These two episodes were some of the best I've heard to explain these concepts and why Bitcoin is the hardest money. Thanks so much for putting this together!
Saylor does the same thing but from an engineering perspective. That speaks to my engineering DNA - “money is energy”. I can construct a defensible model using this approach that allows me to understand why other digital and fiat currencies are not. But my kids can’t understand this context (and roll their eyes when I attempt to explain). Parker’s approach is rational and practical. I can explain money and BTC to my kids using his approach - with reason and their personal experience - to put money and BTC in the context that my kids (and my broker!) can better understand. Still, the way I think about it - money produced without energy (to protect it, to validate transactions) is of zero value to me. Energy is sacrifice. Energy input extends my time horizon. Combine that with Parker’s primary principle - 21,000,000 protected forever - and that gets me beyond a 5% commitment.
I agree with a lot of what Parker says, but the statement "blockchain only works for money" doesn't logically follow from his arguments. I agree that there is a fundamental problem if you use data from outside the system, oracles etc. But the logical conclusion should be "blockchain only works for self-contained use cases". Money is indeed self-contained to the blockchain, but it seems to many there can be many other such use cases. What about an uncensorable version of twitter, for example?
Thank you both. I’m gifting my closest loved-ones some BTC and some of my time this Christmas. As BTC gains its security through proof-of-work, people secure their paradigms through PoW, also. PoW is thinking, generating questions and seeking answers. Practice and understanding theory are essential. I’ve struggled with how to describe BTC to my loved ones. Parker’s template is the best that I’ve found. But, my giftees must have BTC, self-custody, and a hands-on view of the market to generate their own questions. This series identifies the likely questions and how I can answer with first principles in mind. It’s part of my personal PoW, too. Thank you!!
Thanks Pete - great podcast. On a different subject I don’t see enough “Bitcoin only” journalists asking some tough questions about Mining Council! I feel this is a great threat to the US mining industry (or western world) by cleverly attempting to centralise and control who participates who doesn’t. One suggestion would be to bring Marty Bent & Saylor to your platform and debate this and let the viewers make up their mind?
Need to introduce the topic of feasibility of transferring other forms of value on top of the BTC settlement layer, to wit, home/auto equity, precious metals, fine art, other collectible tangibles together with cash, investments, etc. to be able to transfer value to anyone, anywhere at will.
Thank goodness somebody said it. I've spent about 10,000 hours studying bitcoin. I laughed when he said you could learn bitcoin in 100 hours. There is a massive amount of value transfer on the Internet already happening and it will grow exponentially. That value transfer cannot be done on bitcoin (Layer 1). An example would be a crypto token such as BAT, even though it is a very early attempt and not impressive. If you want bitcoin to be the only blockchain, then it will have absorb that value transfer via a Layer 2 solution. To pretend that value transfer has to be performed in a database and not a blockchain does not fit with the reality of what is happening in the world today. Blockchains doing that value transfer DO NOT compete with bitcoin. They actually are additive and critical to the growth of bitcoin. Could better bitcoin Layer 2 solutions absorb all this value transfer in the future? I hope so, but I don't see much evidence of it today.
Simple: denominate all assets of value in BTC. When you want to transfer the value of any of the above assets, you sell it for BTC and send it to whomever you like. Or you could tokenize those other assets on a layer 2 of the bitcoin network and transfer the said tokens. The problem with representing physical real world assets with digital tokens, is that it requires some external third party to enforce the token holders ownership of the physical item. That third party necessarily becomes a point of centralization and would rely on trust to some degree. This is part of the problem with trying to use NFTs this way also. Very hard to marry the digital world with the physical without giving up some centralization.
What I wouldn’t give to have Parker Lewis and Gary Gensler locked in the same room together for two hours. Gensler gets bitcoin. He taught a 23 session course on blockchain, dig currency and BTC at MIT. But it appears to me that he’s not committed. Parker could change that. And Gensler could offer ideas that strengthen Parker’s model.
