Enzio Rossa ⚡

@efftheuniparty In a deflationary market, do we still need loans?

@efftheuniparty @BTC42025 @luke_broyles Some would argue instead that such a monetary system is the cause of the boom and bust cycles, and they would prefer to see the monetary premium removed from real estate, in order to bring housing prices back to its base functional value.

@efftheuniparty @BTC42025 @luke_broyles We can debate whether that’s a good thing. You’re making the argument that it’s beneficial to incentivize spending by debasing the currency, which incentivizes investment into real estate and stocks to preserve purchasing power, creating excess demand, which inflates the market.

“Luke, you’re an idiot for saying #Bitcoin is going to millions of USD per #BTC! That would only happen if the Dollar lost purchasing power!” I continue to remain baffled how this is one of the most common criticisms I get (daily) despite it being the entire overt point from day one. The whole point in absurd fiat prices for #BTC is to highlight the trajectory towards infinity USD.

@efftheuniparty @ericyakes Therefore I’m asking, what would the housing market look like if there was no creation of debt? What would the fair value of a house be if you measure it in a debtless system?

@efftheuniparty @ericyakes How is it that the average house prices rise relative to the average income? If you say demand is greater than supply, that’s not comprehensive enough, since demand cannot exceed income, unless demand is amplified and inflated through debt creation.

Money moves value from the present to the future Debt moves money from the future to the present Both will always exist as they provide separate economic functions But their proportions will be vastly different on a #bitcoin standard

@willywoo @the_nassar This is incorrect. If a transaction does not contain a valid signature but is included into a block by a miner anyway, other network nodes will reject the provided block, and the miner basically forks out of consensus.

@the_nassar It’s a ledger that’s secured by energy. In order for his balance to be unfairly written to zero the person forcing that balance would need over half the energy of the system. That’s a ridiculous cost to steal. It’s a lot cheaper for them not to cheat you.

This morning, I had an enlightening conversation with a 57-year-old snack shop owner who possesses impressive knowledge about technology. I asked for his thoughts on #Bitcoin, and he expressed concerns about the possibility of waking up one day to find all accounts at a value of 0. This fear stems from what occurred in #Lebanon, where bank accounts became worthless. Explaining Bitcoin to him was a challenge. I tried simplifying it: 'Imagine a ledger that clearly shows everyone's holdings, duplicated and distributed across millions of online and offline locations. No one can reset your balance to 0 without altering all the copies. You can send money from one account to another without needing permission or trust in a central authority, offering real-world utility and value.' I also mentioned that: ‘There's a limited supply of this currency, with almost 93% already in circulation. To participate in this network, you need to acquire Bitcoin. As more people recognize its usefulness and demand for it grows, its value increases.’ I wondered if I could have explained it more concisely. Any suggestions on how to respond to his concerns?

@JeffBooth @TGreenellis @LynAldenContact @WhatBitcoinDid @GeorgeGammon How much energy in required to maintain and sustain such real estate, to the degree that it does not degrade and lose value? What is the true price of that expense?

@JeffBooth @TGreenellis @LynAldenContact @WhatBitcoinDid @GeorgeGammon If we assume a clean slate where all debts are forever wiped, and there is no debt left to be paid, then what is the fair price of a house that has already been build and paid for by our forefathers, of whom we are the rightful heirs?

@bitstein @saifedean In those terms, there is no difference between using and disusing. For its ability to store value is only as good as its ability to be disused. If the ability to be disused is uncertain, its ability to store value is uncertain. MoE and SoV are two sides of the same coin.

Hodling is using. Spending is dis-using. Actors spend #bitcoin when they no longer have a use for it, because they value a consumer or capital good more, or because they believe a different currency will be more useful in future exchange.

Praxeologically, "medium of exchange" is defined by the intention of acquiring a good for future exchange rather than when it is spent. As such, #bitcoin can already be understood as a widely demanded MoE, and this demand can be expected to continue to grow for numerous reasons.

@vladcostea @hodlonaut Either that, or they’d have to fork off.

@vladcostea @hodlonaut It’d be possible to blacklist a transaction only as long as the majority of hashing power were to conspire and therefore produce the longest chain indefinitely, whilst never including the blacklisted transaction into a block. Which basically means they’d need ALL hashing power.

Two points being made within minutes by Paul and David on the space going on right now. “Yes, there can be scam sidechains with BIP300, but it’s the users responsibility to not put their BTC into scam sidechains.” “This is THE way to kill the scams”

@conthecod @guppytrader1968 @BitcoinErrorLog @JohnCla79391732 @jack The question is whether unequal distribution of wealth is a problem or not. For them to exchange their Bitcoin for goods and services, they’d have to redistribute it. Otherwise they’re merely whales on paper. The free market will take care of it.

@guppytrader1968 @BitcoinErrorLog @JohnCla79391732 @jack Yep it's completely dependent on whales being willing to sell. Who cares how much you can divide it if they are not willing to sell. Think our wealth inequality is bad now on Bitcoin it is infinitely worse.

Imagine how Satoshi would feel if you told him that all the Bitcoin was held at exchanges, banks, and the elite, and that all we managed to accomplish was an upgraded banking infrastructure over Lightning. Now tell me why you think we are not on that path?

@BTC_MS_THRIVING Miners have absolutely no authority over the network at all. All that is in their power is to produce valid blocks, if they can proof the work. If their work is proven, but their block invalid, their work is denied by consensus, and their energy spent on computation is lost.

@BTC_MS_THRIVING Sure, it’s always possible for anyone to perform a hardfork. The tricky part is convincing the rest of the Bitcoin economy to upgrade their software as well. If the miners produce invalid blocks, according to my node’s rules, I will simply reject their work.

Blackrock has been buying bitcoin miners, what happens if they have enough control over the miners that they can force a hardfork? Is this possible?

@BTC_MS_THRIVING There may be a split in consensus, but who cares? I abide by what I perceive to be truth alone, and if you and I agree, we share a network of consensus. Bitcoin gives total power to the individual. It is such a radical truth that it’s very hard to imagine its implications.

@ChrisMartl @francispouliot_ So, Bitcoin is yours. You make your rules. And if you and I agree, suddenly we have consensus, and thus a network of shared value.

@ChrisMartl @francispouliot_ Any node that is actually being used to check the validity of the chain, which implies it is enforcing consensus rules according to his own rules enforced by his own software, it is economic by definition.

@ChrisMartl @francispouliot_ It doesn’t matter if you run one or a thousand nodes, for consensus means only that a set of real parties agree to the same rules. So long as both of us (in real terms as individuals) agree to the same rules, there is consensus between us, and thus we have a network.