Kaff.Lens (@10293) • Hey
Kaf，希伯来文最中间的那个字母，意为中介。
区块链革命的中介。
Publications
- Does anyone play Genshin Impact on lens?
- 🎈 Mutant Or Bored Ape ?!
- Incredible Food! Incredible Bangkok! Love Thailand so much!
- Hello Thailand!!!!!
- Although Messi may want to go back to Barca, I hope he comes to England this summer so I can watch him play in person !!!!!
- Web1 - Web2 - Web3
Web1: Read 📖
Web2: Read & Write 📖✍️
Web3: Read, Write & Own 📖✍️🔐
- Frankly Speaking, PSG does not deserve Messi. The can's handle balls in the middle so Messi has to leave Box.
- Does anyone watch football on lens?
- 📚 **Fun fact about posts on #Lens!**
They can be hosted on either centralized or decentralized resources.
Decentralized ones cannot be deleted. A better name for the "Delete" button (@lenster.lens) in this case would be "Hide" because, technically, it is more accurate. Such a post can still be viewed even after deletion.
On the other side, centralized ones can be deleted if you or anyone else can access the centralized host. Or better, if a post owner can delete it, he can also change the content. So, when you see a post, you can only be sure that the content will stay the same once you know whether it is centralized or not (better not to believe in bet predictions on Lens, right?).
And since comments are technically still posts (but with a reference), we can edit them as well and make some dirty game. In general, there will be no edit tracks unless the comment's content has been uploaded to some sort of archive.
That was my first thought, but then I dug a little deeper. The trick won't work with the default Lens indexer that everyone uses nowadays because it indexes posts only once after transaction confirmation on #Polygon. So, basically, it copies your post to the indexer's DB, and later, when you use Lenster or some other client, you don't get the data from the actual post's content URL but from this DB.
I wondered why it works like that because this means the indexer's DB won't represent the actual state of the blockchain in some cases. I've written in the Lens Discord, and the answers were as follows:
https://discord.com/channels/918178320682733648/1080136391989669989/1080230235854864446
@cesare.lens: "To be clear the blockchain data is not changed, on-chain each post|comment has a content URI that cannot be changed. The contentURI has to point to a public location. From an immutability perspective a "purist" would argue to use an immutable data storage (e.g. IPFS) still the Lens Protocol does not stop you to use a URL you control. The indexer is driven primarily by on-chain events to determine what and when to fetch contentURI. Updating the file won't cause a chain event so simply updating the file won't work."
@wagmi.lens: "We will add a refresh endpoint soon it's on the radar"
Previous posts:
1. Beginning - https://lenster.xyz/posts/0x8218-0x6c
2. Lens on the zkEVM testnet - https://lenster.xyz/posts/0x8218-0x96
#learning #notes #dev
💰 **Mirror, like, and follow** to get **0.123 WMATIC**; limited to the first 100 users.
Thanks to @wav3s.lens
- Heading to Thailand next week!!!!!
- First 50 Follow and the mirror with over 150 followers =WMatic!
LongArticle (2)Puzzle: Is Bitcoin Really "Gold"?
Preface:
When someone questions the value of Bitcoin, gold becomes the best weapon. Over the years, people have become accustomed to comparing Bitcoin with gold, and many even estimate the final value of Bitcoin based on gold's market capitalization. All this stems from the similar and even superior properties of Bitcoin compared to gold.
Higher scarcity, stronger divisibility, greater security, and easier to use. Bitcoin possesses every attribute that gold has, and does even better in each aspect. It even comes with its own payment and accounting system. With such comparisons, hardly anyone can deny that Bitcoin will ultimately become the digital age's gold, or even replace gold.
In the mouths of speculators advocating the metaverse, the once thriving jewelry of golden times and the gold of turbulent times will soon be transformed into thriving NFTs and Bitcoin for turbulent times.
However, is this crude comparison really sufficient to explain the relationship between Bitcoin and gold? Or can we say that just because Bitcoin wins in a solitary and static comparison, it will definitely become and even replace gold?
Any conclusion that disregards historical movement is false. To judge the future of Bitcoin through gold, one must consider the differences between the historical contexts faced by both. Once we put our perspective into history, we will find that if gold is a winning hand from the start, Bitcoin is more like a hand with a strong starting combination, seemingly able to achieve an extraordinary outcome, but in reality, the journey is dangerous and long.
Nevertheless, it seems that the final round of betting is brewing a surging wave of cards, and this extraordinary hand may indeed become a reality.
How Gold Became Gold
History is woven from both inevitability and randomness. The emergence of gold has both its inevitability and its randomness. We cannot grasp random events well, so we can only single out its inevitability for discussion. The inevitability of gold comes from the inevitability of the general equivalent form. In the first four sections of the first volume of Marx's Capital, the inevitable position of the general equivalent in human transaction activities is determined. In a complex market environment, sooner or later, a general value form will emerge to replace the relative value form. This is because people are lazy, or rather, human activities tend to simplify complex things. When my uncle goes to the market to sell three baskets of radishes, compared to remembering that one radish can be exchanged for half an apple, or three oranges, or two ounces of sugar, he would prefer to remember the value of this pile of goods relative to one unit. Therefore, for my uncle and every seller in the market, there must be something universal that everyone wants to exchange, and use it as a unit for conversion.
This general equivalent form appears spontaneously in human trading activities, and no one can prevent its birth. In the beginning, various objects occupied this form, most of which were adapted to local conditions. Some primitive tribes chose to use stones, while others chose shells. With the arrival of agricultural civilization, the scale of human population began to expand, and city-states and even countries emerged, and interactions between regions became more frequent. Humans, once confined to a forest or a plain, began to possess the ability to cross mountains and seas. In this process, some changes were required for the general equivalent. First is portability, second is divisibility, third is scarcity, and fourth is its communicability, or cultural aspect.
The first three properties are interrelated. Scarcity to some extent increases portability because overall rarity raises the value of the unit, meaning that higher value can be transported with less weight. Divisibility simplifies value calculation and broadens application scenarios. Not only can it be used for bulk commodity transactions, but also for daily trivial transactions. Divisibility also includes ease of restoration. It is very difficult to reassemble a shattered stone into a stone of equal weight. This leads to inevitable losses due to fragments when using stones. The property of being easy to divide/restore maintains the scarcity of the object while indirectly improving portability. This is because transporting the whole is easier than transporting pieces. First, it is more difficult to steal a large whole weight than a large fragmented weight, and second, it is easier to store.
So when we consider the above three properties, the superiority of gold and silver stands out among the many competitors for the position of general equivalent. They satisfy all three conditions at the same time. As soft metals with a lower melting point, they are easy to divide and restore. In comparison, gold has a melting point of around 1000 degrees Celsius, while iron is as high as 1500 degrees. In terms of Mohs hardness, gold and silver have a hardness between 2.5 and 3, while iron reaches a level of 4.5. Gold's high density means that its weight is often higher than other metals of the same volume. In terms of scarcity, gold and silver production is lower compared to other common metals, with gold being even rarer than silver, which determines that gold's value is higher than silver's.
Finally, there is its communicability and cultural aspect. To be honest, communication is a property that is difficult to define. From gold's inherent properties, its ability to form a "gold" culture is partly related to its divisibility (malleability), scarcity,portability, and other value-related properties, and partly to its appearance. Its reflective, golden color, and so on, may naturally occupy a certain position in human vision. However, these considerations are too mysterious and difficult to verify, so they will not be explored in depth. However, the prosperity of gold culture is undeniable.
