If y’all want Bitcoin to stay purely a monetary protocol- then start fucking using it as money.

Before you read this take, know that my ideal scenario is monetary protocol only. Also know that I think it’s fucking dumb that nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tc9vz57s got silenced for expressing a valid concern.

Here we go:

Hodling, sitting and waiting for NGU do NOTHING to increase long term demand for blockspace- which, in case you didn’t know, is needed to secure and stabilize the network once the block reward dwindles. This is what most people in Bitcoin do, unfortunately. This is why we started Conduit and why I’m personally hyper focused on marketplaces: if we can make global Bitcoin circular economies then there’s a chance this thing becomes self-sustaining and the phase change to zero block reward doesn’t result in fucking chaos.

So far, Nostr is the biggest circular economy here, and hate to say it, but since it’s all happening on Lightning we are barely moving the needle for base chain settlement demand. Surprised about empty blocks? I’m not.

Do all of you who disapprove of Core devs approach to increase block space demand actually use the blockchain for anything besides UTXO management when fees are low? Are you building anything that increases block space demand for monetary use?

nostr:nprofile1qqsve2jcud7fnjzmchn4gq52wx9agey9uhfukv69dy0v4wpuw4w53nqpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqx7hhq8 is not stupid. He’s been writing about long term instability for years: https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary

Important quote:

“To date no proof-of-work currency has ever operated solely on transaction fees, and academic analysis has found that in this condition block generation is unstable. To paraphrase Andrew Poelstra, it’s a scary phase change that no other coin has gone through.”

He also created Opentimestamps which is severely under used in my opinion (NIP 03 would enable so many great features for a decentralized social protocol).

Neither is nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68y6trdqhxgef0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7wrtw00 stupid. Or anyone else involved in the current drama. They’ve probably thought this through more than most.

You think these people are evil and don’t care about Bitcoin’s long term health? Think again. They are being practical and doing something about the blockspace demand problem.

You don’t agree with how they are going about it? Then build something that increases demand for block space in the way YOU want it.

Or run Knots. That’s a great and valid way to express that view. I support it. But make sure you’re prepared for the consequences if you win this war (stay sat flow positive)- and probably consider using the base chain more, or participating in the Bitcoin circular economy (which means spending Bitcoin).

I find it funny how so many people here celebrated big money and big government when it came in and are now surprised these same parties are taking action to protect their investment. If you don’t do it yourselves, they’ll continue to do so for you.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Good1, I'd zap u but havent figured it out on amethyst yet, its the thought that counts though.... right?

Lol 💜

This is probably the best take I've heard all week.

Thx

No this take is just the bcash argument rehashed again.

Hoarding Bitcoin IS using it as money.

This is one of the most important takes out there right now. If we want Bitcoin to be just money, we actually need to use it as money...not just hoard it and hope the incentives magically align.

Everyone’s worried about dev drama, but the real drama is what happens when the subsidy runs out and there’s no organic demand for block space.

Build, spend, transact ...or don’t be surprised when others shape the protocol for you.

Exactly. Thank you

What she said contradicts your original rant lol

You’ve either got some serious reading comprehension issues or you’re so triggered by something in my post that you’re short circuiting somewhere

Hoarding value IS one of the many different facets of “using it as money”

Think of two extremes: one version of Bitcoin where almost Eveyone is spending and one version where almost Eveyone is hoarding. Which one has more value?

You’re probably not going to give a direct answer and that’s because you people have shit coined their way into bad incentives.

How is removing the option to set op_return limit “protecting their investment”?

Also

If you are using Bitcoin for savings that means you are using it as money, exchanging value to yourself in future.

“Use it as money”

Is not an argument. Who are you to tell someone else what they do with their money?

Driving fee demand on base chain is ridiculous, people should not be exchanging tiny 20,000 sat UTXOs on base chain for daily purchases. They will use Lightning, side chains, ecash solutions.