Mr Lewis keeps saying there’s a transitionary period, which rings true enough. But retail currency (as opposed to reserve currency), implemented by competent central banks, has an attractive value proposition: It may be inflationary or deflationary over longer terms, but it is steadily anchored to a basket of necessities in the hierarchy of needs (food, shelter, healthcare, education) on a day to day time frame. How can Bitcoin, or any other fixed supply money, perform that function? There’s a reason why manipulated elasticity in money supply is preferred, and why we had ‘gold-backed’ currencies instead of just plain old gold serving our money needs, or am I missing something?
BTC is a Novel asset monetizing in real time. As each new cohort of humanity discovers it, they must grapple with its value and price, thus it will likely remain volatile for some time to come. However, at a certain point of adoption saturation, it could become a medium of exchange, but we’re a long way from that IMO. Until then, fiat will still have use due to its relative price stability and medium of exchange properties, but that won’t stop BTC from eventually becoming the global reserve currency. Instead of being denominated in USD, all fiat would be expressed in fiat/BTC pairs. In this way, fiat and BTC will coexist for a time, but as increasingly aggressive inflationary monetary policies of central banks undermine their respective currencies, they will have a harder time maintaining price stability. Therefore at the point which a fiat currency begins to fail and hyper inflate, BTC becomes relatively more stable and a virtual wealth life raft by which citizens can exit their politically imposed monetary regime without capital controls. Look no further than Venezuela for a current example of this exact scenario. By contrast, backing ones currency with gold only works so long as the central bank can be trusted to not violate its own monetary policy by dishonest reporting of its reserves or by engaging in ever expanding fractional reserve banking to expand its money supply. Unfortunately history has shown that such mistrust in central bankers is well founded. The only way to solve this problem of centralization and trust, is to take monetary policy out of the hands of ANY human or group, and instead delegate that responsibility to something wholly incorruptible. In the absence of some benevolent deity up for the task, bitcoin provides a digital alternative. Dig deeper into this subject and you may draw some very startling concussions (while also becoming very bullish on the asset!).
I kick myself for not investing in 2008 or 09 when it was first in my brain. Got spooked that it might be a scam. Was not a techy type. Overwhelmed then, unfortunately it's still overwhelming but it doesn't seem like a scam so much. But it does sort of because I am still trying to wrap my head around the security issues so I can participate. Both phone and computer.
Comes down to three primary issues: cooperation, trust and technology. Nation states can hardly cooperate on anything these days, just look at the pandemic shit show we endured this last year. Secondly, any nation state backing thier currency with gold would need to have their gold reserves regularly verified by some independent third-party that could not be co-opted by other nation states. Basically youd have to trust individual nation states that they are being honest about the amount of gold they held in reserve. Ultimately it all boils down to an issue of trust as it would be practically impossible four all nation states to be continuously verifying each others gold reserves in real time. Given that reality, game theory suggests that the incentive and temptation to cheat would prove too hard to resist. Thirdly, gold is just an antiquated technology, and is an impractical form of money, even as a reserve, in the modern digital world. Yes it does benefit from Lindy effect and strong network affects, but net worth effects can be broken Provided that the new technology there’s an order of negative greater improvement than the incumbent. I.e.: enter Bitcoin. Oh that’s sad there are some central banks that are actively building up gold reserve, largely insurance policy. But I think this will happen on a country by country basis, not as a result Brettonwoods like event. The idea that it that the multitude of disparate nation states of the world could come together to cooperate, architect and agree upon a new global monetary system seems almost impossible. I believe rather first some nation states will hold gold as an insurance policy against Fiat collapse, but eventually some will also begin to hold bitcoin as an insurance policy against Bitcoins on success. At that point the Geo political game Siri would suggest that there’s very little disadvantage for a nation state to hold bitcoin in reserves, even if done so in secrecy, yet there would B a massive downside potential risk of not holding any at all in the event that the majority of other nation states adopted it ahead of your own. Market forces, not heads of state, will determine Bitcoins ultimate fate and hopefully destiny as the future world reserve currency.
Agree but intertwined within some of that repitition are interesting new concepts and ways of thinking about the problem. We all repeat concepts we believe are critical points to emphasize which itself is instructive.
