Nostr Web Client

Not really. Man couldn’t break gold. It was when man created a virtual economy that existed a layer above the physical (paper notes and redemption certs) that were simply vulnerable to the most basic form of lie/fraud. It was simply a technology with no really monetary attributes, it only impersonated real money.

The whole point is to create a digital money that *actually* has monetary attributes inherent to its design. It’s not that man corrupted money, it’s that man created an environment where natural money didn’t exist, and we had to invent it in order to get past a massive flaw that was holding us back from real economic communication to stop the astronomical misallocation caused by the breakdown of value transfer.

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

This is a far more nuanced argument. I like it. It's more in line with what i think Bitcoiners should be saying and claiming.

Bitcoin is the *first* sound money to exist. Even gold was not sound money.

People like Matt Kratter remind us of this.

We will hopefully come up with better terms and memes than "sound money" and comparisons with gold, or trying to replicate gold (which has along with silver always been centralized).These fiscally conservative memes carry a ton of baggage, especially in the american context.

Bitcoin is something new, and its long term affects are unknown.

You take the strong position for its net positive affects on everything from housing to, morality, to mental existentialism. I simply take a less strong position, skewed towards a preference for your type of optimism. Call it tempered bitcoin optimism.

Fiat did some good things, it did a lot of bad things. The american space program relied on fiat debt and credit promises. So did vietnam.

Bitcoin doing better than fiat for civilization, that is: your strong case for bitcoin optimism, remains to be proven.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.