The Bitcoin (BTC) thread

scorpion

Pelican
Gold Member
Does USD serve an economic purpose? Yes it has uses for home heating and in case you run out of toilet paper, but it serves as money, 50% of every economic transaction.

Bitcoin is better than dollars by every measure, except in network size.

Is Bitcoin a currency or a commodity/store of value? Bitcoin proponents always seem to argue the benefits of both, while admitting the drawbacks of neither.

The value increases as the network grows. Just like having a telephone is useless if there is only 1 on the network, but extremely valuable if there are 1 billion in the network.

The network effect is obviously very valuable, as is Bitcoin's first mover advantage/name recognition. But neither of these, even together, are enough to guarantee Bitcoin's long term success. Bitcoin advocates always seem to underestimate or outright ignore political/regulatory risk, which I judge to be the most serious danger to Bitcoin over the coming years, especially as governments start rolling out CBDCs. The value inherent in Bitcoin's name and network will crater if governments decide to crack down on it. Yes, it's true that they cannot "kill" Bitcoin entirely. But they don't have to - they just have to make it illegal and very difficult to practically use, which they can do very easily any time they want.
It has a price because people value it. It is valued for its unique properties, the same reason a near universal consensus was reached on gold as having value: it has properties that make it a monetary good.
-durability
-portability
-high cost of human time to produce
-divisibility
-fungibility
-verifiable/assay
-not very useful for other things (monetary premium)

Bitcoin has a number of desirable properties, yes, but is there any reason to believe that a future crypto could not be even better? The technology itself is nothing unique - there are thousands of Bitcoin knockoffs that use near-identical PoW models. The only thing that separates Bitcoin is its brand and network, which as I mentioned above, can both be essentially regulated out of practical existence very easily and replaced with either government backed CBDCs or a next-gen crypto.

The function is as money, a crucial technology without which there cannot be civilization. If it were just an upgrade, an incremental improvement, it would not succeed.

It is infinitely better than fiat currency. The supply of fiat is infinite. The supply of every other monetary good, commodity, thing in the economy, is infinite. The supply of Bitcoin is fixed. It is trustless, permission less, censorship resistant and theft proof. It it is not just money, this is something we don’t have a word for yet…it is something so far beyond where we came from, we don’t have the language to describe it.

Money is indeed crucial for the maintenance of civilization, which is exactly why Bitcoin will never be allowed to replace government-backed currencies. The ability to control the money supply is one of (if not THE) supreme powers in the world, and that power will simply never be ceded by governments and central banks. And for all the drawbacks of fiat, in general it works pretty well - after all, it helped to build the modern world and everything you see around you. There are also a lot of potential problems with an inherently deflationary currency like Bitcoin in terms of bottlenecking economic growth. Finally, the idealistic argument for Bitcoin is never going to outweigh the practical considerations that limit its adoption. It doesn't really matter how cool of a concept Bitcoin is ("something so far beyond where we can from, we don't have language to describe it" as you said), because at the end of the day money does not need to be cool or idealistic or elegant. It simply needs to facilitate economic activity in an efficient manner. And there is simply no reason to believe that Bitcoin is ever going to do that better than every other government-backed fiat/CBDC or some unknown future crypto. Assigning Bitcoin some unique intrinsic value above and beyond every other form of currency and crypto is nothing more than a statement of faith.
 

