You're forgetting about difficulty adjustment. Every time mining gets more expensive large number of miners drop out. This causes the difficulty target to drop. The remaining miners then start mining more blocks and profits rise. As a system it has built-in economic incentives to keep in in homeostasis.
I read this comment in the spirit of "you might not have known that K did much more that write awk, but he's a genius." Which I didn't know, so I appreciate the context.
> Blue lets you post really really long tweets. Thats potentially interesting and useful
You mean degraded the user experience. People used to split their long-form thoughts out into a series of tweets ("a thread 1/8 -->") which I could read by simply scrolling down.
Now they still do this, but half of the tweets are too long to fit above the fold. I'll get to tweet #3 and have to click into it to read the text. Then scroll to tweet 4 and do it again. By the time I'm done I have to click back half a dozen times to return to my feed.
That or they post an essay in one tweet which is just terrible. Bad font, hard to read. And besides, I didn't come to Twitter to read long-form content. Make it concise.
It's amazing how one little change can ruin the UX. It's almost as if Elon didn't think through the downstream impact of his change, or why tweet limits existed in the first place.
> If crypto poses a legitimate threat to that power and control, it is much easier to remove the threat than to adapt your system to it.
In fact the opposite of this is happening. We are in a discussion about how the SEC was ordered by the courts to further integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system. Despite their protests and attempts to impose their own will on the rights of the people.
> None exist and unlikely any will exist in the future (at least not the type of countries many people would want to live int)
El Salvador has already made Bitcoin a legal tender. I assume your no-true-scotsman addition of "any country somebody would want to live in" is meant to disqualify it? That's rather disrespectful to the 6 million people who live there in addition to being wrong.
In my opinion more countries will adopt it in the coming years and convert a small portion of their reserves to Bitcoin. Time will tell which of us is correct.
To the contrary, as long as you can hold through the volatility window of about 4 years, you are better off holding Bitcoin.
The price of a house used to be 100 bitcoin, then 10, now it's 5. Wait 10 years and it'll be 0.5. Meanwhile, hold dollars and the price keeps going up. You are defacto forced to put your saving in an investment vehicle to keep up with inflation, taking on risk.
> You are defacto forced to put your saving in an investment vehicle to keep up with inflation, taking on risk.
Yes. You got it. That's how you get economic growth. Instead of stagnation and deflation when you hoard gold or bitcoin. It's not exactly fair from the individual people perspective but for the society as whole it's objective the superior option.
> To the contrary
I know that reading comprehension is hard (even if the "IF" was in very big letters..). If your income is in $ and you buy stuff priced in $ AND you don't want to use crypto as an investment instrument but only for buying/selling good holding it for extended periods of time is not smart (same applies to foreign currencies in general they are just not as volatile).
Which shows that it was the impact of pretending their currency hadn't been devalued that dragged them through a prolonged depression. Had they simply priced gold at its true value in pounds, they would have gotten through it as quickly as France.
Why wait? It's been 15 years of Bitcoin outperforming every other asset. Nobody has found an exploit making the tech worthless, nor have competitors stolen its market share. Bitcoin is here to stay and the only ones shouting at it are too stubborn to ever admit it has value.
