Nostr Web Client

I mean we’re not there yet but if I told somebody that I lived on bitcoin, what I would mean by that is that I earn bitcoin and I use bitcoin to pay for all of my durable and consumable goods.

I find it disingenuous to claim to live on bitcoin when really one is living on credit secured by assets. Rich folks have been doing that for ages.

They’re not living on equities and real estate, they’re living on dollars credited to them based on underlying assets.

It’d be like if some oil magnate was like, guys, I live on oil, I don’t own fiat, I’m on a petroleum standard, come see how you can do it, too!

It’s just because Bitcoin IS money that it gets muddled.

JackTheMimic 1y ago

Hmm. I understand the lens from which you are viewing this. I guess (from my economic nerd background) the underlying asset being redeemed in the usage of credit confers to me that you are living on the asset. The dollar is a coupon without an asset so I would say that the Dollar is the muddling/confounding factor not the Bitcoin.

Because assets can use any coupon as currency, using credit (layer 3) to convey dollars (layer 2) that is redeemed for Bitcoin (layer 1) IS using the asset. The coupon (dollars) is the strangest currency because it is not tied to ANY asset nor any pretense of being pegged to one.

Paying your Credit card bill with Gold, oil, or any other hard asset IS living on that asset abstracted by the Dollar and further abstracted by the issuance of credit.

I don't see Jack's framing as disingenuous as saying you live off of any hard asset would imply the use of an exchange medium like currency even if abstracted through credit.

I would say "living off" of dollars is to have no wealth and not really be living off of anything beside perceptive value rather than appreciable value.

So, I get what you mean but on a technical level no one "lives off" of their true wealth by that narrow definition.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jerrud 1y ago

You make great points, and maybe I don’t quite have a precise handle on my irritation with his saying that. My thought now is of the other party in nearly all of his economic transactions as a human. Sure he knows businesses/vendors and the like who accept bitcoin and try to contribute to the bitcoin circular economy, but largely, the world doesn’t exchange with him via his assets, it exchanges with him via dollars. It’s the dollars he lives on because it’s the dollars that the vast majority of other parties want in exchange for whatever good or service they provide him. Without dollars Jack is in rough shape. I guess I get very practical when I think about living on something. To live I need my next meal. If I want that next meal I need dollars to pay the store or the restaurant. I’m not going to the grocery store with an ounce of gold and demanding $2k worth of groceries. I don’t live on gold and I can’t in the modern world-at least not without great difficulty-. I live on dollars. Whatever personal economic activity or yield on a particular asset that provided the dollars that I “own” is almost irrelevant when it comes to my getting along in the world and satisfying whatever needs I have. Maybe I’m overly focused on the medium of exchange aspect of the expression, “living on” or “living off” any particular thing. I understand what you’re saying, but for me in the most practical sense, he’s living on dollars because it’s dollars that the other party wants.

Most importantly, and I think this is a good summation of where my head is at, but it’s only when the world wants his bitcoin in exchange for all of those goods and services it provides him, only then, imo, should he say that he’s living off or on Bitcoin. When he goes to the grocery store or restaurant and the only option they give him is to pay in bitcoin, then he should rightly say that he’s living on bitcoin.

JackTheMimic 1y ago

I totally get that. Building layer 2s that don't rely on trust (like lightning doesn't) is essential to eliminating the perception that dollars are needed in the entire chain of commerce. That day is coming shortly but as you allude to with your point of view, it's not here or at the very least, not in the zeitgeist. The only thing I would add is the counterparty doesn't want dollars either but that's just me nitpicking. Onward.