Using Bitcoin as base money is essentially free, yet hardly anyone wants to use it. The majority of Bitcoiners—economically illiterate, in my view—fail to grasp a fundamental truth: spending Bitcoin doesn’t weaken it; it strengthens it. Every sat spent increases demand for Bitcoin as money, driving NGU. The reverse is also true—if plebs endlessly hoard without circulating the corn, demand stagnates, and over a long enough time frame, NGU turns into NGD. Adoption fuels value. Refusing to use Bitcoin ensures it remains a speculative asset rather than an actual currency.
Discussion
I think you got it wrong. Selling your bitcoin doesn't drive the demand, exactly the opposite.
No, you got it wrong. Spending (not just selling) Bitcoin increases demand for it as money. Like any other good, money follows supply and demand dynamics. When people are willing to spend sats for goods and services, merchants become more inclined to accept Bitcoin, further driving demand alongside savers and buyers. This growing demand strengthens Bitcoin’s monetary premium, which in turn increases its purchasing power over time. Number goes up.
Spending == selling.
If you spend your coins it just means than someone else will hold those coins.
Accepting bitcoin is good for the merchant and there will be time when merchant will not accept fiat anymore and you can't buy good/service you want unless you're willing to spend bitcoin, but that time isn't here yet (except for in some places) and best way to support bitcoin is by holding it yourself.
Bitcoin first need to prove to be store of value, then it can move slowly towards being medium of exchange.
Selling Bitcoin means converting it into fiat - you’re cashing out and stepping back into the traditional financial system. Spending Bitcoin, on the other hand, means using it directly for goods and services, keeping it within the Bitcoin economy. When you sell, you’re essentially saying, “I don’t want Bitcoin, give me fiat instead.” But when you spend, you’re treating Bitcoin as real money, transferring value without relying on middlemen. This strengthens adoption, keeps Bitcoin in circulation, and moves us closer to a world where fiat isn’t necessary.
Every time you choose to spend instead of sell, you’re helping Bitcoin grow - not just as an asset, but as a true currency. This increase in economic density strengthens the properties that make a common good a medium of exchange. You need the monetary demand to increase adoption, otherwise you end up with a subpar store of value.
Selling bitcoin means you're converting it to something else, it might be fiat or it might be some product or service. But in any case you're giving away your coins to someone else.
Every time you choose not to hodl you're not helping Bitcoin grow, exactly the opposite.
If you give you're selling your coins to some merchant, they're more likely to trade their coins for fiat in this economic order to pay taxes, raw material etc.
To be more precise, I'm not against spending bitcoin, I spend bitcoin whenever it's more convenient or faster than fiat would be, or when merchants offer premium when paying with bitcoin. I just want to say that if you want to help bitcoin growth, the best way to do it is just hodl and not selling your coins either against fiat or anything else.
Your economic illiteracy couldn’t be more clear - you point out the obvious while ignoring the finer details. Selling Bitcoin for dollars is not the same as selling it for goods and services. The former strengthens the dollar and its competition as a medium of exchange, while the latter creates new incentives to acquire more Bitcoin, both for yourself and the merchant.
I think the economics here are pretty straight forward. It all comes to the supply and demand. The more bitcoin is held while demand is growing, the more bitcoin grows in value, tempting more people to join.
On the other hand, it doesn't matter what do you sell your coins for. If you sell them you're shorting bitcoin against something else.
And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with selling your coins for useful products/services, it just not create any incentives to anybody aquire more bitcoin.
What I just explained you is that spending is directly impacting adoption to the upside and there is plenty of material to back this claim. You just haven’t read any Mises or Rothbard and it shows. Furthermore you would have experienced this yourself if you had spend your corn. Since I’m living on a Bitcoin standard my stack has only grown because I’m converting my whole fiat wage and not just the scraps. Plus I’m more mindful of my expenses.
I don't believe there's any material backing the claim that selling your bitcoin is impacting the adoption to the upside. Adoption means people hodl more bitcoin, not selling it.
I've read a lot of Mises and Rothbard, they're very inspiring writers!
I've spend too much of my coins since 2014, and I regret some of my spending so much today!