Btw

3 million satoshi block reward is $300,000 when Bitcoin price is $10M ($210T market cap)

Last few blocks paid that same amount in fiat.

(Assume human-advancement future where electricity cost continues to be deflationary keeping up with fiat debasement)

0.03 in 20-30 years should buy you similar amounts of electricity that 3.125 btc does today.

I can only assume it opens up the design space for more uses of block space.

You’re taking the word “money” and using it against me, without arguing against what I’m really saying: using it as a medium of exchange is important to drive settlement demand. No matter the layer- the more economic activity, the more base chain settlement demand, eventually. No shit it’s dumb for people to use base chain for everything- so this means the monetary use on upper layers needs to be EVEN BIGGER to drive massive settlements.

I literally said express your view however you want (near the end, if you got that far). I’m just warning of the potential consequences.

No offense, but I’m not gonna put too much stock in your price and energy projections- I’d say the same to anyone.

PV, thx for your thoughts and engagement.

But I am addressing your assumption that current settlement demand is unsustainable (too low).

Since the difficulty adjustment exists, Bitcoin hashrate will automatically adjust for any energy price / settlement demand.

The projection that (because of a supposed lack of future settlement demand) future hashing power required per block will cost more than block rewards is probably incorrect.

The difficulty adjustment prevents it.

My projection is interesting because it shows that the “never sell your Bitcoin” hoarders will incentivize hashrate through the higher energy/Bitcoin value, just like higher settlement demand will.

So I think maybe we should focus on better pay server UI for merchants and customers instead of shaming people and using fear to force them into bitcoin based spending habits.

Ultimately, in a pure monetary system miners sell bitcoin for revenue.

You’re right, the difficulty adjustment will self correct the equation.

But the game works in both directions - if there’s no block reward then they need to sell tx fees.

And if there’s no tx fees they sell whatever the fuck they have. Until network security is at risk because the difficulty adjustment went dowwwwwwnnn. This is the instability that is modeled out in the papers Peter Todd references. And is one of the main critiques of folks like Nassim Taleb and Mike Green that has yet to be answered by monetary purists.

I’m choosing to answer with action- so are others in their own way. If saying “put your money where your mouth is” can be considered shaming people then yes I’m shaming people lol.

All users should be miners and accomidations are agreed upon through consesus amongst users. P2P networks do not need to be secured by "third parties"

You should design your own blockchain! With blackjack and hookers

nostr:nprofile1qqsrppmpgpe3nckflth7xsd9e7shqc8z2vsw034mfce78uh7ela3zfspzfmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ucpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3samnwvaz7tmrdqh8qatjwpkx2un9d3shjtnrdakspyr84r

Ok fiiiiinnnneeeeee for a couple guys who's avatars look like a couple of dip-shits from Encino High you aren't has boring as you seem.

TBF you two talk a lot of shit which is a bit unnecessary. But will let you make your case for Knots. If you post a fucking link I'm out

This fuckin' guy 🤣🤣🤣 Hey, sometimes it's hard for an asshole to smell anything but shit. https://heres-a-fuckin-link.peaceout

Lol genuinely though, thanks for the good time, no actual beef on my side, your input and opinion is always valuable. Just a lil' trolling for fun. You are bein' kind of a dickhead though, I think we can all objectively agree 🤣 Keep on rockin' in the free world, bud

Upon closer examination, it seems we're all being objective dickheads 🤣🤣🤣

😁

This is always the end result lol

Must the Internet be so unfortunately predictable?

I wish I could zap this comment for Encino High lmao

😂 easily my favorite response so far 😂 genuinely gave me a chuckle

Still waiting for your guys case about "why Knots IYO"

Sorry I don't use lightning 😅

ASIC resistance being absent in bitcoin was clearly a mistake

Why don’t we worry about that potential problem if and when it actually starts trending in that direction. Let’s not change a working thing to protect against a hypothetical future that’s pretty far in the future. There’s unlimited hypothetical scenarios to defend against.

