Thanks for tag @nemo

I don't like it because it's wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but totally wrong. It is adjacent to something true, but adjacency still allows you to be 100% wrong e.g. bitcoin is truth, but "blockchain technology" is gibberish.

Nature abhors a vacuum, so when people don't understand something, they will gladly take something that sounds nice that aligns with their views. But this is no different from faith or belief in bitcoin, something I do not have -- what I have is understanding.

Energy is related to value in that all things that are valued by human life are based on what is known as EMBODIED ENERGY, which cannot be measured accurately due to the complexity of inputs.

The nature of life is to use energy to reduce entropy by building order. Bitcoin maximizes this property, and it does so by LITERALLY BEING INFORMATION. It is information that is MINIMALLY LOSSY, which as I explained previously, maximizes energy capacity. Bitcoin is energy any more than a map that tells you where to find an oilfield.

Spouting gibberish is what arrogant people do who cannot psychologically handle the discomfort of knowing something is of great significance and failing to understand its true nature. This is reflective of a mix of Saylor's intellect and disposition. That he is smarter than other people means nothing to me, just like I do not accept "moral relativism". My standards are absolute (not that I meet my own standards).

Normies should be informed that is NOT necessary to buy Bitcoin. You can earn it too. Just ask to be paid in Bitcoin. Those that already accumulated BTC for years and do not have anymore fiat, will start paying for goods and services in sats.

I hope it's slow but steady. That we don't get sudden societal crisis that hurt a lot of people. Instead, I would like to see the fiat ponzi slowly go to shit, while Bitcoin slowly grows as the alternative. Basically, I hope we can calmly jump onto the life boats with enough space for all, instead of rushing and shoving elbows into each other.

I hope adoption grows strong in the "developing" nations and oppressed societies that need it the most. I hope they can jump from whatever shithole situations they might find themselves in today into a brighter future that is better than what currently exists in the "developed" world.

I hope that people learn beyond Bitcoin itself. That Bitcoin acts as a gateway drug to further understanding of economics and of political ideas such as ancap and libertarian ones. I hope it helps domesticated people grow some critical thinking, and a heightened feeling of self-responsibility and reliance. I hope it helps many people desire a smaller state and take action to achieve it.

I hope development on Bitcoin itself (Bitcoin Core, basically) slows down a lot, helping building a foundation that has the ambition of holding strong for decades and even centuries. I'm not saying no change should be introduced at all, but the burden of proving the usefulness of new changes should be on the proponents. Node runners should remain skeptical, and never update just like that without giving it some deep thought. Basically, I would like to see significant changes to Bitcoin take years of promotion and discussion, and a strong feeling in the air that important changes should only be adopted when there is a large consensus around them.

I hope UX keeps on improving. I hope people who are not interested in the technical bits have great options that help them enjoy the benefits of Bitcoin without requiring a computer science degree.

Finally, I hope to see circular economies take place. I want to see merchants taking Bitcoin and holding it. I want to see people living on Bitcoin and outside of the Western financial systems, just like there are people living on cash on many countries. I want to see people opting into not having a "formal" job (formal as in, public contract, registered in the social security DB, following government regulations, etc). And I want them having good lives, not being miserable outcasts with all sort of issues for being outside of The System™.

Basically, the opposite of the previous points.

Besides that, my biggest fear is that Bitcoin slowly becomes this half-assed thing that is good, but not good enough. This could happen because technical changes cause issues that break the game theory. Or because governments play smart and sneaky games in which they regulate it enough that it doesn't feel draconian, but that the cost of participating in Bitcoin is enough to keep normies away and make them stay in the Matrix. There is no way to know if we are here, because we can never know if the future holds mainstream adoption or we will just remain around where we are today. I regularly get discouraged when I read predictions from +10 years ago about mainstream adoption taking place in the 10s, only to see that we are still very far away from it.

Did you know that Satoshi already responded to the U.S. Department of Energy's concerns about Bitcoin's electricity use... in 2010?

In response to a post by gridecon, which reads in part: "I believe that the amount of energy input required to the bitcoin economy represents a serious obstacle to its growth."

Satoshi ⚡️ responded:

In other words, Satoshi said that Bitcoin is so useful to the economy that it would be more wasteful not to direct our electrical resources at it... 🧐

PoS is about having a billion to buy the factory, lay back, and make all the decisions without doing much else. The ones who already have the money will hoard power (in the non-electricity sense) around them. They will use this to make more money, buy up more, and centralize the operation even more. As most coin supplies are limited, a majority is a majority; and if you control it, nobody else will get into the role of having more. (Stock companies work like this as well: selling minority stakes but making sure others never reach voting power). It's a means to make sure those who have control will keep it.

PoW is about actually gathering the wood and building the fence. Of course, you can also buy more power, but so can someone else; power isn't coin supply. Also, a consensus mechanism makes sure that even if you have a good chunk of the supply, you're not actually controlling it; and because power is NOT coin supply, you can just cut off the majority producer if they do something funny. This has long been debated about bitcoin: what f a state actor drops a load of energy into mining to control the network in a 51% attack? Well, the 49% could just split from the network, declare whatever that 51% actor does "not real bitcoin", and then watch how that state fork does.

Power and equipment requires more work to get, maintain, and move out of the "position" should you want to exit. At scale, it's a heck of a lot of real world and varied work. Yet the barrier to entry into PoW mining is relatively low.

With PoS, I don't need to do much except possess (or acquire) the underlying token (and usually more of the token than any outside, non-cantilionaire would possess).

Perhaps most importantly, both systems require anchoring into reality with time. PoW can use the work to gauge time. PoS has no such feature to gauge time so at best it requires voting on time which is self-referential and isn't an anchor into reality at all. It's like anchoring a boat to itself - fine only if the seas are unrealistically calm.