Search on TFTC

Issue #360: Twitter fight!

Nov 13, 2018
Marty's Ƀent

Issue #360: Twitter fight!

Sorry to hit you freaks with this long of a thread right now, but nothing gets the dopamine rising faster than a high-quality Twitter fight over whether or not savers have the inalienable privilege of preserving their wealth in a relatively low-risk, stable asset. This has been a big theme around this rag for the last couple of weeks, so it would be remiss of your boy if he didn't continue the lingering thread of consciousness by continuing to hammer down why Bitcoin (a *potentially* low-risk, stable asset) is ethical when compared to our traditional system.

First, in response to Joe's second question in the first tweet of the thread, I will reiterate/deduce what Murad was getting at above and say there is plenty of risks people take during the wealth accumulation phase, I think it's pretty reasonable for people to expect a wealth preservation tool that is relatively low-risk and stable from a purchasing power perspective. Why must we be forced to achieve wealth preservation via risk after already taking plenty of risks to accumulate the wealth? Even with that being said, Bitcoin is certainly not risk-free. There will always be at least a little bit of purchasing power fluctuation if Bitcoin ever climbs the mountain and becomes a legitimate global currency. And the risk of losing your private keys is a very real and material risk at the moment. I believe it will get less risky over time, but the risk will likely always remain to some degree.

Second, as Murad indirectly points out, the concept of society/societal norms is pretty subjective and one's definition/view of what society is may differ from another's. This is a bad premise from which to base your logic as it introduces inherent friction. The whole point of Bitcoin is that it provides a completely apolitical asset accessible by anyone in the world with access to the Internet, Opendimes, paper wallets, etc.; a system which is completely bereft of any one individual's or group of individuals' notion of "society" or "societal norms". I would argue that a system which compels individuals to operate under a certain assumption of the "correct" definition of society is coercive and anti-individual. Bitcoin protects the individual at all costs, and because of this, I think people will take the risk to preserve their wealth in it. The funny thing is, I think this will be a net positive for society in the long run. The more empowered the individual is, the better off we all will be.

Is it so bad to want to live in a world where people can easily store their purchasing power throughout time? Are people really that afraid of everyone turning into Smaug?

Final thought...

Really not ready for snow in NYC.


Current Block Height

Current Mempool Size

Current Difficulty