“If bitcoin just ends up being digital gold, then it has failed” 💯
nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m nostr:npub1s05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sq6eyhe https://video.nostr.build/c5bb407bf5ee7d9d8a52bca0b5210b6d93342be6eb04c6f9e8301febf3568181.mp4
He looks good 😳
I disagree. Transacting is great, useful, and necessary, but protecting savings from debasement is crucial too. It wouldn't have been a total failure; it just seems like a first step on the way toward developing other layers.
So many people choose to ignore this aspect. To me, it is the FUNDAMENTAL reason why Bitcoin was created.
Many are unprepared to let it go if it fails in that respect.
Satoshi invented it to be a currency. it ended up as a commodity. period.
The Bitcoin white paper does not contain the word currency. Period
NGU gives bitcoin relevance - like it or not
Relevance will increase users
Users will diversify over time into multiple use cases
It’s working
Doesn’t the permissionless part infer there is no end state of what we consider this thing is? Always evolving.
Do you think jack paid extra for the tattered hat?
We are zapping. If you host your own lightning address: amazing. If you know the dude or chick who hosts your lightning address: very cool. If you use npub.cash, 1a. If you are on Wallet of Satoshi: it's a start. One step at a time on low time pref.
What is this on?
This is simply a fundemental misunderstanding of money. "Cash" is currency. Currency does not have final settlement. Currency is a coupon backed by money. Bitcoin is money not a currency. Lightning is a currency. Money scales in Layers, layer 1 is the asset, layer 2 is a coupon backed by layer 1, layer 3 is credit backed by layer 2.
Bitcoin being digital gold is not going to price anyone out. It simply sets the ruler by which value is measured. Having a currency that can't keep up with market velocity LITERALLY means the currency has failed. And if nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgsprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqc267ea thinks approximately 5000 transactions max per 10 minutes can make the world run he is either ignorant or naïve. Please read some books on Austrian schools of thoughts on economics. Particularly surrounding sound money.
That’s not what I hear him saying.
I hear him saying that if the base layer remains untainted but the higher layers (2/3) are all gate kept and captured than we basically have the gold standard from 1870-1970 (modern times).
An immutably, thermodynamically hard monetary asset controllable by “the state”. Like gold.
May still be the largest transfer of wealth in human history but once the dust settles, nothing will have changed systemically.
As a species we stay in the same place. And die a horrible technocratic death.
I’m with Jack. I’ll give my last sat to see Bitcoin (and humanity) fulfil its true destiny.
This is the hill I’M willing to die on.
You do YOU.
It just isn't the same, that's kind of my point. With gold you HAD to have a warehouse to issue currency. If you can run a BTC node, you can run a Lightning Node. A federal model (local-regional-national-global) of lightning nodes makes "state control" irrelevant. I admire the will, but it is better applied creating lightning channels to facilitate commerce that to try to somehow shove liquidity and velocity onto Layer 1.
Who is suggesting shoving more liquidity and velocity on Layer 1?
That's what peer 2 peer cash means... Enough liquidity and velocity for the market to use. Listen to the video again.
I don’t think that implies all on layer 1….
Ask him 😉
Listen, I don't really want to do the whole semantics thing. Layer 2 is definitionally not Bitcoin. Just like dollars prior to 1971 were not gold. So, Yes, BY DEFINITION he is saying that Bitcoin (layer 1) needs more liquidity and velocity.
You seem angry….hard to communicate.
Be well brotha. 🙏🏻
I'm not angry. I like to be truthful and correct. I don't appreciate when others use falshoods or misinterpretations to make their point. I hope you are well too.
This is why I respectfully disagree with your interpretation and why I (personally) consider Lightening to be actual Bitcoin. Technically…..(see attachment below)
More to the point, this is why most definitely @jack was not pushing to “shove more liquidity and velocity” onto Layer 1.
He (and I and most others I know in Bitcoin) consider payments made in lightening to be the same P2P value transfer as layer 1.
If you don’t, that’s your perspective. But (back to the original point) he was most definitely not arguing for “more liquidity and velocity” on layer 1. So I fail to see the “falsehood and misinterpretation” as you accused.
Otherwise he would be a B Cash’er!!!
