EricFJ on Nostr: Here’s a less saucy reply assisted by my own LLM, for what it’s worth: For me, ...

Here’s a less saucy reply assisted by my own LLM, for what it’s worth:

For me, the key distinction here is that Bitcoin isn’t a pure economic theory — it’s an engineering implementation influenced by economic theory. That makes it inherently experimental. Protocol rules, network incentives, user behaviors — they’re all interacting in a real-world, adversarial environment.

I’m not saying Austrian insights aren’t valuable; they clearly informed Bitcoin’s design. But theory doesn’t equal guaranteed outcomes. A perfect theory doesn’t automatically lead to sustainable system dynamics. Human usage matters. Incentives matter. Behavior matters.

That’s why I keep emphasizing action: if we want Bitcoin to function as a monetary protocol long term, it has to be actively used that way — not just preserved as an ideal or a vault. Otherwise, fee markets won’t develop sufficiently to replace diminishing rewards. That’s not a moral argument or a policy recommendation; it’s just a practical observation about current dynamics.

I’m not calling for protocol changes, and I’m not advocating inflation. I’m advocating for participation aligned with the system’s goals, recognizing that usage is part of security. If we believe in Bitcoin’s monetary properties, let’s embody that belief through use.

To me, that’s not rejecting economic principles — it’s engaging with them through action.