I had three pairs of glasses. One of them broke, and one of them I left at a restaurant during a bitcoin-related business/academic meeting. The last one is half-broke, like it works decently enough but the left hinge is busted and opens too wide, and so it doesn't stay on my head as well as it should.

I usually prioritize my glasses poorly because I only wear them when driving or when I need to read things at a distance (e.g. walking around an airport or other unfamiliar environment). I purposely only wear them when I have to, and do my best to do eye exercises and such in other times, to avoid getting too dependent on them. As a result I tend not to take very good care of them.

I have a pair of prescription sunglasses too, so I've been wearing them, including in some contexts where it's not quite normal (e.g. inside). It ends up feeling like an awkward version of The Matrix.

Before I go to Egypt for the late summer, I scheduled an appointment for an eye exam and a new multi-set of glasses. Most places around me were booked for a full month (labor shortage). With one place that was open, I scheduled weeks in advance but then one eye doctor got into an accident and and their whole schedule changed. So there were *no* eyeglass places within a reasonable distance of me that could do an eye exam, prescribe and manufacture new glasses before I go to Egypt.

So I'm just kind of going there with a busted normal pair of glasses and then my sunglasses, which I'm increasingly getting used to using in abnormal places. I'll probably be walking around the airport in sunglasses. Maybe when I'm there I can get new ones, or just wait until I get back.

Back during COVID, when we all needed tests before travel, I always found it easier to get tests in Cairo than in New Jersey. The US tests were like, "okay we can get them to you in 48-72 hours" which was awkward because the government+airline was like, "we need tests within the past 72 hours". So there was this weird window where they get it to you just in time... or they don't. I had to get a second emergency test for like 10x the cost once, with high stress and extra activity right before the flight, because the first test was too slow and missed their 72-hour timeframe. But in Cairo I could always get one within 24-36 hours without issue.

Anyway, that's my current version of first world problems. Heading to Egypt with broken glasses, and the Egyptian system might ironically fix this faster than I can here in New Jersey. Everything feels weird due to labor shortages.

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?

as a new bitcoiner i don’t see how people even have the time to focus on anything outside of bitcoin. there’s just no need for anything else. no need for rarity or fluff. mystics or costumes. why do all the hard work to learn about bitcoin, and want different? anything beyond the white paper & core values is unnecessary. even my little rant is unnecessary.

#bitcoin is #bitcoin and that’s enough

as a new bitcoiner i don’t see how people even have the time to focus on anything outside of bitcoin. there’s just no need for anything else. no need for rarity or fluff. mystics or costumes. why do all the hard work to learn about bitcoin, and want different? anything beyond the white paper & core values is unnecessary. even my little rant is unnecessary.

#bitcoin is #bitcoin and that’s enough

A steelman argument is the opposite of a strawman argument. It's where you imagine the best possible argument from your opposing side (sometimes even better than they themselves can articulate it), and address that. In other words, you treat your critics like absolutely serious people and try to address any concerns they may have with regards to your outlook.

If someone were to argue that, "yeah bitcoin is cool, but ultimately when push comes to shove the major governments are going to outlaw it, drive it into the black market as a small asset, and issue a replacement that they back as legal tender", what would your steelman argument be?

Similarly, if someone were to argue, "Look how fast they are advancing on superconductors. Quantum computing may come sooner than we think, and threaten Bitcoin's security. That's why I don't buy bitcoins", what would your steelman argument be?

When money inflates in supply, employers have the benefit of the status quo, and wage earners have the burden of work to negotiate higher nominal wages to keep up.

The effect is subtle in developing countries, a few percentage points per year, but it's always there behind the scenes. People often have to switch jobs to get proper higher wages, and avoid the anchoring bias from their prior employer. This is all because of dilutive fiat money.

The problem becomes more obvious in developing countries.

For example, the IMF tells Egypt to cut its currency in half relative to the dollar, if it wants some loan relief. It does. Now, every Egyptian wage earner has to try to negotiate a raise to regain some portion of their prior wages in terms of global purchasing power. Virtually all of them will not be able to. And then seven years later they do it again.

But when money deflates in supply, and the unit of account therefore appreciates, wage earners gain the benefit of the status quo in negotiations. If their salaries merely remain the same as averages prices go down, they have gained a raise (which makes sense, with greater experience).

The burden of work shifts to the employer, who has to argue that wages should be cut in line with prices.

I think the magnitude of this effect is poorly understood. If it were more understood, I think a subset of labor-oriented political proponents would appreciate hard money a bit more.