Thread

I’m writing this because I keep getting asked to comment on Saylor/Saif video even though my position hasn’t changed. The natural state of the free market is deflation which means all prices fall forever in Bitcoin (assuming it stays decentralized and secure) Free market economies are more productive meaning faster deflation (or real wealth gains by falling prices) That system is incompatible with an inflationary monetary system meaning one of those systems must fail. Either: 1) A system based on truth, hope, and abundance for all 8 billion people on the planet driven by a free market economy and all prices fall relative to bitcoin forever. This means Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange and freedom tech spreads to the world through lightning, Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc. OR 2) A control system. An extractive rent seeking system that is NOT the free market (similar to the one we have had for 5000 years that resets every 100 or so years through war) continues to centralize by having you believe price of bitcoin is going up in fiat which makes the surveillance state stronger. This eventually centralizes Bitcoin - custodians, media, regulation (funded from the same manipulation of money) where it is attacked from layer 2. (Similar to gold) While these ideas may “seem” compatible in the short term because you want Bitcoin to go up in fiat. What it really means is that you are giving your energy and strength to the system centralizing the world by converting Bitcoin to Fiat….to then measure prices. Quite simply - If Bitcoin is only a store of value, it fails as a store of value. Ps - It won’t fail. #1 is inevitable in time because too many (and more each day) have seen behind the curtain and are determined to build path #1. Many of you here - the people that inspire me every day. You make a difference with every word, thought and action. Almost did that in all caps per @ODELL because it’s so important. Referring to # 1 above…..There is no second best.

Replies (62)

I'm sensing a lack of confidence among bitcoiners recently. Arthur Hayes talked about Blackrock being in the ETF business for the benefit of the US gov't. On the other hand I never thought the $1 million predictions by 2026 by people such as Hayes, Jack Mallers, Samson Mow, Hodl etc are helpful at all, they will just disappoint people. We haven't even got to $75k yet never mind Hodl's previous bull run prediction of $300k a few years ago. Personally I'm skeptical of another retail led bull run. Most people are aware of bitcoin & they are either going to buy it because they believe it's worth holding or they won't touch it, the days of jumping in on an upward move are likely gone for most people too many have been burned (although they should have held on instead of selling at a loss). I agree with a lot of what Saylor says & it flies in the face of maxi's who used to tell us bitcoin will kill the banks. No, the banks will get involved in bitcoin if there's money to be made. Saylor is obviously very confident which helps me keep confident although as time goes by (been here over 7yrs) my confidence in bitcoin isn't what it was. Talk in the past of governments not being able to kill bitcoin seem a little fanciful now. I think the government's ability to crush anything it wants is more powerful than we like to believe. An inability to create a widespread use of bitcoin as a MoE coupled with a hostile government could be devastating to bitcoin.
↩ replying to npub1jfw4...vctc
I think you underestimate how difficult it would be to kill bitcoin at this point. Nobody can take your properly secured self custodied bitcoin and there are too many people who plan to use it as money at this point. Sure there’s an unfortunate number of coins locked up in exchanges but there’s enough circulating in the wild to work out just fine. Suppose they try to take over mining and effectively censor transactions. The network can implement workarounds like swapping out SHA256 to brick the ASICs and reset hash rate until it can figure out a long term solution. It could even, and I hate writing this, make a PoS layer 2 as a temporary solution until mining can decentralize again so that the people who actually want bitcoin to thrive can transact again. Then suppose they make possession punishable by extreme measures. There are so many ways to embed Bitcoin transactions securely and covertly that it’s impossible to enforce. And on top of that, suppose your country does ban it. They have no control over the rest of the world who just might value a neutral reserve currency and continue to stack sats. Bitcoin was designed from the beginning to resist attack and while it may not be perfect there is no second best.
🛡️
↩ replying to npub1jfw4...vctc
The scenario Saylor presented is unrealistic in my view because if everyone copied his behavior bitcoin would crush fiat through the speculative attack. Saif's take is unrealistic in the short term because people are not perfectly rational by default and will make mistakes for a long time before the usury dries up, but his theory is closer to reality in the long term (low time preference). If your confidence rests on other people rather than your own understanding you'll be on an emotional rollercoaster.
I keep thinking about Saylor's lense through which he sees the world (20+ years running a public company) and the lense through which he projects his thoughts into the world. I often wonder if he's playing 5D chess by not taking the "burn it down" approach, which we know is the inevitable end state of the current control structure, not caused by the new system. By building out the infrastructure to allow the new system to handle 8 billion people quickly and quietly, we increase our chances of avoiding path #2. Thank you Jeff for all that you do on this front.