This one’s pretty easy to game out when there’s empty blocks in 2025

So game it out

If Bitcoin can't survive on natural human incentives then it isn't meant to survive. Trying to force something that isn't naturally incentive driven is fiat behavior.

“Naturally” is a strong word here

You’ve built some stupid “spend your Bitcoin” project but nobody wants to spend their Bitcoin and now you want to nudge bitcoin into a shitier state because you’ve built stupid software that nobody wants. (I assume)

How is this not bcash again?

Our project, and the Nostr marketplaces spec in general, is actually payment agnostic (though it provides options for merchants to be paid in BTC) but thanks for looking at whatever shitty website we have up right now

Omg what a dick 🤣 book sales goin' alright, bud? You seem a lil' grumpy about other people's passion projects

Surr, I’m a dick with no book sales. can you circle back to how this is not bcash?

I genuinely hope for some book sales for ya. I might snag a copy if this goes well 😂

bcash is a fork of Bitcoin. Conduit is a Nostr e-commerce platform that uses Nostr events to perform the full e-commerce stack between Seller and Shopper without any middle man. Available payment methods (to start) will be Lightning ⚡️Mainnet BTC. Toying with Stablecoins, will circle back when we’re more solid on the implementation.

Website is https://conduit.market

We’re just getting started, MVP of the platform should be ready to play with the big dogs like Shopstr, Cypher, and Plebeian in the next couple of months.

Now, will you please expand upon why you think we are anything like bcash? lol

I don’t think you’re anything like bcash. I was referring to when people had built businesses around trying to make certain changes to Bitcoin. It doesn’t seem to be the case with you guys, but I haven’t looked into it. Sorry for assuming

Well, you’re kind for following up, and I thank you for taking the time to take a look. The Internet turns this all into trolls 😂

Now, time for your shameless plug. What’s your book about? I’m sure I could find out by visiting your website, but hey, why not ask the writer himself?

Thank you

Long term, when energy is abundant and cheap; the only practical use for all excess energy globally is to mine blocks, everyone will be mining blocks just to mine blocks.

Hopefully we dont have to have the worry of very few large pools, continuing into the future, generating the block templates. That is a bigger concern imo.

Bitcoin is awesome.

Bitcoin IS awesome!

That’s a beautiful future we all hope for- but the path there matters and is not guaranteed

Bitcoin will only start to be used as money when it is tax free to use it.

It is not getting around that by putting a bunch of cat pictures on the blockchain.

The tax issue is a huge barrier right now yes I agree, but over time (if you are sat flow positive) you are still winning by a huge margin over fiat. It is also a tax benefit when it goes down…

Probably a lot of early people are waiting for a tax free scenario- but they can also have a separate batch acquired later for spending/flows and just not do FIFO with their OG stack.

It's fuck you money

Like yeah but no… Making this change to increase block space demand is dumb.

Then take action to prevent this issue from being urgent to others who depend on the network

I don’t follow what you meant Eric.

If you have morals in an open protocol back them up with action and/or don’t be surprised if someone else does

Maintaining status quo IS an action.

This feels analogous to urging the Fed to cut rates because the economy isn’t doing what politicians want.

How is encouraging people in a decentralized system to vote with their economic power analogous to encouraging a central bank to cut interest rates? You lost me

The view that policy should steer markets is my concern. Gradients drive markets-not beliefs of how things should be. There’s currently an abundance of block space relative to demand. Wanting that to be different is like wanting the economy to be different. It’s not something we can control. Trying to encourage people to spend bitcoin is very meh to me. Depending on where people are in their journey of adoption determines their willingness to spend. Gresham’s law indicates that the desire that people spend bitcoin while dollars are still readily accepted is a fool’s errand.

That’s not my view.

I’m saying people in an open protocol should express their opinion through action.

Like how people in an open market express their opinion through trading or investing. All those differences of opinions in aggregate form the “gradients” you’re referring to. We’re all active participants.

