Sci/Tech Official Bitcoin to infinity ♾️ thread

[Bungee up]

This is but one example of what I’m talking about when I say you have people with skewed incentives lying about Bitcoin because they have ulterior motives. This guy that’s being corrected by Dennis, as well as hundreds of others, is the coauthor of Roger Ver’s book, and supporter of Bitcoin Cash.
A bunch of people that don’t know the difference just reposting his comments as truth when it’s clearly a biased opinion, not based in fact. That’s why it’s imperative to get into the weeds, doing real research and not take these people seriously.


View: https://twitter.com/dennis_porter_/status/1869622176091082992

Keep that sort of thing coming. I enjoy looking into this sort of thing because I do like to know what's true if for know other reason than just the sake of knowing it. I really don't have any interest or dog in the fight and I promise I'm not falling victim t o alt coin and shitcoin scams. I certainly would never push that shit here.
I did here there was a rumour about the government or the banks getting involved in ripple which apparently can only trade in xrp. That's why I came here to ask about it.
Crypto is a subject like many other things for me like PED's . I'm interested in it and look into it but I don't do steroids.
I do think I remember Roger ver was created alt accounts on bitcoin reddit or something and spamming it up and that's what got him banned. Think that's what the actual story was. Fair enough.
However, even though I don't agree with the big blockers or the small blockers if I had to choose I think he actually has the better argument.
As far as I can tell the one and only argument the small blockers have is that anyone can run a full node on any pc and varifybthe network. Which is no small thing.
I don't know who that guy is but I'll look into it.
I don't trust anyone in the crypto community at this stage , so no need to warn me about that. I think everyone knows crypto is full of scammers and lyiers. It is good to get a head's up on specific people though.

 

[Bungee up]

This is but one example of what I’m talking about when I say you have people with skewed incentives lying about Bitcoin because they have ulterior motives. This guy that’s being corrected by Dennis, as well as hundreds of others, is the coauthor of Roger Ver’s book, and supporter of Bitcoin Cash.
A bunch of people that don’t know the difference just reposting his comments as truth when it’s clearly a biased opinion, not based in fact. That’s why it’s imperative to get into the weeds, doing real research and not take these people seriously.


View: https://twitter.com/dennis_porter_/status/1869622176091082992

Oh yeah. Steve Patterson. The co author.
I think I know what he's saying. It needs more context for me to make a judgement. It certainly looks out of context.
I don't have twitter and don't intend to sign up so I can only go one page deep.
This is my only socials.

 

[Bungee up]

View: https://youtu.be/BYk1Id2j7_8?si=QqPY86F52KLaFGft


So I woke up this morning and the first thing I listened to is this.
It's been fucking with my head ever since.
My coffee hadn't fully kicked in. I had to skip back five times to re listen to the shit I thought I herd in the first question/answer.

So , I've listened to Michael saylor speak and interviewed a few times. Maybe 5 or 6. I put him down to someone who is a true beliver . Someone who understands economics and just yerns for a hard money option that otherwise just doesn't seem available. In my head I always thought there's a good possibility that he's spinning shit somehow to make a buck ( not a crazy thought in the crypto world) but put my cynicism aside.
And I still do for that matter. But I just couldn't believe what he said. It blew mind.

It's in the first question of the interview. You can see it on his face. It's like , he's wondering if it's an ambush interview ( it was far from it ) and low and behold he just decided to dive deep into it and if you know what your listening to , he gives such a bad interview, it was as bad as if he would have been ambushed because he obviously felt safe to talk himself out of a very fucked up position.
As he dose in all the other interviews I've seen with him , he says a lot of true shit , which is not hard to do when you're bagging on fiat , minnimun wage, big companies running towards regulation because it it hurts small business more than it hurts tham ect.

Bu the thing that really, really fucked with my head ( that I was talking about earlier, in the first 5 minutes) was that he went into the Carl Marx - labour theory of value

Cont'd

 

[Bungee up]

Now, if there's one thing Carl Marx was known for being wrong about, it was that.

Saylor's whole thing is being a hard money guy. He knows austraian economics and from what I understand that's basically his main reason for being such an advocate of bitcoin.
It absolutely blew the fuck away when he's saying / agreeing that the cost of something is dependent on the effort and price it is to produce.

I've heard one other bitcoiner say this explicitly and just thought he was an outlier as far as stupidity and I've also heard saffodine ammose say something similar on lex Friedman's podcast way back a few years ago. That " money has always been the hardest thing to make ".
It was wrong. But I didn't make a big deal of it in my head at the time.

Cont'd

 

[SiLVa_ABCTT]

View: https://twitter.com/dennis_porter_/status/1869622176091082992

However, even though I don't agree with the big blockers or the small blockers if I had to choose I think he actually has the better argument.
As far as I can tell the one and only argument the small blockers have is that anyone can run a full node on any pc and varifybthe network. Which is no small thing.

