The Satoshi Plan

Please don't forget 📝🔖 #bitcoin is the only freedom money base we have today, purely neutral and free from inside powers to alter it.

My pleasure! If you’re interested in digging deeper into everything Satoshi actually said about money, I recommend this content. it shows how he really defined bitcoin as an asset: hardmoneyproject.substack.com/p/inception-sa… As for your question, those protocols you mentioned aren’t exactly aligned with what Satoshi said. They’d still fall short of what he referred to as finding a "clever" or "smart" way “for not having to supply and manage money”, a dynamic smart money system with self-organizing currency supply. See that in the original Satoshi messages you'll find in that content.

@TheSatoshiPlan @GeorgeSelgin @lawrencehwhite1 @iealondon Thanks - I actually had never read that quote! Wonder if this could also extend to an e-cash system as we're seeing emerging eg via Cashu and Fedimints

File Under: Missing Hal Finney. Remarkably, this article on “Bitcoin FreeBanking” shows no awareness of all the research on banking systems in Scotland, Canada, and elsewhere that most closely approximated the workings of genuinely free banking. 1/

It wasn’t just Hal Finney, Satoshi Nakamoto himself explicitly defined bitcoin as base money, or concretely basic P2P currency as synonym, in the context of a dynamic smart money system with representative elastic currencies built on top: "I see Bitcoin as a foundation and first step if you want to implement programmable P2P social currencies like Marc’s ideas and others discussed here. First you need normal, basic P2P currency working. Once that is established and proven out, dynamic smart money is an easy next step. I love the idea of virtual, non-geographic communities experimenting with new economic paradigms."

@GeorgeSelgin @lawrencehwhite1 We did mention this concept just a few days ago at @iealondon, with specific reference to Hal (and apologies, should have included you) x.com/iealondon/stat…

To think freely and critically about the #FutureOfMoney—whether it’s bitcoin alone, a ₿itcoin-backed standard, fiat 2.0 with CBDCs, free-banking models, a return to the gold standard, or anything else—you need to understand the powers behind any currency system shaping its value. Today, let's focus on the first power: #MONETARY #POLICY If you want to dive deeper in an easy and accessible way into one of the key pieces of the analytical framework to free your critical thinking about money, this one’s for you! substack-proxy.glitch.me/articles/hardm…

Please don't forget 📝🔖 #bitcoin is the only freedom money base we have today, purely neutral and free from inside powers to alter it.

@d3h3d_ @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol Your words show that you haven't spent a minute looking at the Radix stack. And that's fine... But we invite you to take some time to explore, so you can have a more meaningful conversation with the ecosystem.

The amount of intellectual dishonesty from the Mysten Labs C-suite is something to behold. Something you'd only hope to see from social media influencers. No, Sui doesn't have unlimited TPS. a) resources are finite. b) Tx's that touch shared state need to go through consensus and will hit an eventual bottleneck What is being referred to with Remora and in these tweets are fast-path tx's, those that don't need to go through consensus. ie simple wallet transfers. Remora looks like a great piece of tech to 'optimise' execution, but it does not scale tx's that go through consensus. ie more complex transactions like swaps.

@d3h3d_ @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol By the way we are big Ika fans my friend.

@d3h3d_ @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol Show me one "hard fork of that convo" that has smart accounts.

@HardMoneyProjec @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol we have too many hard forks of this convo, where's the consensus when you need one... anyway, this is something to be solved by standards, not protocol design.

No way. Any security guarantee you can enshrine at the full stack level is way better than leaving it to code bugs from any random object developer. Same goes for wallets with smart accounts, ownership of tokens is far more secure when it’s guaranteed and recognized across all layers of the technology, rather than relying on a single programmed object controlled by one developer. That’s a strong take on security guarantees. something you won’t find in much of today’s Web3 tech.

@a_vaunt @HardMoneyProjec @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol sorry not impressive, solvable with products' ux, and no need for designing architecture around that.

@d3h3d_ @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol Trustless bitcoin bridging in Ika definitely needs to marry with trustless Self-Sovereign Currency in a Bitcoin-Backed Standard. that combo is the future, my friend!

@a_vaunt @HardMoneyProjec @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol once again - now we have superior design. where we're going we don't need pools. (we also don't need bridges because of @ikadotxyz - shameless plug). welcome to the future my friend, you're gonna love it.