The cool thing about open systems is people can have different opinions. Mine is just one of them, and so is your “meh” opinion. It’s all part of the beautiful open system.

PV.

nostr:npub10907sxt2afl6smpps88gjvksrl99enqhey0tlharfr7crrheld3s8esah4 There is actually some very keen logic behind the thinking. Isolating the decreasing mining reward over a time curve, miners are incentivized less and less to continue their activities when there is no reward being paid out; blockchain security will inevitably dwindle without a large pool of incentivized miners forking over the flops and power to keep it secure. By utilizing the main chain as a monetary system (its intended use case), and by setting ground early for widespread adoption of main chain transactions at a large scale, we can more-greatly secure the network far into the decades to come (Inshallah) through blockspace rewards

It also doesn't require any policy-level changes, but rather a keener understanding of the network effects of certain behaviors with the monetary system, hopefully encouraging a shift in activity that could bring about a positive impact such as securing the network. Free people will do what free people do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage certain forms of activity based on wisdom, experience, and reason.

What you’re describing is technically correct, but it’s not understanding that drives economic activity. We can’t speculate on what will be the value of tx fees/tiny subsidies. If Bitcoin does what we expect, 100k sats could buy you a house in a decade. Miners would be plenty incentivized to throw hashrate at that. If you want to spend your sats, go for it; hyping people into doing the same is very meh. What if they need the savings protection more than the thing they could buy with dollars.

There’s plenty of folks who are interested in exchanging sats for goods, today, tomorrow, and for the years to come. Many folks, such as us, want to use Bitcoin for its original intended purpose: as a currency. Anyone who wants to hodl for the long term, that’s their business, and I’m sure they will benefit from it immensely, Inshallah

Saving is one of the core purposes of money. They’re all intertwined.

Totally. Does what we’re saying come across as a warning against saving?

Spending and saving our in direct competition.

You’re both right, but I want to add something. Increasing monetary density doesn’t require policy changes (like the PR being discussed), nor does it need hype campaigns to get people to spend their sats. What it really needs is a better understanding of how monetary demand works.

When regular people start spending sats, merchants begin accepting them. This triggers real-world Bitcoin adoption, which directly increases monetary demand. More demand = more NGU. This isn’t some altruistic idea, it’s pragmatic if you consider the second-order effects. As adoption grows, blockspace fills up, driving fees higher. Higher on-chain fees increase the economic density on Lightning too.

The common misconception is that spending sats means losing wealth over time. That’s not just wrong in theory, it’s wrong in practice. By finding creative ways to spend sats, people often end up accumulating more Bitcoin than they would through their regular DCA habits. Over time, this boosts their total holdings.

Plus, by spending, they support adoption, especially among merchants, who are still overwhelmingly at zero. And as monetary demand rises, NGU kicks in, just like what happened during the monetization of gold and silver. So plebs end up with more sats and those sats gain purchasing power. Since sats are finite, this also naturally encourages better spending discipline and higher savings rates.

One final point: Gresham’s Law doesn’t apply here the way people think. It refers to the circulation of coins with equal face value but different metal content - not to the fiat vs Bitcoin debate. Saying “good money won’t be spent while bad money is around” misses the mark entirely.

I think a vein of confusion or misunderstanding arose here; I’m pretty sure EricFJ and I are advocating for the very same thing you described here in this last message. I’m actually not sure what PR you’re talking about; was the the “Knots drop” that we’ve been building this sub thread about?

Shameless plug, I’m pretty sure our missions and opinions, overall, are are quite aligned. https://conduit.market

Part of the problem for those accepting payments in Bitcoin is they are not pricing whatever at a steep discount. Its like pay me 20 in Bitcoin or 20 fiat. It should be more like pay me 10 in Bitcoin or 20 in fiat. The other big hurdle is the fiat on/off ramps into Bitcoin. If the fiat on/off ramps were not such a high hurdle, more people would be willing to spend in Bitcoin.

