Nostr Web Client

A few thoughts on the game theory of tainted bitcoin.

TLDR; taint cannot work over time.

Let's visualize a possible scenario where a jurisdiction, for example the EU, decides to classify certain bitcoin addresses as tainted.

A few expected outcomes:

1. Many entrepreneurs would likely leave the EU in reaction, either because they own bitcoin or because they consider the regulatory move to be a red flag indicating more coming authoritarian measures. If A happens, then a logical B can be expected to follow.

These entrepreneurs won't take their bitcoin *with them* because all bitcoin exists globally without borders and their bitcoin are already waiting for them in the new jurisdiction. Their bitcoin does not move when they move, but their spending is now relocated outside of the backwards jurisdiction.

2. Let's then assume that some entrepreneurs have had their bitcoins classified as tainted by the EU. As they settle in a new jurisduction - which doesn't care about the EU:s taint decisions - these "EU-tainted" coins are soon entering the economy and switching hands. Nobody in a free economy has any reason to care about the dictatorial phantasmas of the EU.

3. After these coins/sats spread in the free market economy, they will eventually end up in contact with the EU again. At that point, the coins are now integrated in the economy and the "EU-taint" will be considered obsolete.

If the EU decides to keep rejecting the "EU-tainted" coins/sats, the EU will lose out on more and more commerce due to self-quarantine. The number of tainted coins will grow over time and the EU will have to eliminate themselves from an in increasing amount of valuable trade.

Over time the taint policy will become so ridiculous and economically harmful for the EU that there won't be any public support to keep the taint regulations.

Besides, as the coins/sats have moved through the free, prosperous and just jurisdictions of the world where property rights are respected, the laggard economies that issued the taint will have little incentive to remain laggards. Or Lagarde's, as they may end up being called.

Don't be a Laggarde!

#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #PropertyRights #Property #Rights #IndividualRights #Individual #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Voluntarism #Libertarian

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

He's right, at least on this matter.

The reason I say this with confidence is because the Bitcoin protocol that everyone have invested in is precisely what we have, not what someone wants it to become.

Bitcoin's fundamental function is store of value. Privacy tools are added over the base layer on an opt-in basis.

A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.

If we consider the tradeoffs that Monero makes, we can understand why Monero is not aiming for a store of value. As a result, Monero cannot leverage a pressure against jurisdictions in any comparable way.

Those who want Bitcoin to become more like Monero, while the privacy side benefits are tempting, such a move would undermine Bitcoin's function as store of value and several of its game theory benefits.

On a related subject, I wrote recently about why tainted bitcoin/sats is a losing strategy by the jurisdiction implementing it. If Bitcoin became more Monero-like, then the game theory involved will have different outcomes. The assumptions are based on Bitcoin being a superior store of value and therefore desirable by nation states, which gives it powers to pressure jurisdictions.

Why tainted coins is a losing strategy:

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

Bitcoin has only been around ~15 years. This is all still an experiment. You can't technically guarantee Store of Value. Controlling supply alone isn't enough. SoV is also also a function of demand (which is subjective so can't be controlled) and larger players can always manipulate price like they do with traditional finance especially when large CEXes are involved.

>A vital function of Bitcoin is the game theory level. Bitcoin has a design that allows it to pressure jurisdictions towards liberty-oriented policies *because* it is the best store of value.

"Bitcoin is therefore inherently a black market money. Its security architecture necessarily assumes it is operating without state permission."

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Permissionless-Principle

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

Absolutely.

If we were to hard-fork Bitcoin into BTC-private, I wouldn't assume that the fork can compete with Bitcoin as a SoV. The market price for Monero may give an indication of what the market is willing to pay for a 100% privacy coin.

And yes, Bitcoin does not need permission. Its protocol is designed in a way that it can become a global SoV.

It is doubtful if the market needs another Monero. It is clear that the market wants Bitcoin as it is.

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

Bitcoin doesn't require permission, but white markets do. We can ignore any transactions occurring there as transient (see recent events). That leaves us with black markets as the only place anyone is guaranteed to be able to use Bitcoin without permission.

Regulators can impose whatever arbitrary rules they want on white market transactions (including banning Bitcoin transactions there). Therefore, the continuing takeover of cryptocurrencies like Monero on darknets is a HUGE sign that Bitcoin is failing its main value proposition.

The SoV narrative is backwards and a bit premature imo. If SoV holds up I can potentially see nations using Bitcoin between each other, but feels naive to believe they would allow their citizens the same privilege with no restrictions (as it undermines their power). Any citizens would have to break the law to do that - and now were back to black markets

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

Game theory involves competition between nation states.

Bitcoin doen't need to take the role of Monero. In fact, it is better that both roles are intact and are tested for their respective purposes.

I wrote a general outline of how the game theory can be expected to play out:

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqy4nmmqn

L0la L33tz 1y ago

True, last time I checked bitcoin.org it also said "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Store of Value System" – Sorry that I missed this

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

Yes? Your argument is to state something obvious?

L0la L33tz 1y ago

Oh boy

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

🤡🌎