Bitcoin companies will generally want to sacrifice security for superficial, short-term adoption. They're businesses, after all and more customers is how they make money.
Users, on the other hand, will want security for their coins and will care much more deeply about true long-term adoption.
This continues to be a tension that won't be resolved anytime soon.
Vice drives consumption.
Virtue drives saving.
Bitcoin strengthens the grid.
Wind and solar weaken the grid.
It's really that simple.
Capital going to companies that are earning nominal returns, but not real returns is wasteful. This is the destructive power of inflation and it erodes civilization.
I talked to Marty and Will about fatherhood and families under a Bitcoin standard.
Crowdfund is over! We've exceeded the goal by 140%!
Thank you all who participated!
Thanks also to @parkeralewis and @willcole of @ZapriteApp for their help in setting this crowdfund up.
Only 7 more hours to go before the crowdfund at fiatruinseverything.com is over!
Get a signed copy of the paperback! Ships in the next two days!
Crowdfund at fiatruinseverything.com ends in less than 24 hours!
You can get a signed print of the cover art here:
Only one more day left in the Fiat Ruins Everything Crowdfund!
You can get a signed hardcover when that comes out in the next couple of months! Click the Zaprite link to buy directly with Bitcoin, Lightning, or Credit Card:
What's the End Game?
================
My last post advocating for a Bitcoin chain split drew various reactions. Some labeled me as irresponsible, while others claimed I was undermining proof-of-work (I wasn't) or promoting a hard fork (again, I wasn't). The critics want more technical discussions to reach a consensus.
Here's the core issue: what's the endgame for drivechains? We've debated the technical aspects for seven years. Do we expect new information that will suddenly unite everyone?
The reality is, those in favor of a drivechains soft fork aren't going away. If anything, they will grow louder. So, what's the end result of endless discussions?
Prolonged debate without consensus not only wastes time but stall other valuable updates. I'll remind you that seven years of discussion have not resolved this issue.
A peaceful resolution now has a lot of benefits. We can put much of this debate to bed by engaging the market instead of claims made by marketers. We can see whether the things promised by the advocates actually come to pass and we'll learn a lot more about miner incentives.
Of course, there are other ways to resolve this conflict besides a chain split, such as creating a separate chain, using a different sidechain mechanism, or adding the needed op codes in an altcoin. Yet, these options have been available for seven years and haven't been pursued by the drivechain advocates. I think those are better resolutions than a chain split and a successful use case would be the best way to convince those of us that are skeptical of the drivechainers' claims. But that's not what they're doing and so we are at loggerheads.
In summary, the drivechain debate isn't resolving itself. A split will end this divisive conversation and allow us to focus on more productive projects like improving the Lightning Network or furthering Taproot features.
One of the subtle benefits of regular cold plunges is that you crave the sun daily.
Free issue for the first Monday of the month!
China, Natural Elites, Macro Environment, Podcasts about the book, collaborative FROST, Political MEV, LN Graph, Robosats Federation, Grayscale/SEC and more!
#Bitcoin Tech Talk #360
You will always have the complainers with you... Unless they fork off.
Honestly, this is the cleanest resolution and much better than another 7 years of belly-aching.
The Case for a Chain Split
The debate surrounding drivechains has been heating up, with proponents employing various tactics to garner support. This divisive issue echoes previous disputes in the Bitcoin community, such as the 2017 block size controversy. As such, we should consider what was then the definitive resolution: a chain split.
A significant portion of the Bitcoin community rejects drivechains, effectively blocking its implementation via a soft fork. Bitcoin's voluntary nature makes it resistant to hostile takeovers, despite claims that miners could force the change. Disagree with that last statement? Then let's put that to the test. We can resolve this posturing and propaganda by forking the code.
Here's how it would work: Code implementing drivechains would be released. Those who support the proposal can run this code. A transaction that goes against drivechain rules but adheres to pre-drivechain rules will trigger a chain split. Those running the drivechain software wouldn't be doing anything, but nodes that aren't can reject the drivechain chain by using the "invalidateblock" command. The result will be two distinct Bitcoins: one with drivechains and one without.
This approach was resolved the conflict we had in August 2017, when Bitcoin Cash split off from Bitcoin. Similarly, proponents and opponents of drivechains can either hold or sell their respective Bitcoins post-split. This would be a real-world test of control and game theory within the network.
I advocate for this split not just for potential profits, but also because it's a peaceful solution. It would let us see in real time how convicted the drivechain people are. Will drivechain miners support it if it means mining at a loss? A chain split would serve as a critical learning opportunity for the community, providing a clear answer to the ongoing debate. Ultimately, this will strengthen Bitcoin by showing the market how hard it is to change its properties.