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
Is Bitcoin a currency or a commodity/store of value? Bitcoin proponents always seem to argue the benefits of both, while admitting the drawbacks of neither.
”Currency” implies a permissioned, issued money. A better analogy is gold. I don’t really consider gold a currency…it was discovered and became money in the same way Bitcoin was discovered, and is in the process of becoming money. It’s not a commodity because commodities are unlimited in supply and can be consumed. Bitcoin has absolute scarcity. There is nothing like it, which is why it is both difficult to understand and to describe. Bitcoin hasn’t existed long enough to have the language to describe it. How would you describe electricity to a cave man in his language?
The network effect is obviously very valuable, as is Bitcoin's first mover advantage/name recognition. But neither of these, even together, are enough to guarantee Bitcoin's long term success. Bitcoin advocates always seem to underestimate or outright ignore political/regulatory risk, which I judge to be the most serious danger to Bitcoin over the coming years, especially as governments start rolling out CBDCs. The value inherent in Bitcoin's name and network will crater if governments decide to crack down on it. Yes, it's true that they cannot "kill" Bitcoin entirely. But they don't have to - they just have to make it illegal and very difficult to practically use, which they can do very easily any time they want.
So all 163 countries will agree to ban Bitcoin, which seems unlikely, but even so, why would they ban it if it has no value? So either Bitcoin has no value, thus no need to ban it, or it has tremendous value, which is the only reason to ban it.

If it has tremendous value, and some countries don’t ban it, what happens to the wealth of the countries that try to restrict it?

Some countries could ban petroleum use, but they would suffer economically. Those that did not ban it would prosper.
Bitcoin has a number of desirable properties, yes, but is there any reason to believe that a future crypto could not be even better? The technology itself is nothing unique - there are thousands of Bitcoin knockoffs that use near-identical PoW models. The only thing that separates Bitcoin is its brand and network, which as I mentioned above, can both be essentially regulated out of practical existence very easily and replaced with either government backed CBDCs or a next-gen crypto.
How can it be replaced? Absolute scarcity can only happen once. CBDCs require trust in government…which is falling off a cliff. Bitcoin is trustless and voluntary. Everyone who opts into the network, benefits. Is there a benefit to opting into a CBDC? Less than 1% of Nigerians are using the e-nira, while 40% are using Bitcoin. Why would you turn in your gold for worthless paper?
Money is indeed crucial for the maintenance of civilization, which is exactly why Bitcoin will never be allowed to replace government-backed currencies.
Harder money impoverishes holders of softer money. The western world, on a gold standard practically enslaved China, who clung to silver. They did enslave Africa and Asia with glass beads and cowrie shells. It will happen whether government permits it or not.
The ability to control the money supply is one of (if not THE) supreme powers in the world, and that power will simply never be ceded by governments and central banks. And for all the drawbacks of fiat, in general it works pretty well - after all, it helped to build the modern world and everything you see around you. There are also a lot of potential problems with an inherently deflationary currency like Bitcoin in terms of bottlenecking economic growth.
The problem is we live in a deflationary world, but the money is based on debt. A debt based financial system collapses if money is more valuable in the future. The value and burden of debt increases exponentially. The response is to debase the currency faster than technological deflation. Eventually this system fails.

Creating more money does not create more things. It does not stimulate economic growth. It is theft. Money (human time/energy) is being stolen from people who produce, and given to people who do not produce. I trade my time/energy/life force for money, producing value for other people, while a select few can steal that money from me and give it to themselves by adding numbers to a computer screen, producing nothing of value to anyone.

What percent theft do you think is necessary for “economic growth”. 5%? 50%? Lebanon and Argentina should be growing by leaps and bounds!
Finally, the idealistic argument for Bitcoin is never going to outweigh the practical considerations that limit its adoption. It doesn't really matter how cool of a concept Bitcoin is ("something so far beyond where we can from, we don't have language to describe it" as you said), because at the end of the day money does not need to be cool or idealistic or elegant. It simply needs to facilitate economic activity in an efficient manner. And there is simply no reason to believe that Bitcoin is ever going to do that better than every other government-backed fiat/CBDC or some unknown future crypto. Assigning Bitcoin some unique intrinsic value above and beyond every other form of currency and crypto is nothing more than a statement of faith.
Bitcoin doesn’t need to be “backed.” What backs gold?
It is simple and elegant - it facilitates economic transaction without theft by inflation, censorship, trust, or counterparty risk. Nothing else does. The Colonial pipeline hackers didn’t ask for dollars, or gold…they wanted the hardest money.
 