Thanks for sharing these insights on PTBs, I'll dive deeper on that. By the way, we work with the same state data model as Sui, an object-oriented data model, so no biases here. That's why I shared there are two networks where these real world markets can live: Radix and Sui. My last point is that, yes, an asset can be sold in multiple markets, and that makes total sense, just like it does today. Many companies sell their products simultaneously on Amazon, eBay, and Aliexpress, for example.

@a_vaunt @HardMoneyProjec @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol everything you have as an example can be (and many already are) implemented as part of objects without touching shared state. ethereum poisoned the minds of web3 people and made them think everything has to have total order, this is a fallacy and not how the real world works.

@d3h3d_ @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol Of course not, but it does need the state transition in those n markets where the product is advertised.

@HardMoneyProjec @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol yes, the object would be the product, there’s no need to order the sale of all the different products in the world right?

@d3h3d_ @a_vaunt @SuiNetwork @ikadotxyz @WalrusProtocol Because maybe you want to advertise the same product in 5 different markets (shops), just like it happens today.

you are also not thinking about it in the right way. why would we need to order all the swaps of money on one shop with all the swaps of money on another shop. that is 100% unnecessary and transactions on each shop can be its own object without going through a shared state. so it really doesn’t matter how many swaps add up in total, that is legacy web3 thinking.

We love this important debate you both @d3h3d_ @a_vaunt are having here. Important for the real adoption of these technologies. As of today, it seems like only two networks are truly on the path to onboarding real world use cases, starting from their data model and scaling all the way up the stack. Specifically, the use case @HardMoneyProjec focuses on is self-sovereign money. Money, to actually be self-sovereign as Satoshi envisioned, depends on real on-chain commerce secured on a distributed network. That brings us to this example question to show why scalability for complex transactions (swaps) actually matters, a lot! for the real world adoption of the future. If Web3 is about returning ownership of asset logic (rights) to users through tokens' state secured on distributed networks, ask yourself: how many swaps per second would be needed if we combined EVERY ONLINE SHOPPING CART on today’s web? (Probably the biggest use case of the internet right now). Imagine, not even counting financial markets... Because every time you buy something in a shopping cart, you’re securing a swap: the transfer of money ownership on the buyer's side for assets ownership of all kinds from the seller on the other. That could be 2, 5, 10, or +50 assets swapped in a single bundle, atomic transaction. So, what kind of swaps per second numbers could we be talking about here? Do you have estimates?

the reality of blockchain is that 99.99% of transactions have nothing to do with each other so don't need to be universally ordered. swapping tokens a>b>c requires ordering two swaps between themselves, but why should it be ordered together with a dao vote on spending coin d, or someone authenticating with their nft to get access to a party. this insane overhead needs to be removed otherwise blockchains will never be the rails for the real world. the object model and fast path txs let you do that in a universal and generic way.

If you don’t believe the absolute control part, just check whether it’s actually the plan, straight from the mouth of Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the BIS (the entity whose mission is to "act as a bank for central banks"). youtube.com/shorts/TyYDPuc…

"For @adam3us , this is more than just a battle between Bitcoin and CBDCs. It’s about freedom." Important to remember the critical times we’re living in. We either move toward freedom or total control. 🙌 Here @HardMoneyProjec we’re working for the first.

Totally agree! We don’t know exactly how much Satoshi knew about economics, but everything written on the subject is sound and, as you well pointed out, rooted in first principles. After all, history has never seen a commodity as base money with absolute scarcity. One that, as Satoshi described, functions like a base metal or a "basic P2P currency" on which to build self-organizing communities experimenting with new economic paradigms. There are definitely things that align with economic theory, like Satoshi’s writings on what’s needed to sustain over time and stabilize currency value and prices, including the fact that he explicitly mentioned, twice, that he tried to program it but couldn’t make it work just with software. I highly recommend this project and readings, Saifedean. Sure you’re going to enjoy it.

Thank you, I enjoyed the conversation too. I should clarify, I wasn't implying Satoshi did not think of economics, but the opposite. He did not seem to have read a lot of economic theory, but he did think of the problem from first principles and came up with the bitcoin design as the best solution to the problem of money. Without reading Rothbard, it seems, he arrived at the perfect Rothbardian money just by thinking clearly of the problem and solving it.

Bitcoin Magazine editor in chief @AaronvanW joins me to discuss his new book on the birth of bitcoin. Listen to the full episode (260) on your preferred podcast platform, on YouTube, or via my website: bit.ly/4jSHKG0