The inevitability of the general equivalent and the different demands for it at different stages of human civilization development have provided gold with some unique advantages in occupying this position. Therefore, gold has historically served as a value anchor, becoming the ultimate unit for storing value.
Based on these, when we examine the attributes of Bitcoin, we are amazed to find that it has all the attributes of gold, and even more so. In terms of scarcity, the total amount of Bitcoin is constant, and due to the loss of keys, it is generally in a deflationary state. In terms of divisibility and recoverability, it is even more outstanding than gold. As a digital product, no physical entity can compete with it in this field. The same goes for portability. The essence of Bitcoin is information, and its storage is also information. As long as you have a good memory, you don't even need to write it down. Just remember the private key, and you can take it with you wherever you go. That's why people say that Bitcoin is the gold of the digital age.
However, the flaw in this view has been pointed out at the beginning of the article. The reason why gold can become gold is that its unique advantages coincide with a historical period that needs these advantages. Nowadays, even gold has withdrawn from the center stage of transactions. Its high value is maintained due to historical inertia and the culture it has shaped over thousands of years.
Therefore, if we want to compare Bitcoin and gold, we must answer what the historical context faced by Bitcoin is like.
Bitcoin's historical predicament
If we compare the history of gold and Bitcoin at their birth, we can easily find that gold faced the beginning of human civilization, with unclear historical trajectories and vague directions of civilization. Bitcoin, on the other hand, was born in the prime of civilization, with many historical patterns already established and the shape of civilization roughly outlined. Since 1971, when Richard Nixon announced the decoupling of the US dollar from gold, the world has entered a new era of credit currency.
This stage has also appeared in human history.
In fact, the use of credit currency predates metal currency. As early as 3500 BC, there were records of credit in the temples of Mesopotamia. But the credit currency of that time was primitive, with all its value coming from power, whether that power was violence or religious garb worn after seizing power through violence. Therefore, in different power structures, the transmission of credit would inevitably encounter obstacles. How could a Babylonian who believed in Ishtar and Marduk convince an Egyptian who believed in Osiris and Ra that the loan information recorded in their temples was valuable? It's not that it's impossible, but the cost of circulating such credit was high. Metals like gold, on the other hand, greatly reduced this cost. There was no need to care where the credit came from; all that was needed was to trade the specific gold. In other words, gold was to defeat or squeeze into a primitive credit currency system. It had natural defects. Credit and metal, or chartalism and metallism in monetary history, have been intertwined in human trade history, and currency has always had a dual nature of credit and metal.
Today's credit currency system is much more mature and complete compared to the ancient civilizations of the two rivers. It is undeniable that today's currency still has a "metallic" nature. Note that the "metallic nature" here is a general term, and its connotation is actually the means of production, such as a large part of the fundamental value of the US dollar comes from its ability to settle oil. Although it is very different from the past gold standard currency system linked to metal, its form of involvement in human activities is similar. This "metallic nature," compared to the past, has been weakened too much, and the credit attribute of currency has been greatly elevated, so much so that it can be said that there is no money in the world today, only credit. The flow of money is the flow of credit.
The biggest advantage of this currency system is that it has broken free from the last shackles of metal, completely liberating the insatiable beast of capital from its cage. It can bring more prosperous regional golden ages and more impoverished regional poverty, as well as unprecedented risks and opportunities for humanity as a whole.
The faster development of human civilization, the faster iteration of technology, and the creation of unprecedented wealth and prosperity all require this new credit currency system to drive. It is the advanced use of future credit based on market efficiency that has given birth to a series of technologies that have changed human life.
For capital itself, its desire is endless replication, using human hands to complete its own growth. The "metallic nature" is like a fishbone stuck in the throat, like a thorn in the bone, for capital. Getting rid of it is a necessary link in the historical movement of capital.
In this extremely complete credit currency system, the "metal" in the narrow sense has completely withdrawn from the historical stage, while the "metal" in the broad sense, including oil, control of trade routes, industrialization capabilities, labor, and other means of production, plays a role in the credit system that is not as important as gold used to be.
It is undeniable that Bitcoin is better than gold, but even an excellent gold is still gold. Since gold has been eliminated by capital's endless pursuit of self-reproduction, how can Bitcoin take over and replace gold to compete with the old man Uncle Sam?
The old man has always been mainly about winning over the new county chief, always tempting him with the America Dream and Wall street dollar. Since the birth of Bitcoin, it has not only failed to become gold or a new value anchor, but it has also become a new playground for capital within this system. Its narrative is unrelated to the gold of the past but has become a financial derivative. It can be said that from the moment Bitcoin entered the current credit currency system, it and the gold of the past were completely different.
However, history is in motion, and the turning point may not be far away.
The Historical Opportunity of Bitcoin
In the first article of this series, we have already explained the relationship between the historical movement of trust and blockchain. As a dehumanizing patch for trust, the blockchain removes the authority of humans as the "trust transmission hub" on one hand. On the other hand, it can also be seen as an accelerator for trust in the capitalist movement. With trust becoming more affordable, more credit can be issued.
Let's briefly explain the difference between trust and credit here. Trust is a broader concept that encompasses all human interactions. Credit, on the other hand, is a quantified manifestation of trust, which can be used to calculate the degree of trust between individuals, individuals and groups, groups and groups, and between the present and the future.
From this perspective, the birth of blockchain and Bitcoin is not a counterbalance to the current credit-based monetary system but rather a tool to propel it towards further madness. However, this is just a story told within a narrow historical context. If we take a broader view of history, we might see another story. Credit is not infinite, and this stems from the limited lifespan of humans. The further into the future we want to overdraw credit, the more difficult it becomes. I can sign a 30-year mortgage, but not a 200-year mortgage, because 200 years later, I will be long gone. This simple truth cannot be overstated. The emergence of blockchain, to some extent, has accelerated the overdraft of credit, and when the future that can be overdrawn is exhausted, a huge cyclical crisis will inevitably come. This "credit" gap between the present and the future is often the time when history makes a major turn. Order will be reshaped by war, human civilization will fall into a great fire, and after being burned to the ground, there will be an opportunity to rebuild.
The historical opportunity of Bitcoin lies in the aftermath of this great fire.
When Master Huang, whether on his own or with the help of Wu Juren, finishes with dignity, Goose City will ultimately need to reshape its order. But the new Goose City is often no different from the old Goose City. The two major families remain the same. What difference does it make whether Master Huang or Master Wu sits in that fortress? There must be a master, right?
And blockchain may be the only difference in this cycle. It provides a new option for the generation that reshapes the order after the great fire:
A master is still needed, but the master doesn't necessarily have to be a person.
At that time, Bitcoin might also complete its transformation, from being entangled in the contemporary credit-based monetary system and becoming a financial derivative, to fulfilling its historical mission and becoming the cornerstone of a new monetary system.
Of course, when we talk about Bitcoin here, we mean cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin attributes in a broader sense, not just the token in Satoshi Nakamoto's nine-page white paper. After all, the future is full of uncertainties, and perhaps the current Bitcoin will die completely, but another new currency using cryptocurrency technology will emerge and become the basis for the future world.
But if Bitcoin doesn't die, and the future really unfolds as such, who can estimate its value?
$69,000? It might just be an insignificant valley.
This game of Texas Hold'em has reached its final hand, and whether Bitcoin can win with a Royal Flush remains to be seen.
This article does not constitute any investment advice and is merely the author's whimsical musings about the future. It should be taken as entertainment.
- First 50 Follow and the mirror with over 150 followers =WMatic!