Everyone learns at a different rate. For some, his pace might be just right. Besides, we all learn via repetition. You’re also coming at it from a position of prior comprehension. For someone approaching the subject for the first time, they would likely be overwhelmed. Stop making unproductive criticisms, they don’t help anyone.
Never watch the red coat on UA-cam usually a pod cast. Love to see he wears yankees rock band shirts all over the globe. ha!. Love the show man even if your a bloody red coat.
Damn he was so close... he was about to explain why if there is only 21M bitcoins, what is the BIG difference to today's currencies if bitcoin is INFINITELY divisible?? He could have skipped all other points, because to people who have studied the subject THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING out there still; without an ADEQUATE answer, the closes he has come to it is to say that each coin is divided into one hundred "satosies" See... the VALUE of money can be diluted by printing more dollars (bitcoins) or by dividing the actual unit, the dollar into smaller and smaller pieces, the dollar can only be divided into 100 units (cents) and so far as I know bitcoins can be divided into 100M units each (satoshi), right?? But then he said something a bit disturbing, he added that If need be that can be further divided into more satoshis, and that makes it like today's currencies??? that is the point I want to get clear as clear can be, but every single time he is asked this point he diverts it into analogies with gold or oil or the miners, etc.... because history has shown that if this thing can be done IT WILL BE DONE.... yes, he said it "very unlikely" that this Wille ver happen because the current global product is some trillions of dollars, and that is not even close to what the bitcoins as they are now are able to do... but we are talking about one hundred years, a lot of things can and will happen... so is bitcoin's monetary system A FIXED supply and in what sense or what?? I get and most people get all other points made, it is the scarcity issue that there will never be more than 21M bitcoins that gives it all the value it might have... so people should push more not this one point to make it clear to us all... all the interviewers so far let him off easy, in fact I predict that if you put this one issue on the title of the video it will go viral.
It’s finite. Imagine all financial energy in the world summed up to 21M gallons. 1 Gallon 4 quarts 8 pints 16 cups X tablespoons x teaspoons X atoms of H20 But if you own a gallon it doesn’t matter how small of the unit you or others use to measure it. Your percent ownership of the total is unaffected.
i'm yet to be convinced that bitcoin is better money than fiat from a civilizational perspective. from an individual's perspective who is distrustful of government, authority and their ability to be responsible with the money printer, sure.
That guy talks in circles. Makes no real sense. Using some facts to just talk. Lol…. Bitcoin. XRP. Eth. Flare. Xlm. Xdc. And many more. Or none at all. Who knows
What I wouldn’t give to have Parker Lewis and Gary Gensler locked in the same room together for two hours. Gensler gets bitcoin. He taught a 23 session course on blockchain, dig currency and BTC at MIT. But it appears to me that he’s not committed. Parker could change that. And Gensler could offer ideas that strengthen Parker’s model.
World class content. Parker Lewis is probably the best iv heard yet articulating on Bitcoin
I never thought I would hear someone who understands and explains bitcoin better than Michael Saylor
Episode 1 was the absolutely the best ive ever listened to, period!!! Hope this one is good too
Well?
@@dipunm Better imo.
These two episodes were some of the best I've heard to explain these concepts and why Bitcoin is the hardest money. Thanks so much for putting this together!
Parker reverse engineers BTC to a point that is understandable, and peers into the brilliance of Satoshi, while explaining the WHY.
I was going to post a comment, then I saw yours and it was like you read my mind.
Saylor does the same thing but from an engineering perspective. That speaks to my engineering DNA - “money is energy”. I can construct a defensible model using this approach that allows me to understand why other digital and fiat currencies are not. But my kids can’t understand this context (and roll their eyes when I attempt to explain).
Parker’s approach is rational and practical. I can explain money and BTC to my kids using his approach - with reason and their personal experience - to put money and BTC in the context that my kids (and my broker!) can better understand.
Still, the way I think about it - money produced without energy (to protect it, to validate transactions) is of zero value to me. Energy is sacrifice. Energy input extends my time horizon. Combine that with Parker’s primary principle - 21,000,000 protected forever - and that gets me beyond a 5% commitment.
Parker is the BEST. Always insightful and articulate.
