Avatar
Hoshi
3d31f7c911f457f2dc1debdef13c5313bc3a60af2ced854da92ed9b466603064
Contrarian

They were both and probably not sustainable. After world war 1, Germany was suppressed and constantly drained of money/goods by the winners of the war. People were starving. The communists who slaughtered millions of people in Russia and Ukraine were quickly gaining momentum. Many Germans were not forced into collectivism by the government but joined to fight their way out of the situation successfully. Hierarchies were accepted and success mattered in this goal oriented collective society. When you look at communist societies, people are depressed. Perceived effort matters. Success is often punished by peers. Hierarchies exist unofficially while the citizens have to say that everything is flat. Peoples lives get worse and worse over time. The more typical real world left stuff.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

I think of money as the backbone of collective decentralized decision making. When AI become smarter than humans btc will drain from humanity to AI until incentives to improve or at least respect human conditions are gone. Fiat on the other hand could still be created and distributed by nation states.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

A recent meme has been “Nostr Lyn” where I am more raw here than anywhere else. I love that. Nostr is raw truth. Here is some meat for those willing to be here, purposely enjoying a decentralized and small protocol/community. No filter; just me.

I eat healthy, I exercise, I minimize problems, etc. I am one of those people who, when I first experimented with a keto diet nearly a decade ago, measured my ketones with a blood test on a regular basis to ensure I was in ketosis, and plotted out my blood sugar and ketone level on a regular basis, to see how it matched with my subjective well-being and various biometrics. I was doing science and various if/else observations. And now that I have experience in this dietary regard, both subjectively and biometrically, I am more flexible in terms of seasonal ketosis, broadly low carb, mild/moderate cheat meals at restaurants, and so forth. In other words, I precisely know my dietary limits where I feel bad vs where I feel good generally. I bike most days, and run and lift where possible. I enjoy a nice glass or two of wine with a nice meal on occasion, but little else.

But on those very rare occasions when I disregard moderation, well, fuck. “All things in moderation, including moderation. Sometimes you gotta party”. During the depth of my recent burnout phase in the past two weeks, I went out and… I ignored moderation one night in terms of wine and such. In terms of numbers, I only get hungover like once per year. I do, afterall, live near Atlantic City, which has plenty of clubs and so forth. I don’t even like marijuana, but I did marijuana too (which is legal in this state).

The next morning? Holy shit. I hadn’t been wrecked like that in a few years. Not only was it my yearly fuck-up, it was my multi-year fuck-up. It was a culmination of working 16-hour days with no weekends for months in a row and then the release all at once. My advice: don’t do that if you can help it. Especially if you are in your 30s or older, where you don’t heal as quickly as if you are in your 20s.

I had an interview with David Lin at like noon the next morning and my base case was to cancel it at the last minute due to how rekt I was. But I had *never* done that before, and Lin is an amazing interviewer and an acquaintance of mine, so I couldn’t do that to him, and I knew he could handle it if I was a bit lackluster. Tens of thousands of people would see this.

So, I rolled out of bed, drank some matcha, and somehow got myself in front of my camera to try to replicate what I would normally do every day with no issue. While I was doing it, I felt so off-base, thinking, “Anyone watching will know I’m so fucked right now that I’m like almost half-drunk from last night. This might be my worst interview ever. They’ll notice, right?”

I was almost afraid to go back and watch it. I only watch a small subset of my interviews for iteration purposes, but because this was my potential fuck-up, I went back and watched it closely. And you know what? In terms of views and comments and content, it was above average.

Probably it was because I was so mentally focused at the time to not fuck up. Where I lacked energy, I made up for in focus. I looked for signs in myself in my after-review, and the *only* place I can see it is in my eyes. I often squint during interviews because I am thinking a lot, but in this interview my eyes are constantly squinted/dead because I am barely able to even be there. That’s the only small sign where my multi-year fuckup hangover becomes apparent. All of my verbal content is normal, and leans above average.

After the interview, since I was non-functional, I went back to bed, and vowed not to fuck up like this again. This was my biggest hangover as a serious adult. Sitting there and talking about macroeconomic content for 45 minutes was an all-out massive effort.

But I also learned something, which kind of goes back to my martial arts days, college days, early work days, and goes back to various business memes. A common business meme is, “Most of success is just showing up.” Much of that is actually true, but I would rephrase it as, “Much of success is taking initiative, finding ways to show up, and then be consistent with quality."

You can’t, for example, be 10/10 in most interviews and then 2/10 in some interviews. You need to be 8/10 or better all the time. So, whether it came to my engineering work, my analysis work, my media work, etc. You just have to *fucking show up in good order* no matter what. Consistency of quality. Every single day. You traveled and had jet-lag during an important meeting? Tough. Your baby kept you up all last night? Well, you're paid the big bucks to tank that anyway. You got rekt in Atlantic City? Deal with it.

The first order advice here is don’t drink and party at clubs in Atlantic City the night before an interview or other serious work as a way to relieve an unusual amount of work stress during the prior months of over-work.

The second and probably more important and broad takeaway is about minimizing your weaknesses- when you do fuck up, be able to handle it. We all have moments of weakness. Success is about showing up with intention and quality. When it matters, you need to be there, present. You have to summon the strength to get through an hour about math and macro and sociability or whatever it is that you do, where you are half-dead, where your problems are only visible in your eyes, and just get it done.

