Interesting on all, great answer.
Amazon's AWS certainly has a detailed menu, QUITE. Would imagine BitCoin will be the same. The nice thing is, deflationary currency solves a LOT of problems all by itself, especially the one of long-term glacial squatting. If BitCoin is deflationary money, glacial storage becomes uneconomical, and incentivizes pruning by the owner himself. And this is so sexy to me, that it makes me think of the danger of the OTHER side.
Namely, if we store most of the tokens, data, etc... into 0-value tokens, BitCoin is certainly LESS deflationary. My question is, is it deflationary any longer at all?
In other words, not much is gained by 0-value tokens, other than the ability for token companies to be care-free, and the worser term might be wasteful. Does EVERY company need a billion shares? The farmer down the road from me ran an entire business on 12 total shares, and he could've got by with 2.
Nakamoto Consensus will rule, I'm ok with that. HOWEVER, if I was at the controls of the save-all spaceship, I might recommend a different course than the actual captain ("please bring me my wine") of the ship-- call him "Captain Pink" (Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun).
I think deflationary money is a tremendous solution, and it's probably so that the more deflationary it is, the more efficient and "healing" it is-- a motive force for good. How? Again, it forces people to clean up after themselves.
Think about it from this angle. How many pictures, videos, and other saved information crap do you have which probably will never have a value to you or your next-of-kin and will eventually get deleted by someone getting annoyed paying your Apple iCloud monthly, or Google One Drive annual? Everyone promises themselves they'll spend a Saturday deleting stuff they don't need, but don't. The fees add up, because Google and Amazon and Apple have fifgured this out and even encourage wastefulness. (if you don't believe me, try to QUICKLY find the "trash" folder in gmail-- it's buried WAY down so you can't just empty the trash and lower your GigaMegs number below the "You're over your limit, we recommend lifting your wallet out of your pants" warnings).
Long winded way of saying I enjoy the cycles of "low on time, high on money" and "high on time, low on money" and how it self-cleans the system. Seems BitCoin is beautifully set up the same way.
NUMBER GO UP? Time to prune, spring cleaning! Decide if it's important, and spend those UTXO-set equivalents of Old-Lady-Shoe-Houses.
NUMBER GO DOWN? Get liberal! Store Store Store. Pack old teddy bears into expensive Hermes boxes you pick up behind the dumpster. Buy Manhattan farmland above Houston Street.
But if all the data ends up trending towards 0-value tokens and OP_0/RTNs, then maybe BitCoin isn't backed by anything?
that's the main fear. My hope is that the EXPENSE and COST of maintaining a system like that-- prevents it from ever happening.
Until then, guess I'll be making different choices programmatically-- for the long term Noah's ark scenario that "break glass when/if needed" is heavy on the "WHEN" and not the "IF".
(imagine picture inserted here of Noah's Arc floating in a sea of drowned 0-value-token people-water.)
Interesting on all, great answer.
Amazon's AWS certainly has a detailed menu, QUITE. Would imagine BitCoin will be the same. The nice thing is, deflationary currency solves a LOT of problems all by itself, especially the one of long-term glacial squatting. If BitCoin is deflationary money, glacial storage becomes uneconomical, and incentivizes pruning by the owner himself. And this is so sexy to me, that it makes me think of the danger of the OTHER side.
Namely, if we store most of the tokens, data, etc... into 0-value tokens, BitCoin is certainly LESS deflationary. My question is, is it deflationary any longer at all?
In other words, not much is gained by 0-value tokens, other than the ability for token companies to be care-free, and the worser term might be wasteful. Does EVERY company need a billion shares? The farmer down the road from me ran an entire business on 12 total shares, and he could've got by with 2.
Nakamoto Consensus will rule, I'm ok with that. HOWEVER, if I was at the controls of the save-all spaceship, I might recommend a different course than the actual captain ("please bring me my wine") of the ship-- call him "Captain Pink" (Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun).
I think deflationary money is a tremendous solution, and it's probably so that the more deflationary it is, the more efficient and "healing" it is-- a motive force for good. How? Again, it forces people to clean up after themselves.
Think about it from this angle. How many pictures, videos, and other saved information crap do you have which probably will never have a value to you or your next-of-kin and will eventually get deleted by someone getting annoyed paying your Apple iCloud monthly, or Google One Drive annual? Everyone promises themselves they'll spend a Saturday deleting stuff they don't need, but don't. The fees add up, because Google and Amazon and Apple have fifgured this out and even encourage wastefulness. (if you don't believe me, try to QUICKLY find the "trash" folder in gmail-- it's buried WAY down so you can't just empty the trash and lower your GigaMegs number below the "You're over your limit, we recommend lifting your wallet out of your pants" warnings).
Long winded way of saying I enjoy the cycles of "low on time, high on money" and "high on time, low on money" and how it self-cleans the system. Seems BitCoin is beautifully set up the same way.
NUMBER GO UP? Time to prune, spring cleaning! Decide if it's important, and spend those UTXO-set equivalents of Old-Lady-Shoe-Houses.
NUMBER GO DOWN? Get liberal! Store Store Store. Pack old teddy bears into expensive Hermes boxes you pick up behind the dumpster. Buy Manhattan farmland above Houston Street.
But if all the data ends up trending towards 0-value tokens and OP_0/RTNs, then maybe BitCoin isn't backed by anything?
that's the main fear. My hope is that the EXPENSE and COST of maintaining a system like that-- prevents it from ever happening.
Until then, guess I'll be making different choices programmatically-- for the long term Noah's ark scenario that "break glass when/if needed" is heavy on the "WHEN" and not the "IF".
(imagine picture inserted here of Noah's Arc floating in a sea of drowned 0-value-token people-water.)