LongArticle (2)Puzzle: Is Bitcoin Really "Gold"?
Preface:
When someone questions the value of Bitcoin, gold becomes the best weapon. Over the years, people have become accustomed to comparing Bitcoin with gold, and many even estimate the final value of Bitcoin based on gold's market capitalization. All this stems from the similar and even superior properties of Bitcoin compared to gold.
Higher scarcity, stronger divisibility, greater security, and easier to use. Bitcoin possesses every attribute that gold has, and does even better in each aspect. It even comes with its own payment and accounting system. With such comparisons, hardly anyone can deny that Bitcoin will ultimately become the digital age's gold, or even replace gold.
In the mouths of speculators advocating the metaverse, the once thriving jewelry of golden times and the gold of turbulent times will soon be transformed into thriving NFTs and Bitcoin for turbulent times.
However, is this crude comparison really sufficient to explain the relationship between Bitcoin and gold? Or can we say that just because Bitcoin wins in a solitary and static comparison, it will definitely become and even replace gold?
Any conclusion that disregards historical movement is false. To judge the future of Bitcoin through gold, one must consider the differences between the historical contexts faced by both. Once we put our perspective into history, we will find that if gold is a winning hand from the start, Bitcoin is more like a hand with a strong starting combination, seemingly able to achieve an extraordinary outcome, but in reality, the journey is dangerous and long.
Nevertheless, it seems that the final round of betting is brewing a surging wave of cards, and this extraordinary hand may indeed become a reality.
How Gold Became Gold
History is woven from both inevitability and randomness. The emergence of gold has both its inevitability and its randomness. We cannot grasp random events well, so we can only single out its inevitability for discussion. The inevitability of gold comes from the inevitability of the general equivalent form. In the first four sections of the first volume of Marx's Capital, the inevitable position of the general equivalent in human transaction activities is determined. In a complex market environment, sooner or later, a general value form will emerge to replace the relative value form. This is because people are lazy, or rather, human activities tend to simplify complex things. When my uncle goes to the market to sell three baskets of radishes, compared to remembering that one radish can be exchanged for half an apple, or three oranges, or two ounces of sugar, he would prefer to remember the value of this pile of goods relative to one unit. Therefore, for my uncle and every seller in the market, there must be something universal that everyone wants to exchange, and use it as a unit for conversion.
This general equivalent form appears spontaneously in human trading activities, and no one can prevent its birth. In the beginning, various objects occupied this form, most of which were adapted to local conditions. Some primitive tribes chose to use stones, while others chose shells. With the arrival of agricultural civilization, the scale of human population began to expand, and city-states and even countries emerged, and interactions between regions became more frequent. Humans, once confined to a forest or a plain, began to possess the ability to cross mountains and seas. In this process, some changes were required for the general equivalent. First is portability, second is divisibility, third is scarcity, and fourth is its communicability, or cultural aspect.
The first three properties are interrelated. Scarcity to some extent increases portability because overall rarity raises the value of the unit, meaning that higher value can be transported with less weight. Divisibility simplifies value calculation and broadens application scenarios. Not only can it be used for bulk commodity transactions, but also for daily trivial transactions. Divisibility also includes ease of restoration. It is very difficult to reassemble a shattered stone into a stone of equal weight. This leads to inevitable losses due to fragments when using stones. The property of being easy to divide/restore maintains the scarcity of the object while indirectly improving portability. This is because transporting the whole is easier than transporting pieces. First, it is more difficult to steal a large whole weight than a large fragmented weight, and second, it is easier to store.
So when we consider the above three properties, the superiority of gold and silver stands out among the many competitors for the position of general equivalent. They satisfy all three conditions at the same time. As soft metals with a lower melting point, they are easy to divide and restore. In comparison, gold has a melting point of around 1000 degrees Celsius, while iron is as high as 1500 degrees. In terms of Mohs hardness, gold and silver have a hardness between 2.5 and 3, while iron reaches a level of 4.5. Gold's high density means that its weight is often higher than other metals of the same volume. In terms of scarcity, gold and silver production is lower compared to other common metals, with gold being even rarer than silver, which determines that gold's value is higher than silver's.
Finally, there is its communicability and cultural aspect. To be honest, communication is a property that is difficult to define. From gold's inherent properties, its ability to form a "gold" culture is partly related to its divisibility (malleability), scarcity,portability, and other value-related properties, and partly to its appearance. Its reflective, golden color, and so on, may naturally occupy a certain position in human vision. However, these considerations are too mysterious and difficult to verify, so they will not be explored in depth. However, the prosperity of gold culture is undeniable.
The inevitability of the general equivalent and the different demands for it at different stages of human civilization development have provided gold with some unique advantages in occupying this position. Therefore, gold has historically served as a value anchor, becoming the ultimate unit for storing value.
Based on these, when we examine the attributes of Bitcoin, we are amazed to find that it has all the attributes of gold, and even more so. In terms of scarcity, the total amount of Bitcoin is constant, and due to the loss of keys, it is generally in a deflationary state. In terms of divisibility and recoverability, it is even more outstanding than gold. As a digital product, no physical entity can compete with it in this field. The same goes for portability. The essence of Bitcoin is information, and its storage is also information. As long as you have a good memory, you don't even need to write it down. Just remember the private key, and you can take it with you wherever you go. That's why people say that Bitcoin is the gold of the digital age.
However, the flaw in this view has been pointed out at the beginning of the article. The reason why gold can become gold is that its unique advantages coincide with a historical period that needs these advantages. Nowadays, even gold has withdrawn from the center stage of transactions. Its high value is maintained due to historical inertia and the culture it has shaped over thousands of years.
Therefore, if we want to compare Bitcoin and gold, we must answer what the historical context faced by Bitcoin is like.
Bitcoin's historical predicament
If we compare the history of gold and Bitcoin at their birth, we can easily find that gold faced the beginning of human civilization, with unclear historical trajectories and vague directions of civilization. Bitcoin, on the other hand, was born in the prime of civilization, with many historical patterns already established and the shape of civilization roughly outlined. Since 1971, when Richard Nixon announced the decoupling of the US dollar from gold, the world has entered a new era of credit currency.
This stage has also appeared in human history.
In fact, the use of credit currency predates metal currency. As early as 3500 BC, there were records of credit in the temples of Mesopotamia. But the credit currency of that time was primitive, with all its value coming from power, whether that power was violence or religious garb worn after seizing power through violence. Therefore, in different power structures, the transmission of credit would inevitably encounter obstacles. How could a Babylonian who believed in Ishtar and Marduk convince an Egyptian who believed in Osiris and Ra that the loan information recorded in their temples was valuable? It's not that it's impossible, but the cost of circulating such credit was high. Metals like gold, on the other hand, greatly reduced this cost. There was no need to care where the credit came from; all that was needed was to trade the specific gold. In other words, gold was to defeat or squeeze into a primitive credit currency system. It had natural defects. Credit and metal, or chartalism and metallism in monetary history, have been intertwined in human trade history, and currency has always had a dual nature of credit and metal.
Today's credit currency system is much more mature and complete compared to the ancient civilizations of the two rivers. It is undeniable that today's currency still has a "metallic" nature. Note that the "metallic nature" here is a general term, and its connotation is actually the means of production, such as a large part of the fundamental value of the US dollar comes from its ability to settle oil. Although it is very different from the past gold standard currency system linked to metal, its form of involvement in human activities is similar. This "metallic nature," compared to the past, has been weakened too much, and the credit attribute of currency has been greatly elevated, so much so that it can be said that there is no money in the world today, only credit. The flow of money is the flow of credit.
