Again, the implication is that he doesn't want Bitcoin to be digital gold. I didn't say pushing changes to the base layer, that was chris there. "Shoving liquidity and velocity onto the base layer" is not a change. It is using it in a manner in which it wasn't designed.
Discussion
It’s not an implication if he explicitly says it. Again, to echo Chris, it seems to me he is saying he doesn’t want scalability captured by ETFs, and custodian-only scaling solutions. Because that would be a recreation of the gold standard. In other words, more open source development, like Lightning, which scales Bitcoin globally.
Cool, I'm glad we all agree while somehow hearing "I don't want bitcoin to become digital gold" and I vehemently disagree because I don't see that as a preclusion of a currency layer like lightning, it is IMPLIED by the way money functions, which was what I was saying.
You can't literally say "I don't want bitcoin to behave like money" then imply that you want the proliferation of a currency backed by bitcoin thereby treating it like digital gold.
That is my contention.
Okay that’s totally fair enough, yes Bitcoin on it’s path to ubiquity will function much like digital gold. Jack (and Chris and I) are making, I believe, the point that this is bigger than money. Bigger than a recreation of nation state, scarcity dynamics. Thoughts?
I think everything is downstream from money. The incentives of human action are predicated on how a man may provide for himself and family. Given the inefficiency of barter money is the only way we can organize our efforts to cooperate rather than kill each other. The technical limitations of money is what creates the perverse incentives we see today in MSTR, wall street, and the like. The state trying to cling to a money they can't control (because the state doesn't produce anything) is the last death throes of a destructive and inefficient system.