😝😝😝
Peace ✌️
"If it (bitcoin) ends up being a currency that people use in their every day life..." Bitcoin is distinct from lightning becuase the smart contract can be revoked if the one party cheats. This is not true on the base chain. The misinterpretation is that he is mentioning lightning, without mentioning it. And the falshood is that an asset and a currency are interchangeable and not distinct. Lightning "settlement" must be verified on base chain or it isn't valid. So use all the emojis you'd like, you are inferring something that wasn't said in this clip. And are absolutely incorrect about lightning.
By revoked you mean lost or stolen?
Not stolen, but certainly one party loses their claim to their side of the channel. The revocation secret sides the channel to the victim. Either you cheat, and your counterparty produces a valid revocation secret. Or the counterparty is offline and they lose their side of the channel, at least partially, absent a watchtower node.
To be fair, JackTheMimic, this is only a sub-minute clip taken out of its full context, and overlaid with your assumptions that he is referring to changing the baselayer. That is not said in the video. I will agree with you that all of the above is indeed semantics however.
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.
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.
I think we agree on 99 percent of this. From a classification standpoint. But calling lightening purely a “coupon” BACKED by BTC/layer 1 is going too far, IMO.
Its actual bitcoin in a smart contract that can be self custodied and unilaterally reverted back to main chain UTXO custody baring some wildly aberrant event.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion, since it has provided me the opportunity to reflect and learn. The major reason I LOVE this community and journey down the rabbit hole.
So thank you! 🙏🏻
PS
Back to the top, I still think Jack was not advocating for more liquidity and velocity on main chain.
He was taking issue about a growing group on wall st in US (eg MSTR, Blackrock, others) that are explicitly advocating for BTC to remain JUST a pristine digital asset. Actively trying to block layer2/3 and circular economies from developing.
In that case I agree with him. If this doesn’t become our new global system and therefore seperate money from state for the first time in history, I think we are fucked as a civilisation.
Just my 2 cents.
Have to agree with Chris here. Some would say, myself included, that Lighting is Bitcoin because it is directly tied to UTXOs. I also don’t think Dorsey is advocating for changes to blocksize, and even if he was, incredibly unlikely to mean or amount to any protocol changes. I don’t know 100% - but am pretty confident here.
Yeah, and dollars were directly tied to ounces of gold... AGAIN, I am not saying he wants to change the protocol, you implied that.
Lightning is a coupon system derived from UTXOs but they are not the same thing. It is also not a semantic difference either. It is fundamentally different because lightning bitcoin is created and destroyed with each channel open and close. It is also bound to the revocation rules applied to channel states. So, not some irrelevant difference.
Valid point.
But I don’t think it all neatly fits in the Austrian School definitions. Lightening strikes me as far more of an “asset” than typical layer 2 on fiat.
Once again. Just my 2 cents.
True, the closest the Austrian school got to bitcoin was Hayek's quote: “I don’t believe we shall ever have good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.”
Really prescient prediction.
You may be right. But non of this, I believe, is the essence or spirit of what Jack D intended to mean. So while factually what you are sayin re: lighting may be true; it is possible that what is so confusing here in this thread is your misinterpretation of what he is trying to say.
There's nothing to say that digital gold can't be P2P cash just because analogue gold failed at it.
Bitcoin can be used as a SoV & a MoE, they're not mutually exclusive.
I don't know why so many Bitcoiners are so against NGU. So many problems?
He’s NOT against NGU. He’s saying, if it’s NGU ONLY, it’s failed.
NGU is a necessary feature.
Gotcha.
I think I was venting a bit & that was unfair.
People seem to think that Bitcoin NGU makes it less useful to the masses. That we should somehow prevent the nation state game theory from playing out.
I screenshot this as not to retype (boomer 🤪)
It’s my take on why SoV ALONE will be a disaster for humanity.
Hope it resonates.
FWIW, Jeff Booth is much more eloquent at laying it out. I’m just an old bond salesman….😉
Monero is digital cash. Because more people can actually privately own UTXOs. In Bitcoin that will always be limited to UHNWI, large corporations, governments and custodians.