The biggest advantage of this currency system is that it has broken free from the last shackles of metal, completely liberating the insatiable beast of capital from its cage. It can bring more prosperous regional golden ages and more impoverished regional poverty, as well as unprecedented risks and opportunities for humanity as a whole.
The faster development of human civilization, the faster iteration of technology, and the creation of unprecedented wealth and prosperity all require this new credit currency system to drive. It is the advanced use of future credit based on market efficiency that has given birth to a series of technologies that have changed human life.
For capital itself, its desire is endless replication, using human hands to complete its own growth. The "metallic nature" is like a fishbone stuck in the throat, like a thorn in the bone, for capital. Getting rid of it is a necessary link in the historical movement of capital.
In this extremely complete credit currency system, the "metal" in the narrow sense has completely withdrawn from the historical stage, while the "metal" in the broad sense, including oil, control of trade routes, industrialization capabilities, labor, and other means of production, plays a role in the credit system that is not as important as gold used to be.
It is undeniable that Bitcoin is better than gold, but even an excellent gold is still gold. Since gold has been eliminated by capital's endless pursuit of self-reproduction, how can Bitcoin take over and replace gold to compete with the old man Uncle Sam?
The old man has always been mainly about winning over the new county chief, always tempting him with the America Dream and Wall street dollar. Since the birth of Bitcoin, it has not only failed to become gold or a new value anchor, but it has also become a new playground for capital within this system. Its narrative is unrelated to the gold of the past but has become a financial derivative. It can be said that from the moment Bitcoin entered the current credit currency system, it and the gold of the past were completely different.
However, history is in motion, and the turning point may not be far away.
The Historical Opportunity of Bitcoin
In the first article of this series, we have already explained the relationship between the historical movement of trust and blockchain. As a dehumanizing patch for trust, the blockchain removes the authority of humans as the "trust transmission hub" on one hand. On the other hand, it can also be seen as an accelerator for trust in the capitalist movement. With trust becoming more affordable, more credit can be issued.
Let's briefly explain the difference between trust and credit here. Trust is a broader concept that encompasses all human interactions. Credit, on the other hand, is a quantified manifestation of trust, which can be used to calculate the degree of trust between individuals, individuals and groups, groups and groups, and between the present and the future.
From this perspective, the birth of blockchain and Bitcoin is not a counterbalance to the current credit-based monetary system but rather a tool to propel it towards further madness. However, this is just a story told within a narrow historical context. If we take a broader view of history, we might see another story. Credit is not infinite, and this stems from the limited lifespan of humans. The further into the future we want to overdraw credit, the more difficult it becomes. I can sign a 30-year mortgage, but not a 200-year mortgage, because 200 years later, I will be long gone. This simple truth cannot be overstated. The emergence of blockchain, to some extent, has accelerated the overdraft of credit, and when the future that can be overdrawn is exhausted, a huge cyclical crisis will inevitably come. This "credit" gap between the present and the future is often the time when history makes a major turn. Order will be reshaped by war, human civilization will fall into a great fire, and after being burned to the ground, there will be an opportunity to rebuild.
The historical opportunity of Bitcoin lies in the aftermath of this great fire.
When Master Huang, whether on his own or with the help of Wu Juren, finishes with dignity, Goose City will ultimately need to reshape its order. But the new Goose City is often no different from the old Goose City. The two major families remain the same. What difference does it make whether Master Huang or Master Wu sits in that fortress? There must be a master, right?
And blockchain may be the only difference in this cycle. It provides a new option for the generation that reshapes the order after the great fire:
A master is still needed, but the master doesn't necessarily have to be a person.
At that time, Bitcoin might also complete its transformation, from being entangled in the contemporary credit-based monetary system and becoming a financial derivative, to fulfilling its historical mission and becoming the cornerstone of a new monetary system.
Of course, when we talk about Bitcoin here, we mean cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin attributes in a broader sense, not just the token in Satoshi Nakamoto's nine-page white paper. After all, the future is full of uncertainties, and perhaps the current Bitcoin will die completely, but another new currency using cryptocurrency technology will emerge and become the basis for the future world.
But if Bitcoin doesn't die, and the future really unfolds as such, who can estimate its value?
$69,000? It might just be an insignificant valley.
This game of Texas Hold'em has reached its final hand, and whether Bitcoin can win with a Royal Flush remains to be seen.
This article does not constitute any investment advice and is merely the author's whimsical musings about the future. It should be taken as entertainment.
- Crazy Rain In Oxford!!!!!!
- First 50 Follow and the mirror with over 150 followers =WMatic!
LongArticle (2)Puzzle: Is Bitcoin Really "Gold"?
Preface:
When someone questions the value of Bitcoin, gold becomes the best weapon. Over the years, people have become accustomed to comparing Bitcoin with gold, and many even estimate the final value of Bitcoin based on gold's market capitalization. All this stems from the similar and even superior properties of Bitcoin compared to gold.
Higher scarcity, stronger divisibility, greater security, and easier to use. Bitcoin possesses every attribute that gold has, and does even better in each aspect. It even comes with its own payment and accounting system. With such comparisons, hardly anyone can deny that Bitcoin will ultimately become the digital age's gold, or even replace gold.
In the mouths of speculators advocating the metaverse, the once thriving jewelry of golden times and the gold of turbulent times will soon be transformed into thriving NFTs and Bitcoin for turbulent times.
However, is this crude comparison really sufficient to explain the relationship between Bitcoin and gold? Or can we say that just because Bitcoin wins in a solitary and static comparison, it will definitely become and even replace gold?
Any conclusion that disregards historical movement is false. To judge the future of Bitcoin through gold, one must consider the differences between the historical contexts faced by both. Once we put our perspective into history, we will find that if gold is a winning hand from the start, Bitcoin is more like a hand with a strong starting combination, seemingly able to achieve an extraordinary outcome, but in reality, the journey is dangerous and long.
Nevertheless, it seems that the final round of betting is brewing a surging wave of cards, and this extraordinary hand may indeed become a reality.
How Gold Became Gold
History is woven from both inevitability and randomness. The emergence of gold has both its inevitability and its randomness. We cannot grasp random events well, so we can only single out its inevitability for discussion. The inevitability of gold comes from the inevitability of the general equivalent form. In the first four sections of the first volume of Marx's Capital, the inevitable position of the general equivalent in human transaction activities is determined. In a complex market environment, sooner or later, a general value form will emerge to replace the relative value form. This is because people are lazy, or rather, human activities tend to simplify complex things. When my uncle goes to the market to sell three baskets of radishes, compared to remembering that one radish can be exchanged for half an apple, or three oranges, or two ounces of sugar, he would prefer to remember the value of this pile of goods relative to one unit. Therefore, for my uncle and every seller in the market, there must be something universal that everyone wants to exchange, and use it as a unit for conversion.
This general equivalent form appears spontaneously in human trading activities, and no one can prevent its birth. In the beginning, various objects occupied this form, most of which were adapted to local conditions. Some primitive tribes chose to use stones, while others chose shells. With the arrival of agricultural civilization, the scale of human population began to expand, and city-states and even countries emerged, and interactions between regions became more frequent. Humans, once confined to a forest or a plain, began to possess the ability to cross mountains and seas. In this process, some changes were required for the general equivalent. First is portability, second is divisibility, third is scarcity, and fourth is its communicability, or cultural aspect.