Last edited:

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
The question of a future cryptocurrency replacing Bitcoin deserves some thought. How do you improve absolute scarcity? Bitcoin is better thought of as a discovery, not a technology.

Think of it like fire. Humans didn’t invent fire, they discovered how to make and use it. Everyone who learned how to use fire benefited, and it spread worldwide, unique to humans. An improved fire was never discovered…it’s just fire. We learned to fuel it with different things, and use it for many purposes, but it’s still the same fire people have used for eons. We didn’t change fire, it changed us.

Bitcoin is similar. We can fuel it with ever more powerful computers, with more efficient sources of energy, and build things on top of it. We can’t change what Bitcoin is or what it does…it changes us. We find and exploit new sources of energy around the world, and discover uses for it that we haven’t even imagined yet.

Some caveman from 20,000 years ago, using fire to cook his aurochs loin, could never imagine that one day, his ancestors would use that same fire to fly to the moon.
 
Last edited:

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
Fiat did not build the modern world…hard money, gold did. All modern technologies were invented in the 19th century…La Belle Epoque. Electricity, Instant communications, rapid transportation, the airplane, machines that one man could operate and do the work of 1,000 slaves. The 20th century of fiat, was an improvement of these technologies, 1 to many….but it was not zero to one. That was the 19th century. The world of 1813 to 1913 was so transformed, that it would be unrecognizable to someone from the previous century. Someone from 1913 would recognize most of our technology in 2023…it’s simply improved 19th century tech.

Imagine a world where two brothers, bicycle mechanics, have the time and capital to build the first successful airplane. That’s equivalent to 2 plumbers in 2023 building a rocket and flying to Mars with their own money.

Bitcoin is the first zero to one discovery since the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
The past few posts on bitcoin have been excellent. Truly excellent. Very good discussion.

I'm glad people on RooshV have a deep understanding of bitcoin and its unbelievable potential, and also that we are getting very smart skeptical questions and comments to answer.

One thing I LOVE about bitcoin is this: time will decisively tell who is wrong or right. If bitcoins adoption and growth even flatlines it's effectively dead and the skeptics are right. If it keeps growing... the next 5 or 10 years will make their arguments harder and harder to convey....
 

ISR92

Robin
The past few posts on bitcoin have been excellent. Truly excellent. Very good discussion.

I'm glad people on RooshV have a deep understanding of bitcoin and its unbelievable potential, and also that we are getting very smart skeptical questions and comments to answer.

One thing I LOVE about bitcoin is this: time will decisively tell who is wrong or right. If bitcoins adoption and growth even flatlines it's effectively dead and the skeptics are right. If it keeps growing... the next 5 or 10 years will make their arguments harder and harder to convey....
It probably won't succeed, but only because of the upcoming Communist revolution where we will "own nothing and be happy". Phones will be confiscated and new ones will be distributed with an app store that has no access to Bitcoin wallets. Until that happens, though, I will be holding through all the ups and downs. It is one of the greatest opportunities out there.
 

Blade Runner

Crow
Orthodox
If it is restricted in a significant way, and let's say it is such that will allow for rich people (the top class) to hold or utilize it, does it then become just another elitist game that is desired by the common man, but black market? I would think that if it is significantly choked off, the price will also rise greatly. Or will that, having been accomplished in the 5 eyes nations, for example, just cause citizens from those countries to move to new jurisdictions as the only way to take advantage of the asset they hold?
 

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
If it is restricted in a significant way, and let's say it is such that will allow for rich people (the top class) to hold or utilize it, does it then become just another elitist game that is desired by the common man, but black market? I would think that if it is significantly choked off, the price will also rise greatly. Or will that, having been accomplished in the 5 eyes nations, for example, just cause citizens from those countries to move to new jurisdictions as the only way to take advantage of the asset they hold?
An analogy: think of the Bitcoin network as the internet netwrok. Monetary information network vs other information network.

