pull down to refresh
150 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 19 Feb \ parent \ on: R/Bitcoin What if Bitcoin wins? AskSN
Okay, let’s ignore divisibility.
My assertion (before we talk about divisibility because that is a technical issue) is grounded in the belief that anyone can copy bitcoin (MIT license permits this) and that because it is possible it will be done. That doesn't mean that it's good, at all, it just reflects reality:
Bitcoin has no protection against someone else creating another Bitcoin, so this scarcity only globally exists when there are no bitcoin clones or forks. The difference of our views is that ironically you’re having a more optimistic view of humanity whereas I have a more pessimistic one: I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the whole of humanity (and in theory every intelligent organism in the universe) can forever agree on something.
I think that the only reason that Bitcoin works today is because it’s free (as in speech) and that it’s supposedly censorship-resistant (we don’t have practical evidence that it is in all situations and there are some theoretical scenarios in which it is expected to fail) but overall you have an expectation of your property rights being honored: not-your-keys-not-your-coins. It's the ultimate property law, expressed in code, defended by global consensus (= people choosing to honor the code.) It’s important to remember that consensus ultimately is created by people making choices (also see Eric Voskuil’s chapter on what he calls “Crypto-dynamic Principles”) and that anything is only as secure as what the people are willing to suffer for. Example of why uninformed people will not act in their own self-interest: BSV shills didn’t mind that their cryptographically enforced property rights were weakened 😂
If however it turns out that Bitcoin is fully censorship resistant and every real attack fails, then every clone of the mechanism that ensures this for Bitcoin is resistant to this too, and its users cannot be forced to sell whatever asset they have. If the government truly cannot confiscate or censor your bitcoin, it can also not confiscate or censor any of the bitcoin clones and forks, unless of course the mechanism that is enabling the government to do so is an implementation choice/bug in a specific clone/fork. In fact, I’d argue that censorship breeds forks, because the latter is the only absolute defense against absolute enforcement of the former, and ultimately a feature that protects you. After all, what if Saylor leeches all the sats by printing fiat and refuses to sell them to you? How will you get paid if there is zero liquidity?
I think that Bitcoin doesn’t need to be the only monetary thing to ever exist. It would be a great pump-the-bags event but because of that also socially untenable. One has to just look at the tail end of the history of the global gold standard to see how wars will fuel wars will fuel wars and your enemies and allies will cheat you alike if you’re the guarantor of “the bitcoin standard” - as that means you will always get dumped upon, just like Europe dumped upon the US in WW1.
I hope this makes sense, but I'm interested to hear you argue otherwise, if you do, please provide a rationale of your claim that "the fact that Bitcoin is the only asset of the entire universe of assets that is truly scarce" and how that can be true when BCH also exists, and how what Saylor is doing now can be reconciled with "A bitcoin world means they might and their family might actually have to work for their taking" - as I don't really think Saylor is "working", but maybe I'm old fashioned.
The day the Bitcoin white paper was posted, something miraculous happened.
Satoshi Nakamoto--whoever he is doesn't matter--did not just create or invent Bitcoin. This is Bitcoin as rationalized to represent the portion of "crypto" that includes any forks and clones, as you've described.
At this point today, it's neither here nor there.
What matters is not the thing detailed in it (peer to peer electronic cash system) or it's purpose to give people an alternative to traditional banks (peaceful revolution against money printers) but rather the cryptographic tabulation of a finite money (applied scarcity) to represent the entire planet's body of value. Be it commodities, real estate, hard assets or services. And it's the very transactions performed within it that comprise the funged portions of this money as well as it's security. The genius of this is extraordinary and widely underassessed.
It's a discovery, really. Not just a clever invention.
Far greater than the invention of the world's first perfect money is the discovery of true scarcity. Clone and fork all you want, Bitcoin will always be Bitcoin. And none of the clones or forks will ever be Bitcoin.
This is because no imposter can prove that it's been cryptographically processing transactions since 2009 or before with 100% uptime, more failed attempts at hacking than there are days between now and then, zero successful attempts, inmune to 51% attack, etc.
In my studying, only one thing could bring about it's failure. Ok, two things.
If someone spent coins from the initial million minted in the beginning, Bitcoin would fall like an anvil straight down by the end of the day. Or if someone invents a working time machine.
So long as that never happens--and it's a legitimate fear that anyone placing investment of any kind in it should have--Bitcoin will continue to stand as an immutable rock in the typhoon of swindelers and slavers that swirls around it.
It's a legitimate fear, but as you say, I'm very optimistic that it never will happen. Not because I'm believing in humanity to have a good enough heart--i know damn well if doesn't--just that i think one human could be selfless and stupid enough to swallow the key to such an immense mountain of wealth upon realizing that it might actually save mankind from the thralls of modern slavery.
reply
I hope you're right about that outcome. I really do. I cannot rationalize how, but I think I understand where your hope - that Bitcoin may actually set humanity free - comes from. I do share the hope; but I don't see the way yet.
Note that I'm not saying anything will displace Bitcoin - i think that unlikely, as all self-proclaimed contenders are ICOs and not at all fair launched. The only contender that is not an ICO is BCH, and that ship has probably sailed for years now (but still worth monitoring what happens there.) Instead, I'm simply saying that the more Bitcoin becomes a global reality and attractive SoV for anyone from the pleb to the nation state, the more alts and scams there will be. You will be able to isolate yourself from these in the same way you can now: don't buy into scams.
We don't see things much differently, just different perspectives.
reply
BCH ship has sailed, course charted for iceberg.
Same fate as everything else because you can only discover something one time, to put it strongly.
There are many different developers around the world who regularly convene online in various forums to work out ways to improve Bitcoin, and thus far there have been four augmentations. P2SH, RBF, SegWit, and Taproot. All were implemented after 95% consensus among miners. None of them alter Bitcoin's core foundation, which is what the block wars were about.
Gaven Andresen wanted to increase transaction throughput of the network by increasing block size. The proposal was popular, because 'medium of exchange' seemed more realistic that way. So they tried it out with 750 block countdown before experimental fork.
Adam Back disagreed with this schedule citing security concerns.
Firstly, everyone who had, we'll say, 5 bitcoins, at the time of the fork automatically had 5 BCH. This was not OK. They rolled with it.
Second, since there was so much infighting about it, in November 2017 the quintessentially democratic body of peer to peer nodes placed the decision--between three different proposed blocksize modification forks implemented via mining software clients (Releases G thru H of Bitcoin XT, a.k.a. Bitcoin Cash)--directly in the hands of the collective hashpower that would be continuing with one of them as Bitcoin forevermore....
All three software clients attempted to increase transaction capacity of the network. None achieved a majority of the hash power. And just like that, BCH is a filthy ICO shitcoin. Queue other idiots to do it two more times with Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Gold. Three more times if you count BCH forking their own fork to print more money with their XEC clown show.
One of the greatest examples of the superiority of open source technology versus proprietary stagnation the world will ever know. Tick tock, next block.
reply