I did read what you wrote. Carefully. And what you’re doing is framing economic truth as aspirational instead of foundational.
You’re not explicitly calling for inflation, but you’re implying that the system may require changes to remain secure. That’s functionally the same intellectual position Peter Todd holds: that the protocol might need economic compromise to remain viable. And that’s where I draw the line. Austrian economics doesn’t just give us an ideal, it gives us a framework for what happens when you tamper with monetary foundations. For me it’s pretty obvious Satoshi designed that system around that framework and it’s been working pretty solid for more than decade.
The “paradox” you describe isn’t a paradox at all. It’s a misunderstanding of what money is. Rothbard made it clear: if the supply is fixed and demand rises, the purchasing power of each unit rises. That’s not a problem - that’s how sound money works. Whether miners are securing blocks or caravans doesn’t change that. The only thing that changes is your trust in incentives - which, by the way, emerge from human action, not protocol design. Austrians have that covered.
You keep saying “we’re in new territory,” but that’s just techno-mysticism. New tech doesn’t invalidate old truths. The scarcity of Bitcoin, the subjective valuation by its users, and the market-driven fee structure are all exactly the kind of emergent order Austrian theory predicts. The fact that it’s working despite these concerns validates the theory, not the other way around.
Finally, about openness: sure, people are free to experiment and opine, but don’t confuse that freedom with legitimacy. Not every protocol-level change is just a harmless “view.” Some ideas aren’t just bad; they’re economically incoherent and directly undermine what makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place.
You don’t need to be dogmatic to recognize that some roads lead straight back to fiat thinking. And the essential thing about Todd’s PR is directly undermining the purpose of Bitcoin, creating second order effects that can be modelled fairly easily. I don’t know what to make of him. I know for a fact he’s economically illiterate, but is he proposing this from a place of ignorance or a place of malice? I can’t say. His history and old statements don’t exclude the latter.
-there’s no such thing as economic truth, feel free to quote me on that
-I’m not saying the system needs to change, but rather that the people who care about it should actually use it. I am taking action to keep the system the way it is and use it as originally intended, not just sitting and circlejerking theory while others abuse it. That was the whole point of my post: put action behind beliefs.
-I’m misunderstanding money? You’re misunderstanding Bitcoin. It’s not a magic Austrian lamp that generates perfect currency- it’s a computer network built and maintained by humans with competing incentives. It’s the most impressive one ever built- but not invulnerable to attack. Like in the previous “war” people need to step up and fight for their beliefs. I like it as a monetary protocol, so do you- let’s do something about it.
Here’s an economic truth, that I don’t think you will disagree with: humans act with intention to achieve desired ends using chosen means. You said it yourself but with more words. There, I rest my case.
Hard to disagree there either lol nice
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Here’s a less saucy reply assisted by my own LLM, for what it’s worth:
For me, the key distinction here is that Bitcoin isn’t a pure economic theory — it’s an engineering implementation influenced by economic theory. That makes it inherently experimental. Protocol rules, network incentives, user behaviors — they’re all interacting in a real-world, adversarial environment.
I’m not saying Austrian insights aren’t valuable; they clearly informed Bitcoin’s design. But theory doesn’t equal guaranteed outcomes. A perfect theory doesn’t automatically lead to sustainable system dynamics. Human usage matters. Incentives matter. Behavior matters.
That’s why I keep emphasizing action: if we want Bitcoin to function as a monetary protocol long term, it has to be actively used that way — not just preserved as an ideal or a vault. Otherwise, fee markets won’t develop sufficiently to replace diminishing rewards. That’s not a moral argument or a policy recommendation; it’s just a practical observation about current dynamics.
I’m not calling for protocol changes, and I’m not advocating inflation. I’m advocating for participation aligned with the system’s goals, recognizing that usage is part of security. If we believe in Bitcoin’s monetary properties, let’s embody that belief through use.
To me, that’s not rejecting economic principles — it’s engaging with them through action.
Well I can’t really disagree with your LLM so it’s all good 👍
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
