Some people got into Bitcoin early on. They bought it at $100 or whatever, are now sitting on bags of 100 BTC, can consider themselves retired and are unhappy about the fact they have to swap their sats for dirty fiat and pay the extortionists for something (we know deceitfully) called capital gains to pay for goods and services, who don't only want a share, but also require a handful of other statist fiat nonsense, such as having kept records to calculate the "cost-basis", which in most of those cases is absent, and in all cases impractical and absurd to maintain.
That's understandable. If I were one of them, I would be unhappy too, seeing how Bitcoin hasn't yet fulfilled its role as a tool for building a circular economy -- a concept theorized by Samuel Edward Konkin III, the founder of agorism, which preceded Bitcoin by decades, but couldn't fully unfold due to the technology not being there. The pains of being an early adopter, in all its fortune.
Most stackers, however, got in a late, in the current halving cycle and are still in stacking phase, working hard and nowhere near retirement. They don't care for being able to spend their sats.
But one day they will. Some will start caring in the bull cycle that's now starting, some will in the one after. Their stacks will be large enough to retire on, and they will want to spend them without having to go through the fiat nonsense and all the 'fun' it entails.
They say money starts as a store of value, then becomes a means of exchange, then a unit of account. This is what will happen, and the incentives (that funnily enough, governments themselves create in the form of CGT) will arise when the numbers align. And the governments / nation states, by debasing their fiat, only accelerate the NGU nature of Bitcoin and the alignment of the numbers. They're digging their own graves. They harder they try to steal, they sooner they will be defunded. This is the beauty of Bitcoin.
Many bitcoiners talk about how Bitcoin will defund the state by talking away its power to print money, but they miss Bitcoin's ability to take away the state's power to extort explicitly, a power that the more statist types justify. SEK3, on the contrary, made the creation of circular economies to weaken the state a moral imperative and would be proud of Satoshi. Even the authors of "The Sovereign Individual" predicted that technology would shrink the state by making extortion harder to enforce.
Note that incentives exist for merchants to accept sats already: what is received in sats and doesn't need to be swapped for fiat (whether that's because it can be stacked away for the future (case 1), or spent directly to cover ongoing expenses (case2)) is, by Natural Law, not subject to income-based extortion. Moreover, businesses or parts thereof that operate within a circular economy / grey markets are not subject to regulation. Anyone who receives fiat payments needs a bank account, a registered business etc. If you only accept Bitcoin, you don't need any of that.
The problem currently is that most businesses operate at small margins (so they can't stack for case 1) and there are few places that accepts sats (so the can't spend them for case 2).
Merchants can incentivize customers to pay in sats by offering a discount. As long as the discount is below the state extortion rate, it's a win-win for the parties involved, and a well deserved loss for the party not involved.
But demand for the ability to spend sats will grow, which will fuel that further. And as more merchants accept bitcoin, it will be easier for merchants to pay their ongoing cost will sats. This is how a circular economy will boostrap itself into existence. The incentives, currently small, will trickle down to more areas of human activity and create positive feedback loops, reinforcing them beyond the point of stoppability, leaving the greedy, rent-seeking politicians and banks as the only losers.
That said, I think for now it may be prudent to keep these discussions to the more anarchist / agorist circles like SN and Nostr, and not spread these ideas among the wider and more statist audiences (such as r/Bitcoin), considering how much the powers that be are trying to fight Bitcoin (the FinCEN developments, travel rule etc.). Until we're 100% sure it's beyond the point of stoppability.
313 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 20 Nov
I often buy cash (and have to find people selling cash) to make various purchases
Luckily thanks to Bitrefill, and having spent the last few years orange pilling businesses in my local area, more than 50% of my expenditure is now done without banks (ie, debit cards) or banknotes.
People whining about not wanting to spend their sats are obviously holding fiat bags instead of BTC. It makes no sense anyway:
  • you can just buy the sats back after
  • you are supporting the circular economy (which needs to be bootstrapped)
  • you are cutting out the banksters (the real enemy of the people)
I think you hit the nail on the head. After a halving or two, you will realise the importance of, and want to spend, your BTC. You'll also be more likely to head towards the 0% fiat bankstering / 100% BTC savings goal.
When I read first time, in 2012, the Bitcoin whitepaper, for me was clear what Bitcoin is: P2P money, nothing else.
I do not see anywhere in that whitepaper saying about gainz, cash out, profits, getting rich, asset etc... Just P2P cash money, without any intermediary
I am not in Bitcoinlandia to get rich in fiat or "investing". I always used BTC as money and I use it all these years, wherever I could pay the merchant directly in BTC, especially when they didn't have any intermediary.
I onboarded a lot of small merchants too, explaining them how to manage their wallets and all that shit.
You are absolutely right, we need to start slowly that Bitcoin circular economy, is the only way forward. That circular economy not just that will make Bitcoin stronger , but also will slow down this hype with speculation on the exchanges market.
People should start earning, spending and saving only in BTC and get rid of all fiat. I explained these aspects in this guide:
"I always used BTC as money and I use it all these years, wherever I could pay the merchant directly in BTC, especially when they didn't have any intermediary."
I share the same view; I try to pay for everything with Bitcoin if I can. However, I'm not in a place where I can use Bitcoin for literally everything, and sometimes I wonder if this is going to be the "new normal" in my lifetime (I consider myself old). Where I'm from, there's little to no adaptation, and I can also say this in general terms: it's not easy to convince older people to adapt, and it's not easy to explain. When I try, people just don't care because "they won't pay their bills with it" or "it's too much work".
I find myself in a loop sometimes, trying to explain everything as simply as I can, but family and friends just give up. I've been trying since 2014, but nothing works. They're already shaped by society's standards.
Obviously, I don't force it onto anyone. I want them to study and learn before anything else. I'm doing this with my kids too, and I'll let them make their own decision, like everything in life, of course.
Also, thank you for sharing your substack, some cool stuff there!
statist audiences (such as r/Bitcoin)
Those people don't care about Bitcoin, only "number go up". If they cared they would be on SN instead.
I spend a lot of time in both.
But yea, I get your point.
Maybe they don’t know about SN?
  1. HODL
  2. spend and replace
  3. Bull run / ordinals high fee environment - fuck.😂
There are quite a few bitcoin circular economies developing around the world now. One can visit and maybe move to these and help move adoption forward. Or one can start a new one at home.
In these places, there is less or no need to "cash out" -- it's feasible to live mostly, or completely, using bitcoin. Sometimes that means in part building a microeconomy around you for things that you need. For many, this begins to really make sense when they earn in bitcoin rather than fiat.
The future is now.