Bessent Red pill wallet coms...
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
The funny thing about this response is that it spends three quarters of its time agreeing with the critique of fiat money and then somehow concludes that Bitcoin is the villain.
That's like spending twenty minutes explaining why the ship is sinking and then blaming the lifeboat for not being made of oak.
First, notice the bait-and-switch.
The original objection was: "Crypto isn't backed by anything."
Now suddenly we're talking about Federal Reserve Notes, debt-based money, usury, central banking, the 14th Amendment, and the enslavement of future labor.
Fine. Let's talk about it.
But every one of those criticisms is a criticism of fiat currency, not crypto.
If the Federal Reserve system is a debt-based mechanism that inflates away purchasing power, then you've just explained one of the reasons Bitcoin was invented.
You don't get to spend five paragraphs explaining why the house is on fire and then conclude that fire extinguishers are therefore worthless.
The "Real Asset" Problem
The argument assumes that only a physical asset can back money.
Historically, that sounds persuasive until you actually examine what money is.
Gold was not valuable because it was backed by something else.
Gold was valuable because people valued gold.
The moment someone says, "Money must be backed by a real asset," the obvious question becomes:
"What backs the asset?"
If gold is the answer, what backs gold?
More gold?
Turtles all the way down?
Gold has value because people voluntarily desire it. Its scarcity, durability, divisibility, portability, and recognizability make it useful as money.
Bitcoin follows exactly the same logic.
Nobody eats gold.
Nobody heats their home with gold.
Nobody builds houses out of gold.
The overwhelming majority of gold's monetary value comes from collective recognition of its monetary properties.
The same is true of Bitcoin.
The Free Market Argument Backfires
The strongest claim made is:
"A free market would destroy Bitcoin immediately."
Would it?
Who is forcing people to buy Bitcoin?
Who is forcing corporations to hold it?
Who is forcing pension funds, hedge funds, family offices, and sovereign wealth funds to accumulate it?
The entire existence of Bitcoin is the result of voluntary exchange.
People buy it because they believe it possesses desirable monetary characteristics.
That's called a market.
In fact, Bitcoin's critics often make two contradictory arguments simultaneously:
"Bitcoin is worthless and nobody wants it."
And:
"The government must regulate it because people keep buying it."
Pick one.
Gold Versus Bitcoin Is Not Gold Versus Fiat
The response acts as though the debate is:
Gold vs Bitcoin.
Many Bitcoin advocates would happily take that deal over the current fiat system.
The real debate is:
Gold and Bitcoin vs central-bank money.
Bitcoin's existence is not an attack on sound money.
It is an attack on monetary manipulation.
Gold requires vaults.
Gold requires transportation.
Gold requires trusted custodians.
Gold is difficult to divide for everyday transactions.
Gold is difficult to move across borders.
Bitcoin solves many of those problems while preserving scarcity.
That does not make it superior in every respect.
It does make it a legitimate monetary competitor.
The NFT Detour
Then we get the NFT argument.
"Just tie crypto to real assets."
Fine.
But now you've abandoned the original argument.
If crypto can successfully represent ownership of gold, land, stocks, art, or other assets, then crypto is obviously useful as a monetary and ownership technology.
At that point you're no longer arguing that crypto is worthless.
You're arguing about which type of crypto should prevail.
That's a completely different debate.
The Central Authority Claim
The most curious claim is that Bitcoin somehow requires a centralized authority.
Bitcoin was literally designed to eliminate the need for a central authority.
No central bank sets its issuance schedule.
No government determines how many will exist.
No committee votes to create more.
No politician can print trillions of new units during a crisis.
Whether one likes Bitcoin or not, accusing it of being dependent on centralized control is like accusing a submarine of being dependent on horses.
The entire architecture was built to avoid precisely that dependency.
The Bottom Line
The response accidentally demolishes fiat currency while failing to land a punch on Bitcoin.
If you believe debt-based fiat money is destructive, inflationary, and coercive, you're already halfway to understanding why millions of people became interested in Bitcoin in the first place.
The real question is not whether Bitcoin is backed by gold.
The real question is whether a scarce, durable, divisible, portable, verifiable, censorship-resistant asset can function as money.
The market has been answering that question for over fifteen years now.
And despite thousands of obituaries, Bitcoin remains stubbornly alive, which is more than can be said for every paper currency in history. As the old joke goes, fiat currencies eventually all go to zero.
Come on man. Your responses make it perfectly clear you aren't listening to what I'm saying at all.
REREAD WHAT I SAID AND LISTEN NEXT TIME.
Listen to understand, not to respond.
Only if you can understand what I'm saying can you respond in a meaningful way. Otherwise it's meaningless to engage.
As just one example, so you can see how you ignored what I was actually saying:
Actually, every one of my criticisms was a criticism of a non-asset based currency. NON-ASSET BASED CURRENCY. HEAR MY WORDS. It has nothing to do with "fiat" except that both are usually (in this context) non-asset based.
Only if you can see what I'm actually saying will your response will be meaningful, otherwise it's nonsense.
One more attempt, because your premise is so profoundly false.
Gold was valuable because people valued it's real qualities. On the easiest example, it is beautiful and rare. Jewelry was desired for the same reasons, and while jewelry could be used in trade, it was never used as a currency (as far as I'm aware). But it does show that "beautiful" and "rare" are BY THEM SELVES desirable qualities. Have you ever looked at gold? The idea that it has no "real qualities" is utter nonsense.
To continue: currently it is used for jewelry because of it's physical properties (luster, lasts forever (doesn't oxidize, degrade from acid/base reactions, complements many colors (clothing), etc.), has incredible thermal properties, is both physically malleable and strong (It used to be used as the best possible mortar e.g. ("City of Gold" wasn't just a meme), filling in both the gaps in large stones at a very useful temperature range (lead was used for similar reasons, but had the nasty "poison" quality), and absorbing energy from earthquakes, etc., etc.)). These ideas that it had no intrinsic qualities are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE STATEMENTS. All arguments that push that IMMEDIATELY FALL APART, and any investigation into it recognizes is ludicrousness immediately. Your premise assumes people will listen to you without using their eyes or their brains.
That doesn't count the fact that there is some substantial evidence that the Egyptians (or pre-Egyptians?) used gold for large scale electrical conduction, making it the best conductor possible in an environment intended to last forever and safely carry a massive EM load (the top of the Pyramid was capped in gold, and it looks like it was a power system of some type, using gold as the best possible conductor). There are other possible technological uses given by "hidden history" (speculative, but more existent than you might think if you look) that are even more "out of this world" (both in effectiveness and literal "out of this world-ness").
Try again. Listen next time.
Then you can respond meaningfully. Otherwise I won't engage again.
Okay now you're talking about electromagnetic pyramids and your accusing me of not responding meaningfully?
😂
I don't care if you engage again.