a ramble on how i'm currently thinking about XBT:
"infinity divided by 21 million"
"it's hard-capped at 21 million"
"anyone can send a transaction--it's permissionless"
etc, etc.
I believe Warren Buffet said off-handedly "they will find a way to make more of it" when he heard of the scarcity of bitcoin intrinsic to it's protocol.
so how intrinsic is it, really?
to people who don't like bitcoin (which is most that i meet), 21 million is not intrinsic to it, as is proof-of-work. they would not bat an eye if the whole thing collapsed into a graveyard with the rest of their money problems.
it seems to me that it's only intrinsic as long as the major players who use bitcoin say it is.
let's say that the government did not change the 21 million cap, but decided to levy a fee on all bitcoin transactions through national mining companies, and any bitcoin transaction that cleared thru an international miner would be blacklisted at major exchanges, a tax headache.
the self-sovereign bitcoiner enjoyed the economic adoption of the network by major players which introduced political leverage.
do they then decide to fork the network? at which point they hope that enough people join them with enough technical skills to recreate the financial ecosystem?
or would they sell out of that network and buy into an existing underground network that maintained the ethos of 21 million and no-rules on who is sending what--partly because noKYC means that people don't know who is sending what.
but that network is hostage to low liquidity, low acceptance.
how many sly-roundabout systems are subverting sly-roundabout systems?
perhaps two: the current and the next?
bitcoin is the current sly-roundabout system, and the next sly-roundabout system is already in existence. it may not be needed at the end of the day, or successful.
maybe it's enough that the alternative keeps the incumbent on its toes.
"infinity divided by 21 million"
"it's hard-capped at 21 million"
"anyone can send a transaction--it's permissionless"
etc, etc.
I believe Warren Buffet said off-handedly "they will find a way to make more of it" when he heard of the scarcity of bitcoin intrinsic to it's protocol.
so how intrinsic is it, really?
to people who don't like bitcoin (which is most that i meet), 21 million is not intrinsic to it, as is proof-of-work. they would not bat an eye if the whole thing collapsed into a graveyard with the rest of their money problems.
it seems to me that it's only intrinsic as long as the major players who use bitcoin say it is.
let's say that the government did not change the 21 million cap, but decided to levy a fee on all bitcoin transactions through national mining companies, and any bitcoin transaction that cleared thru an international miner would be blacklisted at major exchanges, a tax headache.
the self-sovereign bitcoiner enjoyed the economic adoption of the network by major players which introduced political leverage.
do they then decide to fork the network? at which point they hope that enough people join them with enough technical skills to recreate the financial ecosystem?
or would they sell out of that network and buy into an existing underground network that maintained the ethos of 21 million and no-rules on who is sending what--partly because noKYC means that people don't know who is sending what.
but that network is hostage to low liquidity, low acceptance.
how many sly-roundabout systems are subverting sly-roundabout systems?
perhaps two: the current and the next?
bitcoin is the current sly-roundabout system, and the next sly-roundabout system is already in existence. it may not be needed at the end of the day, or successful.
maybe it's enough that the alternative keeps the incumbent on its toes.
1
