Post-hoc rationalization by those too dopey to deal with basic cryptographic primitives.
nsecs are expendable as much as all of nostr is expendable
Whenever I see statists like the ECB get upset about Bitcoin, or when I see more brazen regimes try and actually implement an all-out ban or crazy tax scheme, I turn to my favorite bit of writing anywhere on Bitcoin and remind myself that a ban is the Berlin Wall and that “fragments of any ban will one day become souvenirs of the folly”
Bitcoin is Ariadne by nostr:npub1sfhflz2msx45rfzjyf5tyj0x35pv4qtq3hh4v2jf8nhrtl79cavsl2ymqt
“Bitcoin is often framed as “competing” with fiat currency. This is true in a sense but I fear there is a rhetorical danger of invoking the wrong kind of “competition”. It is not a fight, for example. There is no conflict. Bitcoin is not trying to damage or sabotage its opponents, because it isn’t trying anything and it knows no opponents. It has no awareness whatsoever of who might oppose it or why. It is simply an alternative; an exit valve; an opt-out. It is competing only insofar as it is proving to be a far superior alternative. It is not a sword for Theseus to fight the Minotaur, but a thread to follow to exit the labyrinth. Bitcoin is Ariadne.
There will be tremendous value in normalizing this rhetoric amidst the likely growing chorus of opposition desperate to smear Bitcoin as inherently nefarious, or hostile, even. Opponents must be forced to explain what is wrong with people interacting freely, and why true goodness can only follow from coercion, in their understanding. Should those who have found a way out of the unbearable labyrinth of capital strip mining not take it? What do they owe the Minotaur?
Does anybody really believe that, having fully understood the choice they face, any individual would choose to save in a self-referentially mispriced toxic loan rather than a provably sound digital bearer asset? Or, more simply still, that they will think it makes less sense to hold money that is a pure asset than money that is literally defined as a liability? Why not opt into a financial system that is built on trustless verifiability rather than unverifiable trust?
… It is worth working through the optics of any decision to engage with Bitcoin in a truly hostile manner, because it is certainly coming. McNeill reminds us that, even some seven-hundred-or-so years ago, “the breakdown of established patterns of conduct always appears deplorable to a majority of those who witness it.” By no means do I have a utopian outlook on this subject — rather, it is something of an intellectual rite of passage to accept the nonzero utility of dystopian paranoia. Bitcoin will be banned, many times, in many places. But a ban is an open admission of practical and moral failure and is arguably the best advertisement of all. A ban is the Berlin Wall; fragments of any ban will one day become souvenirs of the folly and cruelty of repression. Bitcoin doesn’t force anybody to stay. They come, and then they stay, because they want to — because it is both practically and morally superior.”
Bitcoin is what Jesus gave me to make fun of imbeciles
Ooooh interesting. It says something about 0.5% APY on BTC.
Is that an offer from the platform? Who am I lending to? How do I assess the risk.
I think there should be screens on FIDO keys. Just for a bit of extra trust on top of the host device.
Oooh. Please provide pointers. I wasn't aware of BTC lending platforms.
With consistent gambling you'll win eventually.
Ok I'll come back and talk to you 'in good time".
If Bitcoin had a circular economy like fiat does you could gain from Bitcoin by lending it. But it doesn't so you don't.
I suppose from a central banker’s POV, the benefits of inflation are more widely spread as compared to the concentrated gains made by those early to Bitcoin.
e.g. if inflation is at 2% but my pay rise is at 5% then I’m ok. And for those who can’t secure pay rises above inflation then the government’s increased tax haul linked to inflation (fiscal drag, greater receipts from sales taxes) helps fund support from social welfare programmes.
nostr:npub1g7lqk25fl24xd0zh7hr8jgp5smdy2eszjh9nmv7z7w85h6xcs9hq4u8yd9 what’s the best argument you have in favour of the current monetary system?
Btw no one has made any gains from Bitcoin. Those who had one 1 BTC years ago still have 1 BTC today.
I suppose from a central banker’s POV, the benefits of inflation are more widely spread as compared to the concentrated gains made by those early to Bitcoin.
e.g. if inflation is at 2% but my pay rise is at 5% then I’m ok. And for those who can’t secure pay rises above inflation then the government’s increased tax haul linked to inflation (fiscal drag, greater receipts from sales taxes) helps fund support from social welfare programmes.
nostr:npub1g7lqk25fl24xd0zh7hr8jgp5smdy2eszjh9nmv7z7w85h6xcs9hq4u8yd9 what’s the best argument you have in favour of the current monetary system?
> what's the best argument you have in favour of the current monetary system?
prices more stable than any other system in existence, past or present
I thought Bitcoin was uncensorable. Doesn't make it untaxable too.
by nostr:npub13l3lyslfzyscrqg8saw4r09y70702s6r025hz52sajqrvdvf88zskh8xc2
This new paper is a true declaration of war: the ECB claims that early #bitcoin adopters steal economic value from latecomers. I strongly believe authorities will use this luddite argument to enact harsh taxes or bans. Check 🧵 for why:
Rather than praising bitcoin as a tech paradigm shift à la petroleum and the internet, the authors introduce the blatantly luddite argument that "early adopters" ... "increase their real wealth and consumption" ... "at the expense of [latecomers]".
Then they go on to brazenly advocate for legislation ... "to prevent bitcoin prices from rising or to see bitcoin disappear altogether" in order to prevent "the division of society".
The authors also model some projections, to illustrate the paltry amount of BTC that will remain available for latecomers. (Woe is me! Conspicuously left out is the reason that has driven 15 years of bitcoin adoption & development: it's simply better tech.)
In all the years I've been monitoring the bitcoin space, this is by far the most aggressive paper to come from authorities. The gloves are off. It's clear that these central bank economists now see bitcoin as an existential threat, to be attacked with any means possible.
Many of us have warned that this was coming: bitcoin as a major political fault line both in national and international elections. Well here it is. It means that us HODLers must take action to insure that governments respect our basic right to hold property.
And no, this won't be a war between haves and have-nots. Rather this will be a historic clash between those who stand for the natural rights of the individual, and those who clutch at the failed ideologies of collectivism and central planning.
Here's the download link to the paper: "The distributional consequences of Bitcoin". (We need detailed rebuttals. Who's writing one?)
Any pyramid scheme works like that. It's why you yell at people "have fun staying poor". Works as intended.
Mostly because back in the day water was bad for you. It had bacteria in it. Alcohol didn't.