-
@ ภ๏รtг๏ภคยt
2025-02-24 22:34:07
1)While divisibility is a technical feature, it doesn't address the core issue of distribution. Yes, you can own a fraction of a Bitcoin, but if the vast majority of Bitcoin is concentrated in the hands of a few, those few still wield disproportionate influence. They can manipulate the market, influence development decisions (even if nodes validate), and ultimately control access for smaller holders. Nodes are important for network integrity, but they don't negate the power imbalance created by unequal distribution. Think of it like owning a tiny share of a company – you technically have ownership, but you have little to no say compared to the majority shareholders.
2: The UASF demonstrated that the community can exert influence, but it was a specific event in a specific context. It doesn't guarantee future success against well-funded and powerful entities, including governments and large corporations, who have far more resources and lobbying power than a decentralized group of users. "Ossification" (making the protocol rigid and difficult to change) can be a double-edged sword. While it provides stability, it also makes it harder to adapt to future challenges or correct imbalances in power. It can also entrench the positions of those who already hold a large share of Bitcoin.
3: The energy expenditure in Proof-of-Work is a cost, not a guarantee of decentralization or equitable distribution. Large mining farms, often operated by corporations, have an advantage due to economies of scale. They can afford the massive energy consumption and specialized hardware required for mining, further concentrating the power within the system. While the "hard money" argument is appealing, it doesn't address the fact that the initial distribution of Bitcoin was highly concentrated, and the PoW system perpetuates a degree of centralization in mining power. Radu's paper might explain the energy dynamics, but it doesn't necessarily solve the distribution problem.
4: ETFs, while increasing accessibility, integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system. This integration gives traditional financial institutions a foothold in the Bitcoin market, allowing them to exert influence and potentially manipulate the price. It's not "destroying" the fiat system; it's potentially reinforcing it by giving it a new asset class to control. The idea of a "Trojan horse" implies a hidden subversion, but in reality, ETFs bring Bitcoin further under the umbrella of traditional finance, which is the very system you're concerned about.
5: This scenario is highly speculative and relies on a very specific, almost utopian, vision of how things will play out. It assumes that cypherpunks will magically gain control and dismantle existing power structures. However, history suggests that power vacuums are often filled by new elites, who may or may not share the original cypherpunk ideals. There's no guarantee that a shift to Bitcoin will automatically lead to a more equitable or decentralized society. The existing power structures could simply adapt and leverage their resources to control the new system. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is crucial, but it's not a silver bullet. Technical solutions alone cannot solve deeply rooted social and economic problems. The "stripping state-bankers of the power of the purse" is a complex political and economic challenge, not something that can be easily achieved through technological means alone.
I have concerns about centralization and the potential for Bitcoin to possibly replicate the inequalities of traditional finance given its current trajectory.
nostr:nevent1qqs99q74he2gspkjwzycgwcnjmw73mv38tq7h7d028rk9sk30j5sepcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qwl89d7yazg500lehg08p45dj2jzhhyqg2erj067458e3wd30djnsxpqqqqqqzt6y775