Like I states earlier, I'm still spending my coins, last time I bought VPN with bitcoin not very long time ago.
You're not living Bitcoin standard if you get your paycheck in fiat 😂
> I've read a lot of Mises and Rothbard
If you had, we wouldn’t been having this conversation. They both give plenty of examples in their books.
> You're not living Bitcoin standard if you get your paycheck in fiat
Another retarded take. The Bitcoin standard is not something that will happen overnight. It’s not something that will happen by establishing a SBR or trading ETFs. Selling your fiat for Bitcoin is the ultimate speculative attack on the traditional financial system. Spending and replacing the Bitcoin is the final nail in the coffin. Few understand this and that’s why folks like Saylor are having so many followers.
Can you point one of the Mises or Rothbard book that is covering that selling a thing creates a more demand for it?
SBR and ETFs are fiat.
Spending and replacing doesn't create more demand or adoption.
Speculative attack is real, but it works the other way also! Giving away your bitcoin is worse for the adoption than holding it. Of course giving it away against literal fiat is like going backwards.
I see no point on simping Saylor or anybody else.
I don’t see the point in continuing this, but buying and selling are the foundation of every economy. The fallacy that one party wins by selling at the expense of the buyer is a central theme in the works of both Mises and Rothbard. This fallacy only holds true in cases of involuntary exchange, where coercion is involved. In voluntary trade both parties exchange something they value. The merchant receives Bitcoin, and you receive the product - both sides benefit.
Now that you’ve spent some Bitcoin, you’ll eventually need to replenish it to buy other essentials while setting some aside for savings. That puts you on the demand side. The merchant, who now holds Bitcoin for future expenses and possibly for savings, is also on the demand side. Before this voluntary exchange, only one party was demanding Bitcoin - now there are two. Work out the rest by yourself.
Here, I brought some receipts for people that claim to read but don’t:
The Bitcoin Standard is not something that happens overnight. One can not just exchange fiat for bitcoin and claiming to live Bitcoin standard. The economy needs to support it so you can get paid by bitcoin and use it for the living expenses.
I don’t care how you label it. I spend Bitcoin for everything and you don’t. There are solutions for this, and it’s just a matter of will and effort. If you’re waiting for the system to change on its own to accommodate your improved version of it, I have news for you. It won’t. The economy won’t support a choice made by a fringe group unless there is a strong incentive. Change comes from action, not slogans. By creating real monetary demand through actual usage, you and others like you will drive that change.
On the flip side, people like Saylor will help Bitcoin become an inert asset that no longer serves its primary function as money, slowly pushing it toward irrelevance.
You sell bitcoin and I don't.
I'm not waiting anything, I focus on my craft and save in bitcoin.
If bitcoin works, systems will inevitably adjust for it. Economic order is foundational so it takes time and there should be no need for rushing.
Saylor is doing more harm than good nowadays when he tries to prevent others funding development and maintaining Bitcoin, he also doesn't seem to care P2P cash but instead digital gold aspect of it. He doesn't spend their bitcoin like you do.
I say this and then I’m opting out of this conversation. Bitcoin is a system, but it’s people who make it work. If every node runner abandoned the software tomorrow and the network collapsed, would that mean Bitcoin failed, or that people failed Bitcoin?
Economy doesn’t exist in a vacuum - every outcome is a result of human action. There’s no inevitability. The idea that “everything is good for Bitcoin” has become a meme, and a misleading one at that.
Saving in Bitcoin while actively supporting the fiat system is also a valid choice, one with real consequences for Bitcoin’s future. Your actions shape the Bitcoin economy just as much as anyone else’s. If more people continue down this path, the so-called Bitcoin revolution may remain nothing more than a dream.
Testing zaps on this note… we made six attempts to⚡zap this note, at 21s@minibits.cash, over a period of 32 minutes. All six attempts were successful. Please check on your end to be sure you received. Average zap time was 5587ms (5.6 seconds). We consider this zap time slow... generally, zaps should complete in under two seconds. (Other Nostr users might think your zaps are broken, might not zap you again.) We recommend you receive zaps with a well-connected, cloud-based Lightning node to reduce your latency.