages in reliability and assurances.  More fundamentally it obsoletes some functions of auditing and government along with the associated costs to society.
It automates many of the administrivia of corporation management.

If you have ever run a public company, the advantages are more immediately apparent.

the pt that i was getting at is that until Bitcoin fulfills Satoshi's visions as a generally accepted and large enough form of currency or money, there will be no such trust or confidence given by the masses or larger financial institutions to embed asset derivatives into the blockchain as the "legal" ledger.

what will drive Bitcoins growth is a maintenance of its Sound Money function along with transactional growth which we are fortunately beginning to see w/o a doubt.  once it becomes a generally accepted global and apolitical public good as money, then it might be used to embed more riskier assets within the blockchain as with CP.

otoh, the blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money.  in which case, all those speculative assets may just be bought and sold with BTC as they will become denominated as such with the records continuing to be maintained by those organizations responsible for enforcing those contracts.

if we use Bitcoin to win the Money Game, we win Everything.  that is where the problem lies.

Yes Yes...
This is why I would like to see SPV side chains implemented on some altcoins.  
In matters such as these, it is not as important to see how things work, as it is to see how they fail and under what circumstances.

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

I'm quite sure NL was referring to a SPV proof trial test on an altcoin before merging it into Bitcoin.

By the time such a trial test had enough time to prove out the various risks of having a multitude of side chains offering new functionality below an established coin, you might just find that usage and gravity inadvertently shifted to that altcoin over bitcoin. I still believe alts are the highest potential threat to the whole experiment. Network effects and the economic need for interoperability between users have successfully kept alt coins at bay so far, but if SC's prove successful network effects might just shift to the tested altcoin.

The get rich quick crowd will pump and dump these experimental coins from the alt coin. Nothing more. They would be the ones jumping on them from Bitcoin as well. The waters will be muddied either way, it might as well be the altcoins. The network effect would still prefer the stability of Bitcoin over smaller forks. Besides, the side chains are about counterparty risk, so they are unlikely to even be accepted until Bitcoin itself gains wider acceptance. Let ApplePay experiment with SC technology, it could be their chance to break into crypto.

If investment and network effects shift to the alt than this would also be a highly informative and interesting result.  If the proposal is meritorious, the VC's would do better financially with an alt anyhow, if we are looking at ROI.  A 1$MM buy in on an alt goes a long way.
(So much free advice for them!)

We just don't know how it would play out, that's the point.  We have plenty of time to do it later if all the evidence shows that there is no unmanaged risks.

I'd rather get rich slowly rather than quick anyhow.  When we have the opportunity to change everything for posterity, why sell out for a few cookies?

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

By that I meant long enough to see some of the tail risks manifest, and to see the recovery from it (if it does).  We identified some pernicious ones already.
There is a lot of talk about what "will" happen, but if we are honest with ourselves, we don't know what will happen.

[smooth]

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

By that I meant long enough to see some of the tail risks manifest, and to see the recovery from it (if it does).  We identified some pernicious ones already.
There is a lot of talk about what "will" happen, but if we are honest with ourselves, we don't know what will happen.

Let's game this out. Is a year long enough? Two years? Three years? Twenty years? How can you even know that tail risks don't remain?

I don't think it is possible.

[brg444]

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

If Side Chains run adequately on say LTC for long enough to see some of the tail risks play out, and we figure out how to handle those, then I would see that as a beneficial outcome.

On the other hand, some of the pernicious effects may take a very long time to work out, but we'd see them on LTC well before we'd see them on BTC.  (Or even better some new coin designed with this as its purpose.)

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

There absolutely should be one coin/ledger but is it imperative that there be one protocol/chain to update it?

Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?

[smooth]

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

If Side Chains run adequately on say LTC for long enough to see some of the tail risks play out, and we figure out how to handle those, then I would see that as a beneficial outcome.

On the other hand, some of the pernicious effects may take a very long time to work out, but we'd see them on LTC well before we'd see them on BTC.  (Or even better some new coin designed with this as its purpose.)

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

There absolutely should be one coin/ledger but is it imperative that there be one protocol/chain to update it?

Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?

And what if the coin itself fails, perhaps for economic rather than technical reasons? Or if having multiple blockchains (or other such technologies) too tightly interconnected by a single coin allows for contagion type effects? This is not unprecedented.

We don't have a single currency in the world today, and not even a single reserve currency (where presumably the network effect of liquidity could reign supreme, unfettered by legal tender laws, etc.). I doubt in the history of civilization we ever really have, except perhaps in some isolated simple economies. If the dollar fails, then we can turn to sterling, or bitcoin, or renminbi, or gold. The world has a way of recognizing fragile over-optimization and avoiding it, though sometimes this process takes the form of going to far and having a catastrophic failure first.

One single coin to rule them all is a catastrophe waiting to happen. I doubt that happens though. People recognize the risk and avoid it, which is likely why something like LTC has any value at all (though LTC isn't really the best for this and will likely be overtaken). It isn't for features or even marketing.