I’m better now, but that was a low point. I was still running my research business, concentrating finishing-touches on a year-long book, and just literally working 80 hour weeks. Sometimes we need bursts of that sort of thing but it’s important to minimize it and get back to work/life balance, and ultimately when you are at your lowest, still find a way to be there.

Anyway, this is the current issue of "Nostr Real Thoughts". Enjoy the interview. Spot my failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXujV7P_hZc&ab_channel=DavidLin

After looking for underperformance in this interview I came up with a short list:

- your microphone

- your camera / scenary

my father does this too. The bad part is: what he shouts is the password

That is true. Blockchain is the best ledger. But I suspect that reducing the block rewards for miners to zero is a mistake that will harm the security of the chain and reduce incentives to invest/innovate. They perform a service for the store of value but will get the rewards only from current transactions. That feels wrong. The inflation from mining should help to motivate investments. Why should inflation be 0? It could be greater 0 or negative (by burning a part of transaction fees). 0 is a nice number but why is it the best?

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

If a state uses a frontend with a subtile bug it could loose its complete capital. It might punish the programmer, but won‘t get the money back even when everyone acts in good faith.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

when mining rewards become small compared to the value stored on the chain and most transaction are made on lightning miners would need to take very high fees to secure the chain. But because there are few transactions they would compete and accept fees that are too low to finance the necessary amount of mining for a secure chain.

not Saylor but Micro strategy. A public company held my many people

I think it was 30-60 min somewhere below the anaerobic threshold. Running or cycling while being able to somewhat comfortably talk would be an example.

I think intense cardio was less effective in this regard. But it is also difficult to find participants who are willing to be randomized by a coin flip to either train intensively every day or don‘t train at all for an extended period of time.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

nuclear fusion makes fossil energy cheap and bitcoin burns resources that could have last for a long time in a couple of years.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

I think I‘m missing something. Bitcoin would work without halving. Are your two parts answers to „deflation is bad“ or more broadly to „bitcoin is bad“?

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

When smart people have no incentive to investigate and invest in companies because the value of money increases faster.

yes. Moderate cardio exercise elongates telomeres. Epi-genome is more complicate to quantify.

A steel man for a government capture:

The government doesn’t even need to aggressively ban Bitcoin. Gentle, well-meaning regulatory clarity can accomplish the same thing just fine... Financial regulators can just give “guidelines” that bitcoin addresses need to be tied to identities to distinguish “legitimate bitcoin” from “black market bitcoin.” They already know from KYC who owns a lot of the addresses.

They could require all wallets approved on platforms like iOS and Google Play build in a function with ID that signs a message from each address regularly. They will have a long, generous leniency for people to come forward and ID their addresses and they will be allowed to cash in on bitcion’s rising value and spend freely, while a few high profile cases of people who use black market bitcoin that has been “laundered” in coin-joins are prosecuted and their transactions will be linked to awful stuff like human trafficking and terrorism.

Most people want to live, peaceful law-abiding lives, and a vast majority of bitcoin holders will comply and get wealthy rather than risk jail and social stigma.

All the big energy companies that run the mining sector will eventually be required to only mine blocks from legal ID-verified addresses. Sure, there will still be a few anonymous pirate miners that will occasionally mine blocks with transactions from unverified addresses, but that will be rare so it will become increasingly difficult to even use the chain with “black market bitcoin.”

While there are cypherpunk work-arounds that can keep an underground circular black market economy going with the coins minority that haven’t been captured that economy will be tiny and suspect, while the rest of world will hyper-bitcionize the “safe and legal” way.

The governments of the world will be clear that bitcoin is an asset and not a currency, so they will regulate away the ability earn it directly or use it to buy things directly. Legally you save in bitcoin and then trade it for fiat when you need it. While the legal bitcoiners are getting rich and the increasingly few cypherpunk bitcoiners are being ostracized and demonized, the governments of the world will HODL.

Increasingly the bitcoin reserves will back the fiat currency, so that no one will doubt that fiat has value. Just like they did on the gold standard they will create more fiat than the asset backing it so that the “satoshi value” of each CBDC dollar will slip over time, but at first they will be careful with this so the CBDC feels like it has real solid value.

Then an emergency like a war or an economic crisis hits after Bitcoin is already neutered, so when major governments of the world issue a 6102-like order demanding that all bitcoin be turned over to the treasury for “safe keeping” everyone will comply. They will get lots of valuable fiat in return and all the freedom tech power of bitcoin gradually eroded so long ago they might not even remember that bitcoin once had these properties.

After that the main chain becomes the property of central banks, and we are all back on fiat because the bitcoin standard failed the same way the gold standard did. Sure there will still be a few criminals and bitcoin bugs that have a couple hundred thousand BTC outside the system, but they will be irrelevant.

This seems like a possible steel man for how they could “ban” bitcoin very gradually over a generation or so.

Maybe the bitcoin underground would win in the end after the central banks ruin the bitcoin standard like they ruined the gold standard, or maybe cypherpunks would just spin up another currency because the bitcoin chain as as freedom tech was dead. Either way in this scenario freedom money “winning” would take so long that it won’t happen in my lifetime and likely not even my grandchildren’s lifetime.

Point 2:

Decentralized consensus on how to proceed takes time. The chain will halt and need to be snapshotted in a temper resistent way. Courses on centralized hubs will crash.

Mining hardware will become useless forever and miners immediately lose their source of income. Different people will lobby for solutions that fit to their capabilities.

Modifying code in chaotic and stressful circumstances may lead to bugs that get exploited later without being noticed long enough so that snapshots will not be an option.