pull down to refresh
lol it's not a problem of will, it's a problem of math.
2 quadrillion is a lot bigger than global money supply of 120 trillion dollars, so if you price everything in sats, prices will mathematically look inflated (14 dollars become 233 sats in the example i used in the OP).
85.3 trillion is slightly smaller than 120 trillion, so if you price everything in nahs, prices will look slightly deflated (14 dollars become 10 nahs).
sat makes life hard for every menu designer out there. that is why we need nah.
the transition to hard money will only happen when bitcoiners can show consumers an unit of account that is psychologically better and easier to communicate than fiat. without a good unit of account, there will be no medium of exchange, and no civilization.
This is so braindead.
Everything is simply supply and demand. Prices move to meet that.
The reason you're having such a hard time with it, is because you keep anchoring to dollars.
Additionally, most Bitcoiners are of the opinion that Bitcoin is base-layer money. Not meant to be used for daily purchases. They reluctantly admit that a fiat-like instrument will have to be used at the 3rd/4th layers where the average person is spending daily. Sats will be used to settle global trade, much like how Fedwire works today.
In otherwords, Bitcoin brings back something that looks like the old free-banking world. This gets us 80% of what Satoshi originally set out to accomplish.
Under such a framework, something like "nah" might be the solution. But it's one solution among 1 million other possible ones. It's premature, and it seems to benefit a few people if adoption of it actually does happen. So, that's a red-flag. More than likely, mSats will do the job. Or some other layer 2/3 solution 40 years down the road. Your claims that "nah" is the only way is incredibly silly.
the world's reserve currency status of an asset always has to be anchored to the one before it for the transition to happen. the dollar was anchored to gold before it became world's reserve currency. bitcoin is now being anchored to dollar. but it is failing to become world's reserve currency because of the unit bias problem i have clearly explained in the OP.
thanks for accepting that nah might be the solution. but saying nah is "one solution among 1 million other possible ones" is like saying bitcoin is "one solution among 1 million other possible ones".
the best and most secured timechain on planet Earth is the bitcoin timechain. there are only two well-designed tokens on the bitcoin timechain: sat & nah. while sats are still being mined (sat's annual inflation rate is currently 0.8%), nah already achieved 0% inflation at its genesis, and is a better unit of account due to its circulating supply being carefully chosen at 85.3 trillion.
"premature"? "benefit only a few people"? less than 10% of world's population own any sat, so the same logic can be said by no-coiner towards sat. "mSats"? most bitcoiners haven't heard of it. "40 years down the road"? i am not gonna wait that long for hyperbitcoinization.
you should re-read my OP. the adoption of nah•sovereign•diamond will lead to not only immediate hyperbitcoinization but also the mass production of lithium-sulfur batteries which will further decentralize bitcoin mining (and make affordable electric vehicles a reality for everyone while we're at it).
Get my facts straight? I never claimed "nah" was a utility token. I was using "utility" tokens as an example for why ANY new crypto token is not necessary. And I didn't really get into any details, because it is a long discussion to explain why Bitcoin is enough, and anything else is unnecessary. I was trying to be as brief as possible.
Sats ARE Bitcoin. They aren't some layer on top of Bitcoin that exists because of Bitcoin. They literally ARE Bitcoin.
You are making a million assumptions in your silly "math". Bitcoin does not have a unit bias problem, and the Satoshi quote DOES NOT prove that it does. It only explains why he chose the units he chose at the time.
The price of things will mold to fit the inherent scarcity of Bitcoin (Sats). The reason it appears to have a unit bias problem now is because:
WE HAVE HAD ZERO PRICE DISCOVERY HAPPENING USING BITCOIN AS THE BASE LAYER MONEY.
This is why I'm so negative toward the Bitcoin community. Instead of focusing on fiat macro numbers and NGU, they should be spending their energy on build real circular Bitcoin economies whereby we can START to have price discovery happen.
Currently, there is zero price discovery happening. Instead, we anchor to the fiat values, which we all know are arbitrary and unethical at their core. I cannot understand why more people aren't working harder to facilitate true Bitcoin price discovery for goods and services. This is the real problem Bitcoin has for adoption. Which is to say, it's a problem of will. The current Bitcoiners don't have enough will power or virtue to switch to a more ethical system and endure the short term pain that will come from it.
So, ultimately, I very much object to your claims that Bitcoin has a unit bias problem. Instead, it has a fiat-brained problem. Too much fiat minded individuals holding Bitcoin who aren't using Bitcoin in such a manner to allow the perceived unit-bias to alleviate itself naturally.