When you start with the wrong premise you usually end up with the wrong conclusion. I’m this case big centralized government. The opposite of the ethos of bitcoin. On a tangential note, due to scarcity of bitcoin, large centralized pockets of bitcoin always dissipate to where most value is produced. Thus even if the us will own most Bitcoin initially, it’ll go to the people and places where most value is produced over time.
Discussion
The premise is bitcoin is an electrical power projection mechanism that can be used for resource competition. Previous to bitcoin, most people used kinetic power projection to compete for resources.
The scale of centralization is irrelevant to the core thesis. I agree that the US govt is much too large. The best government is the smallest government. It doesn’t mean that a small won’t use bitcoin as a national defense mechanism. Do you think El Salvador is doing the right thing with volcano bonds? Have they not used bitcoin and it’s properties to protect the country from outside aggressors?
Bitcoin will not completely eliminate centralization. There’s centralization in the network itself. Humans centralize due to our nature, that nature has been abused and coupled with obfuscation and miseducation about money to create the Fed and other central banks.
I agree that sats will flow to only productive people over time. This is why we win.
Ok, so what does that really mean? “Electrical power projection mechanism that can be used for resource competition”…A lot of military words to say Store of Value and medium of exchange for property, goods (resources) and services. It’s much more simple, IMHO. Bitcoin is money. The perfect money. Let’s write a thesis for what the perfect money will do for us. A lot of Jason’s points are almost correct, except a little off…but I think the biggest mistake is not realizing the government’s Bitcoin paradox. They need to be first, or die. But being first they’ll self-destruct.