> Owning 1000 satoshis/21M BTC is guaranteed to be worth 1000 satoshis/21M BTC 100 years from now, it can not be debased.
That's your definition of lossless storage? Literally any limited-run asset fits into that category. It doesn't mean that your 21M BTC 100 years from now is going to be worth anything, because limited-run assets are not inherently valuable.
It certainly doesn't mean that Bitcoin is a store of electricity because, again, you can not get that electricity back once it is lost. You are hoping that other people who didn't put their electricity into Bitcoin will trade you some for an asset. That is not the same thing as retrieval.
> Almost every fiat currency dies a horrible death in less than a century due to this inflation
No? That's just very blatantly not true, to the point where I don't understand how you made that error. The US dollar is multiple centuries old. The EURO is multiple centuries old. The most common currencies today across the world are multiple centuries old.
It would be a massive stretch to try and argue that all of them have horribly died, given that I can 99.99% guarantee that right now your job is paying you in one of those currencies.
> This is P2P money first, just because it has now scaled to 10M+ users doesn't mean it can't run like it originally did, with 1 miner and 1 node.
I don't mean to be confrontational about this, but do you understand the technology behind how blockchains work? The whole point of the blockchain is to prevent double-spending. If you're waiting months to reach consensus in a P2P network, that's months before you can be sure that a transaction went through securely.
If you have 1 miner and 1 node, and if lots of people across an environment are building this setup, you have effectively mass-forked the blockchain already. You've lost the ability to prevent double-spending. The only reason Bitcoin is secure is because everyone uses the same chain and is connected to the same network. Fracturing that chain is forking. That's what forking is.
This is also why Bitcoin is having difficulty scaling, because the whole point of a blockchain is that you need network consensus and network consensus takes a lot of time/energy. The reason you can't double-spend is because your hardware is slower and less powerful than the overall Bitcoin network. A single-pool network destroys that principle.
This is also why people are worried about the environmental costs. You seem to be looking at mining as something separate from the transaction process. It's not, mining is how transactions on Bitcoin get written onto the chain. That energy cost doesn't go away, it's an intrinsic part of how transactions get confirmed and secured. The principle is that the more people you have mining, the harder it is to commit fraud. A 1-person pool is not secure.
> This would be true if we ignored one of the primary laws of money, "hardest money wins". There can literally only be one hardest money, and capital will flow into it precisely because it is the hardest and acts as the best store of value.
So in other words, it's exactly like I said and the value of Bitcoin is based on social consensus that Bitcoin has value, not on an inherent immutable property of Bitcoin itself.
You don't know that 200 years from now a better store of value won't come around, and if that happens, your own principle of "hardest money wins" will guarantee that your Bitcoin is worthless, because the newer, better store of value will be the "harder money".
> I took another run at this because the longer you take to understand these concepts the poorer you will be.
No offense, but I think this is part of the reason why people compare Bitcoin to a pyramid scheme. I do understand the tech of Bitcoin and the economic theory about it. I've been hanging around this circle and listing to the talks and proponents since early 2013-2014. I've dug into the algorithms that make this work and listened to the economic theories that early proponents were using to justify their experiment. What that experience has given me is an understanding that this process isn't magic.
So you use words like "space money solution" which means nothing for a network that requires real-time consensus to confirm transactions. You're saying that the network literally can't go down, which displays a wild misunderstanding of how mining actually works and why it's important to the technology. You seem to be under the impression that Bitcoin is magical just because it's complicated. But as someone who has genuinely been in this space for a long time and genuinely spent a bunch of time learning how the technology works, most of the magical properties you think exist... don't.
You're buying into a technology that you don't understand, based on wildly flawed economic ideas like "deflationary assets can't go down in value", an idea that can easily be proven false just by looking at the history of literally any other deflationary asset. Never mind the fact that silver and gold are also deflationary assets in the long term; apparently they don't count because they physically degrade, a process that hard drives are magically immune from. Never mind the fact that you yourself seem to understand that silver dropped in value when gold took over; apparently that can't possibly happen with Bitcoin because it would be impossible for anyone to iterate on the technology. We should all just buy into this idea because you said the words "space money".
Fiat currencies aren't backed by commodities... the modern fiat dollars we have used since 1970 are very different from what existed before that point in history. It can be and should be considered a separate currency.
---
You seem to not know the history of money/fiat currencies and make a lot of assumptions about things that are not based in reality.
