Bitcoin maxipads are monopolists. You want a mono-polar financial instrument. Just one instrument that is also one Store of Value that is also one Medium of Exchange that is also one Fantastic Investment Opportunity. You also want One Grand Unified Ledger, not multiple ledgers.
Discussion
It's not necessisarilly that we all want it, it's just that we all recognize that it's inevitable whether we want it or not...
Nicely put
Not inevitable, he's talking about use cases that retard each other. See my response.
Except, you know, that a thing's volatility retards it's use case as a dispassionate means of exchange. Worst of all, expecting a unit to be worth more next month makes you less likely to hire Johnny to mow your lawn this month, making everyone poorer on net. Since, as the Austrian school shows, prosperity does not excrete from a printing press, a mining rig, or a fixed-pie token gambling pool.
Prosperity excretes from the felt improvement in standard of living for each party to a voluntary exchange. This is where seeing 'medium of exchange' as 'fantastic investment opportunity' work at cross-purposes. One facilitates exchanging. The other penalizes exchanging and rewards declining to exchange (hoarding aka hodling aka the opposite of making a voluntary, prosperity-generating exchange).
Maximalism is a synonym for monopolistic fanaticism, right or wrong. Nothing to do with a plurality of decentralized solutions. One grand unified eternal immutable global ledger or bust.
That's not the thesis at all.
Since youre incapable of having an honest conversation, read the sovereign individual, it was written in 1996 - so pre btc.
Read the book, or dont & keep spewing nonsense.
Lysander comes across as someone really beating themself up and then getting angry again and repeating. I have a colleague like this who however much says he wishes to talk about a topic just answers for you and argues with himself 🤷♂
Notice how not a single blockchain enthusiast has been able to avoid the ad hominem personal attack? That's how you know you're dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Nostr has laid bare just how centralized Bitcoin Core with it's ~5 core developers + the grand unified Bitcoin blockchain with a singular authoritative version, distributed not decentralized, really are.
Not a personal attack, just noticing how you love getting wound up. You want everyone to agree with you about your view of Bitcoin. No one does but you still keep arguing on. 🤷♂️
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already, but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already.
This is true for #[2] and most other brainwashed economist nowadays. They will all die on the hill, that they know better already.
Most non economists understand #Bitcoin way faster by approaching the topic from first principles. Especially if they live in authoritarian regimes with high inflation.
#plebchain
I approach life from this view and agree. I don't wish to attack Lysander, he has his views and I respect them. I just don't agree and it's pointless to keep arguing round and round as he does. After quite a while now in and around Bitcoin's deep rabbit hole it's clear this is a phenomenal paradigm shift to a sound money standard and what it will bring for so many
I fully agree. It’s clear that he hasn’t done the work after reading some notes, which is fine as long as he does not attack people with another opinion.
Anyway, he will get humbled as everybody else who attacks #Bitcoin. They are all actually attacking their own reputation.
#followed BitcoinSandy
Agreed Sandy.
If someone argues using a long list of names and spams my notifications with nonsense, he doesn't deserve a response. That's like a salesperson placing his foot in the door. Debates are not held like that.
Another lie, to obfuscate weak argument (s).
I've have read swaths of it. I saw nothing 'sovereign' about what's now better called 'the network state'. I see it along the lines of The Zeitgeist who were openly pushing post-state blockchain based Communism.
- There's nothing 'sovereign' about taking the choice of ledger (or none at all) out of the hands of the trading parties themselves and logging it all in one grand unified public blockchain.
- There's nothing 'sovereign' about depending on a centrally issued fiat (yes, 21M is an arbitrary number, proving it's fiat nature -- could have just as easily been 42M cos it was decreed into existence) token.
- There's nothing 'sovereign' about being unable to buy or sell bananas without a electricity and an Internet connection.
Here's a book I highly recommend for you -- "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber is a study of actually decentralized currency; how people traded before centrally issued fiat wannabe-monopoly brands like USD and BTC:
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/64160
Free audiobook version. The 2nd chapter is called "The Myth of Barter". It wasn't that. Each merchant generated their own credit, on their own private ledger, which was destroyed without a trace when they 'broke even'. Your grand unified global public ledger knows nothing of decentralization.
So your reading comprehension is nill, this isnt an ad hominem - just a conclusion im forced to make if this what youre focused on, rather than the actual thesis of why a cryptographoc currency is not only viable, but will allow people to more readily vote with their feet.
Can you guys stop tagging everybody?
Oh cool, you can remove the tags
How?
On amethyst, click on those little Xs near the names.
Don't know on Damus though, I wiped my iPad clean
That’s the problem with Keynesianism and shitcoining in general - the belief that you can “excrete prosperity”.
I SHIT EXCELLENCE
Do you eat your own shit, though?
Yep, monopolistic fanaticism to end central banking.
An eternal, immutable end to the fuckers.
I love it.
Monopolistic fanaticism only creates a new center. That's all Bitcoin bros wanna do. Establish a new center, and intricately log every transaction on Earth in one place -- not move into the multi-polar world that actually frees people.
Ah you’re mad because we don’t want a “decentralized” protocol with a huge pre-mine and changing narratives
Nope. I am against all grand unified ledgers (blockchains), since they are all centralized (one authoritative version of all-the-data) and distributed -- not decentralized.
This is one of the most retarded take I've ever seen. Money is not an asset per se, how can it be monopolistic, oligopolistic or whatever. It's a tool and tools are neutral. You're talking about securities, that's where your logic comes in action. Cryptos are securities because they're issued by central entities.
Guess who is behind bitcoin? No-fucking-body.
Yeah, the perfectly mysterious Creation myth! :p I bet the 'who' is behind Bitcoin looks like a large cube in the desert covered in black glass.
No-fucking-body? Who arbitrarily chose the 21M in digital fiat tokens? It's nowhere in the whitepaper.
Who centrally planned and artificially fixed the rate of supply in advance, removing the price stabilizing Austrian mechanism of a market-determined rate of supply which can naturally adapt to counterbalance price swings due to changes in demand? Guaranteeing volatility into perpetuity.
Who was that central planner? No-fucking-body? You sure about that? Of all the weird things blockheads say, calling a human agent or a human agency 'No-fucking-body' is right up there with calling a grand unified blockchain 'decentralized' instead of distributed.
What do you do for a living?
What would you gain with a multitude of monies as opposed to one solid measurement of value?