11 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 12 Nov \ parent \ on: Competition and trust in the private provision of money | Article Review BooksAndArticles
Yes, that's the crux. Anyone can say they are trustworthy but how do you prove it?
Hasn't Bitcoin already solved this problem then?
I mean... 1) run a node
2) don't update it (generally speaking)
3) profit??? And by that I mean not change the monetary policy or inflation rate of the underlying asset (Bitcoin)?
reply
This is where we run into a Ship of Theseus type conundrum, which is the same as the hard fork problem.
If Bitcoin Core updates the monetary policy, but half the node-runners don't update, which network continues to be Bitcoin?
So you're right that the decentralization of Bitcoin (balance of powers between nodes and devs) kinda solves it, but it also kinda doesn't because of the possibility of hard forks.
reply
Anyone who wants to hard-fork and 'inflate' their Bitcoin by changing the monetary policy (for example by printing themselves a million Bitcoin) can go ahead right away and do so.
I won't be changing my node however.
And there, in my opinion, is the solution. Plebs running nodes
reply
What if you're the only person who doesn't update your node, though? And everyone else does? I think that's the conundrum for Bitcoin with regard to fixed monetary policy.
reply
Updating a node... to increase the issuance rate devalues one's own holding, hard work, and savings. Nodes are the world's HOA of Bitcoin.
And HOAs if you have any experience with them are down-right militant.
That's why it's important that people run nodes and Bitcoin generally speaking doesn't change (and it won't). Bitcoin needs time and education.
reply