yikes
Discussion
I assume the people who voted for "limited supply" meant that they like the fact that the supply is set by a rule, and can't be arbitrarily increased by a self-interested authority?
I don’t think so. I’ve had disagreements even on nostr about whether the “limited” (ie 21 mill) aspect of bitcoin supply is more important than the fact that the monetary policy is fixed (enforced by nodes). The lessons of the block size wars are still not well learned by most. Not to mention that it is the permissionless nature of bitcoin that enables censorship resistance and limited supply in the first place
There ist no limited supply without difficulty adjustment, decentralisation, permissionlessness and censorship resistence so I agreed. It ist the limited supply.
Yes permissionlessness enables censorship resistant node running which safeguards the limited supply
it's like asking whether the heart or the brain is most valuable
they're all intertwined, one enforces the other
Not sure I agree. If by limited supply we mean “fixed monetary policy”, then that aspect is dependent on the others. The protocol could continue to function if the monetary supply changed, but that would be disastrous from a social/network perspective as opposed to a purely protocol perspective
ah i see what you mean
yes. i was thinking fixed scarcity through policy and then lumped it together in muh brain lol
Censorship resistance is the value proposition. If the state can fuck with the money, all the other qualities of good money go out the window.
#[0]
NGU crowd coming in strong on that poll.
It’s difficult to choose one aspect when Bitcoin done more than few unimaginably important things at once.
Also permissionless and cencorship resistant is almost same thing for me but maybe I’m missing some stuff I don’t know