If you believe states will adopt bitcoin then securities regulation will collapse because states won't be able to defend the position that you must have permission to issue a public security. The reason for that is the permissioned system is to avoid an mid-90s Albania scenario where the entire economy is dominated by frivolous securities, and government is incentivised to pump the market be debasing the denominator.

Arguably that is what clown world is, ironically, and Bitcoin is the cure even though it is labelled part of the disease, but I digress.

So what happens when the denominator cannot be debased, and is considered a single source of monetary truth?

Well governments, who are then unable juice the economy with liquidity without spooking their citizens, start engaging in serious cost cutting and efficiency programmes. One of those is to cut legal costs and start adjudicating and enforcing other kinds of disputes based upon private key control. Yes, private keys can be lost or stolen, but the legal system will still be in place to adjudicate where there isn't a clear means of determining who is in control of the private keys.

Obviously Bitcoiners believe that future generations will be perfectly capable of managing private keys securely, and we'll go through a transition.

Now, the nub of the question is what happens when anyone can issue a security without being sanctioned by government? Well in the past they have proliferated widely, even on earlier technology platforms, pre-internet. In principle it would completely change debt markets at a local and global level. People short of Bitcoin, but with other assets like houses, or their skills, or corporate equity. They could go to a notary and sign a contract that associates whatever it with a specific public key, which is controlled by them (this is a gross simplification). Basically they agree to tokenise the asset with a regular contract. From that point the asset's ownership is determined by control of the private key.

Even small items could be tokenised in order to determine ownership in case of theft, based upon serial numbers or other unique identifiers of the object. Yeah, you still need police, but their jobs are a whole lot easier and you don't need receipts. Shops would tokenise expensive items at point of sale.

In this environment everything depends upon reputation, and brand. Companies issue public securities at foundation, so stocks are perfectly liquid. Teenagers issue securities in order to generate the capital to go to university or pursue apprenticeships. Tokenisation entirely replaces credit scores and other centralised trust systems. If investors see you issuing new tokens it'll debase the early issuance, meaning your securities will get sold off without justification. It'll be completely normalised.

I think that Trump and Larry Fink and others understand this. It will take 50 years maybe, but this is the likely outcome of a bitcoin standard.

I think we just have to keep pushing back that bitcoin is not proof of stake and it's literally for everyone, friends and enemies, and that a mid-90s Albania scenario is not possible in the context of a denominator that cannot be debased.

Aside from that you will never win over entrenched opinions where people have staked their reputation in opposition to Bitcoin and so will invent a whole host of nonsense reasons from their desired conclusions. Bitcoin simply doesn't care.

Stay humble and stack sats.

There is one in Brazil that is successful. That is their model at the moment.

Did Satoshi himself not embody the four principles?

I think the challenge of creating Bitcoin speaks for itself, not to mention sacrificing the coin he mined so that it might live uncorrupted by personal gain.

Everything about Bitcoin is public, from the open sourced code to public ledger.

Yet paradoxically by being no one, he could be anyone, a true every-man or -woman.

And while many contributed, and he surely didn't do it alone, who would suggest that he did not take responsibility for its creation, he who did not balk at the scale of the challenge and the implications of his ideas. There were many who could have, in principle, who had the skills, indeed greater skill and talent than Satoshi. Could have, but would have?

Does it not confound the spirit to realise that the properties that that underpin Bitcoins architecture are at once the attributes of the person that would be needed to create it?

I look at Satoshi as a man might look at Mount Ararat or some other incredible mountain, in awe of his grace.

I've never posted on Stacker.news before, I'm not familiar with the conventions. I thought it might get lost in the Bitcoin territory over time, and seemed more appropriate to booksandarticles

Thank you, this is an idea I've been sitting on for nearly 10 years.