If you use Bitcoin as money you don’t need an off-ramp

Good point. BTC only, or incentivize usage thru pricing is a good default

Bitcoin will have to copy Monero or vanish. Most people don't have the skill to look 10 years into the future. Those who can are worried about several aspects of Bitcoin.

Monero addresses both privacy and security concerns and it will soon have LN and ecash capabilities without sacrificing chain security.

The only thing left that hinders Monero from taking over is that people still do not have full trust in Monero's cryptography which is a fair point.

I think it also has a sticky mainstream marketing problem unfortunately

it also has a problem that it's market cap has not increased above its supply, just go look at the chart, who's gonna use it as a store of value? nobody who is looking for an inflation hedge

Monero is already dead in the water. Bitcoin still have chance to pull through and succeed.

What a long winded way to say you support:

1.) Asking permission concerning financial activity

2.) Unnecessary Filters

3.) Censorship

4.) Mixing Religion and Money

We get it. Thanks.

That’s what you got from that? Alrighty

TBF, what you started off saying made sense. Little pieces here and there as well. However, this was just a long winded Knots shill

I support whatever the fuck people want to do with their hardware in an open protocol- or do you think the protocol itself should be restricted not to allow this? That’s a hard fork bub

So you came to terms with being retarded. I’m happy for you.

Well if you can't think of anything constructive to say. I'll take being retarted if it triggers you 😉

Here comes the part where you're just foolish enough to say something along the lines of: "Fuck you I'll punch you in the face" to someone on the internet 😂 Am I wrong? Hope I am. You can't be happy for me or anyone else for that matter because if you were a happy person you wouldn't leave a comment like this 🤣

Peace ✌️

I might as well punch a brick wall, I’ll have better chances of achieving something worthwhile. So I’ll pass.

Use your head while you're at it. Knock some sense into ya maybe 😉🧡

Waste of time imho. But you are free to do some reading and reflection if you want to prove me wrong: https://wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/

No need. But thanks for the link nonetheless

Already have:

Knots makes bitcoin permissioned by setting a hard limit at 80 bytes and filtering out transactions which exceed that. Even if block sizes are bellow consensus and fees are paid. Luke and Mechanic think this protects the protocol from arbritary data clogging up blocks. Luke has stated many times that he believes certain transactions are "sinful" and his filters are motivated by such thoughts. FWIW, Bitvmv2 is putting data into the UTXO set not the OP Return like Casey's ordinals. Having a filter enforced limit of 80 bytes on the OP Return that filters those transactions is meaningless.

He blindly suggests (shills) that users use Knots. Hold up though going to do something will tag you in

Knots makes bitcoin permissioned by setting a hard limit at 80 bytes and filtering out transactions which exceed that. Even if block sizes are bellow consensus and fees are paid. Luke and Mechanic think this protects the protocol from arbritary data clogging up blocks. Luke has stated many times that he believes certain transactions are "sinful" and his filters are motivated by such thoughts. FWIW, Bitvmv2 is putting data into the UTXO set not the OP Return like Casey's ordinals. Having a filter enforced limit of 80 bytes on the OP Return that filters those transactions is meaningless.

That’s abosolut bonkers

…And yet Datum is the easiest way to mine JPEGs.

Learn what an open protocol is: everyone can freely express an opinion while obeying the protocol rules. No one party decides what the morals are.

I support you running Bitcoin core as well as anyone who wants to run Knots.

It’s an open protocol, babe.

Hi,I've got some exciting news for you,I can teach you how to turn your $300 into $9500 in just 4hours investing Bitcoin mining without interrupting your daily activities.

DM ME HOW FOR MORE INFO: 📞

WHATSAPP: +1 (818) 463‑4473

Email:

christineduff300@gmail.com

Telegram Username: christine4219

nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpqcejyy8zr090z8ez3x9zpsqgupwtcqw5pk5vcrjc9m0n047q9ga2suxs4e3

Peter Todd thinks Austrian Economists like Mises and Rothbard are wrong and money/Bitcoin can’t function long term without tail emissions/inflation. He’s not stupid. He’s economically illiterate, arrogant and pretty far off his field of expertise. Just because you’re brilliant in one field, doesn’t make you competent in all others.

