To<a class="mention" href="/@joeldalais">@joeldalais</a> tweet. No arguments from me on zero-fee transactions-- if U wanna make wine and give it away for free that's a Node's option.
This discussion is more about establishing good Nodes with a view long term to make sure the system thrives well past our lifetimes.
To me, Nodes establishing a precedent, a well-beaten path, of FALSE RETURN methodology (and there's ephemeral purpose to that, so not against it code-wise or anything) and 0-satoshi-tokenization can be detrimental, or else I'm missing something.
I don't think Attila is 100% either, but his gut tells him that a bunch of applications and Nodes getting drunk on 0-satoshi implementations can be bad for BSV. I'm with him on that point. Totally open to understanding how BSV's value is somehow tied to transactions and size of network. I do attribute SOME of BSV's value to those things, particuarly scale and a healthy Node system. But salamanders can live without limbs for as long as some Eagle doesn't swoop in and eat his defenseless body.
So for me, this is about potentially saving BSV from a lost decade.
Nodes are happy with near-term transaction fees, so long as BSV is steady or goes up slowly they make money for a long time.
Token companies are happy with 0-satoshi tokenizations, it lowers their costs and pleases their customers (apps). So long as BSV has a value which is steady or slowly rising.
Users don't care, so long as BSV has a value which is steady or slowly rising (deflationary).
In these 3 statements, everyone is happy. Except for one caveat. If BSV doesn't have a stable or slightly rising value.
I've heard CSW say many times already that BSV is deflationary. I agree. However, using FALSE-RETURN and 0-sat tokenizations can have the reverse effect.
I wonder if anyone can explain why this thinking might be wrong. Happy to be wrong; in fact, it's much easier on me if I'm wrong here.
But all my study of historical economics and business says that commodities get their value from utility, stores of value. Oil can fluctuate any way it likes in the market, but it ALWAYS can heat my home for the winter. Corn gets expensive, I buy relatively cheap wheat. Corn goes down in price, I make corn-bread, Corn-puddin, corn pops cereal, and start a corn-sugar business and get rich selling to coca-cola in 1984 (New Coke).
Again, CSW has said this many times, so think he understands it well.
But there seems to be a theme that BSV gets its value from transactions. This to me is perhaps the central issue of discussion. I say BSV gets a MINORITY of it's value from transactions, and a majority of it's value from the city-effect. A 1 acre empty lot (a BSV token) get's it's value due to all the local "high-rises" of tokens which have value in them.
Gold gets it's value because no one melts down King Tut's 331 troy ounce mask. Why? Because the mask generates an income, something a gold coin does not. A gold coin is like a satoshi, but King Tut's helmet is like Banksy putting a digital original masterpiece inside a 1-token UTXO that the Node network ensures him will be protected until he spends the coin.
Where am I going wrong here?
To<a class="mention" href="/@joeldalais">@joeldalais</a> tweet. No arguments from me on zero-fee transactions-- if U wanna make wine and give it away for free that's a Node's option.
This discussion is more about establishing good Nodes with a view long term to make sure the system thrives well past our lifetimes.
To me, Nodes establishing a precedent, a well-beaten path, of FALSE RETURN methodology (and there's ephemeral purpose to that, so not against it code-wise or anything) and 0-satoshi-tokenization can be detrimental, or else I'm missing something.
I don't think Attila is 100% either, but his gut tells him that a bunch of applications and Nodes getting drunk on 0-satoshi implementations can be bad for BSV. I'm with him on that point. Totally open to understanding how BSV's value is somehow tied to transactions and size of network. I do attribute SOME of BSV's value to those things, particuarly scale and a healthy Node system. But salamanders can live without limbs for as long as some Eagle doesn't swoop in and eat his defenseless body.
So for me, this is about potentially saving BSV from a lost decade.
Nodes are happy with near-term transaction fees, so long as BSV is steady or goes up slowly they make money for a long time.
Token companies are happy with 0-satoshi tokenizations, it lowers their costs and pleases their customers (apps). So long as BSV has a value which is steady or slowly rising.
Users don't care, so long as BSV has a value which is steady or slowly rising (deflationary).
In these 3 statements, everyone is happy. Except for one caveat. If BSV doesn't have a stable or slightly rising value.
I've heard CSW say many times already that BSV is deflationary. I agree. However, using FALSE-RETURN and 0-sat tokenizations can have the reverse effect.
I wonder if anyone can explain why this thinking might be wrong. Happy to be wrong; in fact, it's much easier on me if I'm wrong here.
But all my study of historical economics and business says that commodities get their value from utility, stores of value. Oil can fluctuate any way it likes in the market, but it ALWAYS can heat my home for the winter. Corn gets expensive, I buy relatively cheap wheat. Corn goes down in price, I make corn-bread, Corn-puddin, corn pops cereal, and start a corn-sugar business and get rich selling to coca-cola in 1984 (New Coke).
Again, CSW has said this many times, so think he understands it well.
But there seems to be a theme that BSV gets its value from transactions. This to me is perhaps the central issue of discussion. I say BSV gets a MINORITY of it's value from transactions, and a majority of it's value from the city-effect. A 1 acre empty lot (a BSV token) get's it's value due to all the local "high-rises" of tokens which have value in them.
Gold gets it's value because no one melts down King Tut's 331 troy ounce mask. Why? Because the mask generates an income, something a gold coin does not. A gold coin is like a satoshi, but King Tut's helmet is like Banksy putting a digital original masterpiece inside a 1-token UTXO that the Node network ensures him will be protected until he spends the coin.
Where am I going wrong here?