His argument for big blocks would make it easier to attack Bitcoin because it would make it more centralized and transactions could theoretically facilitate easier censorship with less hash rate.
Satoshi designed Bitcoin with small blocks for a reason. It was determined a necessary trade off for security, stability and verifiability (which no other coin has solved yet without taking on other trade offs). It's trivially easy to code a 1 second block time, instead of 10 minutes, but this destroys the decentralization/stability of the network, (because it increases risks of orphaned blocks and chainsplits, and lets the blockchain grow unsustainably large with time. Making nodes more difficult to run without lots of money (think what that would mean for a bank or institutional takeover)

Usually, any "improvement" requires a trade off somewhere. On a very basic, simplified level it's like a trilemma where you have to pick two: censorship resistant(security) - speed(scalability) - cheap(decentralization). If you want it fast and cheap, it won't be censorship resistant (the fastest and cheapest network is a fiat payment network like SWIFT). If you want it uncensorable and fast, it won't be cheap. And uncensorable and cheap won't be fast.

This is very simplified and hence not a very correct description, but hopefully close enough to explain my point.

Add "easy verifiability" and "hardcapped supply" into the mix, and that’s why no coin will come close to bitcoin.
It’s always been about how everything comes together and works in tandem. It’s not one specific trait, it’s a multitude. And multiple layers were always the plan for scaling transactions faster. Roger just wanted adoption faster and that in my opinion was driven by greed and ego. Not for the long term benefit of Bitcoin. Then once he had his own chain, he couldn’t turn back, but notice he still held a shit load of Bitcoin. He didn’t try to dump it all. That should tell you something.

 

[Bungee up]

Now I'm starting to see a pattern. ***
Now I'm making a big deal about it in my little brain amd it fucking with my head.

See. I have fuck all technology abilities.
I was born in 1983 so I'm technically a melenial but I didn't even start using a mobile phone till 08-09. I'm not a techy guy.
I've assumed a couple things.
1) was the whole sound money thing.
That's the most important thing. Right?
I fully concure with that,
By my definition is basically. Whatever people use for money that the government cant fuck wit is the best money.
I pretty much assumed myself and the bitcoiners were on the same page with that one.
2) my second assumption was that the whole bitcoin community really understood hard money /Austrian economics . Basically that they had an understanding of economics at least equal to or better than myself.
*** this is my main point.
What is it that there seems to be such an emphasis on the cost of production.

Cont'd

 

[Bungee up]

His argument for big blocks would make it easier to attack Bitcoin because it would make it more centralized and transactions could theoretically facilitate easier censorship with less hash rate.
Satoshi designed Bitcoin with small blocks for a reason. It was determined a necessary trade off for security, stability and verifiability (which no other coin has solved yet without taking on other trade offs). It's trivially easy to code a 1 second block time, instead of 10 minutes, but this destroys the decentralization/stability of the network, (because it increases risks of orphaned blocks and chainsplits, and lets the blockchain grow unsustainably large with time. Making nodes more difficult to run without lots of money (think what that would mean for a bank or institutional takeover)

Usually, any "improvement" requires a trade off somewhere. On a very basic, simplified level it's like a trilemma where you have to pick two: censorship resistant(security) - speed(scalability) - cheap(decentralization). If you want it fast and cheap, it won't be censorship resistant (the fastest and cheapest network is a fiat payment network like SWIFT). If you want it uncensorable and fast, it won't be cheap. And uncensorable and cheap won't be fast.

This is very simplified and hence not a very correct description, but hopefully close enough to explain my point.

Add "easy verifiability" and "hardcapped supply" into the mix, and that’s why no coin will come close to bitcoin.
It’s always been about how everything comes together and works in tandem. It’s not one specific trait, it’s a multitude. And multiple layers were always the plan for scaling transactions faster. Roger just wanted adoption faster and that in my opinion was driven by greed and ego. Not for the long term benefit of Bitcoin. Then once he had his own chain, he couldn’t turn back, but notice he still held a shit load of Bitcoin. He didn’t try to dump it all. That should tell you something.

Let me cook bro , I'm almost there.

 

[Bungee up]

Ah fuck, I've had a few beers. I'll try to wrap this up asap.

I don't understand this concept of the cost of production equalling the price or value. It's totally 100% incorrect.

It comes down to 2 things.
Mainly, that the cost to counterfit it is higher than the cost to produce it.
And also that it can serve some kind of utilitarian needs as a secondary function , or primary function. Whatever order.
I'm fairly drunk.
I'm going to try to stop now.
I think I got my main point across at the end here.

 

[Bungee up]

His argument for big blocks would make it easier to attack Bitcoin because it would make it more centralized and transactions could theoretically facilitate easier censorship with less hash rate.
Satoshi designed Bitcoin with small blocks for a reason. It was determined a necessary trade off for security, stability and verifiability (which no other coin has solved yet without taking on other trade offs). It's trivially easy to code a 1 second block time, instead of 10 minutes, but this destroys the decentralization/stability of the network, (because it increases risks of orphaned blocks and chainsplits, and lets the blockchain grow unsustainably large with time. Making nodes more difficult to run without lots of money (think what that would mean for a bank or institutional takeover)

Usually, any "improvement" requires a trade off somewhere. On a very basic, simplified level it's like a trilemma where you have to pick two: censorship resistant(security) - speed(scalability) - cheap(decentralization). If you want it fast and cheap, it won't be censorship resistant (the fastest and cheapest network is a fiat payment network like SWIFT). If you want it uncensorable and fast, it won't be cheap. And uncensorable and cheap won't be fast.

