People's problem is thinking Bitcoin is the answer.

Bitcoin is a proof-of-concept.

Yes, you read that right. The hardest money on earth is just a proof of concept.

It proves that we can be in control of currencies without middlemen such as governments and banks.

Does that mean Bitcoin can't become the world's only money? No, it could. It's just not what people really desire.

Does that mean we'll never see "The Bitcoin Standard"? Yes.

If you believe in "The Bitcoin Standard" then you must realize it was decided in 2009 that there would be a standard at all. Bitcoin created the standard. Other cryptocurrencies attempt to set new standards. No one has replaced "The Bitcoin Standard" yet.

Always be looking forward.

Nostr could be improved right now, by anyone, simply by replacing TLN transactions with a faster blockchain. It could be improved with native smart contracts on ETH. It could become eco-friendly by employing Efforce, or Chia blockchains.

It could be improved by changing the way relays work, or by changing its dependence on relays, or by expanding its capabilities by not JUST limiting it to relay-based communications.

LOTS can happen and LOTS will happen.

People's problem is thinking Bitcoin is the answer.

Bitcoin is a MEANS TO AN END.

MONEY is a MEANS TO AN END.

The question is then, "to what end is Bitcoin a mean to?"

We don't have that answer yet. The answer is just about everything. That is why Bitcoin is THE standard, for now.

However, we know people have been discussing the idea of, and some countries have even employed, CBDC's.

So we have two primary issuers of global currencies:

Miners and governments.

Is this decentralized enough for you?

Wake the fuck up.

Miners dont issue Bitcoin

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

As long as they are mining it they do. Only in infinitely diminishing amounts. Once a miner has transacted with their mined coin (to anyone but themselves), it has been issued. Over 90% of Bitcoin has mined, and I imagine most of it has been distributed as well.

This isn’t the right way of thinking about it. The miner will always spend the bitcoin for something that is worth it. So bitcoin puts a bounty out in the physical world to provide something that is worth it. Once the network issues the bitcoin to the miner, it is issued and the bounty is created.

More specifically, "to anyone outside of their own economic circle".

This is a hypothetical clause which would imply that, "if I mined Bitcoin, and sent it to my friend Vic, who knows I want him to hold on to it for me, and he's never going to send it to someone outside of our authority, and we NEVER EXCHANGE IT FOR ANYTHING,"

then it remains unissued.

However when someone transacts Bitcoin to someone else with the intention of no longer possessing it, that is when Bitcoin has been issued.

The next person is thus the issuer of that particular set of Bitcoin.

So miners are not the only issuers, because peer-to-peer money enables us to BECOME issuers.

But they are the "origin" of Bitcoin and procure 100% of it for us to redistribute.

So perhaps it is semantically a bad choice of words. But I believe the point is valid. I'll explore this further.

Would change this to procure(d) because I don't mean to overstep the relationship between historical mining and present mining and future lack-of-mining

tl;dr

"Prove that Bitcoin is not owned & operated by the global shadow government."

You can't.

Even if it isn't, it's going to be. Why wouldn't it? Governments can deploy CBDC faster than individuals can establish an IBDC.

Until the world reforms its stance on accumulation of wealth, versus accumulation of value, we are at a loss. The borrower is always slave to the lender.

Regardless of which currency you choose to transact in.