1. The notion of backing is related to the use of physical objects as economic/monetary goods, which exhibit poor divisibility, slow and costly assayability (verifiability), and slow, costly settlement, especially over large physical distances. Hence, the emergence of checking and banking where slips of papers could act as pointers to some other object. With bitcoin, the bitcoin itself is easy to move, divide, and verify so it is possible to use the *thing itself* rather than a trusted 3rd party. Saying it is "backed by energy" is an idiotic thing LARPers with a poor understanding of bitcoin say as a ritual.
2. Nor can you use any currency, digital or physical to purchase things almost everywhere in the currency. Consider all possible pairs (e.g. a slightly crumpled $20 US credit bill in a Bolivian grocery store, an Argentine peso bank acct in Sweden, etc). Using local script is for peasants and slaves, which the person you are talking to may strongly identify with. If he is not, he will understand that he would never hold his entire net worth in dollars rather than "investments".
From this it becomes clearly the only real question is liquidity and latency to obtain the asset of interest to your counterparty at the point of sale. It turns out it is incredibly easy to turn bitcoin into dollars, especially for people who are not turning over >50% of their net worth on a daily basis.
3. "Too volatile" is not an argument. It is volatile. This is a fact. If someone walked up to you and said, "flip a coin: if it lands on heads I shall give you $100, but if it lands on tails, I shall give you $100 million dollars" would your friend say "no thanks, that's too volatile for me"? I think not. Questions have answers. Ambiguous, qualitative, interjections do not. I do not dignify low effort exclamations with "debate" -- sometimes upon feeling embarrassed, sincere inquirers will figure out there is something else they wish to ask.
Dirac Delta
npub1c8…pqsah
2023-01-18 23:07:21
in reply to nevent1q…0jz7
Author Public Key
npub1c8nlcgd5l8qenesgdcy4vw0s794yujyy23z50n52v5ld0ddkcjnsppqsahPublished at
2023-01-18 23:07:21Event JSON
{
"id": "58c6b740703c447f02d055115a805c4ced92952efbf30381a795800fe366f5d8",
"pubkey": "c1e7fc21b4f9c199e6086e095639f0f16a4e4884544547ce8a653ed7b5b6c4a7",
"created_at": 1674083241,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"8bde4449c32bff689df9976d86451ad2aa41484cb96028e22f52e735990eca97",
"wss://astral.ninja"
],
[
"e",
"dec11131591863edcc1ad7f5d6eb34edf25ead72fb51cfcb9301a779e05c6d7c",
"wss://astral.ninja",
"reply"
]
],
"content": "1. The notion of backing is related to the use of physical objects as economic/monetary goods, which exhibit poor divisibility, slow and costly assayability (verifiability), and slow, costly settlement, especially over large physical distances. Hence, the emergence of checking and banking where slips of papers could act as pointers to some other object. With bitcoin, the bitcoin itself is easy to move, divide, and verify so it is possible to use the *thing itself* rather than a trusted 3rd party. Saying it is \"backed by energy\" is an idiotic thing LARPers with a poor understanding of bitcoin say as a ritual.\n\n\n2. Nor can you use any currency, digital or physical to purchase things almost everywhere in the currency. Consider all possible pairs (e.g. a slightly crumpled $20 US credit bill in a Bolivian grocery store, an Argentine peso bank acct in Sweden, etc). Using local script is for peasants and slaves, which the person you are talking to may strongly identify with. If he is not, he will understand that he would never hold his entire net worth in dollars rather than \"investments\".\n\n\nFrom this it becomes clearly the only real question is liquidity and latency to obtain the asset of interest to your counterparty at the point of sale. It turns out it is incredibly easy to turn bitcoin into dollars, especially for people who are not turning over \u003e50% of their net worth on a daily basis.\n\n\n3. \"Too volatile\" is not an argument. It is volatile. This is a fact. If someone walked up to you and said, \"flip a coin: if it lands on heads I shall give you $100, but if it lands on tails, I shall give you $100 million dollars\" would your friend say \"no thanks, that's too volatile for me\"? I think not. Questions have answers. Ambiguous, qualitative, interjections do not. I do not dignify low effort exclamations with \"debate\" -- sometimes upon feeling embarrassed, sincere inquirers will figure out there is something else they wish to ask.",
"sig": "8245dec0fcd01f9b8d6a7200b793895ffc2235b16ecd02c740ece17a53e88a94afb2e8f36c354fc71f87dd17288ebb238adde0a75f3b15cb10de972b519bed1c"
}