disruptalot

Recently there has been a trend of inscribing data on the bitcoin chain representing issuance of new assets and in some cases media (images etc.). Keywords here are "inscriptions" "ordinals" "brc-20"

The speculation component of these new asset types has has created a high fee environment where instead of paying for bitcoin moving around, ownership of secondary assets encoded as data are being transferred.

There is currently a big controversy where one tribe says that these transactions are spam and should be banned via opt in from miners.

Why do games have to use so much electricity? They should be fine with a few kb of storage and maybe some minimal networking. Back in the day games were completely fine and playable in tiny cartridges. Games should be regulated to not consume a certain amount of network and processing power.

On the other hand, without the PoW mechanism of Bitcoin, it's impossible to have the properties that bitcoin has - global decentralised money and payment network. If you believe otherwise, make one! Very quickly no one will be willing to pay for Bitcoin, and all those "wasted electricity" will suddenly become available again.

You may be misreading the effects - Bitcoin is trading above what it traded yesterday, and 50% higher than october.

You highlight a bunch of examples where government policy/implementation has failed miserably in the backdrop of higher and higher demand from it. I wonder how far this needs to stretch before we realise that the problem isn't that the government doesn't behave correctly, but that the whole idea that a government is a good allocator of capital and resources is flawed.

It makes perfect sense. McDonalds did something unconventional and apparently popular. People that found that valuable send the strongest signal you can send in an economy - money. "Corporate profits" take a look at the bank and they think "hmm, that seemed to work, we'll do more of that". They might not produce another gameboy game, that signal might need to be calibrated over further attempts to figure out why people bought more hamburgers. But certainly some signal concerning the approach they took will be loud and clear.

"Karen"

Context: "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."

Consider using: "demanding or entitled White woman"

This example is truly a tell all for this movement. To redefine language from a position of moral superiority where they can make no mis judgment.

Alternatives:

- Crypto is being used and abused by people and purposes that don't need it.

- Fundamental practices haven't matured yet.

This was a failure of traditional financial institutions and people who are ok with them, not of crypto.

Satoshi wouldn't be encouraging people to put their coins on a trusted third party like that. All fundamental crypto values say this.

It's an open hiring board. Who is going to fairly judge the openings without falling into some sort of bias?

Actually I can barely find any crypto posts on the hiring threads. Maybe 5%.

Speaking personally, they might be concise and precise but the arguments are nothing new and too often have simple counter arguments. That's the reason they're not addressed, there really is no reason to except to directly address the Molly white audience.

> Owns enough to influence the market

Meaning acquiring it fairly from the market?

As compared to fiat currencies, which can be issued and moved around with the snap of a finger. That's a net improvement.

Consuming energy is a requirement for it to provide its stated benefits. If you're able to conjure the protocol which doesn't require PoW and still maintains the characteristics, you would be welcomed with open arms.

Valid point. As cash and savings there's no reason to accept the IOU. At which point you need access to credit you can move to that world.

Why would people accept bitcoin IOUs when the real thing is more interoperable, saleable, private etc.etc. and of course doesn't require trust in the issuer. The answer is force [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Bitcoin continues to inflate until ~2140. The difference is that it inflates in a predictable curve and is not subject to the decisions of central bankers.

Inflationary policies also have a very tight link with speculation in the economy. You only need to look at the past 2 years.

I assume by "Monetary crank-ism" you mean scepticism of the dominant economic playbooks. That is very different from investment bubbles which the parent is talking about.

You can call it crank-ism if you want, but the movement behind Bitcoin's properties were born out of very real concerns about current economic models and what their effects are.

Sorry I actually meant to link that Opensea page but then forgot.

If you look at the bottom of that page [1], you'll see the events recorded by opensea. Also enable "Listing" in the filter. You'll see that there is a transfer 13 days ago and then it is listed. This is when the auction begins. Since then there was no sale, only bids. You can add the "Bids" filter as well to verify the timeline.

[1] https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x28009881f0ffe85c90725b8b02...

The conceptions of what happened is so completely removed from reality and it's disheartening to see commenters blinded by the hate for crypto stuff to the extent that they don't even bother to concern the details

Let's look at some facts.

The _first_ *Offer* made on this NFT was $280

The current top bid for this $29,000

It is not sold, so to say that its value has actually dropped is just silly.

If you imagine this in the context of a bid/offer market, this is like when market opens and a price hasn't been established because there wasn't a taker yet.

This almost reads like satire. Banks and credit card companies are exactly not neutral, this is perhaps the only widely understood reason Blockchains and cryptocurrencies exist.

