@jacopograziuso
🎓 Trainee economist, lecturer and populariser. My research include Bitcoin, finance, economics, geopolitics and the future. Awareness = freedom + knowledge.
No relay list published yet.
Recent Notes
The Bitcoin trilemma is a structural constraint, not a flaw.
Estimated reading time: 1–2 minutes.
A widespread belief, as simple as it is misleading, is that Bitcoin 'fails' on certain fronts because it was not designed well enough.
That its architecture has avoidable limitations.
The so-called trilemma is seen as a merit ranking, in which someone wins and someone loses.
This approach is fundamentally flawed.
In the case of Bitcoin, the trilemma is neither a value judgement nor a technological ranking. Rather, it is a structural constraint that describes the logical impossibility of maximising three fundamental dimensions within a distributed consensus system simultaneously.
In the specific case of Bitcoin, these dimensions have a precise and non-interchangeable meaning:
1) the security of consensus and the ledger, understood as resistance to rewriting, coordinated attacks and censorship;
2) the distribution of verification power, i.e. the ability of a large number of independent actors to control and enforce the system's rules;
3) On-chain scalability, which is the ability of the base layer to absorb large volumes of transactions directly on-chain.
These fundamental properties give rise to characteristics that are often cited as autonomous objectives, such as immutability, transparency and reliability. However, these are derived properties that cannot be pursued separately from the former.
Bitcoin does not 'suffer' from the trilemma.
It consciously accepts it.
The protocol's architecture clearly demonstrates a choice to prioritise security and the distribution of verification power over on-chain scalability. This is not due to technical incapacity, but rather for institutional consistency. Increasing throughput and accessibility to verification simultaneously would require compromises that would affect precisely what makes the system credible over time.
The key point is not what Bitcoin does not do.
It is why it chooses not to do it.
Understanding the trilemma means viewing Bitcoin not as a product to be optimised, but as a technical institution operating within non-negotiable constraints.
#bitcoin #trilemma #blockchain #timechain #security #decentralization #scalability #choose
Estimated reading time: 1–2 minutes.
A widespread belief, as simple as it is misleading, is that Bitcoin 'fails' on certain fronts because it was not designed well enough.
That its architecture has avoidable limitations.
The so-called trilemma is seen as a merit ranking, in which someone wins and someone loses.
This approach is fundamentally flawed.
In the case of Bitcoin, the trilemma is neither a value judgement nor a technological ranking. Rather, it is a structural constraint that describes the logical impossibility of maximising three fundamental dimensions within a distributed consensus system simultaneously.
In the specific case of Bitcoin, these dimensions have a precise and non-interchangeable meaning:
1) the security of consensus and the ledger, understood as resistance to rewriting, coordinated attacks and censorship;
2) the distribution of verification power, i.e. the ability of a large number of independent actors to control and enforce the system's rules;
3) On-chain scalability, which is the ability of the base layer to absorb large volumes of transactions directly on-chain.
These fundamental properties give rise to characteristics that are often cited as autonomous objectives, such as immutability, transparency and reliability. However, these are derived properties that cannot be pursued separately from the former.
Bitcoin does not 'suffer' from the trilemma.
It consciously accepts it.
The protocol's architecture clearly demonstrates a choice to prioritise security and the distribution of verification power over on-chain scalability. This is not due to technical incapacity, but rather for institutional consistency. Increasing throughput and accessibility to verification simultaneously would require compromises that would affect precisely what makes the system credible over time.
The key point is not what Bitcoin does not do.
It is why it chooses not to do it.
Understanding the trilemma means viewing Bitcoin not as a product to be optimised, but as a technical institution operating within non-negotiable constraints.
#bitcoin #trilemma #blockchain #timechain #security #decentralization #scalability #choose
You must have used AI - which I do with everything now. Because it's not just Government statements that are lies, it's just about everything!
Believe NOTHING.
Question EVERYTHING.
If we could get ...
Dream on!
I used AI and Google to do some research on the subject (before, we used encyclopaedias) and I don't see what's wrong with that. AI is just a tool, like a pencil; it won't replace you. The thoughts I write are mine and mine alone!
I used AI and Google to do some research on the subject (before, we used encyclopaedias) and I don't see what's wrong with that. AI is just a tool, like a pencil; it won't replace you. The thoughts I write are mine and mine alone!
https://blossom.primal.net/c3ec117f4196ef588af2606d1abe4557b6cc025fe4fc23d83c578f9d4ea62da7.png
The phrase attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche is not a direct quotation from his work, but rather a modern paraphrase of a passage from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883), specifically from the chapter 'On the New Idol'. Nietzsche does not formulate a political theory. Rather, he offers an ontological and symbolic critique of the state as an idol — an entity that lies when it identifies itself with the 'people' and exercises power by appropriating the values and forces created by individuals. Reducing this critique to a slogan would be anachronistic; Nietzsche does not discuss the market, property or legal order, but rather the relationship between the individual, power, and the production of value.
1❤️1🎉1
There’s something that’s been bothering me for a while.
To some 'Bitcoiners', I’m not 'Bitcoin' enough as if that’s even a real thing. Like being called progressive or feminist is supposed t...
Beautiful words Laura, I agree with you wholeheartedly. You are not alone, like you, I (and many others I guess) find myself in the middle and sometimes it hurts, but you must not beat yourself up. Keep pushing!