Mises et al never had a model for Bitcoin or the related technologies, and the associated incentives in maintaining that decentralized system. They had no idea about miners, block rewards, nodes, etc.

Austrian is great aspirationally, obviously I’m all about it, but even Mises admitted towards the end of his life that economics couldn’t perfectly model human action in dynamic systems. Bitcoin might not only represent a monetary good… it’s an evolving network secured by incentives that no classical Austrian ever had a framework for. We’re in new territory.

That’s where both of you are wrong. Rothbard even theorized about a scenario in which gold had a hard-capped supply and explained why it would still work as money. I’ve highlighted the parts directly correlated with some of Bitcoin’s (the protocol) properties to show you that although they couldn’t have predicted the shape or form in which Bitcoin would emerge, they totally had a theoretical framework for it.

While I appreciate the share and references, I think you’re assuming I’m arguing for tail emissions / supply inflation being a necessary economic condition- which I am not.

Please do me a favor: take a breath and read what I’m actually writing.

I’m saying the original Austrians did not, and could not have, predicted the dynamics of mining, diminishing block rewards, fee markets, network security, etc. The security of the fixed money supplies they theorized about was never in question. In Bitcoin these are major REAL LIFE system design concerns that need to be addressed for the THEORY to be valid. This is the paradox: Austrian is IDEAL but how do we practically achieve it without tradeoffs? We can strive towards it, and we may never fully achieve it, but I will remain naively hopeful and build towards it.

In the meantime, I support the openness of the protocol for people to express their views. Austrian or otherwise. I may not like some of them, so I build, support and evangelize the ones I do. But not dogmatically.

I did read what you wrote. Carefully. And what you’re doing is framing economic truth as aspirational instead of foundational.

You’re not explicitly calling for inflation, but you’re implying that the system may require changes to remain secure. That’s functionally the same intellectual position Peter Todd holds: that the protocol might need economic compromise to remain viable. And that’s where I draw the line. Austrian economics doesn’t just give us an ideal, it gives us a framework for what happens when you tamper with monetary foundations. For me it’s pretty obvious Satoshi designed that system around that framework and it’s been working pretty solid for more than decade.

The “paradox” you describe isn’t a paradox at all. It’s a misunderstanding of what money is. Rothbard made it clear: if the supply is fixed and demand rises, the purchasing power of each unit rises. That’s not a problem - that’s how sound money works. Whether miners are securing blocks or caravans doesn’t change that. The only thing that changes is your trust in incentives - which, by the way, emerge from human action, not protocol design. Austrians have that covered.

You keep saying “we’re in new territory,” but that’s just techno-mysticism. New tech doesn’t invalidate old truths. The scarcity of Bitcoin, the subjective valuation by its users, and the market-driven fee structure are all exactly the kind of emergent order Austrian theory predicts. The fact that it’s working despite these concerns validates the theory, not the other way around.

Finally, about openness: sure, people are free to experiment and opine, but don’t confuse that freedom with legitimacy. Not every protocol-level change is just a harmless “view.” Some ideas aren’t just bad; they’re economically incoherent and directly undermine what makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place.

You don’t need to be dogmatic to recognize that some roads lead straight back to fiat thinking. And the essential thing about Todd’s PR is directly undermining the purpose of Bitcoin, creating second order effects that can be modelled fairly easily. I don’t know what to make of him. I know for a fact he’s economically illiterate, but is he proposing this from a place of ignorance or a place of malice? I can’t say. His history and old statements don’t exclude the latter.