The first three properties are interrelated. Scarcity to some extent increases portability because overall rarity raises the value of the unit, meaning that higher value can be transported with less weight. Divisibility simplifies value calculation and broadens application scenarios. Not only can it be used for bulk commodity transactions, but also for daily trivial transactions. Divisibility also includes ease of restoration. It is very difficult to reassemble a shattered stone into a stone of equal weight. This leads to inevitable losses due to fragments when using stones. The property of being easy to divide/restore maintains the scarcity of the object while indirectly improving portability. This is because transporting the whole is easier than transporting pieces. First, it is more difficult to steal a large whole weight than a large fragmented weight, and second, it is easier to store.
So when we consider the above three properties, the superiority of gold and silver stands out among the many competitors for the position of general equivalent. They satisfy all three conditions at the same time. As soft metals with a lower melting point, they are easy to divide and restore. In comparison, gold has a melting point of around 1000 degrees Celsius, while iron is as high as 1500 degrees. In terms of Mohs hardness, gold and silver have a hardness between 2.5 and 3, while iron reaches a level of 4.5. Gold's high density means that its weight is often higher than other metals of the same volume. In terms of scarcity, gold and silver production is lower compared to other common metals, with gold being even rarer than silver, which determines that gold's value is higher than silver's.
Finally, there is its communicability and cultural aspect. To be honest, communication is a property that is difficult to define. From gold's inherent properties, its ability to form a "gold" culture is partly related to its divisibility (malleability), scarcity,portability, and other value-related properties, and partly to its appearance. Its reflective, golden color, and so on, may naturally occupy a certain position in human vision. However, these considerations are too mysterious and difficult to verify, so they will not be explored in depth. However, the prosperity of gold culture is undeniable.
The inevitability of the general equivalent and the different demands for it at different stages of human civilization development have provided gold with some unique advantages in occupying this position. Therefore, gold has historically served as a value anchor, becoming the ultimate unit for storing value.
Based on these, when we examine the attributes of Bitcoin, we are amazed to find that it has all the attributes of gold, and even more so. In terms of scarcity, the total amount of Bitcoin is constant, and due to the loss of keys, it is generally in a deflationary state. In terms of divisibility and recoverability, it is even more outstanding than gold. As a digital product, no physical entity can compete with it in this field. The same goes for portability. The essence of Bitcoin is information, and its storage is also information. As long as you have a good memory, you don't even need to write it down. Just remember the private key, and you can take it with you wherever you go. That's why people say that Bitcoin is the gold of the digital age.
However, the flaw in this view has been pointed out at the beginning of the article. The reason why gold can become gold is that its unique advantages coincide with a historical period that needs these advantages. Nowadays, even gold has withdrawn from the center stage of transactions. Its high value is maintained due to historical inertia and the culture it has shaped over thousands of years.
Therefore, if we want to compare Bitcoin and gold, we must answer what the historical context faced by Bitcoin is like.
Bitcoin's historical predicament
If we compare the history of gold and Bitcoin at their birth, we can easily find that gold faced the beginning of human civilization, with unclear historical trajectories and vague directions of civilization. Bitcoin, on the other hand, was born in the prime of civilization, with many historical patterns already established and the shape of civilization roughly outlined. Since 1971, when Richard Nixon announced the decoupling of the US dollar from gold, the world has entered a new era of credit currency.
This stage has also appeared in human history.
In fact, the use of credit currency predates metal currency. As early as 3500 BC, there were records of credit in the temples of Mesopotamia. But the credit currency of that time was primitive, with all its value coming from power, whether that power was violence or religious garb worn after seizing power through violence. Therefore, in different power structures, the transmission of credit would inevitably encounter obstacles. How could a Babylonian who believed in Ishtar and Marduk convince an Egyptian who believed in Osiris and Ra that the loan information recorded in their temples was valuable? It's not that it's impossible, but the cost of circulating such credit was high. Metals like gold, on the other hand, greatly reduced this cost. There was no need to care where the credit came from; all that was needed was to trade the specific gold. In other words, gold was to defeat or squeeze into a primitive credit currency system. It had natural defects. Credit and metal, or chartalism and metallism in monetary history, have been intertwined in human trade history, and currency has always had a dual nature of credit and metal.
Today's credit currency system is much more mature and complete compared to the ancient civilizations of the two rivers. It is undeniable that today's currency still has a "metallic" nature. Note that the "metallic nature" here is a general term, and its connotation is actually the means of production, such as a large part of the fundamental value of the US dollar comes from its ability to settle oil. Although it is very different from the past gold standard currency system linked to metal, its form of involvement in human activities is similar. This "metallic nature," compared to the past, has been weakened too much, and the credit attribute of currency has been greatly elevated, so much so that it can be said that there is no money in the world today, only credit. The flow of money is the flow of credit.
The biggest advantage of this currency system is that it has broken free from the last shackles of metal, completely liberating the insatiable beast of capital from its cage. It can bring more prosperous regional golden ages and more impoverished regional poverty, as well as unprecedented risks and opportunities for humanity as a whole.
The faster development of human civilization, the faster iteration of technology, and the creation of unprecedented wealth and prosperity all require this new credit currency system to drive. It is the advanced use of future credit based on market efficiency that has given birth to a series of technologies that have changed human life.
For capital itself, its desire is endless replication, using human hands to complete its own growth. The "metallic nature" is like a fishbone stuck in the throat, like a thorn in the bone, for capital. Getting rid of it is a necessary link in the historical movement of capital.
In this extremely complete credit currency system, the "metal" in the narrow sense has completely withdrawn from the historical stage, while the "metal" in the broad sense, including oil, control of trade routes, industrialization capabilities, labor, and other means of production, plays a role in the credit system that is not as important as gold used to be.
It is undeniable that Bitcoin is better than gold, but even an excellent gold is still gold. Since gold has been eliminated by capital's endless pursuit of self-reproduction, how can Bitcoin take over and replace gold to compete with the old man Uncle Sam?
The old man has always been mainly about winning over the new county chief, always tempting him with the America Dream and Wall street dollar. Since the birth of Bitcoin, it has not only failed to become gold or a new value anchor, but it has also become a new playground for capital within this system. Its narrative is unrelated to the gold of the past but has become a financial derivative. It can be said that from the moment Bitcoin entered the current credit currency system, it and the gold of the past were completely different.
However, history is in motion, and the turning point may not be far away.
The Historical Opportunity of Bitcoin
In the first article of this series, we have already explained the relationship between the historical movement of trust and blockchain. As a dehumanizing patch for trust, the blockchain removes the authority of humans as the "trust transmission hub" on one hand. On the other hand, it can also be seen as an accelerator for trust in the capitalist movement. With trust becoming more affordable, more credit can be issued.
Let's briefly explain the difference between trust and credit here. Trust is a broader concept that encompasses all human interactions. Credit, on the other hand, is a quantified manifestation of trust, which can be used to calculate the degree of trust between individuals, individuals and groups, groups and groups, and between the present and the future.
From this perspective, the birth of blockchain and Bitcoin is not a counterbalance to the current credit-based monetary system but rather a tool to propel it towards further madness. However, this is just a story told within a narrow historical context. If we take a broader view of history, we might see another story. Credit is not infinite, and this stems from the limited lifespan of humans. The further into the future we want to overdraw credit, the more difficult it becomes. I can sign a 30-year mortgage, but not a 200-year mortgage, because 200 years later, I will be long gone. This simple truth cannot be overstated. The emergence of blockchain, to some extent, has accelerated the overdraft of credit, and when the future that can be overdrawn is exhausted, a huge cyclical crisis will inevitably come. This "credit" gap between the present and the future is often the time when history makes a major turn. Order will be reshaped by war, human civilization will fall into a great fire, and after being burned to the ground, there will be an opportunity to rebuild.