Which bank or cc company is going to jump on the opportunity of platforming an alternative to twitter that almost definitely going to include content that the institutions already voted wouldn't be platformed.

On the other hand, a fresh network of imaginary credits that perhaps might inherit some value requires no permission and can be setup by almost any entity.

Is there anything really inherent in Austrian economics about ignoring evidence? Hate to be that guy (source???), but this doesn't match up at all with my impression of the difference factions in economics. If anything, the economists who reject the current dominant economic tools seem to have more of an emphasis on empirical evidence than wishful thinking.

Where is it illegal to exchange assets p2p? Or better yet, what is the enforcement history?

> By collating all such timestamps, Ndinga’s firm can aggregate the cost basis for every bitcoin transaction on record.

If i'm understanding the methodology here, the assertion that it translates to investors is really flawed. You can't assume:

- a transaction appearing on chain constitutes a buy

- that the transaction represents 1 investor

- that 1 investor = 1 address

Most look like they have something to do with copyright and disagreements rather than controversy.

> Instead you have hyperdeflation. Wonderful.

How and where? At worst, it's gradual and predictable. Where is the central planning of the bitcoin supply? Hyperinflation on the other hand is as a direct result of the control of a few in the matters of an economy. Not the same.

> Let's be honest: you don't have access or any control over the underlying crypto asset either. 0.00002% is really 0%.

I don't know how to response to this 0.00002% != 0% just like $20k != $0. There is nothing wrong with saving. Whether it's speculating or not is a completely different matter. Let's not pretend no other assets are speculated on especially given the degree of novelty.

You are ranting about derivatives being bad, which I agree with. I'm giving you an option that decreases the effect and increases the options for opting out of derivatives. One of the reason derivates and bubbles are so strong is precisely because of inflation and central planned economy. Meme stocks sparked primarily as a result of short time preference and centrally planned economy.

> Again, wrong. Banks are required to hold a portion of their assets and loans in hard currency. This is the fractional reserve system.

Here's your "fractional reserve system":

> As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions. [0]

> backed by [insert government here]. > custodian that is overseen by the government.

I'm sure the banks and governments are very friendly and wouldn't ever have incentives that are to the detriment of others.

[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm....

> Genuinely curious: what issues are you specifically referring to?

When central bank/governments lose control or get greedy you end up with hyperinflation. Should I go into examples of how hyperinflation has been catastrophic?

> we don't actually know what the limit is because wallets have gotten lost and will continue to be lost.

We know the limit but we don't know how much is being circulated. Central bank money is the opposite, you know roughly how much is being circulated (if you're government is nice to you) and there is no limit.

> The impact of derivatives to effectively increase the supply

Derivates don't increase the money supply itself, they play tricks using the underlying asset. If you hold the Bitcoin asset yourself, someone playing with derivatives means very little to you. Though if you have your balance on an exchange, that's on you.

On the other hand, in the current system, you have no access to the underlying asset. You don't own 0.00001% of the central bank. In other words, everything you are using _is_ a derivative. Even something as simple as keeping your money in the bank means you are using a derivative. That being the option of the bank to hold no reserves for the money you deposited.

> Moderate inflation is a feature not a bug. It drives investment and increases the money supply.

It fundamentally isn't as simple as inflation good, no inflation bad.

It's all fine and dandy until central banks lose control and inflation causes catastrophic issues. Not to mention that it's most definitely a bug for people that intend to save for basics like housing on smaller incomes that can't efficiently invest in assets. Inflation tends to benefit those closest to the money first, common assets second then everything else by which point a new cycle has already begun.

BTC & ETH aren't deflationary as much as they are predictable in their money supply. You could say that they elongate the time preference of investments and that isn't only a bad thing.

Take a look at the internal transactions. Within the last 24h, there's been several transactions where new ETH has been wrapped and sent to the contract. The balance is ~120k WETH now which is around the same amount as the hack.

Where is the evidence?

I think it's extremely important that mass media organisations are held accountable to what they publish, given their reach. As such I always wonder if there is a collection of revisions that major news articles have made, especially in this age that it's simply a page on a URL.

There is archive.org but has someone identified the noteworthy alterations?

Anything can be done using a fork. But the days of a chain (read as "only bitcoin & ethereum") doing any kind of deep state change and coming out the other side as the winning fork are done. The stake holders are so diverse and so invested in the values (i.e. immutability, scarcity) that any such fork is doomed to failure.

We found out with previous Bitcoin forks, how influential companies and miners are. 21M is non negotiable, and which stakeholder would want to dilute themselves?

The parent might be conflating inflation with the price of Ethereum going up? It's a common perception. But at least in the crypto world, inflation is understood as the value of the currency going down.