I have a little spreadsheet that every now and again I update. My net worth is at the bottom in bitcoin and in USD. I am basically 50-50 btc and property. As a result, when bitcoin goes up in fiat terms, my net worth goes up in USD and down in btc equivalent. I have a house cause it's where I live so not selling it for bitcoin but it's interesting to watch the paradigm play out in numbers so clearly
So the main difference between scenario #1 and #2 ist that in order to make #1 reality you need to think in #Bitcoin and deflationary & in addition to keep self custody the main way of holding #Bitcoin. Right?
In a future Bitcoin standard, Banks might exist if the market determines that there is a need , but interest rate when market determine will ultimately trend to zero . When banks cannot be bailed out , depending on how the contract is structured, the Bitcoin owner get back what is left of the value of his coin if the borrower project fail and the bank who makes bad loan will ultimately go out of business. As you keep saying Jeff “ it is hard to visualize what will happen if we keep thinking from the current FIAT standard “
So true and a crucial aspect on #bitcoin. You don't need yields in a deflationary system, only an inflationary system is chasing yields, because it measures the profit by the #fiat scale! #bitcoin as money is the key and #nostr as the free speech sibbling!
User's avatar npub1s05p...eyhe
I’m writing this because I keep getting asked to comment on Saylor/Saif video even though my position hasn’t changed. The natural state of the free market is deflation which means all prices fall forever in Bitcoin (assuming it stays decentralized and secure) Free market economies are more productive meaning faster deflation (or real wealth gains by falling prices) That system is incompatible with an inflationary monetary system meaning one of those systems must fail. Either: 1) A system based on truth, hope, and abundance for all 8 billion people on the planet driven by a free market economy and all prices fall relative to bitcoin forever. This means Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange and freedom tech spreads to the world through lightning, Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc. OR 2) A control system. An extractive rent seeking system that is NOT the free market (similar to the one we have had for 5000 years that resets every 100 or so years through war) continues to centralize by having you believe price of bitcoin is going up in fiat which makes the surveillance state stronger. This eventually centralizes Bitcoin - custodians, media, regulation (funded from the same manipulation of money) where it is attacked from layer 2. (Similar to gold) While these ideas may “seem” compatible in the short term because you want Bitcoin to go up in fiat. What it really means is that you are giving your energy and strength to the system centralizing the world by converting Bitcoin to Fiat….to then measure prices. Quite simply - If Bitcoin is only a store of value, it fails as a store of value. Ps - It won’t fail. #1 is inevitable in time because too many (and more each day) have seen behind the curtain and are determined to build path #1. Many of you here - the people that inspire me every day. You make a difference with every word, thought and action. Almost did that in all caps per @ODELL because it’s so important. Referring to # 1 above…..There is no second best.
View quoted note →
🛡️
It was surprising to see Saylor say all that on Saif's podcast. Perhaps Saylor is falling victim to his own success? Could he be receiving a new form of pressure from shareholders who want him to 'cash out' and 'realize' part of bitcoin fiat gains in fiat? Natural yield will have variance in response to supply and demand shifts.
btc is being attacked on two fronts from outside and from within. satoshi's white paper spoke of nothing more than a medium of exchange. the store of value was never mentioned. it is arguable therefore the value is the medium of exchange. crisis of confidence - small blocks, big blocks. small blocks allow millions of nodes to run domestically. they also protect against 'dod' attack of the network. in the early days this was necessary. today with millions of users, less so. big blocks allow for more and faster transactions. btc is scaleable. it always has been. spv made that possible, it is still possible today. the small blocks were only a precaution in the early days. so why do we still have small blocks? small blocks make it easier for everyone to store a full node. given the full node is less than a tb, this is really not a something we should be worried about. most businesses run 40tb servers+. btc could expand the block size and still maintain 100s of thousands of nodes. so why keep blocks small? who wins? in the short term those setting fees. in the long term, nobody. btc will fail to be of any value unless it is returned to being a medium of exchange. it is only an asset if it has value to people. if the network only handles the monster payments, what value is it to you and i? dollar go up is completely the wrong thinking. use btc to avoid fraud, corruption and dystopian rule. return to a free market and peace. the value in that is instant. if you are in business or starting out price in btc. sell, buy borrow lend .... in btc and create the world you want for you and yours. lets also open the discussion around block size again and stop the censorship from within. this way we win on both fronts. we leave fiat behind and move on with the world's best money. GM 🙃
↩ replying to npub1l7x3...dd3x
The size of the block doesn't seem like the issue. It seems like layer 1 taking an average of 10 minutes per block to confirm and 60 minutes for 6 confirmation to ensure immutability is a bigger concern. Why don't the big blockers ever explain how BTC can be a Medium of Exchange (MoE) when it takes much longer than a fiat credit card approval we are used to when exchanging. Lightning and a myriad of other options mentioned by @npub1s05p...eyhe do offer a comparable user experience. My focus is on creating the Unit of Account (UoA) to support the MoE so that bitcoin can become have all monetary properties as the geniuses that are working on layer 2 have great solutions for us.
