But the opportunity cost of not changing your fiat to sats, so that you can buy things with fiat instead of with bitcoin is even bigger since you are not actively pushing the network forward.
In other words: from a "wealth increase" perspective it doesn't matter if you spend fiat or sats. For the fiat you've chosen to spend, you could have bought sats, but you didn't. So why not change fiat to sats, and spend sats so that the adoption curve of btc moves forward even faster.
Everyone on their journey to minimizing the fiat in their wallets to bring forth the network.
Is it doable paying things and necessities in #bitcoin where you all are?
bitcoin increased 1Yr something like +122.31% - so yes, putting your fiat into sats makes more economical sense than spending it. Buy and Hold is the new motto. What's it, stack sats? hodl?
no one is willing to spend, especially when you can potentially double your money in a year. However, you need to eat. Spending fiat in present value terms on groceries is nothing vs losing out on sat value.
$10 on food vs $10 on satoshis is way different.
I get that's what the Bitcoin White Paper set out to achieve, a p2p electronic cash without the need for trusted third parties, but here we are today.
And as long as people still earn fiat that they can’t turn into satoshis , they will spend the fiat and keep the sats.
That’s one of the cunnundrums of #bitcoin being better money.
Unless you’re on a full bitcoin standard or you have extreme necessity, people will always get rid of the money that loses purchasing power.
And by being on a full bitcoin standard, I also mean being able to place all your fiat in btc at the expense of shortterm volatility, and also having merchants for all your necessities that accept bitcoin.
Spend and replace is a great philosophy if you can, but not everyone can.
up until that point, of full standardisation, it makes more economic sense to buy and hodl the sats than buy and spend the sats.
you get rid of the fiat in exchange for groceries, but until there is a full standardization and bitcoin pricing normalises, the opportunity cost to save rather than to spend is a lot higher.
That's why I said earlier, we look back and laugh at the guy who spent 10k bitcoin on two pizzas, even have a day for it too - but that was a 10 year time frame.
He could have held it and be fiat rich, increasing his purchasing power in 2021 peak for instance,
it's just the way bitcoin has developed over the years, away from the Bitcoin Whitepaper initial idea of SPV and on-chain p2p exchange and more towards Nick Szabo's bitgold.
Nothing wrong with that either.
that I understand, my point is rather: even if you spend fiat, you are actually spending unconverted sats. In that sense it doesn't matter if you spend sats on stuff because you would have bought it regardless.
but those sats she spent last week are worth more this week?
the $10 she spent would still be $10 this week, unless there was some crazy inflationary/deflationary spike within a week (can happen, see covid lockdowns)
nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnxd46zuamf0ghxy6t69uq3jamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwdhhvun8dchxxmew0fsj7qpqehkvx8rdjsrwnf7kkqr8gy42vcwe6vwgqdwrl4juqccp689v8wfqex6z4h true, but now you are talking about timing the market when to buy sats. That isn't what I wanted to get across. My point is that even if you spend fiat, you are actually spending potential sats, which you now don't have, regardless if you spend fiat or sats. So that $10 got you 10.000 sats last week, but might now get you 9.800 sats, regardless if they were sats in the first place.
ya because the value of bitcoin has gone up - what don't you guys seem to understand?
you're getting less sats for your fiat because the price per sat has gone up. Therefore, it is economically more sound to hold satoshis rather than spending them.
More and more I come across accounts that don't know whether they should spend sats or stack sats. Mixed messaging etc.
So which is it, spend sats or stack sats?
Let me simplify the point with an example:
Imagine you have $100 in fiat and 100,000 sats (both worth $100 at the moment).
- Scenario 1: You spend $100 fiat on groceries.
Result: You still have 100,000 sats, but you've lost the opportunity to buy more sats with that $100.
- Scenario 2: You spend 100,000 sats on groceries.
Result: You still have $100 fiat, which you can immediately use to buy back 100,000 sats.
The key is: In both scenarios, you end up with the same amount of Bitcoin. The difference is that in Scenario 2, you've contributed to Bitcoin adoption by using it as a medium of exchange.
The "spend vs. hold" debate isn't about choosing one or the other exclusively. It's about understanding that spending Bitcoin (and immediately replacing it) can help drive adoption without affecting your long-term holdings. By spending (and replacing), you support the Bitcoin ecosystem while maintaining your position. This approach combines the benefits of "stacking sats" for the long term with actively using Bitcoin as intended - as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
I hope the example helps to get my point across.
I wish it worked that way, but it does not.
You're not getting 100k sats for $100 back because the net growth of BTC against the dollar is greater. Hence, you spend the shit coin on the present value items and save in bitcoin because it preserves wealth.
Why do you think cash notes were created in the first place? Sending gold as payment is silly AF because of value attribution over time.
I don't think you understand this because you're saying the same things again, but it makes no economic sense.
I don't think you actually try to understand what I am saying 😅 . I completely understand what you are saying, because sats increase in Fiat-value over time, thats why it's better to save in sats. However, if you spend sats and immediately replace the fiat you kept (by not spending it) back into sats, you have the same amount of sats, but helped the network. The exchange rate vs USD fluctuates, sure, but it's not that much on a minute to minute-basis.
If you don't get it, fine. Everyone is on their own btc-journey.
I understand what you are saying and I am saying it does not make economical sense to do that.
