Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
melvincarvalho | 1 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 "Perfectly" scarce is a bit of a stretch.  It is scarce by consensus, and yes that is a pretty strong convention.  Perfect, maybe not.  It's OK for people to have doubts.  Consensus can be gamed.  Especially if we are not careful.  Indeed the chain could split due to conensus gaming.  I am quite sure there are those that would like to see that happen.  And it has happened before, almost fatally.  We need to stay humble and avoid being complacent on these issues.
▲ ▼
TheGuySwann | 1 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 It’s simpler than that though. Bitcoin is 21 million and it’s perfectly scarce because of that explicit limit. I run a node, therefore no one can say that anything is different.

Bitcoin’s consensus is and will be defined by the intolerant minority. I run a node that defines it as 21 million, and anything incompatible with that is invalid.

I think accepting the notion that this is NOT set and determined is itself a mental concession. One that I refuse to give. There is no way to “game consensus” and make bitcoin not 21 million, because I will never call anything that changes that Bitcoin. If we accept that this can be gamed, we literally give up leeway to game it. From the POV of my node and my bitcoin, it can’t be.
▲ ▼
melvincarvalho | 1 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 So, as nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7erfw36x7tnsw43z7un9d3shjqpq3ndpm2hm9hud4azsq5euhf5mv3d05r90wymwxsd7rdn29609hhvq42j0zv  said: 'In Bitcoin, consensus is not built, it is enforced.'

I think we’re on the same page here, though not everyone might see it this way. If some believe consensus can be built, then it's up to the community to actively enforce it. But that only works if enough people are willing to stand firm.

The 21 million limit would be incredibly difficult to break; it's likely an extreme example. People could try, but they'd probably fail. However, if someone controls the longest chain, they do hold significant power.

Now, consider another scenario: What if there’s a divisive issue that splits the community? For example, say there's a proposal to activate an OP_CON opcode. The specifics aren’t the point; it’s that the community is divided. You could potentially engineer this or introduce enough ideas to create a split.

At that point, there’s a real risk of a chain split. You’d end up with 21 million on one chain and 21 million on another, and there’d be confusion, at least temporarily, about which is the 'real' Bitcoin.

We need to be vigilant about this because it’s a legitimate possibility, as history has shown. So, to say that Bitcoin’s scarcity is 'perfect' might be a bit too strong. It’s something we have to continuously protect. Hope that makes sense!