In the same manner that 99.9% of North Korea has no meaningful internet access, and China‘s is very restrictive. The internet has slightly less value, because there are millions of people that can’t participate, but it is still extremely useful for those who can, in the free world.

If the US or EU banned home internet access; you are only allowed online via public computers under government surveillance…what happens to productivity? The economic consequences would be grave and probably the undoing of said governments.

I think Bitcoin is a similar network. Just like individuals have a choice, so do nations. Nations who choose not to use the network will swiftly fall behind. The only growth in the world economy in the last 20 years was concentrated in technology that only exists because of the internet. The vast majority of those companies are in the birthplace of the internet, the US. The most intelligent people world wide, leave their home country, to come to the US and work for these companies, and contribute their time/talent/intelligence to American progress.

Bitcoin is likely to be a similar story. It is a network. If a country is hostile to it, everyone suffers, and the brightest 1% flows like water to where it is used and benefits accrue.

China‘s control of the population would be much easier if they had no internet…but the economic consequences of not having it would lead to a swift end to the CCP.
 

Blade Runner

Crow
Orthodox
Bitcoin is likely to be a similar story. It is a network. If a country is hostile to it, everyone suffers, and the brightest 1% flows like water to where it is used and benefits accrue.
I agree, but they'll try to come in between it with harsh fines or strong language, etc. Or will it just be a top asset to be held, but disabled by the powers that be for the common man to use it on a smartphone, for example?
 

Feyoder

Pelican
If it is restricted in a significant way, and let's say it is such that will allow for rich people (the top class) to hold or utilize it, does it then become just another elitist game that is desired by the common man, but black market?

The majority holders are big whales with huge bank accounts. That gives them a big motive to use money to put pressure on politicians (and the rich in history tend to get their way).
 

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
The first phase of adoption will be as a savings account.

As long as people have internet access, they can work for Bitcoin no matter where they are. Operation Choke Point on banking rails, exchanges, may slow adoption in the west, where people have significant savings that need to be sold for Bitcoin, but most of the world has very little savings. They will simply earn Bitcoin by doing remote work like programming, editing, web, and graphic design…a new generation will demand payment in Bitcoin rather than their local fiat, and work for and produce economic value in economies that have Bitcoin…possibly rival nation states to their own.

phone wallets and using Bitcoin like it’s Apple Pay to buy coffee will be the very last phase of adoption, not the first.
 

scorpion

Pelican
Gold Member
The question of a future cryptocurrency replacing Bitcoin deserves some thought. How do you improve absolute scarcity? Bitcoin is better thought of as a discovery, not a technology.

Think of it like fire. Humans didn’t invent fire, they discovered how to make and use it. Everyone who learned how to use fire benefited, and it spread worldwide, unique to humans. An improved fire was never discovered…it’s just fire. We learned to fuel it with different things, and use it for many purposes, but it’s still the same fire people have used for eons. We didn’t change fire, it changed us.
Bitcoin is in no way comparable to fire. The fact that you could even begin to make such a ridiculous comparison is evidence that your belief in Bitcoin is of a religious nature, and is not grounded in any rational consideration. This is not to insult you or impugn your motives in any way - you are obviously an earnest and intelligent guy. But somewhere along the way you simply drank too much of the Bitcoin Koolaid. Please, consider:

1) Fire is an innate property of the physical world, like gravity and electromagnetism. Fire can literally be produced in the complete absence of human beings via numerous mechanisms. In contrast, blockchain is a type of carefully designed software (a technology) built upon numerous other technologies (electrical generation, plastics, microprocessors, etc...). Bitcoin is a specific application of blockchain technology. It is not a fundamental property of the physical world, rather, it was purpose designed for a specific application, and relies entirely on a vast array of previous technologies in order to function. Fire, in contrast, requires two dry sticks being rubbed together, or a lightning strike.