-there’s no such thing as economic truth, feel free to quote me on that

-I’m not saying the system needs to change, but rather that the people who care about it should actually use it. I am taking action to keep the system the way it is and use it as originally intended, not just sitting and circlejerking theory while others abuse it. That was the whole point of my post: put action behind beliefs.

-I’m misunderstanding money? You’re misunderstanding Bitcoin. It’s not a magic Austrian lamp that generates perfect currency- it’s a computer network built and maintained by humans with competing incentives. It’s the most impressive one ever built- but not invulnerable to attack. Like in the previous “war” people need to step up and fight for their beliefs. I like it as a monetary protocol, so do you- let’s do something about it.

Here’s an economic truth, that I don’t think you will disagree with: humans act with intention to achieve desired ends using chosen means. You said it yourself but with more words. There, I rest my case.

Hard to disagree there either lol nice

Here’s a less saucy reply assisted by my own LLM, for what it’s worth:

For me, the key distinction here is that Bitcoin isn’t a pure economic theory — it’s an engineering implementation influenced by economic theory. That makes it inherently experimental. Protocol rules, network incentives, user behaviors — they’re all interacting in a real-world, adversarial environment.

I’m not saying Austrian insights aren’t valuable; they clearly informed Bitcoin’s design. But theory doesn’t equal guaranteed outcomes. A perfect theory doesn’t automatically lead to sustainable system dynamics. Human usage matters. Incentives matter. Behavior matters.

That’s why I keep emphasizing action: if we want Bitcoin to function as a monetary protocol long term, it has to be actively used that way — not just preserved as an ideal or a vault. Otherwise, fee markets won’t develop sufficiently to replace diminishing rewards. That’s not a moral argument or a policy recommendation; it’s just a practical observation about current dynamics.

I’m not calling for protocol changes, and I’m not advocating inflation. I’m advocating for participation aligned with the system’s goals, recognizing that usage is part of security. If we believe in Bitcoin’s monetary properties, let’s embody that belief through use.

To me, that’s not rejecting economic principles — it’s engaging with them through action.

Well I can’t really disagree with your LLM so it’s all good 👍

I am genuinely surprised at how much hate this thread is getting. I haven't seen a single actually-intelligent counter-argument, but a lot of shitposting. An excellent sign that you're on the right track nostr:npub10xvczstpwsljy7gqd2cselvrh5e6mlerep09m8gff87avru0ryqsg2g437

It also got zapped and reposted a lot 🤙🏼

I’m not hating this thread. I mostly agree with what is saying and if you browse my profile a bit you’ll see that I advocate for the same things: spending Bitcoin, not just hodling, to create additional monetary demand. What I don’t agree is the naive assumption Lopp and Peter Todd are not stupid (more like economically illiterate) or they acting in a non-malicious way.

But why ? If it is going to increase in value WHY WOULD I SPEND IT ??? do you really think I am that dumb even though I am a normie :-) ????

I would spend the thing that is going to lose value .. #dollar bills ..

Quite rational

That is exactly why , currency always supposed to lose value ..

The downside is if you print like China does ( three times M2 compared to US ) , then you are forced to enact social systems to support the poor who never transfer fiat into assets .. cuz they are priced out .. or KYCed out .. #bitcoin is apex asset cuz it fixes that .. IT is not a medium of exchange..it is most liquid asset .. it is like mercury if you want to compare it to gold :-)

If it doesn’t also get used as a medium of exchange there’s gonna continue to be a massive wealth gap, probably even worse than before.

Wealth gap is not bad in itself .. cuz it is not abject poverty ! .. goal is to pull people out of poverty ..not make rich poor ! ..

Bitcoin does make rich ultra rich .. but it is good cuz it opens the doors to best asset class to every pleb .. I can stack sats ( lightning) without KYC , without minimum threshold and practically at zero txn cost ..

In other words ..Bitcoin is NOT socialism .. it is better capitalism cuz it opens up participation to every one with a smart phone ..

Most people are poor cuz they can't participate in capitalism.. they are barriered out

Expand your view of capitalism to more forms of capital than money

I’m not trying to make the rich poor.

