Community Trust ScoreVerified
Yassine Elmandjra Shared: Bitcoin’s conservatism is its most important feature. A system that aims to provide a scarce, decentralized, global, borderless, non-sovereign money SHOULD be boring and predictable. If you aren’t boring and predictable, you aren’t competing against Bitcoin.
Community Response: This is a big reason why classifying other chains as competitors is unproductive. Bitcoin cannot compete with other chains, nor should it want to. Other chains are losing to competition for not being “progressive” enough. Bitcoin will win by not being “progressive” at all.
Agreed. Important to divorce Bitcoin from crypto.
Bitcoin with LN (Lightning Network) is already a better MoE than crypto anyways. The only things left for Bitcoin to win against fiat for global reserve status is volatility and tax treatment.
Bitcoin is the best usage of blockchain for “store of value”. But there are many other potential use cases of blockchain. We’ll have many other Bitcoins, make sure of it.
There might be other real use cases for the blockchain. But we haven’t found one yet aside from Bitcoin.
I like your perspective and agree to a point, but EVERYTHING competes for liquidity, so Bitcoin competes with not only other cryptos, but other assets like equities, bonds, and real estate when it comes to storing wealth. This is an unavoidable fact.
To add, soft-fork culture particularly is important because it brings properties of Analog gold to bitcoin, in that bitcoin isn’t corruptible by tech issues/code changes/native divisions because all updates are backwards compatible. Layered buildings enable Bitcoin to achieve all else.
Being statically progressive is what sets Bitcoin apart from other store of value products, other chains are dynamically progressive for problems more dynamic than storing value.
Well like it or not, bitcoin is competing with other chains. And being the most outdated blockchain with an insanely concentrated supply and zero use case beyond speculation, I don’t think it’s going to survive long-term personally.
I feel the same. Bitcoin doesn’t need smart contracts. Tesla doesn’t need to build rockets. Apple doesn’t need to build mattresses.
I feel that’s a perspective that didn’t get BTC to where it is today and is actually quite detrimental to the long run success of the chain. Happy to debate this in a place more productive than Twitter comments.
Bitcoin is hard money. Everything else is casino chips, airline miles, loyalty points, and trading cards.
Gravity is boring and predictable too, but all life would go extinct if it were to change as rapidly as modern monetary policy does to the natural laws of economics.
Simply holding Bitcoin is radical in the face of the fiat hegemony. It’s a silent persistent immutable protest.
USD is boring and predictable. I’m not advocating for Fiat but you should rethink your thesis.
Thing is that this would hold true *if* and only if Bitcoin was fundamentally sound. Because of mining rewards arising from PoW combining with economies of scale in mining, BTC is fundamentally unsound. In the long run, it’s unlikely to stay secure.
Bitcoin will never get there. It’s property, not currency. Absolutely. Cannot agree more. I want Bitcoin to become boring and predictable and I believe it will in time with increased supply scarcity.
Bitcoin is not boring in any way. Defi” is Ethereum or Polkadot or Solana or Matic or Cardano or Luna or ripple or BSC or Chainlink or BNB or Bitcoin = Single fixed blade crafted by master blacksmith; Others = Swiss Army knife.
The only thing volatile is the price. Boring? You are using the wrong words, BTC is exciting as hell.
Agree with this general principle, but don’t like that it’s morphed into dogmatic, bright-line rules like “soft forks only” or “sacred 21M hard cap”.
What if the lightning network actually ends up making the network more centralized by necessitating permissioned channels for it to be reliable?
What if the shortcomings of the lightning network also keep fee levels chronically too low and the block subsidy needs to be increased to keep the chain secure?
These are important concerns that at the very least need to be discussed and prepared for in case the current approach doesn’t prove sustainable, yet you’re lambasted as a “shit coiner” in bitcoin for even bringing up these concerns.
Viable alternatives no doubt exist, but may require a treasonous hard-fork and thus be dismissed until it’s too late Principles-based governance > rules-based governance, especially for fast-growing and nascent protocols like cryptocurrency.
Litecoin is also boring. But about to the best money on the planet.
Bitcoin has become a religion. Unlike religion, a very old virus that mutates, bitcoin will have a short life-span and no spawns. Soon the walls of shit clouding your judgement will crumble, and you will realize that after all you were merely a fool with an opinion.