2) To the extent that your argument above is true, it completely ignores the glaring reality that BITCOIN IS NOT THE BLOCKCHAIN. There is literally nothing that makes Bitcoin special EXCEPT ITS BRAND AND NAME RECOGNITION. Your entire argument rests on the false equivocation of Bitcoin with blockchain technology as a whole. But this is completely erroneous. Again, there is simply nothing special about Bitcoin. The only reason you think Bitcoin is special is... shockingly... because you own Bitcoin!

3) Blockchain as a technology is interesting, but in no way revolutionary. When you compare blockchain to truly game changing inventions/technologies throughout history (the printing press, the steam engine, the airplane, gunpowder, the automobile, the electric grid, the Bessemer process aka steel, the internet, the smartphone, etc...) it comes up hilariously short. Are there interesting theoretical uses for blockchain? Absolutely. But does it really open up new frontiers and allow us to do things we couldn't before? Not really. Case in point: Bitcoin has been around for 14 years now. If this was a truly revolutionary technology, it would have already been adopted on a much larger scale, similar to the smartphone, which is currently 16 years old. No one had to convince people that smartphones were the next big thing or make quasi-religious arguments about how smartphones represent a new paradigm for humanity. Certainly no one ever compared smartphones to fire. And yet, less than two decades after the smartphone was invented, it has become completely ubiquitous as a technology (to the point of societal detriment!) simply because of how useful we find them. Bitcoin, in contrast, remains extremely niche, and to the degree it reaches the mainstream at all, it is almost entirely discussed in terms of financial speculation. Why? Because it simply DOES NOT DO ANYTHING USEFUL.
 

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
It is actually a timechain.
Bitcoin is in no way comparable to fire. The fact that you could even begin to make such a ridiculous comparison is evidence that your belief in Bitcoin is of a religious nature, and is not grounded in any rational consideration. This is not to insult you or impugn your motives in any way - you are obviously an earnest and intelligent guy. But somewhere along the way you simply drank too much of the Bitcoin Koolaid. Please, consider:
That is possible, so thanks for challenging my thinking.
1) Fire is an innate property of the physical world, like gravity and electromagnetism. Fire can literally be produced in the complete absence of human beings via numerous mechanisms. In contrast, blockchain is a type of carefully designed software (a technology) built upon numerous other technologies (electrical generation, plastics, microprocessors, etc...). Bitcoin is a specific application of blockchain technology. It is not a fundamental property of the physical world, rather, it was purpose designed for a specific application, and relies entirely on a vast array of previous technologies in order to function. Fire, in contrast, requires two dry sticks being rubbed together, or a lightning strike.
Bitcoin is a bridge between the digital world and the physical. It only exists as a human abstraction, distributed data (the most expensive in the world, 2c/byte). This digital abstraction can be converted to real things. An absolutely scarce resource exists in nature, but was invisible to man before Bitcoin. Just as the number 0 always existed in nature, but man had to discover it with his unique ability for abstraction. Galaxy’s existed before 1924, but we didn’t have the tools to see them for what they actually were until then.
2) To the extent that your argument above is true, it completely ignores the glaring reality that BITCOIN IS NOT THE BLOCKCHAIN. There is literally nothing that makes Bitcoin special EXCEPT ITS BRAND AND NAME RECOGNITION. Your entire argument rests on the false equivocation of Bitcoin with blockchain technology as a whole. But this is completely erroneous. Again, there is simply nothing special about Bitcoin. The only reason you think Bitcoin is special is... shockingly... because you own Bitcoin!
The internet is not TCP/IP. The time chain is just one piece; what about the difficulty adjustment, the incentives that protect the network? The reason it is special is absolute scarcity.
Humans developed a trait of collecting special things, and having a knack for only collecting things that other humans would also value. That is how beads, shells, rai stones, and gold became money. Bitcoin is the scarcest collectible that exists. You can copy the code and make Bitcoin2, but it isn’t Bitcoin, it isn’t spendable on the Bitcoin network. You can start a new internet, with a different protocol than TCP/IP…but where are the users; we already have an internet, there is no incentive to join a new internet that is not interoperable and has few users.