Being in this space since 2013-2014 doesn't mean you have a good grasp of the tech or the economics. Many people that arrived at the btc maximalist position in the last 6-12 months have more of a basic understanding of these topics, I can tell from your responses.
Unfortunately this is growing too long for me to respond to and I gave it a good go, so I will let the market teach you the rest of this lesson (warning - the market is a harsh teacher). I would have to give you a course in monetary/economic history to adequately do this topic justice and this is not the format that is best suited to do it in.
That's your definition of lossless storage? Literally any limited-run asset fits into that category. It doesn't mean that your 21M BTC 100 years from now is going to be worth anything, because limited-run assets are not inherently valuable.
It certainly doesn't mean that Bitcoin is a store of electricity because, again, you can not get that electricity back once it is lost. You are hoping that other people who didn't put their electricity into Bitcoin will trade you some for an asset. That is not the same thing as retrieval.
> Almost every fiat currency dies a horrible death in less than a century due to this inflation
No? That's just very blatantly not true, to the point where I don't understand how you made that error. The US dollar is multiple centuries old. The EURO is multiple centuries old. The most common currencies today across the world are multiple centuries old.
It would be a massive stretch to try and argue that all of them have horribly died, given that I can 99.99% guarantee that right now your job is paying you in one of those currencies.
> This is P2P money first, just because it has now scaled to 10M+ users doesn't mean it can't run like it originally did, with 1 miner and 1 node.
I don't mean to be confrontational about this, but do you understand the technology behind how blockchains work? The whole point of the blockchain is to prevent double-spending. If you're waiting months to reach consensus in a P2P network, that's months before you can be sure that a transaction went through securely.
If you have 1 miner and 1 node, and if lots of people across an environment are building this setup, you have effectively mass-forked the blockchain already. You've lost the ability to prevent double-spending. The only reason Bitcoin is secure is because everyone uses the same chain and is connected to the same network. Fracturing that chain is forking. That's what forking is.
This is also why Bitcoin is having difficulty scaling, because the whole point of a blockchain is that you need network consensus and network consensus takes a lot of time/energy. The reason you can't double-spend is because your hardware is slower and less powerful than the overall Bitcoin network. A single-pool network destroys that principle.
This is also why people are worried about the environmental costs. You seem to be looking at mining as something separate from the transaction process. It's not, mining is how transactions on Bitcoin get written onto the chain. That energy cost doesn't go away, it's an intrinsic part of how transactions get confirmed and secured. The principle is that the more people you have mining, the harder it is to commit fraud. A 1-person pool is not secure.
> This would be true if we ignored one of the primary laws of money, "hardest money wins". There can literally only be one hardest money, and capital will flow into it precisely because it is the hardest and acts as the best store of value.
So in other words, it's exactly like I said and the value of Bitcoin is based on social consensus that Bitcoin has value, not on an inherent immutable property of Bitcoin itself.
You don't know that 200 years from now a better store of value won't come around, and if that happens, your own principle of "hardest money wins" will guarantee that your Bitcoin is worthless, because the newer, better store of value will be the "harder money".
> I took another run at this because the longer you take to understand these concepts the poorer you will be.
No offense, but I think this is part of the reason why people compare Bitcoin to a pyramid scheme. I do understand the tech of Bitcoin and the economic theory about it. I've been hanging around this circle and listing to the talks and proponents since early 2013-2014. I've dug into the algorithms that make this work and listened to the economic theories that early proponents were using to justify their experiment. What that experience has given me is an understanding that this process isn't magic.
So you use words like "space money solution" which means nothing for a network that requires real-time consensus to confirm transactions. You're saying that the network literally can't go down, which displays a wild misunderstanding of how mining actually works and why it's important to the technology. You seem to be under the impression that Bitcoin is magical just because it's complicated. But as someone who has genuinely been in this space for a long time and genuinely spent a bunch of time learning how the technology works, most of the magical properties you think exist... don't.
You're buying into a technology that you don't understand, based on wildly flawed economic ideas like "deflationary assets can't go down in value", an idea that can easily be proven false just by looking at the history of literally any other deflationary asset. Never mind the fact that silver and gold are also deflationary assets in the long term; apparently they don't count because they physically degrade, a process that hard drives are magically immune from. Never mind the fact that you yourself seem to understand that silver dropped in value when gold took over; apparently that can't possibly happen with Bitcoin because it would be impossible for anyone to iterate on the technology. We should all just buy into this idea because you said the words "space money".