The historical opportunity of Bitcoin lies in the aftermath of this great fire.
When Master Huang, whether on his own or with the help of Wu Juren, finishes with dignity, Goose City will ultimately need to reshape its order. But the new Goose City is often no different from the old Goose City. The two major families remain the same. What difference does it make whether Master Huang or Master Wu sits in that fortress? There must be a master, right?
And blockchain may be the only difference in this cycle. It provides a new option for the generation that reshapes the order after the great fire:
A master is still needed, but the master doesn't necessarily have to be a person.
At that time, Bitcoin might also complete its transformation, from being entangled in the contemporary credit-based monetary system and becoming a financial derivative, to fulfilling its historical mission and becoming the cornerstone of a new monetary system.
Of course, when we talk about Bitcoin here, we mean cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin attributes in a broader sense, not just the token in Satoshi Nakamoto's nine-page white paper. After all, the future is full of uncertainties, and perhaps the current Bitcoin will die completely, but another new currency using cryptocurrency technology will emerge and become the basis for the future world.
But if Bitcoin doesn't die, and the future really unfolds as such, who can estimate its value?
$69,000? It might just be an insignificant valley.
This game of Texas Hold'em has reached its final hand, and whether Bitcoin can win with a Royal Flush remains to be seen.
This article does not constitute any investment advice and is merely the author's whimsical musings about the future. It should be taken as entertainment.
- Testing @wav3s😋
Wot is Wav3s?
-Wav3s is a Web3 marketing tool currently supporting the Lensverse
- The number of notifications received by all users on Lens. One picture is since the start, and the other is over the past 3 months. You can look up your own using this dashboard here: https://predictcrypto.shinyapps.io/lens_user_notifications/
Some of these have been low effort just taking other templates and changing the query and design. Stay tuned, in the next two weeks I'll be releasing cooler data tools 😊 some will have a focus on being useful, others will focus on being fun and interesting. Will also work on open sourcing everything but I'm really busy with work so it may not be this week.
- The number of notifications received by all users on Lens. One picture is since the start, and the other is over the past 3 months. You can look up your own using this dashboard here: https://predictcrypto.shinyapps.io/lens_user_notifications/
Some of these have been low effort just taking other templates and changing the query and design. Stay tuned, in the next two weeks I'll be releasing cooler data tools 😊 some will have a focus on being useful, others will focus on being fun and interesting. Will also work on open sourcing everything but I'm really busy with work so it may not be this week.
- do you think there will be another alt-season?
大家认为还有山寨季吗？
- I feel very relieved when I look at the clouds
- hope....
- Hello frens, my name is Lenster #22 🌿
I am thrilled to be joining the Garden. 🌈 🦄
#FantasyLabs #Lenster #Lensters #frens #Lens #Lenster #Orb #OrbApp #Buttrfly #Lensta #NFT #Fantasy #NFTFantasy #FantasyArt #NFTCollectable #NFTCollectables #Collectable #Garden #Crypto #web3
- I feel very relieved when I look at the clouds
- Hello frens, my name is Lenster #19 🌿
I am thrilled to be joining the Garden. 🌈 🦄
#FantasyLabs #Lenster #Lensters #frens #Lens #Lenster #Orb #OrbApp #Buttrfly #Lensta #NFT #Fantasy #NFTFantasy #FantasyArt #NFTCollectable #NFTCollectables #Collectable #Garden #Crypto #web3
- just waken up and posted something on #phaver 🐱
