pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 4 Nov \ parent \ on: Hodling doesn't help your fork win bitcoin
Yeah, would we still use bitcoin if it doesn't continue it's rise in fiat terms? Just because it's a better kind of money?
It gets messy though because some of what we rely on in making Bitcoin a better money is that it is worth it for a lot of people to spend a lot of their purchasing power to mine new blocks. If Bitcoin isn't widely perceived as valuable, it's possible we would see hashrate decline and there is some point at which hash rate gets low enough that it the whole network becomes vulnerable.
Yeah, would we still use bitcoin if it doesn't continue it's rise in fiat terms? Just because it's a better kind of money?
Even if it was pegged to real inflation, it would still be trustless as well as project my purchasing power better into the future than fiat. Therefore, I would still use it.
So, to up the stakes a bit, let's roll with another scenario: A fiat currency has emerged that does not print whenever they can, in fact, they reduce supply whenever feasible.
In that case, it could hold purchasing power even better than bitcoin.
At that point, I'd have to ask myself how much am I willing to sacrifice in future purchasing power to hold on to bitcoin? Or in other terms: How much do I personally value a trustless currency over one that requires trust, but has managed to offer better preservation of purchasing power (but could just as easily change in future)?
reply
Only those that lived in a place where they had a certain level of freedom will see Bitcoin as an "anti-inflation mechanism".
But those that lived most of their life in an oppression regime, with almost no freedom, will, see Bitcoin from another perspective:
Bitcoin is far more than just "keeping purchasing power" ...
Here is a very good article from 2014 by Jeffrey Tucker:
https://fee.org/articles/what-gave-bitcoin-its-value/
reply