pull down to refresh

1437 sats \ 4 replies \ @gnilma 7 Dec \ on: On a silly piece I just saw on Forbes bitcoin
From his writing, the author gives me the impression that he does not believe bitcoin is a good idea nor a better idea compared to other monetary technologies (primarily gold). With that premise set in mind, his arguments will naturally be against the adoption of bitcoin, because according to him, it is not a good idea.
You are absolutely correct, many of us adopt bitcoin not just because of NGU, but probably mainly because it is better technology and a better idea than other monetary technologies. But he will never see it the way we do until he sees bitcoin as a better idea.
An example outlining his bias from his piece:
Bitcoin is not gold Gold cannot be attacked by someone producing faster computer chips.
It's as if designing and fabricating cutting edge chips is easy. The dude clearly has no idea about foundry construction and the expertise required to run them. Let alone understand the cost and time required for semiconductor design. It's easy to type up a line to say "just produce more faster chips", it's another thing to actually produce them. By that logic, I could argue gold is not bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot be attacked by someone mining more gold from digging more gold mines. Better yet, just shoot a rocket into space and mine gold from asteroids, easy.
write
preview
231 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 7 Dec
It’s like arguing against gold by saying it can be attacked by fusing atoms together.
reply
115 sats \ 1 reply \ @gnilma 7 Dec
I feebly brought up asteroid mining, but you brought the argument to another level by introducing material creation via atomic fusion. Easy peasy, simply fuse iron (Fe 26) with iodine (I 53) to make gold (Au 79), amiright?
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 7 Dec
Central banks hate this simple trick
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @0231bbfa83 9 Dec freebie
This statement about computer chips has nothing to do with foundries, it's something that is immediately obvious if you read the white paper.
The question is not whether one can go out and produce 1 trillion exohash by tomorrow morning.... more of a question of, what happens if in late 2046 there is a fallow period in the AI boom, and someone takes an opportunity and spends $100 million to produce enough chips to wreck the system. You don't need to be expert on VLSI to understand that what is expensive to make today will probably be cheap to make in the future, and also that we can't predict the market swings and geopolitical economics in the future. What if China invades Taiwan?