- Are you still using Binance after all these red lights?
mirror: Yes!
Like: NO!
Comment: Which exchange are you using right now?
- Have you claimed your Lens NFT? #LensGardenNFT
- Brendan at PoolyCon - The PoolTogether Hyperstructure
The next PoolTogether is real! PoolTogether Co-Founder & CTO @asselstine.lens takes a look at the concept of Hyperstructures in general before revealing the next version of PoolTogether as "forever software".
Timestamps:
00:10 Intro
01:20 Software that runs forever
0:35 What are Hyperstructures?
07:15 Hyperstructures are Scalable
07:55 Not Every Protocol is a Hyperstructure
08:20 PoolTogether Thus Far
10:25 The PoolTogether Hyperstructure
12:42 How does it work?
16:18 User Experience // Just start winning
16:45 Is PoolTogether Really a Hyperstructure?
17:50 PoolTogether as Infrastructure for Prize Savings
19:35 Rethinking Risk
20:20 Next Steps (Launch Timeline)
- Lens Garden is the first NFT collection on Lens.
Your NFT is connected to your activity on the Lens Protocol ecosystem.
Level up your NFT by using the protocol.
https://www.lensgardennft.xyz/
#lensgardenNFT
#LensProtocol
[Lens Garden NFT](https://www.lensgardennft.xyz/)
- 100粉达成！谢谢关注！
100 Followers check！THX！！！
- Don't mess up with the crab honey😂
- Follow+Mirror+over 100 followers =Wmatic!
长文2/迷局：比特币究竟是不是“黄金”？
写在开始
当有人质疑比特币的价值时，黄金就是最好用的那把枪。这几年来，大家也已经习惯了把比特币与黄金对标，甚至很多人都会以黄金的市值去估算比特币最终的价值。而这一切都来自于比特币本身与黄金相似甚至更加优越的属性。
更高的稀缺性、更强的易分割性、更安全、更易于使用。黄金有的属性，比特币都有，而且每一样都做的更好，它甚至自带支付和记账系统。将这种对比拿出来，几乎没人可以否认比特币最终会成为数字时代的黄金，甚至取代黄金。
在鼓吹着元宇宙的投机者口中，曾经的盛世珠宝，乱世黄金，很快就会变成盛世NFT，乱世比特币。
然而这种简单粗暴的对比，真的足以说明比特币与黄金的关系吗？或者说，仅仅只是在一个孤立且静止的对比之中比特币胜出了，它就一定能成为乃至于取代黄金吗？
一切抛开历史运动的结论都是虚伪的。想要通过黄金来判断比特币的未来，就必须要考虑到两者所面对的历史语境之间的不同。而一旦我们将视角置入历史之中，就会发现，黄金如果是起手天听，摸牌地胡，那么比特币则更像是起手九张幺九牌，看似能追梦国士无双，但实则路险且长。
不过如今看来，似乎最后一垛牌正酝酿着一股汹涌的牌浪，这副国士无双，还真就有可能胡了。
黄金如何成为了黄金
历史是由必然和随机交织而成的。黄金的出现有其必然性，也有其随机性。随机的事情我们把握不好，所以只能单独拎出来它的必然性来探讨一下。黄金的必然性，来自于一般等价形式的必然性。马老师资本论第一卷第一篇用了四个小章节，确定了一般等价物在人类交易活动中所必然占据的位置。在复杂的市场环境中，或早或晚，一定会出现一般价值形式来取代相对价值形式。因为人是懒惰的，或者说，人类的活动是趋向于将复杂的事物简单化的。当我二爷挑着三筐萝卜去集市售卖的时候，相比起记住一颗萝卜能换一颗半苹果，或者三颗橘子，或者二两白糖，记住一颗萝卜与市场上所有存在的商品之间的相对价格，他一定更乐意记住这一堆货品相对于一个单位的价值。因此对我二爷和市场上每个卖东西的大爷大妈们而言，必须得有一个具有普遍性的东西，大家要换，就拿它当单位进行换算。
这个一般等价形式在人类的交易活动中是自发出现的，没有人可以阻止它的诞生。在最初的时候，占据这个形式的物多种多样，多数都是因地制宜，有的原始部落选择使用石头，也有的选择使用贝壳。而随着农耕文明的到来，人类的族群规模开始扩大，城邦乃至于国家出现，各地区的往来也日渐频繁。原本局限于一片森林，一块平原的人类，开始拥有了跨越山海的能力。在这一过程中，对于一般等价物的要求有了一些变化。第一是便携性，第二是易分割性，第三是稀缺性，第四是其传播性，或则说文化性。
前三种性质是互相关联的。稀缺性在一定程度上增加了便携性，因为整体的稀少，抬高了单位的价值，也就意味着可以在承运更少的重量的同时输送更高的价值。而易分割性让价值的计算变得简单，应用的场景变得广泛。不仅仅是大宗商品的交易，日常中一些琐碎的交易，也可以使用。且易分割性当中，实际上还包含了易复原性。一块石头砸碎了，要将其碎屑重新凝聚成一块等重的石头是非常困难的。这导致了在使用石头的时候不可避免的要因为碎屑问题面对大量的损耗。易分割/复原的性质维护了该“物”的稀缺性的同时，也变相的提高了便携性。因为在运输过程中，整体的运输要比起零零碎碎的运输更简单一些。一来是大重量的整体要比大重量的零碎更难盗取，二来是更方便储存。
所以当我们考虑到以上的三种性质时，金与银的优越性就在一众竞争一般等价形式这个位置的物当中脱颖而出了。它们同时满足了以上的三种条件。作为熔点较低的软金属，它们易分割且易复原。作为对比，黄金的熔点为1000摄氏度左右，而铁则高达1500度。而以莫氏硬度作为标准，黄金和白银的硬度在2.5-3之间，铁则达到了4.5的级别。黄金的高密度也决定了在相同体积下，其重量往往要高于其他金属。而在稀缺性方面，金银的产量相较于其他的常见金属，都处在较低的位置。而黄金比白银更加稀少，也决定了黄金的价值高于白银。
最后就是其传播性和文化性。说实话，传播这个属性是一个很难以界定的性质。从黄金本身的固有属性上讲，它之所以能形成“金”文化，一方面与其易分割性（可塑性）、稀缺性、便携性等属性早就的价值有关，另一方面又不得不考虑它的外观。易反光、金黄色，等等在人类视觉中，或许也天然占有一定的位置。但这些考量太过于玄乎，也比较难以考证，因此就不做深究。但黄金文化的兴盛，却是不可否认的。
一般等价物的必然性和人类文明在发展的不同阶段中对它的不同需求，为黄金抢占这一位置提供了一些得天独厚的优势。因此黄金在历史中占据了价值锚点，成为了储存价值的最终单位。
基于这些，当我们考察比特币的属性时，就会惊人的发现，它具备了黄金所具备的一切属性，同时它还更加的优秀。在稀缺性上，比特币总量恒定，且由于密钥的丢失，总体是属于通缩状态的。在易分割和易复原性上，更是完爆黄金，作为数字化的产物，任何有实体的物理存在都无法在这个领域中与其竞争。便携性同理。比特币的本质是信息，它的储存也是信息，只要脑子好，都不用写下来，把私钥记住，走到哪里都带着。正因如此，人们会说，比特币就是数字时代的黄金。
然而这种观点的缺陷性在文章开端就已经点明。黄金之所以能够成为黄金，是它得天独厚的优势恰逢了一个需要这些优势的历史时期，而现如今的历史阶段，就连黄金都已经退出了交易的舞台中央。它依旧保有如此高的价值，是由于历史的惯性和它所塑造的穿越数千年的文化。
因此如果要将比特币和黄金放到一起去，就必须回答比特币所面对的历史语境究竟是什么样子？
比特币的历史困境
如果把黄金和比特币在诞生之时的历史做个比较，就会轻易的发现，黄金所面对的是人类文明的萌芽期，历史的轨迹尚不清晰，文明的去向还比较模糊。而比特币则诞生于文明的壮年期，许多历史的规律已经确定，文明的形状已经得到了大致的勾勒。自从1971年理查德·尼克松宣布美元与黄金脱钩之后，全球进入了一个全新的信用货币阶段。
这个阶段在人类历史上也曾出现过。
