Row 22631

Row ID: 22631 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 22631 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

He makes a lot of good points, but he also makes some bad arguments. I’m not all the way through the book yet, but these are the ones that jumped out at me the most so far.

1. He constantly uses “cash” to be synonymous with arbitrarily small payments. He makes the argument that “in the early days” the digital gold narrative was about how bitcoin could not be debased, but that later shifted to being a store of value and that latter narative is at odds with bitcoin being “digital cash” because cash, by his definition” means small payments. He then goes on to cite the many times Satoshi used the term cash and the fact that he never once used the term “store of value.” All of which is true. But all of this is assuming satoshi was using “cash” in the same way Roger is. I think that what Satoshi meant by calling bitcoin “digital cash” was that it could be used as a final settlement without any third parties similar to cash. I don’t think his use of the word cash has anything to do with payment size. Although Satoshi does talk about the possibilities of using bitcoin for small payments, I don’t see any connection between that and the term “cash.” In fact that would be a poor comparison to physical cash because small transactions is not a strength of physical cash when you consider the cost of producing, distributing, and replacing physical cash.

2. I know this one will not br taken well here in this sub, but I’ll say it anyways. He’s dead wrong about full nodes. In his thought experiment where 100% of miners fork into a new chain and 100% of full nodes stay in the old chain, it is true that the latter chain with 0 miners would grind to a halt, but it’s also true that the former would being mining virtually empty blocks since miners contribute very few transactions to the mempool. Both chains would be essentially useless at the time of the split, and either one could end up being considered the “real” chain depending on the details of why the chain split and how the users on both sides perceive it.

Overall it’s a very interesting read and I’m enjoying getting a new perspective on the blocksize wars. I was glad to see Roger on the BTCTKVR podcast. It makes me hopeful we may move back to a single protocol sometime in the future.

Cheers.

FieldValue
text He makes a lot of good points, but he also makes some bad arguments. I’m not all the way through the book yet, but these are the ones that jumped out at me the most so far. 1. He constantly uses “cash” to be synonymous with arbitrarily small payments. He makes the argument that “in the early days” the digital gold narrative was about how bitcoin could not be debased, but that later shifted to being a store of value and that latter narative is at odds with bitcoin being “digital cash” becau…
label r/btc
dataType comment
communityName r/btc
datetime 2024-05-21
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1Cc1dxbmlDUXZodFFxeEtrem9MYk9POTlNejNlSUFuNjhaUGVaNGY0YWo0WmItMmNOcno4S0d4WVZxeGx0YlNfcEo1bjc3U2tkc1RQM0JUemJTX3lPVlE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9RRmM0dGVWd1lDX0JBOHJJTGgzcG96cmJyRFBtbVBrRzgzc2ZxekVYaFRzOU9lYWQtOVI1bmJWYXEwUlpQdHlwRk0tSVRIcEJfT2FKMjA0dWl0SkdVYjlqNTMwWHo5Rnc2MkoxYTRfeHg5MmFBWFVtQ09LbTNTRV9BWkk0N2NiaHJBY3BjYUR6cXl4dGo3THhybHVqWnpoeXB2OC1fbkhHbjFFUjZrWDliQUFUbGtwRDBfa3B0b1kxaDI0R09hTFA0

Raw Record

{
  "text": "He makes a lot of good points, but he also makes some bad arguments.  I’m not all the way through the book yet, but these are the ones that jumped out at me the most so far.  \n\n1.  He constantly uses “cash” to be synonymous with arbitrarily small payments.  He makes the argument that “in the early days” the digital gold narrative was about how bitcoin could not be debased, but that later shifted to being a store of value and that latter narative is at odds with bitcoin being “digital cash” because cash, by his definition” means small payments.  He then goes on to cite the many times Satoshi used the term cash and the fact that he never once used the term “store of value.”  All of which is true.  But all of this is assuming satoshi was using “cash” in the same way Roger is.  I think that what Satoshi meant by calling bitcoin “digital cash” was that it could be used as a final settlement without any third parties similar to cash.  I don’t think his use of the word cash has anything to do with payment size.  Although Satoshi does talk about the possibilities of using bitcoin for small payments, I don’t see any connection between that and the term “cash.”  In fact that would be a poor comparison to physical cash because small transactions is not a strength of physical cash when you consider the cost of producing, distributing, and replacing physical cash.  \n\n2.  I know this one will not br taken well here in this sub, but I’ll say it anyways.  He’s dead wrong about full nodes.  In his thought experiment where 100% of miners fork into a new chain and 100% of full nodes stay in the old chain, it is true that the latter chain with 0 miners would grind to a halt, but it’s also true that the former would being mining virtually empty blocks since miners contribute very few transactions to the mempool.  Both chains would be essentially useless at the time of the split, and either one could end up being considered the “real” chain depending on the details of why the chain split and how the users on both sides perceive it. \n\nOverall it’s a very interesting read and I’m enjoying getting a new perspective on the blocksize wars.  I was glad to see Roger on the BTCTKVR podcast.  It makes me hopeful we may move back to a single protocol sometime in the future. \n\nCheers.",
  "label": "r/btc",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/btc",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1Cc1dxbmlDUXZodFFxeEtrem9MYk9POTlNejNlSUFuNjhaUGVaNGY0YWo0WmItMmNOcno4S0d4WVZxeGx0YlNfcEo1bjc3U2tkc1RQM0JUemJTX3lPVlE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9RRmM0dGVWd1lDX0JBOHJJTGgzcG96cmJyRFBtbVBrRzgzc2ZxekVYaFRzOU9lYWQtOVI1bmJWYXEwUlpQdHlwRk0tSVRIcEJfT2FKMjA0dWl0SkdVYjlqNTMwWHo5Rnc2MkoxYTRfeHg5MmFBWFVtQ09LbTNTRV9BWkk0N2NiaHJBY3BjYUR6cXl4dGo3THhybHVqWnpoeXB2OC1fbkhHbjFFUjZrWDliQUFUbGtwRDBfa3B0b1kxaDI0R09hTFA0"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information