So bring it on! Fork or shut up.
The False Dichotomy: Soft Forks vs. Innovation
----------------------------------------------
A common argument in the altcoin community is that Bitcoin isn't innovating, especially compared to newer, "advanced" altcoins. I've debunked this fiat argument in the past, as it equates bribed rent-seekers with entrepreneurs under the label of "developers." These arguments come from non-technical midwits that spew altcoin propaganda and have no interest in providing value.
Unfortunately, this argument has a particularly obnoxious form within Bitcoin where the so-called "moderates" argue that Bitcoin needs to implement more soft forks to continue innovating or progressing or gaining adoption. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, it's incorrect to say Bitcoin isn't innovating. Numerous developers are continually working on Bitcoin, not just in Core, but in the many projects building on top of it. Innovation doesn't just mean changes at the protocol level; it also happens in second layers. Innovation is happening in a permissionlessly.
Second, equating soft forks with innovation is not understanding the long-term consequences. Soft forks are permanent changes to the protocol, and implementing them doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin more innovative or better. In fact, rushing to add new features can introduce security vulnerabilities, a problem often seen in many altcoins. Worse, if the soft fork is a complete dud, we're stuck with it. Reversing a soft fork requires a hard fork. We're essentially stuck with these soft-fork changes forever so we'd better be careful about the changes we let in.
Third, there's a misconception that a lack of soft forks indicates stagnation. This view ignores Bitcoin's biggest strength: its decentralization. Because Bitcoin is not controlled by a single entity, it doesn't have a traditional roadmap or deadlines. This decentralization enables a more organic and safer form of innovation, primarily occurring in layers above the Bitcoin protocol.
Innovation in Bitcoin is not solely defined by the number or frequency of soft forks. The argument that Bitcoin is lagging because it isn't continually implementing soft forks misrepresents how genuine, sustainable innovation occurs. Such misunderstandings comes from a fiat, centralized mindset and the less credence we give to this assumption, the better off we'll be.
Bitcoin Fixes This #104: Macroeconomics with @parkeralewis and @TuurDemeester
After a year-long sabbatical, this show is back! We start off with a banger of an episode featuring two Bitcoin macroeconomists, Parker Lewis and Tuur Demeester. We talked about the Fed, why they really printed the money (it wasn't just COVID) the current inverted yield curve and what the future holds.
What the altcoin community demands of you is to throw all evidence and rationality out the window for their coin.
That is a steep price to pay for an airdrop.
# Addressing the Decline in Birth Rates
Global birth rates are in decline, a trend that governments find alarming. A dwindling population could lead to a host of economic and social issues, but the policy responses have been largely ineffective. Financial incentives for families, like direct payments, tax breaks, and subsidized child care, have been deployed, but with little impact. This reveals a deeper, fundamental issue.
To understand the decline, it's crucial to figure out why couples are having fewer children. The common responses are either a lack of interest or financial constraints. While we should respect the choice not to have children, it's the financial concern that needs addressing.
Having children has become an expensive undertaking. From medical costs related to childbirth to time off work, government-mandated expenses like car seats, and the added costs of larger living spaces and education, families are stretched thin financially. Even households with two earners often struggle to make ends meet, making it harder to consider expanding the family.
The decline of single-earner households, where one parent could stay home to raise children, can be traced back to the massive expansion of rent seeking. The bureaucratic state has increased massively in all sorts of industries, and the inflation that has funded their expansion has driven up all kinds of costs, including essential resources like health care, education and housing. Both parents often need to work just to maintain a moderate standard of living.
A significant reason for these inflated costs is the fiat monetary system. Inflation has eroded the savings and earning power of average families, compelling both parents to enter the workforce. Moreover, real estate prices have soared, making it challenging for families to afford larger homes that could accommodate more children.
In essence, the decline in birth rates is not a consequence of individual choice or even culture but a byproduct of a kleptocratic monetary system that has made child-rearing unaffordable. Unless structural changes are made to restore the financial viability of having larger families, any superficial policy incentives are unlikely to reverse the declining birth rates. These economic incentives are giving back to families just a tiny portion of what's being stolen through the fiat monetary system. Stopping this inflationary theft would empower families to have more children, but such a move would require political will that is currently lacking.
What we need is a new monetary system and the path is not through political reform, but through the adoption of a new money. Bitcoin really is the fix for low birth rates.
Learn more at fiatruinseverything.com
Fork or shut up.