Replying to Avatar Laeserin

You are discounting the fact that Bitcoin is a money that competes against other monies, so the people who hold it and produce it have an incentive to keep it the best money. Why would someone destroy the value-proposition of their own product, when the value of that product is set to go up forever?

Under duress? This would produce obvious nonsense and we would hard-fork away and continue on, without them.
Avatar
L0la L33tz 1y ago

We are talking about two very different concepts here.

In the arguments I am making, I am referring to the success of Bitcoin as the success of a censorship resistant monetary technology, while you seem to be referring to the success of Bitcoin as an arbitrary Dollar number.

I would argue that the majority of Bitcoin holders don't really care about censorship resistance at this point, they care about the Dollar value – meaning that changes undermining Bitcoin's censorship resistance would likely be little opposed by economic actors (many have in fact already spoken out in favor of things like sanctions), therefore *not* reducing the price of BTC.

Your argument therefore should actually go the other way around:

Why should someone decide _against_ keeping their money on the dominant value chain to protect censorship resistance, when a fixed market cap – not censorship resistance – is considered BTC's value proposition by the majority of economic nodes?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Laeserin 1y ago

No, my argument was the right way around. If they care about the dollar value of the money they produce (which they obviously do, otherwise they would not sell it), then they should care about the destruction of the use cases that make the money attractive to those who hold it.

They don't have to personally care, they just have to worry that we care. Even if only a subset of us abandoned their efforts, the dollar purchasing power of their money would quickly collapse.

Avatar
L0la L33tz 1y ago

Conceptually, yes.

Practically, unless you want to suggest that your node does the same volume as coinbase, no one is going to care what you think, unfortunately.

Avatar
🐉AT ₿01 1y ago

The content you generate is consistently terrible

Avatar
Laeserin 1y ago

Anything that became known as "Coinbase Pseudodollars" would lead to a hard fork. Why would anyone, who is using Bitcoin to diversify away from the USD, then stick with the USD fork?

A Bitcoin that is US government controlled has no value proposition. It's just eDollars. Fedcoin.

Avatar
minestr.app 1y ago

That makes more sense, then. I didn't catch on that you were talking about changes in censorship resistance. I agree these are less likely to be opposed than ones that affect other monetary properties. You should make it clear that it was you're referring to because it seems there is some confusion around it 👍

ed
ede3d957... 1y ago

Those Bitcoiners caring about censorship resistant money, left for Monero. Bitcoin is now about NGU.

Avatar
Shadowy Badger 1y ago

True to a large extent. And unfortunate that xmr is NGD