The point is that physics bounds the possible outcomes. It doesn't stop stupid people from jumping out a window, the floor just bounds where they will end up

Magnitude is all you need to know. You have 2 problems. 1 if the government can win the mining with current hardware and energy by an order of magnitude in the best case scenario. And the concentration is probably increasing. You can't have decentralization. 2 you are in the timeline where bitcoin exists and is several orders of magnitude bigger. You don't even have the option of coopting government power like the way mining is getting integrated into power grid stsblization.

Right that's why trade can't happen in the currency used in the bounded box. You have to use a neutral reserve asset. But you're back to the problem of if you try to save in the weaker asset you will lose Money goes to 1

When I say the physics I'm literally talking about the physical characteristics that bound the possible outcomes over time. A asset with 4% growth in supply will have more of it in the market than something with 2% Doesn't men's people won't use the first thing. Just that eventually everyone ends up using the harder asset. Because cetris paribus people making the wrong choices will lose the purchasing power. Looking at moe and sov an arbitrary moe will never replace the sov. But eventually the people with the sov will not accept the weaker moe if there's no one left to make the trade for the sov. And if the sov was something that had poor moe functions you could argue the reverse (real estate not going to replace dollar) but bitcoin moe is pretty damn good.

That's not true at all. Money absolutely converges and cultures who use the weaker form either adapt or die You can have bounded areas where someone with a monopoly on force can dictate a currency for limited amounts of time. But all trade outside of that requires a trustless asset.

Aggregate CPU Power: Datacenters vs. End-User Devices When considering the aggregate CPU power of datacenters versus end-user devices in the U.S., the disparity is striking. Here’s a breakdown of the aggregated computational power of both setups. Aggregate Power of Datacenters Total CPU Count: A typical large datacenter can house thousands to tens of thousands of servers. Assuming an average of 16 CPU cores per server, this can translate to hundreds of thousands to millions of CPU cores. Performance Estimation: If we estimate a conservative average of 10 teraflops per server, a datacenter with 10,000 servers could achieve: 10,000 servers × 10 teraflops/server = 100,000 teraflops (or 100 petaflops). Higher Scale Examples: Major cloud providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS) or Google Cloud can aggregate even greater power, reaching 1 exaflop (1,000 petaflops) or more through optimized hardware and workload distribution. Aggregate Power of End-User Devices Total CPU Count: There are approximately 300 million personal computers (desktops and laptops) in the U.S. Assuming an average of 4 CPU cores per device, this results in about 1.2 billion CPU cores. Performance Estimation: If we take an average performance of around 500 gigaflops per device, the aggregate computational power would be: 300 million devices × 500 gigaflops/device = 150,000 teraflops (or 150 petaflops). Summary of Aggregate CPU Power Datacenters: 100 to 1,000+ petaflops (potentially reaching exaflops) End-User Devices: 150 petaflops This aggregate comparison clearly illustrates that datacenters collectively provide an order of magnitude more computational power than all end-user devices combined. The architecture and capabilities of datacenters offer substantial advantages for large-scale processing needs, whereas end-user devices serve general consumer purposes. Chatgpt

You can save in anything you want. Save in fish. Just dont expect your purchasing power to exist for long. Also don't expect you exist for too long

You don't use fiat as money. You use it as a currency. No one saves in it. In the us you save in harder assets like the 500 or real estate You're confusing it because were in this 50 ish year abberation where the functions of money are split

Maybe he should go mine some

You can claim any thing you want about monetary policy. The purchasing power of the hardest money always wins. You're arguing against physics