pull down to refresh

260 sats \ 5 replies \ @alt 14 Nov \ parent \ on: Bitcoin cold war bitcoin
Bitcoin is permissionless, so it doesn't matter who it's "for", anybody and everybody can use it, which necessarily includes state actors.
The thing is that even if nation states capture large Bitcoin reserves and hence capture large amounts of wealth, they still don't get to control Bitcoin. However, in gaining wealth through Bitcoin, they will lose their ability to extract wealth from their productive citizenry via inflation.
A nation state adopting Bitcoin will only have access to the finite amount of wealth that they themselves control, instead of the near infinite "wealth" that they can currently access by inflating their money. A bitcoin state must then either operate at profit or they will soon find that they have no Bitcoin left to spend. The conclusion is that Bitcoin will force states to operate efficiently, and I believe that the only way they can do that is to downsize massively.
A state adopting Bitcoin may be wealthy but it will necessarily be small.
write
preview
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @javier 14 Nov
Let's make an analogy:
For thousands of years, states have used gold. For thousands of years, thieves and mafia have used gold. If we consider gold to be a good thing (at least before Bitcoin), does that mean that thieves, mafia and states are good?
Obviously they aren't. This is a fallacy.
It doesn't matter if states use Bitcoin. That doesn't make them good at all. They are just using a good thing for (very) bad purposes, as usual.
reply
120 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 14 Nov
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @alt 14 Nov
"Nation states will buy Bitcoin because it's permissionless, but this won't give them any more control over the network, and will in fact accelerate their downfall by removing their ability to extract wealth via inflation. A state that ends up operating on Bitcoin will necessarily be much smaller and constrained than it is today."
"STATIST"
I still can't work out if you're a troll or if you're just a bit dense, Darth.
reply
125 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 14 Nov
Please answer this simple question: If a state have the control of a BTC wallet keys, who really OWNS those BTC? How that state will help YOU just by keeping the keys of that BTC wallet? WHO is "the state" ?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @alt 14 Nov
  1. Depends on the arrangement, multi-sig and so on could place ownership in the hands of a group or committee. I don't see how it's relevant.
  2. I never said the state would help me by virtue of holding Bitcoin. Rather, by the development of a Bitcoin standard the state will necessarily shrink. This does help me, it stops hindering me, because I don't believe the state is actively helpful.
  3. Again, not sure how this is relevant to the point.
reply