↩ replying to npub1yyn8...qswv
when btc started it would appear the 10 minute wait was acceptable. if there are any that used btc in this time it would be great to know what the experience was like. pros and cons. today's corruption of currency and the financial tools, makes 10 mins seem like a small price to pay for the freedom. the downside are the fees to do small transactions, which reduces the feasibility of using btc for minor transactions. yes there are some great l2 solutions. are we reinventing the wheel though? if btc was unlimited transactions from the start and only installed small blocks for protection of the early network, would it be reckless to consider expanding the scope of operations to match the network scale? the danger is ossification or stagnation. if nobody uses the network for anything other than huge payments, it is no longer the people's money. can l2s be locked out of the network? eg: can lightning be switched off/disconnected? thank you for your response. it is all extremely helpful in understanding. good fortunes with your ventures. GM 🙃
↩ replying to npub1rvqz...f8df
thanks for the reply brett. it was my thinking too. lately with fees rising rapidly and miners cherry picking transactions, it is a question at the back of my mind, what happens when the rest of the world gets on btc. how long and how much a transaction? privacy is great but functionality has to be considered as well. increasing block size increases speed of processing. it also introduces other issues eg: what is is allowed to be included in block... cost of technology is ever decreasing is a 40tb hdd really a stretch 10 years from now? that allows network to scale over 40. thoughts? GM 🙃
↩ replying to npub1l7x3...dd3x
Thank you for sharing additional insights on this. As a relatively new bitcoiner, it is helpful to me to get more perspective. I have set up two lightning nodes myself to better understand the technology and use cases and don't think it could be locked out of the base layer. The reason is that to open a channel, I simply do an on-chain transactions from my wallet to a new multi-sig wallet with the party on the other end of my channel. How would a decentralized Bticoin network prevent somebody from submitting a valid onchain transaction to open a channel?   Once opened, I can freely transaction via the Ligthning protocol using that channel until such time as either my channel partner or I want to close the channel which is another onchain transaction to settle the amount of bitcoin each of us has on our side of the chnanel.  If the channel closing transactions is valid onchain, I don't think anybody would prevent it from being added to a block.   Except perhaps miners who could figure out a 51% attack but if that happened we have bigger problems than whether L2 is working or not.
↩ replying to npub1l7x3...dd3x
Firstly, I’m not an expert by any stretch. I’m just speculating… I ask myself, can the entire population use Bitcoin? Given 21 quadrillion satoshi and 8 billion people, that is about 2.6 million satoshi per person on Earth. However we know that there are only around 1.5 quadrillion satoshi to be mined and if we are ridiculously generous and say 1 billion people already use bitcoin, that leaves around 250k satoshi per person. And that is assuming no more accumulation by people who already have bitcoin. Basically I think that there is no possible way everyone can use bitcoin without major changes to the protocol including both blocksize and total units, the latter being a complete non-starter. And if bitcoin is going to change and not be for everyone, then I don’t think it’s worth making that change at all.
People will continue to do what works for them, until it doesn't. And then they will adapt or fade away. @saylor and Saifedean and all of us are in the process of a segway from the old world to the new world. Disagreements will happen on the way, but we'll work them out and continue growing and adapting. The world we are building is the future we will live in. That is how life works, and in some sense that's why we have hope. View quoted note →
#1 all the way! In addition to the tools like "lightning, Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc.", for Medium of Exchange (Moe), we will need tools and applications to use bitcoin as a Unit of Account (UoA). I think that aspect of MoE adoption is not getting enough attention and I'm organizing some efforts around that with the few who are working on tools. Anybody with interest in helping to create a White Paper on UoA with our group, please reach out to me.
