Gm, my girlfriend made me fruit cake 🍰

So now let me tell you about last night’s nightmare 🙃

Originally, the Bitcoin maximalist thesis could be described as “one coin to rule them all”. Everything interesting which has market demand was supposed to come home to Bitcoin.

Until a bunch of high priests created a defeatist & contradictory dichotomy that simultaneously says “everything that is not on Bitcoin is a shitcoin” and “you should only use Bitcoin like this, everything else is shitcoinery”.

So they nurtured a culture of stagnation, where anyone trying to create innovative ways to use Bitcoin would get bullied into giving up.

“Bitcoin is for everyone. It’s permissionless!”, they would say. But the moment someone built a non-monetary use case or some layer 2 that has a native token (like Counterparty), they would call him a shitcoiner and tell them to leave.

That’s why some people built other networks outside of the Bitcoin ecosystem, to only suit these non-monetary use cases. They took the load off of Bitcoin, so that it can become focused on payments.

But these guys were vilified to a much greater extent. “They’re shitcoiners, they create monetary inflation with premined tokens that aren’t even sound money”.

But wait, nobody ever claimed this would be sound money, it’s just the native currency that incentivizes participation.

“REEEEE, that’s a shitcoin. It will go to 0!”

Alright, so a bunch of very smart people brought these features to Bitcoin. Now all this economic activity can pay the Bitcoin miners and effectively increase demand for the BTC token.

“Nooooo, you’re a shitcoiner, don’t spray graffiti on the timechain! Bitcoin is only for these types of transactions, not for those! But if anyone asks, it’s still inclusive and permissionless!”

Fine, then why don’t you pay the miners just like the people you call shitcoiners do? Pay for the security of your savings if you care so much about the long-term sustainability of the Bitcoin project.

“I’m only HODLing you shitcoiner, the only on-chain transaction I ever do is to withdraw from Swan to my Coldcard. I don’t want to have another pizza event now, 15 years into Bitcoin’s existence, when the price is $70k and Blackrock is buying our bags!”

Alright, so who’s gonna pay the miners?

“Miners shouldn’t get paid more, it’s a race to the bottom in which only the strongest survive. 3.125 BTC is not enough for you? That’s enough to buy a citadel after hyperbitcoinization. If pussy miners sell, they have no conviction and no skin in the game. Just HODL!”

How about BIP300, though? Every interesting use case becomes a Bitcoin sidechain, so all the innovation gets easily drained and appropriated by BTC.

“I only agree with soft forks that ger proposed by Blockstream or Ocean Mining!”

Hunky dory, did you know that Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly stated that he likes Drivechains and believes they could have been a much more usef upgrade than Taproot? Also, Luke Dashjr worked on the BIP300 proposal to bring improvements, declared himself neutral on the matter.

“REEEEE, your truth collides with my narrative, blocked!”

That’s when I woke up. What a shitty nightmare!

Youre blaming shitty ideas flaming out on people not liking those ideas.

Think about it, that is praxeology.

If the demand is there, the idea is good & will not be just a passing fad.

There is only demand, and the absence of it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Praxeology is literally the study of human action, not ideas or thoughts. If anything stupid ideas are not a scarce resource, with limited use.

Over time the market can dicipline bad ideas, but i hope you can appreciate the difference between a product or commodity in a market and bad ideas which can thrive based on psycological, political and even biological factors.

Is demand not human action?

Nope. In the austrian school from which you are borrowing the term "praxeology" demand also known as "human needs" and "wants" knows no end. It is not a scarce thing. Human action *are* limited

"Meeting demand" and all the steps leading up to it, are human action.

Even in the gaussian flavor economic analysis (purchase and sale patterns as rivers of activity) the upper bound for demand is necessarily open ended. It uses transforms based on historical data, but in reality the demand for any given good is infinite.

Attempting to say demand is limited by production or potential production or even the finite amount of resources on earth, is to at once run up against the economic calculation problem aswell as to place a limit on something that is not limited. Human wants.

Overthinking it.

Another way to think about it is: Consumers discipline bad products, nature disciplines bad ideas. What nature does is not praxeology, by definition. make sense ?

This is incorrect