> Bitcoin is such a hyperobject, the first of its kind. Bitcoin expands across spacetime, a growing chain of ordered megabyte blocks, both everywhere and nowhere...
This is a lot of flowery words to describe a Ponzi scheme.
>Those contents — the information on them — also mark it as a hyperobject. Like other hyperobjects, blockchains violate normal rules and transcend old paradoxes. For instance, some philosophers of mind have wondered how a physical object like the brain can contain information that isn’t read-out subjectively by an observer. But the information contents of blockchains seem fundamentally fixed and definite in a way most other information is not. The distributed ledger composed of wallets and their holdings has a particular consensus — it is agreed upon by all — and this consensus is enforced by proof-of-work. Perhaps one fanciful hypothesis is that the brain itself works kind of like an organic blockchain, replicating its model of self and world across its hemispheres and modules, with consciousness being the current decentralized neural consensus of the state of that model.
I get that the author is trying to make a connection between blockchains and the mind, but every step from one to the other is a non-sequitur. In the 3rd sentence, "For instance" does not actually refer to a generality from the preceding sentences of which the 3rd sentence gives an example. In the 4rd sentence, the "But" does not actually stand in opposition to anything from the preceding sentence. The final sentence formulates a hypothesis that does not really offer a potential solution to the preceding problem.
I can respect this kind of writing that the author is going for, but only if the argumentation actually makes sense.
This is pretty self indulgent. It really doesn’t take a genius to wrap their head around a distributed append only ledger. And anyone older than 25 or so remembers what speculative asset inflation is.
The big, looming crypto question remains: if this stuff is so revolutionary, why doesn’t someone go and do something revolutionary with it?
He isn’t talking about the protocol itself, yes a ledger is understandable. What you are ignoring is the effect it is having on the world as people discover for once in the history of humanity we can have a completely auditable open money that has a finite supply, not forever increased and diluted when a rich person decides it is in their best interest to do so. This effect is quite wild and effects far-reaching. Elon, Square, Jack, El Salvador, the Chinese mining exodus, Tom Brady laser eyes, the Fed, my bank account.
How many wars could have been prevented if governments couldn’t have printed way more money than they had GDP for and then needed to start a war to try and “fix” it? This is the hyperobject we could be on the cusp of here.
I don't know how much keeping the monetary supply honest is good for humanity. Being able to print your own money can create a lot of problems, but it also gives you an escape hatch out of many others.
How many wars could have been prevented if governments couldn’t have printed way more money than they had GDP for and then needed to start a war to try and “fix” it?
Probably none.
Countries have had hyperinflation and then had wars, but I've never heard of a case where the hyperinflation caused the war. They're always linked by the same common cause: some shock (government collapse, market collapse, another war) that caused a supply shortage. That messed with the whole economy until it eventually resulted in violence.
Hyperinflation is a response to economic collapse, not the cause of it. Or you could see it as a measure of economic collapse; again, the metric reflects the problem, but isn't the problem itself.
The mental gymnastics needed to market Bitcoin are becoming more and more absurd.
Not sure how to convince maximalists that non-believers _actually_ do understand Bitcoin—they just don’t see any practical uses for it other than funny money.
Also, it’s kind of ironic that any anti-btc sentiment is seen as snarky, yet these awkward psychobabble think pieces are fair game. Oh well.
Not sure how to convince skeptics that an object that many people find useful and valuable actually has utility and value for the simple and obvious reason that many people find it useful and valuable.
And that this principle applies to every useful and valuable object, not just Bitcoin.
14 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 42.6 ms ] threadThis is a lot of flowery words to describe a Ponzi scheme.
I get that the author is trying to make a connection between blockchains and the mind, but every step from one to the other is a non-sequitur. In the 3rd sentence, "For instance" does not actually refer to a generality from the preceding sentences of which the 3rd sentence gives an example. In the 4rd sentence, the "But" does not actually stand in opposition to anything from the preceding sentence. The final sentence formulates a hypothesis that does not really offer a potential solution to the preceding problem.
I can respect this kind of writing that the author is going for, but only if the argumentation actually makes sense.
The big, looming crypto question remains: if this stuff is so revolutionary, why doesn’t someone go and do something revolutionary with it?
How many wars could have been prevented if governments couldn’t have printed way more money than they had GDP for and then needed to start a war to try and “fix” it? This is the hyperobject we could be on the cusp of here.
enough that when the tether ponzi (and i do mean ponzi) pops then BTC is going to crash in a big way.
Probably none.
Countries have had hyperinflation and then had wars, but I've never heard of a case where the hyperinflation caused the war. They're always linked by the same common cause: some shock (government collapse, market collapse, another war) that caused a supply shortage. That messed with the whole economy until it eventually resulted in violence.
Hyperinflation is a response to economic collapse, not the cause of it. Or you could see it as a measure of economic collapse; again, the metric reflects the problem, but isn't the problem itself.
Not sure how to convince maximalists that non-believers _actually_ do understand Bitcoin—they just don’t see any practical uses for it other than funny money.
Also, it’s kind of ironic that any anti-btc sentiment is seen as snarky, yet these awkward psychobabble think pieces are fair game. Oh well.
And that this principle applies to every useful and valuable object, not just Bitcoin.