Massive wealth gaps indicate inefficient use of capital (inclusive of all 9 forms of capital, not just money).

Yes it’s the best we have right now.

Yes .. that is a problem .. but #bitcoin doesn't fix that ..

You need a different tool for that .. may be spirituality :-)

Bitcoin is destined to be most liquid , most accessible , most open monetary network for the POOR .. to cast capitalism across the last village .. .. it needs greedy and super ultra rich .. 🤑🤑🤑

Not a medium of exchange .. a store of value for poor. .. Devs who help improve the monetary network will win .. those who try to use it for any other purpose .. or distort the usecase .. would perish ..

In other words .. #Bitcoin is UBI :-) ..

I don’t think we’re going to agree on the medium of exchange part.

But we agree on most other things, particularly “devs who help improve the monetary network will win”.

But you did .. right in your second comment .. you said rational 😂 ..

We normies have a uncanny ability to smell value .. you know we switch from Netflix as soon as the price goes up .. but we join back as soon as they lower it with ad supported .. we go across isles of physical stores to find the cheapest value bread .. and milk ..

We know sats are precious .. we are NOT spending them unless someone points a 🔫 :-)

All the devs , who are plotting to destroy this impeccable asset class provisioned by pure divinity .. would meet dust :-)

Because it will collapse if it is not being used. Then there is no NGU anymore.

Totally agree on NGU part .. number must go up .. but it doesn't if you treat it as currency .. cuz then number must go down :-)

The point here is to treat #Sats as fixed deposit .. and currency ( stables or physical ) as checking account ..

You would always transact from your checking .. and hold Fixed deposit as long as you possibly can ...

What bitcoin offers is this unprecedented opportunity.. I can open a Fixed Deposit without a bank account , without KYC , and without having to go to a physical branch , for as low as a fraction of dollar with practically zero fees .. this is the KILLER APP .. not buying coffee with bitcoin ..

Plebs can "stack sats " only if rich " never sell their bitcoin " .. that is all there to it ..

Stack #Sats

Never sell you #bitcoin

The purpose is primed .. locked and narrative is already out there .. no education needed .. you can't change it even if you wish ..besides it is already on best path .. 🙏

The problem is many devs don't see it cuz they are too close .. when you see it from a normie pair of eyes ..you realize how big opportunity is this .. like having a social ( nostr ) account , that doubles up as your fixed deposit ..

.. never in the history of mankind this happed except once before .. when Lord Krishna wore Gold Jewellery.. social appeal of gold + the never diminishing wealth .. nostr and bitcoin is same idea on steroids !

Never sell is the ultimate retardation

Yes .. if taken literally :-) ..

It means hodl as long as you can ..

This way, no infrastructure is built to spend bitcoin natively. Nobody accepts it as payment method.

Then the banks still control the on and offramps - and nothing changes.

Except that you save your value on a transparent ledger where the state knows your wallet - and your home address.

It is absolutely retarded.

Why infrastructure not built ? .. I am going to transfer my fixed deposit to kids .. may be to friends .. !

An asset is network .. bitcoin is the best network cuz I can transfer VALUE ..

But I don't need to do it for buying bread !

Btw .. ask yourself ..how the number has gone to 100 K with literally no acceptance of bitcoin as payments means ..

See the reality .. truth is right in front of you .. normies want to hodl bitcoin ..

#Bitcoin is literally the value transfer network .. using it for payments is stupid AF !

Particularly when I get free credit cards with 30 days of credit ! .. Do you really think a normie is so dumb 😭😭😭 .. we smell value .. we are value rats 😅

Fully agree with you. But i also do not use BTC as money anymore, it just sucks as money, big time. Lightning also sucks big time when you use it self hosted, channel management etc.

Monero is so much better as money, BTC has no chance if it does not evolve. There is no advantage of using BTC as money. Only downsides.

Sad but thats the reality.