Prefer Underground-Bitcoin over Hyperbitcoinization? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Prefer Underground-Bitcoin over Hyperbitcoinization?

183 sats \ 15 comments \ @tomlaies 8 Aug 2022 bitcoin

I met someone at a Bitcoin meetup that is strongly against Hyperbitcoinization because he wants Bitcoin to remain an underground Currency. He is also strongly political Libertarian so it makes sense that from this perspective Bitcoin already has achieved its goal simply by existing and people who want to save in the hardest money in the world censorship free can already do so.

I have to admit, I have never thought about this this way. I thought Hyperbitcoinization was the end goal and that is still in the future. I never questioned if this actually has to happen for Bitcoin to be successful.

On the other hand, the positive macro-economic impact without Cantillion Effect would only play out if everyone at least had a wallet. I would also argue that many common people do not know about Bitcoin or don't accept its advantages yet.

Do we have other people here that share this opinion? Is Bitcoin enough as an underground currency? Is this a popular opinion or a niche hottake? I am strongly considering changing my opinion.

view all related items

122 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 8 Aug 2022

I think it comes down to someone's definition of "success" for the project.

Success could mean anything from "new global reserve currency" to "tick-tock, next block".

Likewise, "failure" could mean anything from "a cataclysmic event that stops new blocks being mined" to "capital gains tax triggered when exchanging for goods".

Just depends what you're achieving/hoping to achieve with BTC. Most are here to get rich (or avoid getting poor slowly). But many are just as thrilled to self custody and chill.

105 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies OP 8 Aug 2022

Also, small side-note: It strikes me a little as a Monero-esq opinion. Monero people often argue what value Monero already provides as a tool instead of becoming a currency for people to save in.

123 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 8 Aug 2022

There are two separate goals:

(1) people save in Bitcoin ("hardest money") (2) people use Bitcoin without any AML/KYC crap ("censorship free")

It's very possible to score only one of those two. (1) without (2) would be basically EU: a world where people buy Bitcoin on a fully AML/KYC-compliant exchange but you can't really move it out or if you do, you must tell the exchange the passport and address of the payee. The world of (2) without (1) would have stablecoins running on Bitcoin tech such as Taro. Either way there will be a lot of very unhappy governments.

Neither of the two goals is achieved so far. Most importantly, KYC is ever expanding and "people who want to save in the hardest money in the world censorship free" might face the problem that their censorship free money is in fact censored - not on the protocol level, but on the police baton level. According to a recent SN poll (sorry - no link) > 50% of SN users submit to KYC to get their Bitcoin.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @2big2fail 8 Aug 2022

read the book cryptoeconomics-- eric voskuil---he has always advocated that bitcoin is black market money and will always be so despite "mainstream" adoption

9 sats \ 0 replies \ @kilianbuhn 8 Aug 2022

So, no Hyperbitcoinization? Is he a bear? Or a fucking shitcoiner? The FUD, omg 👎🏻👎🏻

90 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 8 Aug 2022

I want it to go mainstream eventually and I think it will. I want more than me and a handful of people to benefit from it.

Plus, more people invested, means the price will rise, means more security and things built on top (which are likely improvements over existing solutions), means a more productive economy and more wealth and more thriving people and so on.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies OP 8 Aug 2022

But do people only benefit from it when they have it or do they already benefit from it right now due to having the possibility of buying it? Isn't the service of Bitcoin in making the opportunity technically possible in itself enough?

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @kilianbuhn 8 Aug 2022

People are dumb. Imagine the average/median human and now imagine half of the people being dumber than that. We have to give them Bitcoin for their own good.☝🏻☝🏻 Just like they got electricity or the internet as a gift from the top. On their own they wouldn't get it.😂😂😂

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Modus 9 Aug 2022

I am intrigued by the idea that we should be trying to slow hyperbitcoinization down while we get more no-KYC solutions in place. According to this thinking, companies like Swan and Unchained capital are doing harm by onboarding people with KYC so that the government can demand that bitcoiners hand over all their bitcoin, or pay onerous taxes on it.

6 sats \ 1 reply \ @zeusmczeusman 9 Aug 2022

The state requires control of the money to exist, otherwise the Federal government would have no power (see pre. 1789). So hyperbitcoinization takes the underground that's had to hide from the government and allows it to exist where everyone can see it. But it will be the above ground moving towards a free market not Bitcoin moving towards the existing fiat world.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mambru 9 Aug 2022 freebie

I agree that's the key point. Hyperbitcoinization means the state and world order as it exists today will have to fundamentally change. Not something I expect (or want) to see while I'm alive.

Bitcoin splitting between KYCBTC and noKYCBTC is the current trend and likely the status for many years. Some degree of movement between the 2 pools will likely be possible, esp. at the "pocket money" level.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ClickForCharity 8 Aug 2022

I don't care, so long as I will be able to buy and sell everything using bitcoin and rid myself of the banker parasites.

But I don't think the notion of bitcoin "succeeding" has any relevance. The one who created it left it open to be adapted and used. Is a fryng pan "successful"? If not, it' wouldn't be a frying pan.