GOOD AFTERNOON NOSTR!
GOOD MORNING US-NOSTR!
It was true before block 840,000
It will be true way after block 840,000
Note it, remember it, live it.
Runes come and go. Digital scarcity just is.
Discussion
of course it is. . . . all math is discovered isnt it?
Mathematical theorems are discovered
This does not imply that every mathematical abstraction is a discovery rather than invention
Was FM radio invented or discovered?
After all it's just math and physics
lets stay polite pls.
I did not imply anything about abstractions and blah blah blah. but will clarify my views at end of note. First though if you are gonna be snarky then pick better topic than FM.
Edwin Armstrong himself said he discovered it through experimentation and insight. So if the guy with patent says FM was discovery then you can argue with his estate about that not me.
for the record though, as far as i am concerned, invention is a silly term. too much ego kids. Remixing ideas, concepts and syntax to reveal novel emergent information or perspective is not creation. You didnt create the language, the base reality concepts or the societal concepts that bind it all together. Science is awesome because it is systematic observation, hypothesis and discovery. Invention is a mirage.
Invention is an ego word not reality. fren
Radio waves were discovered
The possibility of FM Radio was discovered
The actual apparatus, channels, and so on was invented
98.1 "The Rock" was invented and not discovered
Similarly, the possibility of using a cryptographic public ledger to verify transaction events was discovered and not invented, but the particular public ledgers and particular methods of using this technology were invented, including Bitcoin
you are moving the goal post. I said math is discovered. you are broadening the scope. However, even in doing so you are making my point. What you call an invention i call an emergent method. The set of ideas and connections that become apparent once discovery made guides the mind to the method. The discovery is the root.
My point is that Bitcoin (a specific ledger with a specific number of units and a specific schedule of issuance) was invented, could easily have been invented differently, and thus is not truly scarce.
I can make Bitcoin 2.0 which takes the exact same source code but only ever issues 100,000 units.
Should my Bitcoin 2.0 be worth 210 times as much as your Bitcoin 1.0? It's 210 times as scarce but with the exact same properties
P.s. I dont mind snark but you gotta come harder at me and promise not to get mad if it doesnt go well for your argument. You are one of the few on here that it may be worth having this discussion with lol
This is nonsense
That mathematical theorems are discovered does not imply that every mathematical abstraction is a discovery rather than invention
What property of the natural numbers led to the supply cap of Bitcoin at 21 million units? What quirk of computational theory led to the halving schedule?
nostr:npub1jt97tpsul3fp8hvf7zn0vzzysmu9umcrel4hpgflg4vnsytyxwuqt8la9y you wanna deal with this one? lol
i think you purposefully missed the point: once you are conscious of the fact "number goes up, we can get rich from a new token" you cannot reproduce what Satoshi did, because he did it and it almost accidentally "just worked"
You linger on the word mathematical for some bizarre reason...
I can reproduce what Satoshi did quite easily - the source code is not even secret