This guy is amazing! Michael Saylor should do an interview with him!
Peter Parker talk Bitcoin - The real superhero!
I agree with a lot of what Parker says, but the statement "blockchain only works for money" doesn't logically follow from his arguments. I agree that there is a fundamental problem if you use data from outside the system, oracles etc. But the logical conclusion should be "blockchain only works for self-contained use cases". Money is indeed self-contained to the blockchain, but it seems to many there can be many other such use cases. What about an uncensorable version of twitter, for example?
Great job Parker. Thanks for sharing your work
Every time I listen to Parker I have to pause every 3 minutes to contemplate on what I'm hearing.
Thank you both.
I’m gifting my closest loved-ones some BTC and some of my time this Christmas. As BTC gains its security through proof-of-work, people secure their paradigms through PoW, also. PoW is thinking, generating questions and seeking answers. Practice and understanding theory are essential.
I’ve struggled with how to describe BTC to my loved ones. Parker’s template is the best that I’ve found. But, my giftees must have BTC, self-custody, and a hands-on view of the market to generate their own questions. This series identifies the likely questions and how I can answer with first principles in mind. It’s part of my personal PoW, too.
Thank you!!
Perfection! Someone please see to it that Peter Schiff listens to this.
That's assuming he would let you speak, he interrupts all the time.
Respect for Parker ..
Great Episode. Hope you figure out the back issues Peter.
Man this dude is sharp!
Thanks Pete - great podcast. On a different subject I don’t see enough “Bitcoin only” journalists asking some tough questions about Mining Council! I feel this is a great threat to the US mining industry (or western world) by cleverly attempting to centralise and control who participates who doesn’t. One suggestion would be to bring Marty Bent & Saylor to your platform and debate this and let the viewers make up their mind?
Parker is TOP!
Wow, Parker Lewis is a genius.
Great guest !
Dope Shirt Peter
Need to introduce the topic of feasibility of transferring other forms of value on top of the BTC settlement layer, to wit, home/auto equity, precious metals, fine art, other collectible tangibles together with cash, investments, etc. to be able to transfer value to anyone, anywhere at will.
Thank goodness somebody said it. I've spent about 10,000 hours studying bitcoin. I laughed when he said you could learn bitcoin in 100 hours. There is a massive amount of value transfer on the Internet already happening and it will grow exponentially. That value transfer cannot be done on bitcoin (Layer 1). An example would be a crypto token such as BAT, even though it is a very early attempt and not impressive. If you want bitcoin to be the only blockchain, then it will have absorb that value transfer via a Layer 2 solution. To pretend that value transfer has to be performed in a database and not a blockchain does not fit with the reality of what is happening in the world today. Blockchains doing that value transfer DO NOT compete with bitcoin. They actually are additive and critical to the growth of bitcoin. Could better bitcoin Layer 2 solutions absorb all this value transfer in the future? I hope so, but I don't see much evidence of it today.
Simple: denominate all assets of value in BTC. When you want to transfer the value of any of the above assets, you sell it for BTC and send it to whomever you like. Or you could tokenize those other assets on a layer 2 of the bitcoin network and transfer the said tokens. The problem with representing physical real world assets with digital tokens, is that it requires some external third party to enforce the token holders ownership of the physical item. That third party necessarily becomes a point of centralization and would rely on trust to some degree. This is part of the problem with trying to use NFTs this way also. Very hard to marry the digital world with the physical without giving up some centralization.
Would 5 btc be enough to enter Citadel?
What I wouldn’t give to have Parker Lewis and Gary Gensler locked in the same room together for two hours. Gensler gets bitcoin. He taught a 23 session course on blockchain, dig currency and BTC at MIT. But it appears to me that he’s not committed.
Parker could change that. And Gensler could offer ideas that strengthen Parker’s model.
The BIS could learn a thing or two from watching this...
Part 2 ? I think I listened to the first one...
