A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"https://social.fbxl.net/schemas/litepub-0.1.jsonld",
{
"@language": "und"
}
],
"actor": "https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero",
"cc": [
"https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero/followers"
],
"context": "https://social.fbxl.net/contexts/ed189cde-9596-4e44-9707-3eee996cf296",
"conversation": "https://social.fbxl.net/contexts/ed189cde-9596-4e44-9707-3eee996cf296",
"directMessage": false,
"id": "https://social.fbxl.net/activities/b2ae6aa2-09e2-459c-8a59-fdc1ecc7489a",
"object": {
"actor": "https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero",
"cc": [
"https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero/followers"
],
"content": "A series of long analyses of the financialization of the west I've been written have convinced me that Bitcoin is not the future and it can't be. As it went from something with virtually no value to today where the price of Bitcoin is $130,000 per bitcoin, people are only buying in because they think that at some point Bitcoin will be all of the money and so if you buy it early you can get in on owning a little piece of all of the money on Earth. That's a big problem. You don't want people to get rich solely because they bought money early on. Ideally, you would almost want the money to come to exist when someone does something useful, and for to have a finite life that ends at a certain point. In that sense, the current Fiat form of money while flawed certainly seems less flawed. It isn't better because all of its value gets inflated away, but rather because it is created at the point that someone takes out debt to purchase a thing, and is destroyed when that debt is paid back. Because of that, you don't have the perverse incentive you do with Bitcoin to buy money because one day it will be all of the money.<br><br>So the fact that Bitcoin has swung so dramatically in value, and the fact that most people who own Bitcoin own it for the sole purpose of holding it while it rises means that it's not a very good currency. I think the way that you would resolve that would be by modifying the supply of Bitcoin potentially well below the 21 million Bitcoin limit and also well above the 21 million Bitcoin limit based on the effective gross domestic product of Bitcoin. What I'm imagining is the way you would achieve this is by having the algorithm provide bonuses for people using Bitcoin for transactions when the GDP of Bitcoin is growing, and perhaps cutting some of the fee paid to miners out of the system (and maybe the system slightly increases user fees and takes money out of that and destroys it to ensure the cost of deflation doesn't land entirely on miners) entirely when the GDP of Bitcoin is shrinking. I don't think we should end up with a scenario where people make a transaction in Bitcoin and end up with fewer Satoshis in the end than they expect, but cutting the amount of Bitcoin at the point of the service fee, and increasing the amount of Bitcoin at the transaction level seems like it would provide an incentive to use Bitcoin as a means of exchange.<br><br>I'm thinking that if we were dealing with GDP growth similar to the world economy, you would only be looking at maybe 5% annually in general in either direction, so we might be able to make the rewards small enough that they are there and they have an effect on the total money supply to keep the the amount of goods or service that you can buy with Bitcoin constant, the rewards could be small enough that people aren't going to chase after them since even for a large transaction the rewards would be relatively insignificant, and potentially dwarfed by the transaction fees of running big transactions. It is also the case that perhaps Bitcoin isn't going to be the thing I would establish a cryptocurrency that's actually used because everyone wants to have been the early adopter on all the money in existence. The problem is that the fact that early adopters would end up having a substantial portion of all the money in existence just because they did some Bitcoin mining in 2008 is exactly the sort of reason why the scheme can't work.<br><br>To be clear, when I say GDP I'm referring to the total transaction volume in a set period. By using something like that that's extremely deterministic, every miner who is trying to determine which rewards or additional fees would be granted can make the exact same calculation and come to the exact same answer to ensure that nobody is gaming the system with respect to those systems. That way, as such a crypto becomes more and more used it doesn't mean that people who had earlier bitcoins become rich because currency is supposed to be a store of value not a speculative asset that grows by thousands of percent. A currency that is a speculative investment is no longer a currency by definition. It means that is no longer a store of value, it means that it is no longer a unit of account because you can't say what a highly volatile currency is going to charge for a certain thing, and the HODLers accidentally prove that it doesn't become a very good method of exchange either because everyone wants to hang on to their Bitcoin because it's going to go to the Moon instead of spending it on anything. Instead people use their fiat currency for actually acting as a method of exchange, they use their fiat currency as a unit of account, they probably aren't going to be using Fiat as a long-term store of value, it's likely that a lot of people wouldn't hold their savings in Bitcoin either because it could go to 150,000 tomorrow or it can go to 15,000 tomorrow.<br><br>By trying to scale the number of bitcoin to the GDP of bitcoin, you'd be trying to stabilize the value so it can be a unit of account, a store of value, and you'd incentivize using it as a method of exchange because using it for exchange would grant the users rewards.<br><br>The mechanism of dealing with a rewards doesn't need to be simple necessarily either though. it could be for example a model controller that self corrects to the actual data that comes in to ensure it's something that can be robust enough to achieve the goals despite operating completely autonomously.