Replying to Avatar Tauri

With every argument you keep proving to me that you fundamentally misunderstand what money is, despite having written an entire book on the subject. Bitcoin is not “just a ledger,” as you’ve claimed in the past. Bitcoin is a monetary good, a decentralized payment network, and a censorship-resistant currency all in one. It’s a full-stack monetary system, not a spreadsheet.

From economics perspective, money emerges from the market as the most saleable good. Bitcoin fits this because it optimizes for scarcity, verifiability, and portability. Turning the blockchain into a dumpster for arbitrary data directly contradicts these foundational principles. It bloats the system, undermines its monetary utility, and creates financial friction for actual users.

Bitcoin *is* the most spam-prone system in the world. That’s the price of having no centralized party to manage or steer usage. And that’s exactly why its culture has always been hostile toward non-monetary use of the blockchain. Every byte of nonsense stuffed into blocks competes with real monetary transactions, increasing fees *unnecessarily*, straining bandwidth, and degrading node accessibility. That is not neutrality, it is misallocation and *abuse*.

This isn’t a technical debate, it’s an economic one. Austrian economics warns about malinvestment (capital being misallocated due to distorted incentives). JPEGs, tokens and other data on Bitcoin are a textbook examples of that. They waste block space, misalign incentives, and sabotage the very foundation that gives Bitcoin value: its usability as money and its decentralization.

If you make it expensive or difficult to run a node, you centralize validation. Most miners don’t run full nodes or create their own block templates. They outsource that to a handful of mining pools, most of whom are already flirting with KYC and OFAC. You let guys like that dictate consensus and the 21M becomes meaningless. That’s how Bitcoin dies. Not with a bang, but with friction, complexity, creeping node centralization and ruined culture.

Your current stance is pure cope. It betrays a deep ignorance of the very economic principles you claim to understand. Bitcoin is money. Everything that weakens its monetary properties weakens the entire value proposition. As a prominent influencer loved by many Bitcoiners you should do better.

I read both posts twice and I’m honestly not getting where you think she argued Bitcoin was a generic database, even though that’s the position you seem to be debating.

Her claim on the book is that *money* is a ledger system. And it is, but that also isn’t a claim that it’s a generic database. Her logic is going the other direction, not claiming what can or ought to be written on or even what that “ledger” look like, only that successful money is able to behave as a ledger system, both physical and digital forms.

I feel like half these comments aren’t responding to the specific content of the original note.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Lyn‘s note, and I paraphrase, says that we shouldn’t fight for purity because Bitcoin can withstand JPEGs. Strange perspective. I would say, always do the right thing and stand up for it. Also, Lyn argues Bitcoin is an investment, and that she will „sell“ a portion of hers back to fiat at $150,000/Btc. I would say, Bitcoin is money, a savings and a parallel system….

Come on Guy, you’re smarter than this. I know she’s your friend, but that’s not what I’m arguing about.

If money is a ledger, what is the unit in which entries on that ledger are recorded? Without a meaningful, salable monetary good, the ledger is just empty math - a glorified spreadsheet with no market value.

She wrote a 400-page book on money, defined it in a way that borders on trivial, and somehow didn’t cite Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe even once. I mean, what? That alone tells me her grasp of monetary theory is shallow at best. She treats money like a tech abstraction, ignoring the deep economic roots that give it value.

And then there’s the claim: “Scribbling on USD doesn’t ruin USD, so it doesn’t ruin Bitcoin either.” That’s not just wrong, it’s embarrassingly naive. It confuses physical defacement with systemic degradation.

When you scribble on a dollar bill, you’re not harming the monetary system. You’re just defacing a piece of paper that can be easily replaced. The dollar’s infrastructure, banking networks, clearing systems, the Fed, remains fully intact.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is its infrastructure. The timechain is the monetary system. When you cram it with JPEGs, meme tokens, and non-monetary junk, you’re not scribbling on the surface, you’re polluting the foundation. That’s permanent economic friction. And in Bitcoin, economic friction becomes consensus risk over time.

Every non-monetary use dilutes Bitcoin’s function as money. Thanks to mining centralisation that you’re well aware of, the censorship resistance is not a set in stone guarantee anymore. If you degrade the monetary premium, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value, beyond its network effects, is mostly gone.

Take silver vs. gold: silver is more “useful” as a base metal, but gold dominates as monetary commodity because it’s better suited to store value. Same logic applies here. Bitcoin’s strength is in doing one thing better than anything else: being incorruptible, decentralized money. That’s what gives it staying power.

So yes, there’s a direct correlation between “scribbling on Bitcoin” and ruining it as money. The only question is: how much scribbling does it take to ruin the system over the long haul?

P.S. I never said that she claim Bitcoin to be a general database.

"If money is a ledger, what is the unit in which entries on that ledger are recorded?"

Sounds like you read someone else talk about the book rather than read the actual book yourself. But you do you.

Yes, and we both know why you never answered any of the questions of the guy in question. But you do you.

P.S. this particular page you’ve shown doesn’t fill me with excitement about the book either.

Well let me know your feedback about the book if you ever do read it.

Otherwise, you're talking about a book you haven't read. Doesn't seem like a great use of time, but please continue.

I doubt I will. As you said, not great use of time. But aside from talking about your book, I’m open to discuss the nuances of the spam on Bitcoin and its long term implications.

Oof! Criticizing her book that you haven't even read. Damn! 😂😂

I’ve read enough of it to form a opinion. And I’ve got a pretty extensive library of books on economics and money that I can use for reference when reading bits and pieces of someone’s work. It’s kinda the reason why books have synopsises to see if you want to bother reading the whole thing or skip it entirely.

you very obviously haven't read enough of it to form an opinion.

Yep.