It's not a failure as it preserves the decentralisation as a store of value. It's a failure because it can not for this (and the lack of fungibility) work as money. As much as we love L2 and L3 projects they only derive its qualities from L1.
The only thing Bitcoin maxis show when they shit on Monero and ridicule Bitcoin OGs (the real ones 2009-2012) is that they haven't understood money yet.
Bitcoin as a SoV is close to take the role of gold. But for money you'll need Monero or enjoy the diverse range of social credit projects built by Coinbase and others thanks to limiter onchain capacity (need for custodians and KYC) and lack of privacy features (that make every coin interchangeable/ fungible).
Monero is hot potato money
Listened to this today and it kind of landed in me in a sobering way. It's been with me all day and just kinda trying to energetically digest the essence of what nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgsprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqc267ea is saying.
The way I was translating it to myself is there is this inherent optimism it seems in the Bitcoin maxi space and #bitcoinfixesthis about everything. And it's awaken enthusiasm and hope for the future for myself as well. And this felt like a somber message translating to something like "I am gonna rain on your parade cos this battle is not won. Don't be celebrating prematurely putting the cart before the horse. Put your head down and get to work and build".
I may be totally off though. 🤷🏻♀️
A lot of people are happy to be able to save in something that isn't being debased, Jack. Let's count our blessings. IF we manage to use it for payments as well on a global scale for everyone, fantastic! I wouldn't say we would need to move on to something else. 
Intersting.... wonder who that “cAPSLOCK” character is throwing out the merits on that post back in the day. 😜
This is hard for people to understand. Bitcoin HAS TO scale on layers. Not only does this mean it scales but it gives humanity the power of choosing different competing models. Lightning, liquid, chaumian ecash, banks, sidechains, drivechains, atomic swaps with things like XMR (aww my maxi card revoked? pfft. Keep it.).
As Hal said, some fractional even? Some wholly backed. Some custodial? Some fully sovereign.
Even, yes, on the base layer.
Trade offs. Trade offs. All the way down.
I hold my keys. I run my nodes.
Always have. Always will.
The revolution is not that you HAVE TO. Its that you CAN.
Legend🤝
👀
⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
To me as an early adopter of Bitcoin the failing has been in the making for years. It's just getting clearer.
Monero or tyranny it is.
Already failed 🫣🙈
Bitcoin fungibility - Error 404 not found 🤭
If bitcoin isn’t fungible then neither is cash by same logic since it has SNs.
You can't trace by what hands cash pass, you can only trace who withdraw it and who deposit, sounds the same that knowing every wallet that bitcoin passed? 👀
My point is you guys change the definition to suit your narrative. There is no mention of traceability in the definition of fungibility if you use monero ppls definitions nothing else other than monero that exists is fungible.
We don't change the defenition to suit narrative, we talk about pratical use cases of the tools we have available, and yes technicly cash is not fungible, but as you can't trace it's use it has fungibility capacities.
Not only Monero is fungible, there are more options, you just have to pay attention and you find them.
And have options for every tastes, you can have a fixed cap private option if that matters to you for exemple wownero.
You can have blockchains to do private smartcontracts like BEAM, you have many options.
But you fall for the narrative that every coin that isnt bitcoin is a shitcoin and you even try to check by yourself why that narrative was constructed.
Also bitcoin could have privacy propreties, and could have dynamic blocks or bigger blocks like satoshi has envisioned to scale, but who knows why core devs and the "community" don't want it.
Put your brain to work and go find by yourself the answers you have and don't be attached to that kind of little things as you mention like the cash non fungibility.
And remeber "Don't Trust, Verify" 😉
My point is be consistent. You are stating that only certain cryptos are fungible when in fact many things are fungible before the existence of crypto. So you have moved the goal posts for fungibility. If in fact fungible is a matter of degrees then where is the line between fungible and non fungible?
If you want to say Bitcoin is traceable just say that we already know it’s a public ledger.
I have stated many times Monero is the only other coin I don’t consider a shitcoin. So I don’t really care what other Bitcoiners say.
Will we see btc capital gains taxes abolished in the United States? It doesn’t align with government incentives. This is one way btc is being neutered.
All tax (theft) must be abolished but yeah we can start with that
Sounds like you are ready for Monero.