<br><br>Bitcoin was designed in part to have the same benefits as gold as a currency without tying up gold. That's why there's a limited number of bitcoin and they must be "mined". The benefit of a gold standard isn't that gold is special, but that the laws of physics are more immutable than the laws of man. If you need an ounce of gold to produce an ounce of gold worth of currency then you can't produce unlimited currency, and even if nobody trusts your currency they still have gold.<br><br>What I'm proposing would be that the value of a hypothetical Bitcoin under my scenario would be as some amount of value of the total trade of the system. You would have say a Bitcoin, and by changing the amount of potential Bitcoin in the system based on the total economic throughput of the system, you end up with a standardized amount of the capacity of the system, and most importantly it would be something that everyone has agreed to in the source code of the cryptocurrency rather than something that can be arbitrarily changed by the government when they decide that they want to print more money to get more services without having to tax more.<br><br>This ought to mean that the value of a bitcoin stays relatively stable even as the market cap of bitcoin rises or falls. I'm suggesting we use the total currency velocity as a proxy for that rather than a market cap in dollars because the idea would be to eventually supplant the dollar.<br><br>I think one of the focuses on sound money is because the only way that we know of that money can be forced to not be grown by fiat alone. That makes it the best thing that we've seen in history but that doesn't mean it is the only way to achieve Austrian economics ends with respect to currency. My hypothetical currency would help resolve some of the issues with a gold standard with respect to the supply of gold and not being able to grow at a rate fast enough to account for large amounts of economic growth as well as the downside of economic growth falling but obviously the supply of gold doesn't go down just because economic output went down.<br><br>The only way that I can see that such a system could be gamed would be if nation states were to take the hit and try to artificially increase the GDP of Bitcoin by moving a bunch of money around. They would end up having to pay a penalty for all of the transaction fees, but potentially the cost of doing that might be worth the price paid to miners in order to for the GDP and make people feel richer through wealth effect and thereby make governments who do these things appear to be doing better for its people. It's entirely possible, but if we had achieved a sort of Bitcoin maximalism the amount of resources required to manipulate the GDP of my proposed cryptocurrency would be so large and the effects spread over the entire global population I'm not sure it would be ultimately considered to be worth it. If for example you are Donald Trump and you want to use the scheme to enrich americans, you could potentially be enriching the Chinese and Russians and South Americans just the same. That being the case, you would end up with marginal local benefits for overwhelming investments into the system. A sufficiently robust controller may be able to identify some forms of gaming.",
"context": "https://social.fbxl.net/contexts/ed189cde-9596-4e44-9707-3eee996cf296",
"conversation": "https://social.fbxl.net/contexts/ed189cde-9596-4e44-9707-3eee996cf296",
"id": "https://social.fbxl.net/objects/0d178818-a57b-4c0a-988f-fa5229ca4207",
"published": "2024-11-25T00:17:13.167069Z",
"sensitive": false,
"source": {
"content": "A series of long analyses of the financialization of the west I've been written have convinced me that Bitcoin is not the future and it can't be. As it went from something with virtually no value to today where the price of Bitcoin is $130,000 per bitcoin, people are only buying in because they think that at some point Bitcoin will be all of the money and so if you buy it early you can get in on owning a little piece of all of the money on Earth. That's a big problem. You don't want people to get rich solely because they bought money early on. Ideally, you would almost want the money to come to exist when someone does something useful, and for to have a finite life that ends at a certain point. In that sense, the current Fiat form of money while flawed certainly seems less flawed. It isn't better because all of its value gets inflated away, but rather because it is created at the point that someone takes out debt to purchase a thing, and is destroyed when that debt is paid back. Because of that, you don't have the perverse incentive you do with Bitcoin to buy money because one day it will be all of the money.\n\nSo the fact that Bitcoin has swung so dramatically in value, and the fact that most people who own Bitcoin own it for the sole purpose of holding it while it rises means that it's not a very good currency. I think the way that you would resolve that would be by modifying the supply of Bitcoin potentially well below the 21 million Bitcoin limit and also well above the 21 million Bitcoin limit based on the effective gross domestic product of Bitcoin. What I'm imagining is the way you would achieve this is by having the algorithm provide bonuses for people using Bitcoin for transactions when the GDP of Bitcoin is growing, and perhaps cutting some of the fee paid to miners out of the system (and maybe the system slightly increases user fees and takes money out of that and destroys it to ensure the cost of deflation doesn't land entirely on miners) entirely when the GDP of Bitcoin is shrinking. I don't think we should end up with a scenario where people make a transaction in Bitcoin and end up with fewer Satoshis in the end than they expect, but cutting the amount of Bitcoin at the point of the service fee, and increasing the amount of Bitcoin at the transaction level seems like it would provide an incentive to use Bitcoin as a means of exchange.