FYI - not getting YT notifications
Mr Lewis keeps saying there’s a transitionary period, which rings true enough. But retail currency (as opposed to reserve currency), implemented by competent central banks, has an attractive value proposition: It may be inflationary or deflationary over longer terms, but it is steadily anchored to a basket of necessities in the hierarchy of needs (food, shelter, healthcare, education) on a day to day time frame. How can Bitcoin, or any other fixed supply money, perform that function? There’s a reason why manipulated elasticity in money supply is preferred, and why we had ‘gold-backed’ currencies instead of just plain old gold serving our money needs, or am I missing something?
BTC is a Novel asset monetizing in real time. As each new cohort of humanity discovers it, they must grapple with its value and price, thus it will likely remain volatile for some time to come. However, at a certain point of adoption saturation, it could become a medium of exchange, but we’re a long way from that IMO. Until then, fiat will still have use due to its relative price stability and medium of exchange properties, but that won’t stop BTC from eventually becoming the global reserve currency. Instead of being denominated in USD, all fiat would be expressed in fiat/BTC pairs. In this way, fiat and BTC will coexist for a time, but as increasingly aggressive inflationary monetary policies of central banks undermine their respective currencies, they will have a harder time maintaining price stability. Therefore at the point which a fiat currency begins to fail and hyper inflate, BTC becomes relatively more stable and a virtual wealth life raft by which citizens can exit their politically imposed monetary regime without capital controls. Look no further than Venezuela for a current example of this exact scenario. By contrast, backing ones currency with gold only works so long as the central bank can be trusted to not violate its own monetary policy by dishonest reporting of its reserves or by engaging in ever expanding fractional reserve banking to expand its money supply. Unfortunately history has shown that such mistrust in central bankers is well founded. The only way to solve this problem of centralization and trust, is to take monetary policy out of the hands of ANY human or group, and instead delegate that responsibility to something wholly incorruptible. In the absence of some benevolent deity up for the task, bitcoin provides a digital alternative. Dig deeper into this subject and you may draw some very startling concussions (while also becoming very bullish on the asset!).
Bitcoin 🧡
for an invalid, you do a lot of damn good content lately.
38:08. Bitcoin is to money, as haroin is to the poppy! lol
Parker has those Cowboys in his crosshairs
I kick myself for not investing in 2008 or 09 when it was first in my brain. Got spooked that it might be a scam. Was not a techy type. Overwhelmed then, unfortunately it's still overwhelming but it doesn't seem like a scam so much. But it does sort of because I am still trying to wrap my head around the security issues so I can participate. Both phone and computer.
Is there a risk of all governments going to a gold standard as competition for Bitcoin?
Comes down to three primary issues: cooperation, trust and technology. Nation states can hardly cooperate on anything these days, just look at the pandemic shit show we endured this last year. Secondly, any nation state backing thier currency with gold would need to have their gold reserves regularly verified by some independent third-party that could not be co-opted by other nation states. Basically youd have to trust individual nation states that they are being honest about the amount of gold they held in reserve. Ultimately it all boils down to an issue of trust as it would be practically impossible four all nation states to be continuously verifying each others gold reserves in real time. Given that reality, game theory suggests that the incentive and temptation to cheat would prove too hard to resist. Thirdly, gold is just an antiquated technology, and is an impractical form of money, even as a reserve, in the modern digital world. Yes it does benefit from Lindy effect and strong network affects, but net worth effects can be broken Provided that the new technology there’s an order of negative greater improvement than the incumbent. I.e.: enter Bitcoin. Oh that’s sad there are some central banks that are actively building up gold reserve, largely insurance policy. But I think this will happen on a country by country basis, not as a result Brettonwoods like event. The idea that it that the multitude of disparate nation states of the world could come together to cooperate, architect and agree upon a new global monetary system seems almost impossible. I believe rather first some nation states will hold gold as an insurance policy against Fiat collapse, but eventually some will also begin to hold bitcoin as an insurance policy against Bitcoins on success. At that point the Geo political game Siri would suggest that there’s very little disadvantage for a nation state to hold bitcoin in reserves, even if done so in secrecy, yet there would B a massive downside potential risk of not holding any at all in the event that the majority of other nation states adopted it ahead of your own. Market forces, not heads of state, will determine Bitcoins ultimate fate and hopefully destiny as the future world reserve currency.
he does repeat himself quite a lot. This could be a 45 min conversation with the same messaging
Its important to repeat, to make sure people understands
Agree but intertwined within some of that repitition are interesting new concepts and ways of thinking about the problem. We all repeat concepts we believe are critical points to emphasize which itself is instructive.