[cypherdoc]

Employing a monetary model with endogenous search and random consumption preferences, we
find that the government’s refusal to accept bitcoin is not typically sufficient to prevent their acceptance
in equilibrium. The government must be of a particular size to prevent the circulation of bitcoin and
the size threshold depends crucially on the fraction of agents willing to accept currency. Interestingly,
our work suggests that bitcoin might continue on as a niche money, even if the government proactively
discourages its use, so long as some individuals are sufficiently committed to accepting bitcoin.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531518

[NewLiberty]

We don't have a single currency in the world today, and not even a single reserve currency (where presumably the network effect of liquidity could reign supreme, unfettered by legal tender laws, etc.). I doubt in the history of civilization we ever really have, except perhaps in some isolated simple economies.

Gold served precisely this purpose for about 4000 years, silver too for more common folks.
We are in a practically unique time in the history of history where people are being convinced that gold is not money (oddly enough, mostly loudly by the folks that are buying it all).

[Adrian-x]

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

If Side Chains run adequately on say LTC for long enough to see some of the tail risks play out, and we figure out how to handle those, then I would see that as a beneficial outcome.

On the other hand, some of the pernicious effects may take a very long time to work out, but we'd see them on LTC well before we'd see them on BTC.  (Or even better some new coin designed with this as its purpose.)

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

Great point,

I don't understand the fear of alts. I'm into Bitcoin because it's better money, in our history it's the best yet.
Competition is what will make it better. Alts can out innovate Bitcoin on every metric except one, the Network Effect, and this is what makes it useful as a SoV.

All alts trade for Bitcoin before any other competing means of exchange this is huge it ensures Bitcoin's success. With DarkCoin when it went through an enormous growth curve new comers had to learn how to use Bitcoin before they could invest. I was surprised but this was the biggest obstacle to DarkCoins growth. Any scheme that tries to launch in fiat will fail looking more like a scam. Furthermore when pricing all these assets people default to Bitcoin, like we price things in USD today.

Alts are more they are Bitcoin's whack a mole, they could absorb fiat manipulation in Bitcoin, they will protect Bitcoin there will be an alt to circumvent every block Bitcoin encountered.  

I expect during the next growth stage more wealth will be invested in Alts than in Bitcoin relative to the market cap. Many don't accept Bitcoin and feel better investing in a better alt, but little do they know the SoV function is a direct result of Metcalfe's law (aka the network effect) that wealth will flow into Bitcoin (as alts will be volatile more so than Bitcoin, they will crash)

All this grows Bitcoin and makes it better money.
 

[cypherdoc]

i would prefer NOT to see the spvp implemented, period, for all the reasons i've already made ad nauseum.  let them experiment on federated servers.

i'm not even sure how you'd bring an altcoin into a SC with spvp since the monetary properties of such altcoins are usually so divergent and non-sensical to most Bitcoiners it wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.

If Side Chains run adequately on say LTC for long enough to see some of the tail risks play out, and we figure out how to handle those, then I would see that as a beneficial outcome.

On the other hand, some of the pernicious effects may take a very long time to work out, but we'd see them on LTC well before we'd see them on BTC.  (Or even better some new coin designed with this as its purpose.)

That's the problem with tail risks. How do you know what is a "long enough time?"

This is why the catastrophic failure issue suggests there shouldn't really be one coin after all, and trying to maximize "network effect" may be over-fitting. Monoculture is fragile.

There absolutely should be one coin/ledger but is it imperative that there be one protocol/chain to update it?

Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?

And what if the coin itself fails, perhaps for economic rather than technical reasons? Or if having multiple blockchains (or other such technologies) too tightly interconnected by a single coin allows for contagion type effects? This is not unprecedented.

We don't have a single currency in the world today, and not even a single reserve currency (where presumably the network effect of liquidity could reign supreme, unfettered by legal tender laws, etc.). I doubt in the history of civilization we ever really have, except perhaps in some isolated simple economies. If the dollar fails, then we can turn to sterling, or bitcoin, or renminbi, or gold. The world has a way of recognizing fragile over-optimization and avoiding it, though sometimes this process takes the form of going to far and having a catastrophic failure first.

One single coin to rule them all is a catastrophe waiting to happen. I doubt that happens though. People recognize the risk and avoid it, which is likely why something like LTC has any value at all (though LTC isn't really the best for this and will likely be overtaken). It isn't for features or even marketing.

there are huge advantages and efficiencies to developing a one world currency that is apolitical and controlled by the will of the majority of ppl.  we can't imagine it from a digital standpoint except in the context of physical gold which actually worked pretty well for centuries.

but to deny that it is possible is to deny the revolution of open source coding which is a grassroots concept.  as Gavin says, if there is a problem, we'll fix it.