\n\nI'm thinking that if we were dealing with GDP growth similar to the world economy, you would only be looking at maybe 5% annually in general in either direction, so we might be able to make the rewards small enough that they are there and they have an effect on the total money supply to keep the the amount of goods or service that you can buy with Bitcoin constant, the rewards could be small enough that people aren't going to chase after them since even for a large transaction the rewards would be relatively insignificant, and potentially dwarfed by the transaction fees of running big transactions. It is also the case that perhaps Bitcoin isn't going to be the thing I would establish a cryptocurrency that's actually used because everyone wants to have been the early adopter on all the money in existence. The problem is that the fact that early adopters would end up having a substantial portion of all the money in existence just because they did some Bitcoin mining in 2008 is exactly the sort of reason why the scheme can't work.\n\nTo be clear, when I say GDP I'm referring to the total transaction volume in a set period. By using something like that that's extremely deterministic, every miner who is trying to determine which rewards or additional fees would be granted can make the exact same calculation and come to the exact same answer to ensure that nobody is gaming the system with respect to those systems. That way, as such a crypto becomes more and more used it doesn't mean that people who had earlier bitcoins become rich because currency is supposed to be a store of value not a speculative asset that grows by thousands of percent. A currency that is a speculative investment is no longer a currency by definition. It means that is no longer a store of value, it means that it is no longer a unit of account because you can't say what a highly volatile currency is going to charge for a certain thing, and the HODLers accidentally prove that it doesn't become a very good method of exchange either because everyone wants to hang on to their Bitcoin because it's going to go to the Moon instead of spending it on anything. Instead people use their fiat currency for actually acting as a method of exchange, they use their fiat currency as a unit of account, they probably aren't going to be using Fiat as a long-term store of value, it's likely that a lot of people wouldn't hold their savings in Bitcoin either because it could go to 150,000 tomorrow or it can go to 15,000 tomorrow.\n\nBy trying to scale the number of bitcoin to the GDP of bitcoin, you'd be trying to stabilize the value so it can be a unit of account, a store of value, and you'd incentivize using it as a method of exchange because using it for exchange would grant the users rewards.\n\nThe mechanism of dealing with a rewards doesn't need to be simple necessarily either though. it could be for example a model controller that self corrects to the actual data that comes in to ensure it's something that can be robust enough to achieve the goals despite operating completely autonomously.\n\nBitcoin was designed in part to have the same benefits as gold as a currency without tying up gold. That's why there's a limited number of bitcoin and they must be \"mined\". The benefit of a gold standard isn't that gold is special, but that the laws of physics are more immutable than the laws of man. If you need an ounce of gold to produce an ounce of gold worth of currency then you can't produce unlimited currency, and even if nobody trusts your currency they still have gold.\n\nWhat I'm proposing would be that the value of a hypothetical Bitcoin under my scenario would be as some amount of value of the total trade of the system. You would have say a Bitcoin, and by changing the amount of potential Bitcoin in the system based on the total economic throughput of the system, you end up with a standardized amount of the capacity of the system, and most importantly it would be something that everyone has agreed to in the source code of the cryptocurrency rather than something that can be arbitrarily changed by the government when they decide that they want to print more money to get more services without having to tax more.\n\nThis ought to mean that the value of a bitcoin stays relatively stable even as the market cap of bitcoin rises or falls. I'm suggesting we use the total currency velocity as a proxy for that rather than a market cap in dollars because the idea would be to eventually supplant the dollar.\n\nI think one of the focuses on sound money is because the only way that we know of that money can be forced to not be grown by fiat alone. That makes it the best thing that we've seen in history but that doesn't mean it is the only way to achieve Austrian economics ends with respect to currency. My hypothetical currency would help resolve some of the issues with a gold standard with respect to the supply of gold and not being able to grow at a rate fast enough to account for large amounts of economic growth as well as the downside of economic growth falling but obviously the supply of gold doesn't go down just because economic output went down.\n\nThe only way that I can see that such a system could be gamed would be if nation states were to take the hit and try to artificially increase the GDP of Bitcoin by moving a bunch of money around. They would end up having to pay a penalty for all of the transaction fees, but potentially the cost of doing that might be worth the price paid to miners in order to for the GDP and make people feel richer through wealth effect and thereby make governments who do these things appear to be doing better for its people. It's entirely possible, but if we had achieved a sort of Bitcoin maximalism the amount of resources required to manipulate the GDP of my proposed cryptocurrency would be so large and the effects spread over the entire global population I'm not sure it would be ultimately considered to be worth it. If for example you are Donald Trump and you want to use the scheme to enrich americans, you could potentially be enriching the Chinese and Russians and South Americans just the same. That being the case, you would end up with marginal local benefits for overwhelming investments into the system. A sufficiently robust controller may be able to identify some forms of gaming.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
},
"summary": "",
"tag": [],
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"type": "Note"
},
"published": "2024-11-25T00:17:13.167018Z",
"tag": [],
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"type": "Create"
}