🛡️
i had to re listen to the full 2 hours 40 minutes and i am half way through the second listen... we are lucky to have someone like @saylor as a bitcoiner and interestingly enough he is not afraid to speak and separate himself from the herd mentality ... i applaud that... there is too much NPC thinking in the bitcoin influencer space
My perception was that they spoke past each other and both raised some valid points. Saylor might still be in the Warren Buffet mindset, where Warren stated once that he does not see the current government adopt BTC as a currency as it competes with their power. Government loves power so that statement is true. Saylor’s question on how you reward risk is a topic to be expanded on and discussed for the future world. Unless BTC by stealth takes over most currency activity and you have a peaceful revolution and not a violent revolution. Stefan Moleneaux in his book The Future and the prologue The Present believes that we should prepare for government to keep power at all costs and even destroy society as we know it currently. His focus is thus on family and specifically children via peaceful parenting to ensure our future societal structure under BTC. So his root cause is not money but child abuse as the precursor for state power. But sound money via Bitcoin will be part of that future peaceful society. Maybe the Saylor/Safedean debate was a microcosm of that playing out already.
To add, the problem with an appreciating asset is that people do not like disposing of it (Especially longer term preference people, probably 3-5% of global population) In turn that creates currency supply problems, especially if it is relied upon for exchange of value. This might lead to a two tier system, which is where it seems to be going.
👇👇Beautiful Booth Bit👇👇
User's avatar npub1s05p...eyhe
I’m writing this because I keep getting asked to comment on Saylor/Saif video even though my position hasn’t changed. The natural state of the free market is deflation which means all prices fall forever in Bitcoin (assuming it stays decentralized and secure) Free market economies are more productive meaning faster deflation (or real wealth gains by falling prices) That system is incompatible with an inflationary monetary system meaning one of those systems must fail. Either: 1) A system based on truth, hope, and abundance for all 8 billion people on the planet driven by a free market economy and all prices fall relative to bitcoin forever. This means Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange and freedom tech spreads to the world through lightning, Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc. OR 2) A control system. An extractive rent seeking system that is NOT the free market (similar to the one we have had for 5000 years that resets every 100 or so years through war) continues to centralize by having you believe price of bitcoin is going up in fiat which makes the surveillance state stronger. This eventually centralizes Bitcoin - custodians, media, regulation (funded from the same manipulation of money) where it is attacked from layer 2. (Similar to gold) While these ideas may “seem” compatible in the short term because you want Bitcoin to go up in fiat. What it really means is that you are giving your energy and strength to the system centralizing the world by converting Bitcoin to Fiat….to then measure prices. Quite simply - If Bitcoin is only a store of value, it fails as a store of value. Ps - It won’t fail. #1 is inevitable in time because too many (and more each day) have seen behind the curtain and are determined to build path #1. Many of you here - the people that inspire me every day. You make a difference with every word, thought and action. Almost did that in all caps per @ODELL because it’s so important. Referring to # 1 above…..There is no second best.
View quoted note →
🛡️
Apologies to followers who may have already seen this note but despite it apparently having been reposted 87 times in the last couple of days, I didn't see it until I directly visited Jeff's profile page just now. Maybe others missed it too.
User's avatar npub1s05p...eyhe
I’m writing this because I keep getting asked to comment on Saylor/Saif video even though my position hasn’t changed. The natural state of the free market is deflation which means all prices fall forever in Bitcoin (assuming it stays decentralized and secure) Free market economies are more productive meaning faster deflation (or real wealth gains by falling prices) That system is incompatible with an inflationary monetary system meaning one of those systems must fail. Either: 1) A system based on truth, hope, and abundance for all 8 billion people on the planet driven by a free market economy and all prices fall relative to bitcoin forever. This means Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange and freedom tech spreads to the world through lightning, Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc. OR 2) A control system. An extractive rent seeking system that is NOT the free market (similar to the one we have had for 5000 years that resets every 100 or so years through war) continues to centralize by having you believe price of bitcoin is going up in fiat which makes the surveillance state stronger. This eventually centralizes Bitcoin - custodians, media, regulation (funded from the same manipulation of money) where it is attacked from layer 2. (Similar to gold) While these ideas may “seem” compatible in the short term because you want Bitcoin to go up in fiat. What it really means is that you are giving your energy and strength to the system centralizing the world by converting Bitcoin to Fiat….to then measure prices. Quite simply - If Bitcoin is only a store of value, it fails as a store of value. Ps - It won’t fail. #1 is inevitable in time because too many (and more each day) have seen behind the curtain and are determined to build path #1. Many of you here - the people that inspire me every day. You make a difference with every word, thought and action. Almost did that in all caps per @ODELL because it’s so important. Referring to # 1 above…..There is no second best.