[cypherdoc]

grinding higher.  i love it.  i'll take this over a huge green candle any day.  i love to torture bears:

[justusranvier]

One single coin to rule them all is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Can you imagine the complete and utter disaster that would occur if the entire world only used the metric system?

[cypherdoc]

One single coin to rule them all is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Can you imagine the complete and utter disaster that would occur if the entire world only used the metric system?

did Heartbleed kill Linux?  no.

[rocks]

We don't have a single currency in the world today, and not even a single reserve currency (where presumably the network effect of liquidity could reign supreme, unfettered by legal tender laws, etc.). I doubt in the history of civilization we ever really have, except perhaps in some isolated simple economies. If the dollar fails, then we can turn to sterling, or bitcoin, or renminbi, or gold. The world has a way of recognizing fragile over-optimization and avoiding it, though sometimes this process takes the form of going to far and having a catastrophic failure first.

One single coin to rule them all is a catastrophe waiting to happen. I doubt that happens though. People recognize the risk and avoid it, which is likely why something like LTC has any value at all (though LTC isn't really the best for this and will likely be overtaken). It isn't for features or even marketing.

It's arguable that after the Brenton Woods agreement that the world did in fact have a single global currency. All other currencies were fixed to the dollar which in turn was pegged to gold (remember foreign central banks could redeem dollars for a fixed quantity of gold even if individuals could not).   

The Bretton Woods system was the first example of a fully negotiated monetary order intended to govern monetary relations among independent nation-states. The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to gold and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments.
....
What emerged was the "pegged rate" currency regime. Members were required to establish a parity of their national currencies in terms of the reserve currency (a "peg") and to maintain exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of parity (a "band") by intervening in their foreign exchange markets (that is, buying or selling foreign money).

In theory, the reserve currency would be the bancor (a World Currency Unit that was never implemented), suggested by John Maynard Keynes; however, the United States objected and their request was granted, making the "reserve currency" the U.S. dollar. This meant that other countries would peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar, and—once convertibility was restored—would buy and sell U.S. dollars to keep market exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of parity. Thus, the U.S. dollar took over the role that gold had played under the gold standard in the international financial system.[20]

Meanwhile, to bolster faith in the dollar, the U.S. agreed separately to link the dollar to gold at the rate of $35 per ounce of gold. At this rate, foreign governments and central banks were able to exchange dollars for gold. Bretton Woods established a system of payments based on the dollar, in which all currencies were defined in relation to the dollar, itself convertible into gold, and above all, "as good as gold". The U.S. currency was now effectively the world currency, the standard to which every other currency was pegged. As the world's key currency, most international transactions were denominated in US dollars.

I think what you are saying though is as cracks form and the single system becomes weaker and weaker humanity exits that system in greater and greater numbers, so that by the time such a single system fails functioning alternatives exist. Today with the dollar in the state it is, you can see multiple alternatives that could function if there was a sudden dollar disruption.

[rocks]

there are huge advantages and efficiencies to developing a one world currency that is apolitical and controlled by the will of the majority of ppl.  we can't imagine it from a digital standpoint except in the context of physical gold which actually worked pretty well for centuries.

Both the advantages of and also the problem in getting to a one world currency are stated in your first sentence. "controlled by the will of the majority of ppl" is the problem in that getting agreement by the majority of people is not an easy or even possible task.

A problem for sound money is gaining agreement on what construct to use as the basis for sound money. Gold bugs believe "# of atoms of gold" should be used and many will hold on tight to that belief, but why not other rare metals such as platinum or palladium? Many others (probably a majority today) believe flexible supply controlled by the government is best. Probably all of us here believe "# of BTC on the Bitcoin ledger" should be used, but why not other ledgers?

What if the FED created a FEDcoin with all of the programmable money benefits we love combined with centralized control? It is possible a majority of people would gravitate to that. Would many of us here join FEDcoin or keep fighting? The will of the majority is not always right or best and gaining a super majority agreement is unbelievably difficult given the numerous diverse views all 7 billion of us have.

[smooth]

but to deny that it is possible is to deny the revolution of open source coding which is a grassroots concept.  as Gavin says, if there is a problem, we'll fix it.

That revolution of open source coding opens up precisely the grass roots effort of competing currencies.

Historically there has always been a dominant currency but there has never really been a true monopoly currency. The residual competition is the intersection where increasing network effect crosses with the costs of monopolization and concentration of risks. There have always been alternatives such as silver vs. gold, barter, and other valuable artifacts used as store of value and in trade (spices, art, etc.).

I expect the same digitally except that open source opens up this avenue of alternatives and experimentation to the grass roots and not just a few powerful elites.

EDIT: Also your example of physical gold is not really an argument in favor of bitcoin because gold does not have a fixed supply and also has a supply that is responsive to technological advancement (correlated with economic growth). Bitcoin might be great sound money or it may not, and arguments for either are based on theory. Theory works great until facts on the ground differ, then the theory must be reexamined. So we absolutely don't know the answer here.