This is very simplified and hence not a very correct description, but hopefully close enough to explain my point.

Add "easy verifiability" and "hardcapped supply" into the mix, and that’s why no coin will come close to bitcoin.
It’s always been about how everything comes together and works in tandem. It’s not one specific trait, it’s a multitude. And multiple layers were always the plan for scaling transactions faster. Roger just wanted adoption faster and that in my opinion was driven by greed and ego. Not for the long term benefit of Bitcoin. Then once he had his own chain, he couldn’t turn back, but notice he still held a shit load of Bitcoin. He didn’t try to dump it all. That should tell you something.

I'll be honest. Not sure if you have picked up on this by now but I am a massive, massive contrairian by nature.
I really do try and dial it back as much as possible when it comes to thing's like this that I know I'm not by any means the designated guru. But I'm honestly, humbly going to say my piece.( appoligies for the pretentious tone )
If satoshi really did perpoursly keep the block size tiny so transactions were slow then he was an idiot. I don't think that was the case. I think he had the discussion and knew it would inevitably have to scale.
I'm not taking a side here. But I'm telling you right now this store of vale shit is garbage. Absolute garbage and people have been lying to you flat out if you really believe that shit , that " everything starts off as as a store of value". Bullshit.
There's a difference between money and a store of value.
What gives the USD it's value.???
I use to think it was the peteodollar.
It's definitely not the quality of the paper and how hard it is to manufacture or some shit.
That's why the secret service run around stomping out petty counterfeiters and highly monitor the supply of raw materials to make money.
The main thing that gives the usd is the wide spread usage. I'd even go as far to say that's a big part of the reason the military goes running around all over the globe " spreading democracy:
The more it's used the more it's value is recognised.

I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that right ?

 

[Bungee up]

None the less.
Listen to the first 5 minutes of that interview and tell me he's not invoking Marx's labour theory of value .
And explain to me why it seems to be integral to the bitcoiners ?
I honestly didn't expect the flaw to be on the economics side. ( you could use a more efficient coin / token ) . I thought the flaw would be on reluctance to adopt / (government , big company's, NGO's ,) capture. Not to mention nobody being able to peg it to anything other than fiat.which we all agree is shit. Yet it is entirely dependent on for value somehow??


It's not a real currency or asset or anything else anyone would like to describe it as. If it were it would be able to stand alone and have value.
Please someone explain how it can do that ? Have independent value?

 

[Bungee up]

I can smoke tobacco instead of having to grow it.
I can eat cattle instead of having to hunt it myself.
I can grow my own tulp bulbs ( whoops )
I mean I can by my own tulp ...
I can mine my own bitc....
No hang on
I can run a node to make sure that there's nothing untoward happening with the ledger that people would use to transact on to avoid the threat of government inflating the money at will via printing meanwhilest the whole system of banking is predicated on inflation.



I'm more hardcore in my opinions than the Austrians. Mesiuss and hyack and the rest of them, while correctish, the most correct .we're still pencile pushing jews that never worked a real job.

I align with the cristians and and muslims- the majority of the population and the forefront of civilisation for thousands of years- that understood , not only is usery evil, but it's guaranteed to lead to inflation.
It requires it.
That's where I depart from the Austrians. It's an impossible system. It's not possible to expect money back in the form of compound interest that doesn't exist.
You can't have hard money that dosent inflate and compound interest.
Dose that make sense Silva ?
I only ask because I've never ever met someone in my life that seems to realise that.
Good night and merry Christmas holiday's to all.

 

[SiLVa_ABCTT]

You bombarded me with way too much to address. But as far as the Austrian argument. What do you mean we can’t have money that doesn’t inflate? You’re buying into another lie. We had sound money before 1971. We had the biggest industrial boom without needing inflation. I would say we didn’t “need” inflation until it became necessary to keep the fiat scam/grift going.
I would rather see sound money being the bedrock of our monetary system, like it was initially according to the constitution.
Does that mean a lot of institutions would collapse and cause a lot of problems? Very likely. But it’s necessary or the hole we dig is only getting bigger.
Besides that, Keynes was a Malthusian homo that married a Russian commie ballerina chick just to hide being gay, and had his former lover as his best man at their wedding…none of these people are moral juggernauts.
Our current monetary system is broken. Both of us being born into the age of fiat, I was born in 1980, like you after 1971 after we went off the gold standard.
We think it’s great because we’ve seen the progress we had but it’s all inflated and can come crashing down because the foundation is weak. The mountain of debt we’ve accrued because of that inflated system is beyond salvageable at this point.
The only reason the dollar is strong, is not because of inflation or people spending it, it’s because of the U.S. military being subsidized (massive money printing)to back it. The might of the U.S. military is the only thing “backing” the dollar at this point and those checks are getting too expensive to keep cashing. U.S. going around pushing everyone else to dollarize isn’t going to fix that either. It’s blowing air on a dying fire.