View quoted note →
Ge nostr
User's avatar npub1s05p...eyhe
I’m writing this because I keep getting asked to comment on Saylor/Saif video even though my position hasn’t changed. The natural state of the free market is deflation which means all prices fall forever in Bitcoin (assuming it stays decentralized and secure) Free market economies are more productive meaning faster deflation (or real wealth gains by falling prices) That system is incompatible with an inflationary monetary system meaning one of those systems must fail. Either: 1) A system based on truth, hope, and abundance for all 8 billion people on the planet driven by a free market economy and all prices fall relative to bitcoin forever. This means Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange and freedom tech spreads to the world through lightning, Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc. OR 2) A control system. An extractive rent seeking system that is NOT the free market (similar to the one we have had for 5000 years that resets every 100 or so years through war) continues to centralize by having you believe price of bitcoin is going up in fiat which makes the surveillance state stronger. This eventually centralizes Bitcoin - custodians, media, regulation (funded from the same manipulation of money) where it is attacked from layer 2. (Similar to gold) While these ideas may “seem” compatible in the short term because you want Bitcoin to go up in fiat. What it really means is that you are giving your energy and strength to the system centralizing the world by converting Bitcoin to Fiat….to then measure prices. Quite simply - If Bitcoin is only a store of value, it fails as a store of value. Ps - It won’t fail. #1 is inevitable in time because too many (and more each day) have seen behind the curtain and are determined to build path #1. Many of you here - the people that inspire me every day. You make a difference with every word, thought and action. Almost did that in all caps per @ODELL because it’s so important. Referring to # 1 above…..There is no second best.
View quoted note →
Hello Jeff, Here are my 2 sats. I believe Bitcoiners should move away from the idea that, under a BTC standard, prices need to be denominated in sats. Instead, we should consider denominating prices in hashes. Reasoning: A product's price in sats can fall for two reasons: 1. The product can be produced more efficiently, meaning less energy is needed to create one unit. 2.Humanity has access to more usable energy in general. When it comes to product pricing, the effect of point 2 should ideally be eliminated, and price signals should come only from the first point. However, if humanity has access to more energy, the ratio of SHA256 hashes per BTC will continuously increase, and through the timechain, it is also the only market price that can be validated by every node, on the relationship between block rewards and difficulty. Since hashes are ultimately equivalent to energy, product prices denominated in hashes would likely converge toward an optimum, rather than falling indefinitely.
🛡️
I really really like the idea/vision of a global free market with very low barriers of trading for everyone. On that note (and touching 1.): Another aspect I've been thinking is how Bitcoin is also a very strong social signal. By using it you're already giving out the message that you want a new free market in a non-fiat currency (and a new world by consequence). And that social signal in itself I think will allow people to trade much more, much more often and with much less barriers. Trading is the essence of progress as we know. Now technically speaking, Bitcoin will perhaps be shaped (trickled down) in many forms (Lightning, etc, etc, and even Monero if the bridges are made, etc, etc). But Bitcoin would be the basic meme, that everybody would understand and refer to. Bitcoin is the social signal (the basic meme). But it's the people that will truly create the revolution by trading with each other like never before, achieving much more widespread deflation than ever before. #bitcoin #freemarket #libertarian
Is it possible to determine the value of one side of a bitcoin transaction without using fiat as a reference in that moment? Ex. If someone says I’ll sell you this house for 10 BTC, isn’t the only way to determine if it’s a good trade is by mentally converting the 10 BTC to fiat and then comparing it to the market rate for similar houses?
↩ replying to npub1p34v...y046
What you are looking for is pricing things in time spent to earn the amount of currency required. A salary basically converts time spent at work to currency. It is up to you to judge if paying a years worth of time in earnings is equal to one house or not. Then, it also depends if you are buying a house or an investment in the shape of a house. For another example, is a hundred hours working at what you are good at worth paying for a washer and a dryer, that saves you time spent on chores for the next few years?
Hi Jeff, love your work, your profound premise is truly valid ==> real prices fall for all goods and services across time. As for Bitcoin, I feel (think I think) that forces created by big players can only strengthen it, whether they know they are being good or bad, honest or corrupt. Evil, ignorance and fear eventually dies. Just like fire or math, Bitcoin is unstoppable. We didn't win the blocksize wars, someone created a different coin. We didn't lose our keys, or buy an ETF, we effectively donated bitcoin to the peer to peer electronic cash system. We only need one free SAT at light's speed monetary velocity for transactions to keep echoing to eternity.