Bitcoin is not the Yahoo of “cryptocurrencies”, it is the TCP/IP protocol of the internet of money. Once absolute scarcity was discovered, there is no second chance. Every other project launched has the founders pre mining most of the supply, VCs getting it for 1000x less than retail…contrast that with Bitcoin that 99.9% of early adopters gave away and distributed widely before it had any percieved value or price.

What if gold was only found in Australia, but nowhere else on Earth had gold deposits…gold may have never monetized because there was an uneven distribution.
3) Blockchain as a technology is interesting, but in no way revolutionary. When you compare blockchain to truly game changing inventions/technologies throughout history (the printing press, the steam engine, the airplane, gunpowder, the automobile, the electric grid, the Bessemer process aka steel, the internet, the smartphone, etc...) it comes up hilariously short. Are there interesting theoretical uses for blockchain? Absolutely. But does it really open up new frontiers and allow us to do things we couldn't before? Not really. Case in point: Bitcoin has been around for 14 years now. If this was a truly revolutionary technology, it would have already been adopted on a much larger scale, similar to the smartphone, which is currently 16 years old. No one had to convince people that smartphones were the next big thing or make quasi-religious arguments about how smartphones represent a new paradigm for humanity. Certainly no one ever compared smartphones to fire. And yet, less than two decades after the smartphone was invented, it has become completely ubiquitous as a technology (to the point of societal detriment!) simply because of how useful we find them. Bitcoin, in contrast, remains extremely niche, and to the degree it reaches the mainstream at all, it is almost entirely discussed in terms of financial speculation. Why? Because it simply DOES NOT DO ANYTHING USEFUL.
Blockchain is only useful as one component of Bitcoin, but it is the whole thing that is revolutionary. The discovery of absolute scarcity is the innovation. It is hard to rank innovations but I would put it above the printing press, but below written language.
This will improve human cooperation, making people far more productive, wealthy, peaceful…money is 1/2 of every transaction.

What does our world look like when money increases in value over time? Greta Thundberg can go home, because people will buy far less of everything that they don’t need. Why buy a new car, TV, plastic crap from China, when it will be cheaper next year, and the next…everything will be cheaper forever.
The world of the fiat hamster wheel, where consumerism, debt, get more things because the money is rotting away…that is what is straining our resources.

Bitcoin is hard to see. It took me 12 years and people smarter than me, for me to see it. Morpheus can’t explain what the matrix is to Neo before he gets unplugged.

Maybe most people won’t see it, it will just be in the background of the new System. Linux didn’t take over the world in desktop computers, but it did become the OS that almost everyone uses without realizing it…routers, android devices, TV boxes.

Maybe I am delusional, I never met a person that is as convinced as I am on this, so thanks for the well reasoned arguments and making me think some more.
 

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
Just a correction to my Nigeria claim, it’s not all Bitcoin adoption, it’s ”crypto assets”. I would assume the majority of which are used for stablecoins, like in SE Asia. Still, nobody uses the CBDC.
 

fokm

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
I would add that Bitcoin is revolutionary in that it takes the power of the control of money away from people who have had that power for centuries. It may take a long time to level that playing field, but the playing field can certainly be leveled.

We typically don't think of money as infrastructure, but that's ultimately what BTC/blockchain will be (possibly ETH too). It's a huge shift that will affect work, contracts, law, and many things we can't even imagine today.
 

