Wait I think I figured it out!

When the government prints money or new gold is mined, that new money goes to a tiny portion of people, it is not evenly distributed, therefore you lose purchasing power as someone holding money outside of those who receive newly minted units.

When you make units more divisble, like adding millisats, that’s like evenly distributing new units to everyone proportionate to their existing purchasing power, so no one’s purchasing power changes.

Is this correct?

Listened to podcast and now I understand that:

Bitcoin currently is not infinitely divisible, there are simply 2.1 quadrillion Satoshis.

(This is a new thing I learned today thanks to you)

What I still don’t understand, is that if we were to actually create millisats (somehow), we would not be increasing the total supply of bitcoin as described here:

nostr:note19et32uy3v44qtk99vuguhu5syf93f4cmmwa2mc7nv8rwl3wt6naqhjnenc

Or am I wrong about the millisats not increasing total supply?

I’m not sure why everyone hates real estate on here…

This is what I don’t understand (btw thank you for helping me hash this out):

“multiplication of the number of units that represent the same value therefore inflation”

I think I’m trying to make this point, tell me what you think:

Starting with 100 total and increasing to 1000 causes inflation (aka money printing), but starting with 100 and increasing it to be more divisible DOES NOT cause the same kind of inflation.

This is what I don’t understand (btw thank you for helping me hash this out):

“multiplication of the number of units that represent the same value therefore inflation”

I think I’m trying to make this point, tell me what you think:

Starting with 100 total and increasing to 1000 causes inflation (aka money printing), but starting with 100 and increasing it to be more divisible DOES NOT cause the same kind of inflation.

Appreciate you. I think the problem my friends are having is more fundamental. If there’s 100 units of a currency, then making it divisible by another decimal place is the same as saying there are 1000 units.

I constructed a quick thought experiment that I think breaks this and this seemed to sway a 3rd friend who I talked to:

Thought experiment:

Scenario 1 - we have 100 units of currency and there are teacups available for purchase. The price of a teacup can never be more than 100 units, even with infinite divisibility.

Scenario 2 - we increase from 100 to 1000 units, and now teacups *could* be priced above 100 regardless of whether or not the original units of currency can be divided or not.

Why someone thinks adding more decimal places is that same as increasing the total pool is still beyond my understanding.

But this is now 3 people (1 who is questioning but not certain) that think these are the same thing. I am losing my mind over this.

I'm still not getting the negatives to #BIP300

What is the actual downside to #drivechains ?

#nostr I need your help

I have a very smart friend who thinks that because #bitcoin can be infinitely divisible, it is inflationary. I talked to him for more than an hour and could not find the right language to make him understand.

This is now the second smart friend I have who thinks that #bitcoin is inflationary because it can be infinitely divisible.

#nostr can you help me find the right language / proof to help them understand?

Drivechains

Alright people, we are playing a game of chess here. The one thing, the absolute one thing, we can't do is give up the king. To give up the king, in my humble opinion, is to mess up the base layer. This mistake would disrupt the delicate incentive structure that ensures sound money. That sound money pegs the extremely fragile credit markets and out-of-control G7 policymakers that are creating clown world with their CB fiat policies.

We don’t need the sound, pegged, money to move fast, we don’t need the money to do smart swoopty things, we just need it to be pegged, immutable, and digitally sailable to actually stop the madness of clown world.

By introducing a whole lot of technical complexity to the base layer and potentially screwing with the incentives all so we can connect to a bunch of centralized shitcoin projects is like playing offense with the king when you’re down 7 pieces and the other player still has their entire back row at their disposal.

A. Why the rush!?

B. Why not just go use Monero if you need that level of anominity in your transactions. Why do you have to have it in a wrapper via drivechains?

C. Why risk the king without deep understanding and testing of the technical risk and potential change to incentives?

The beauty of Bitcoin is you can build it and softfork it, and we’ll let the community vote with their nodes. BUT, I for one, have no use for drivechains (that doesn’t mean everyone is like me). And as a result, I will not be updating my node and running any attempted “secret” softfork updates by the miners.

Why do you assume Drivechain introduces "a whole lot of technical complexity to the base layer"? It's such a simple upgrade. SegWit and Taproot were much more complex.

you're definitely no dummy and basically the relay has a super fast database now. same one I've been running on the other free relays since beginning of this year

So I can build more cool features on this relay too

Building on an open standard can be a grind. I'm opening yet another encrypted group proposal, aware of the fact that it will only increase the noise and complexity involved in choosing the correct one. But it's also an attempt to reconcile multiple current drafts to result in a better end result.

Introducing multiple sources of truth by decentralizing the nips repo seems like an awful idea to me. I'm personally keen on the benevolent dictator model, exhausting as it must be for fiatjaf. We need a little dutch boy who can stem the tide of complexity it the protocol itself - and attacks by large entities seeking to capture the protocol.

Allowing anyone to claim to host a canonical NIPs list fractures the protocol and will kill interoperability as everyone will increasingly just do their own thing. In addition, it makes the winner the one with the biggest marketing budget, imagine if Apple announced support for nostr and pointed to their own repo? With a founder in charge we can at least complain, but if we eliminate authority, the whole thing shatters.

I'm planning to change my podcast format to be more of a group discussion about various topics. Max 3 people besides myself.

First topic I want to host a discussion for is fiat dating.

Who should I have on?