Thread

Replies (53)

Until today, I considered that Bitcoin is whatever people want to be. It took me some time to understand that we have to treat Bitcoin as money if we want people to accept that Bitcoin is money. So, dear Uncle, put your message out there till people (like me) get it. I also have only 8 months since I became a Bitcoiner... 🀷
↩ replying to Constantin
What I'm realizing is that those JPGs and crap are expressions of individuals and companies who have their own goals. And they are entitled to do that. But in the end what we can ALL agree is that money is not spam. Money is a tool to fight information overload, hence we gotta keep Bitcoin focused on being money... we don't want it to become a decentralized database of various types of information.
↩ replying to UNCLE ROCKSTAR
To be a database, it needs to store a specific type of data. That’s why businesses don’t just have a database for all the business data. There’s a database of customer contacts, a database of business transactions, and so on. Most business also enforce IT and data management policies which prevent people from putting unrelated or irrelevant data into the various databases. If you allow any type of data to go into a database, it just becomes data storage, which is far less useful. So Bitcoin is a database… Of monetary data. It’s the difference between an Amazon warehouse and a hoarder’s storage space.
↩ replying to Deleted Account
Agree that L2s like lightning network are needed to make bitcoin faster and convenient for everyday use. But I would argue that even if we didn't have L2s bitcoin would still be optimal money in relation to everything else. It may be slower but still operable for wealth management or big purchases while not needing a third-party custodian which wins over gold and it holds its value over time which beats fiat. But, yes for everyday micro/small purchases we do need L2s that focus on optimizing for speed and security of transactions while L1 optimizes for decentralization and security.
↩ replying to NodeRunner
I agree we should aim to optimize as the best money, but would by default assume any concession of principle that aims to do so to be most likely to be short sighted. After all, we have principles because they predict outcomes better than forecasting. As to context, I'm not actually being adversarial to the specifics, only highlighting the generalized counter point for edification: When 'rigid axiomatic rule prohibits' I agree let's not 'let perfect be the enemy of the good', but I would simply add that the cautionary counter point to *that* then is 'system failure and injustice often begin with rationalized concessions of principle'