Blade Runner

Crow
Orthodox
Morpheus can’t explain what the matrix is to Neo before he gets unplugged.
Indeed. It's the human aspect and interaction of humans and utility/value that Scorpion is blind to, and I'm not sure why. Also, he has it wrong why Chance owns bitcoin, it's the opposite - he owns BTC because of the network value and its characteristics, he does not feign characteristics that don't exist in order that others buy BTC (because he owns it). That's an accusation that fundamentally disregards unique qualities, many of them, that the BTC network has. And it definitively has them, or it doesn't (hint, hint: it does).
so thanks for the well reasoned arguments
You're being charitable.
I would add that Bitcoin is revolutionary in that it takes the power of the control of money away from people who have had that power for centuries. It may take a long time to level that playing field, but the playing field can certainly be leveled.
Yes, the detractors (Mr. Scorpion in this case) ignore that money is a critical way in which people relate one another, and indeed set up the way in which systems interact, and to whom the power goes, or from whom it is subverted. These absolutely have, therefore, virtuous characteristics associated with them, or lack them. We've been living in a subverted system, and the entire point of us posting on this forum is a clear indication of that. That doesn't mean that humans will be "purified" by this, no, but it does mean that it is a LOT harder for certain (elite) players to demonize, propagandize, or repress other people.
 

chance vought

Kingfisher
Protestant
I would add that Bitcoin is revolutionary in that it takes the power of the control of money away from people who have had that power for centuries. It may take a long time to level that playing field, but the playing field can certainly be leveled.

We typically don't think of money as infrastructure, but that's ultimately what BTC/blockchain will be (possibly ETH too). It's a huge shift that will affect work, contracts, law, and many things we can't even imagine today.
Today, a vast amount of excess capital is continually transferred from producers, to the parasite class. What happens when the universal theft rate goes from 10% to 0%. Not including nation state taxes, which will also be vastly diminished, just the inflation tax. Compounded that is millions of (today’s) dollars in savings for a middle class American. Mothers can stay home and raise the kids, instead of working. Society will be transformed in ways we can’t even think of, when this transition is over. Maybe it takes a century, maybe a decade, who knows, but it seems inevitable.

“People are always and everywhere to some degree conservative, with a small "C."
That implies a reluctance to think in terms of dissolving venerable social conventions, overturning the accepted institutions, and defying the laws and values from which they drew their bearings. Few are inclined to imagine that apparently minor changes in climate or technology or some other variable can somehow be responsible for severing connections to the world of their fathers. The Romans were reluctant to acknowledge the changes unfolding around them. So are we.
Yet recognize it or not, we are living through a change of historical season, a transformation in the way people organize their livelihoods and defend themselves that is so profound that it will inevitably transform the whole of society. The change will be so profound, in fact, that to understand it will require taking almost nothing for granted.
You will be invited at almost every turn to believe that the coming Information Societies will be very like the industrial society you grew tip in. We doubt it. Microprocessing will dissolve the mortar in the bricks. It will so profoundly alter the logic of violence that it will dramatically change the way people organize their livelihoods and defend themselves, Yet the tendency will be to downplay the inevitability of these changes, or to argue about their desirability as if it were within the fiat of industrial institutions to determine how history evolves.”

Excerpt From
The Sovereign Individual
James Dale Davidson, Lord William Rees-Mogg.
 
Last edited:
The first phase of adoption will be as a savings account.

As long as people have internet access, they can work for Bitcoin no matter where they are. Operation Choke Point on banking rails, exchanges, may slow adoption in the west, where people have significant savings that need to be sold for Bitcoin, but most of the world has very little savings. They will simply earn Bitcoin by doing remote work like programming, editing, web, and graphic design…a new generation will demand payment in Bitcoin rather than their local fiat, and work for and produce economic value in economies that have Bitcoin…possibly rival nation states to their own.

phone wallets and usinpple Pay to buy coffee will be the very last phase of adoption, not the first.
This is a very good point. We tend to think the world revolves around America, when it does not. Other countries, other communities will see the value in bitcoin and adopt it. The US is already losing economic and military advantage and will not be able to bully other countries into not using it. Those who have bitcoin now can for the first time leave with all of their wealth to these friendly countries.
 
Top