Muy buen hilo de Fernando, como ya es habitual!!!
1/ PoW enables an efficient convergence to a coin value maximizing consensus. I.e. the unforgeable cost necessary to produce new blocks minimizes the trust required to choose the chain with the most valuable coins, providing an honest signal of the value of the coins transacted.
5. Unless you don't think a trust-minimal asset will always be demanded by the market, why would you want to go through all these shenanigans?
P.S. While this is an extreme case for clarity, much smaller levels of DC fee revenue may affect Bitcoin incentives and represent a damage to bitcoin owners.
3. This split can be expected to spread to Bitcoin. If DC fees dominate, the race would otherwise be won by the fork with more valuable DC transactions, regardless of whether it maximizes bitcoin value or not.
Bitcoin transaction demand ≠ bitcoin demand.
4. I tend to believe Bitcoin would likely split in 3 in such scenario, as some holders may prefer to remove DC induced risk altogether and disallow Drivechains (potentially dominant hashrate escrows in general).
Why would Bitcoin become incentive incompatible if Drivechains are allowed?
Because coin value maximization (i.e. risk/trust minimization) may stop being the main driver of tx fees.
1. Let's say over 2/3 of Bitcoin miner fees end up coming from DC transaction fees, through BMM.
2. Then, for some reason, the DC splits in two forks with similar hashpower, making unclear what side would win a race to withdraw coins to the main chain.
@mrgalc3 @albertrjf @adolformalito @mvidallopez @ManuelPolavieja La posesión de tokens PoS se basa en la confianza de que los propietarios de la mayoría no quieran robar a los minoritarios, cuando es fácil entender que están incentivados a hacerlo.
Nadie puede robarte un bitcoin sin que le cueste al menos un bitcoin. https://twitter.com/fnietom/status/1407257226893402113
9/ Putting the misconceptions aside, I really enjoyed some of the anecdotes in the second half of the paper, where he also makes some valid points. He just seems sore to have missed some of the "wealth transfer to the cartel of early bitcoin adopters".
8/ It is a common mistake to think that a medium of exchange must be commonly accepted (CAMOE), i.e. money, in order to have monetary value (apart of its use value). Most economists would benefit from a careful reading of Menger's Theory of Commodities.
7/ The rational consequence of his statement about bitcoin being worth 0 can only be that he owns a load of put options.
Is he trying to shift what "we expect that we will expect", so bitcoin loses its appeal to us and "then the value must be zero now"? Good luck with that!
6/ Taleb seems also unaware of the fact that bitcoin provides much greater assurances for the preservation of wealth without trust requirements than any other asset available, including precious metals. And that is something useful for many who feel their wealth threatened.
5/ He seems to ignore the cost of carry that dilution represents for gold holders.
Bitcoin is a fixed set of units, so that cost will become zero.
Technology is just there to enable the command of them with minimal trust requirements, or need for TTP to enforce property rights.
4/ Asserting that "The value will be zero when miners are extinct" can only be considered Labour Theory of Value. Don't worry about miners. If bitcoin is *subjectively* useful to someone, they will be there to help securing new transactions. Bitcoin is not just its technology.
3/ Bitcoin depends no more "on the existence of miners for perpetuity" in order to secure new transactions than gold does on vaults, guarded convoys or trusted third parties to transfer its ownership.
2/ I agree that price appreciation implies volatility and volatility prevents is from becoming a "currency without government". Not sure what "BTC Capitalization Volatility" has to do with this, though. Or how he boldly jumps from there to set a zero target price.
1/ I just found about @nntaleb's new (draft) paper on bitcoin. It reveals how easy it is to miss the whole point of bitcoin even if you get to understand some of its most complex features. https://www.docdroid.net/1aMGDoN/bitcoin-currencies-and-bubbles-pdf
"The costs of validating gold caused people to outsource validation to third parties in the form of coins, and later on in the form of banknotes. That added trust to the system, and that trust was abused. That was the main factor that led to the downfall of gold standard" - Szabo
Running nodes mean absolutely nothing. You are wasting your time.
Self validating transactions is the only thing that matters.
You can run core on your computer for that and only sync when you need it.
If you're not actively stacking sats don't run a node. FFS. https://twitter.com/CryptoCloaks/status/1396979721590779907
I'm not gonna say I told you so, but... this sounds a lot like another infamous meeting. Although some of you may not remember when bitcoiners called Roger Ver "the Bitcoin Jesus" and Jihan Wu thought miners could override market judgement on what was the real Bitcoin. https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1396915801492439044
Developer, world traveler, li₿erty lover.
Bitcoin Maston Instance