Everyone learns at a different rate. For some, his pace might be just right. Besides, we all learn via repetition. You’re also coming at it from a position of prior comprehension. For someone approaching the subject for the first time, they would likely be overwhelmed. Stop making unproductive criticisms, they don’t help anyone.
🤯
Deep shit!
Never watch the red coat on UA-cam usually a pod cast. Love to see he wears yankees rock band shirts all over the globe. ha!. Love the show man even if your a bloody red coat.
Damn he was so close... he was about to explain why if there is only 21M bitcoins, what is the BIG difference to today's currencies if bitcoin is INFINITELY divisible??
He could have skipped all other points, because to people who have studied the subject THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING out there still; without an ADEQUATE answer, the closes he has come to it is to say that each coin is divided into one hundred "satosies"
See... the VALUE of money can be diluted by printing more dollars (bitcoins) or by dividing the actual unit, the dollar into smaller and smaller pieces, the dollar can only be divided into 100 units (cents) and so far as I know bitcoins can be divided into 100M units each (satoshi), right?? But then he said something a bit disturbing, he added that If need be that can be further divided into more satoshis, and that makes it like today's currencies??? that is the point I want to get clear as clear can be, but every single time he is asked this point he diverts it into analogies with gold or oil or the miners, etc.... because history has shown that if this thing can be done IT WILL BE DONE.... yes, he said it "very unlikely" that this Wille ver happen because the current global product is some trillions of dollars, and that is not even close to what the bitcoins as they are now are able to do... but we are talking about one hundred years, a lot of things can and will happen... so is bitcoin's monetary system A FIXED supply and in what sense or what??
I get and most people get all other points made, it is the scarcity issue that there will never be more than 21M bitcoins that gives it all the value it might have... so people should push more not this one point to make it clear to us all... all the interviewers so far let him off easy, in fact I predict that if you put this one issue on the title of the video it will go viral.
It’s finite.
Imagine all financial energy in the world summed up to 21M gallons.
1 Gallon
4 quarts
8 pints
16 cups
X tablespoons
x teaspoons
X atoms of H20
But if you own a gallon it doesn’t matter how small of the unit you or others use to measure it. Your percent ownership of the total is unaffected.
The Bitcoin-MASTER has spoken...
Yep.
Parker Lewis can’t lose.
Undefeated.
If parker lewis debated nouriel roubini, nouriel would die on the spot
Max Verstappen rocks!
Peter has no idea what he’s saying lol 😂
Pound sterling is backed by US dollar
Bitcoin is backed by the security of the network, that network secures scarcity 21 million devisible units.
Sterling and the US dollar are backed by zero and is why we are in this mess. Previously, we had the Gold Standard.
👌
i'm yet to be convinced that bitcoin is better money than fiat from a civilizational perspective.
from an individual's perspective who is distrustful of government, authority and their ability to be responsible with the money printer, sure.
👍🏻
Sorry had to do it….
Can he lose?
So in order words, Bitcoin is punk as fcuk
Wow this one was so boring. Had to quit halfway. See you in the next one though
First;)
Word Salad. This guy is too wordy to listen to for long…Uggghh…
The Bank of England is privately owned Peter. Its owned by the same family that own the Fed.
Not true and easily verified. Lazy.
That guy talks in circles. Makes no real sense. Using some facts to just talk. Lol…. Bitcoin. XRP. Eth. Flare. Xlm. Xdc. And many more. Or none at all. Who knows
Bitcoin sucks, but fiat sucks so much more. Bitcoin would be worthless if the Fed was responsible.
What I wouldn’t give to have Parker Lewis and Gary Gensler locked in the same room together for two hours. Gensler gets bitcoin. He taught a 23 session course on blockchain, dig currency and BTC at MIT. But it appears to me that he’s not committed.
Parker could change that. And Gensler could offer ideas that strengthen Parker’s model.