事实上，信用货币的使用是早于金属货币的。早在公元前3500年，美索不达米亚的神庙中就有了关于信贷的记录。但当时的信用货币是原始的，其一切价值都来自于权力，无论这种权力的实质是暴力还是在通过暴力夺取后披上的宗教外衣。因此在不同权力架构中，信用的传递必然会遇到层层阻碍。一个信仰伊什塔尔和马尔督克的巴比伦人要如何说服一个信仰欧西里斯和拉的埃及人，他们神殿所记录的借贷信息是有价值的？并不是说完全不可能，而是说这种信用的流通成本是很高的。而黄金这样的金属，则极大的降低了这种成本。不需要在意信用来自于哪里，只需要交易具体的黄金就可以。换而言之，黄金要击败的，或者说要挤入的，是一个原始的信用货币体系。它天然带有严重缺陷。信用与金属，也就是货币史当中的票证主义和金属主义，在人类贸易的历史中是互相纠缠的，货币也一向具有信用和金属的二重属性。
如今的信用货币系统相较于古老的两河文明而言，实在是成熟和完善了太多。不可否认当今的货币依旧具有“金属”性。注意，此处的“金属性”是一个泛指，它的内涵实际上是生产资料，比如美元的根本价值中有很大的部分源自于它对石油的结算能力。虽然与过去挂钩金属的金本位货币系统已经有了巨大的不同，但其介入人类活动的形式却是相似的。这种“金属性”，相较于过去而言，已经削弱了太多，货币的信用属性则被极大的拔高了，乃至于可以说，如今世界上不存在钱，只存在信用。钱的流动，就是信用的流动。
这种货币体系的最大优势在于：它摆脱了金属这个最后的枷锁，彻底将资本这头有着无底洞的欲望的猛兽从牢笼中解放了出来。它能带来更繁荣的区域性盛世和更困苦的区域性贫瘠，也会给人类整体带来前所未有的危险和机遇。
人类的文明想要更快速的发展，更快速的迭代科技，创造出前所未有的财富和繁荣，都需要这个全新的信用货币系统来推动。基于优质主义的自由市场，正是有了对未来信用的提前使用，才催生出了一系列改变人类生活的科技。
对于资本而言，它自身的欲望就是无止境的复制，借人类之手，完成自我的壮大。“金属性”之于资本，如鲠在喉，如刺在骨。摆脱它，是资本历史运动的必要环节。
在这个极其完整的信用货币体系当中，狭义上的“金属”已经彻底退出了历史舞台，而广义上的“金属”，即包括石油、贸易路线的控制权、工业化能力、劳动力等等的生产资料，在信用体系中扮演的角色，也不如往日的黄金那般重要。
比特币比黄金优秀，这点无可否认，然而一个再优秀的黄金也只是黄金，黄金既然已经被资本对于繁殖自身的无限追求所淘汰，比特币又如何走马上任，接替黄金来到鹅城跟黄老爷斗法？
黄老爷对于新上任的县长，从来都是拉拢为主，总是要先以两大家族的刀乐诱之。比特币诞生至今，它非但没有成为黄金，成为新的价值锚点，给信用货币体系套上新的枷锁，反而在这个系统中成为了资本的新乐土。它的叙事与曾经的黄金无关，却成为了金融衍生品。可以说从比特币介入现今的信用货币系统开始，它与过去历史中的黄金，就完全是两副面孔了。
然而历史是在运动的，转机或许并不遥远了。
比特币的历史机遇
我们在本系列的第一篇文章中已经阐述了信任的历史运动与区块链之间的关系。区块链作为信任的去人类化补丁，一方面拿掉了人类作为“信任传递枢纽”的权限。另一方面，也可以视作为信任在资本主义运动中的加速器。因为信任的成本更低廉了，也就可以发行更多的信用了。
我们现在这里稍微解释一下，信任和信用的区别。信任是一个更广义的概念，它所具有的内涵涵盖了人类在相互交往当中的一切行为。而信用则是信任的一种量化表现，可以用来计算个体与个体，个体与群体，群体与群体，现在和未来之间的信任程度。
从这个角度去看，区块链与比特币的诞生，非但不是对如今信用货币系统的制衡，反而是助推它进一步走向疯狂的工具。然而这仅仅只是在一段狭小的历史中，被讲述的故事。如果讲历史的尺度放的更大一些，或许会看到另一个故事。信用并非无穷无尽的，这源自于人类寿命的有限性。要透支距离现在越遥远的信用就越困难。我能签下三十年的房贷，却签不下两百年的房贷，因为两百年后，我早就死了。这道理再朴素不过。区块链的出现，在某种程度上，加速了信用的透支，而当能被透支的未来都已经被透支干净，再遥远的未来已经难以触碰时，一个巨大的周期性危机自然而然就会到来。这段现在与未来之间的“信用”缺口，往往就是历史完成巨大转向的时机。秩序会被战争重塑，人类的文明会陷入大火之中，在焚烧殆尽后，留下重新建构的机会。
而比特币的历史机遇，就存在于这场大火之后。
当黄老爷，无论是自己还是在武举人的帮助下，完成了体面，鹅城终归是需要重塑秩序的。但新的鹅城，往往与旧的鹅城没什么区别。两大家族还是两大家族。那碉楼里坐着的是黄老爷还是武老爷，又有什么分别？终归是得有个老爷吧？
而区块链，或许就是这次循环中唯一的不同。它为大火之后，重塑秩序的那一代人提供了一个全新的选项：
老爷还是需要的，但老爷不一定非得是一个人了。
那时，比特币或许也将就此完成它的转身，从被当代信用货币系统裹挟，成为金融衍生品，到完成它的历史使命，成为全新货币体系的基石。
当然，这里说的比特币是指广义上的具备比特币属性的加密货币，而不是单纯的指中本聪那九页白皮书里的代币。毕竟未来充满了随机性，或许现在的比特币会彻底死去，却又有另一个应用着加密货币技术的新币种出现，成为未来世界的基点也说不定。
但如果比特币不死，未来真的如此写就。又有谁能估计它的价值呢？
69000美金？可能只是个微不足道的山谷罢了。
这把麻将打到了最后一个半庄，比特币这把国士无双能不能胡，拭目以待吧。
本文不构成任何投资建议，只是作者对未来的一些不着调的遐想，权当乐子看就好。
- Don't mess up with the crab honey😂
- Follow+Mirror+over 100 followers =Wmatic!
长文2/迷局：比特币究竟是不是“黄金”？
写在开始
当有人质疑比特币的价值时，黄金就是最好用的那把枪。这几年来，大家也已经习惯了把比特币与黄金对标，甚至很多人都会以黄金的市值去估算比特币最终的价值。而这一切都来自于比特币本身与黄金相似甚至更加优越的属性。
更高的稀缺性、更强的易分割性、更安全、更易于使用。黄金有的属性，比特币都有，而且每一样都做的更好，它甚至自带支付和记账系统。将这种对比拿出来，几乎没人可以否认比特币最终会成为数字时代的黄金，甚至取代黄金。
在鼓吹着元宇宙的投机者口中，曾经的盛世珠宝，乱世黄金，很快就会变成盛世NFT，乱世比特币。
然而这种简单粗暴的对比，真的足以说明比特币与黄金的关系吗？或者说，仅仅只是在一个孤立且静止的对比之中比特币胜出了，它就一定能成为乃至于取代黄金吗？
一切抛开历史运动的结论都是虚伪的。想要通过黄金来判断比特币的未来，就必须要考虑到两者所面对的历史语境之间的不同。而一旦我们将视角置入历史之中，就会发现，黄金如果是起手天听，摸牌地胡，那么比特币则更像是起手九张幺九牌，看似能追梦国士无双，但实则路险且长。
不过如今看来，似乎最后一垛牌正酝酿着一股汹涌的牌浪，这副国士无双，还真就有可能胡了。
黄金如何成为了黄金
历史是由必然和随机交织而成的。黄金的出现有其必然性，也有其随机性。随机的事情我们把握不好，所以只能单独拎出来它的必然性来探讨一下。黄金的必然性，来自于一般等价形式的必然性。马老师资本论第一卷第一篇用了四个小章节，确定了一般等价物在人类交易活动中所必然占据的位置。在复杂的市场环境中，或早或晚，一定会出现一般价值形式来取代相对价值形式。因为人是懒惰的，或者说，人类的活动是趋向于将复杂的事物简单化的。当我二爷挑着三筐萝卜去集市售卖的时候，相比起记住一颗萝卜能换一颗半苹果，或者三颗橘子，或者二两白糖，记住一颗萝卜与市场上所有存在的商品之间的相对价格，他一定更乐意记住这一堆货品相对于一个单位的价值。因此对我二爷和市场上每个卖东西的大爷大妈们而言，必须得有一个具有普遍性的东西，大家要换，就拿它当单位进行换算。
这个一般等价形式在人类的交易活动中是自发出现的，没有人可以阻止它的诞生。在最初的时候，占据这个形式的物多种多样，多数都是因地制宜，有的原始部落选择使用石头，也有的选择使用贝壳。而随着农耕文明的到来，人类的族群规模开始扩大，城邦乃至于国家出现，各地区的往来也日渐频繁。原本局限于一片森林，一块平原的人类，开始拥有了跨越山海的能力。在这一过程中，对于一般等价物的要求有了一些变化。第一是便携性，第二是易分割性，第三是稀缺性，第四是其传播性，或则说文化性。
前三种性质是互相关联的。稀缺性在一定程度上增加了便携性，因为整体的稀少，抬高了单位的价值，也就意味着可以在承运更少的重量的同时输送更高的价值。而易分割性让价值的计算变得简单，应用的场景变得广泛。不仅仅是大宗商品的交易，日常中一些琐碎的交易，也可以使用。且易分割性当中，实际上还包含了易复原性。一块石头砸碎了，要将其碎屑重新凝聚成一块等重的石头是非常困难的。这导致了在使用石头的时候不可避免的要因为碎屑问题面对大量的损耗。易分割/复原的性质维护了该“物”的稀缺性的同时，也变相的提高了便携性。因为在运输过程中，整体的运输要比起零零碎碎的运输更简单一些。一来是大重量的整体要比大重量的零碎更难盗取，二来是更方便储存。
所以当我们考虑到以上的三种性质时，金与银的优越性就在一众竞争一般等价形式这个位置的物当中脱颖而出了。它们同时满足了以上的三种条件。作为熔点较低的软金属，它们易分割且易复原。作为对比，黄金的熔点为1000摄氏度左右，而铁则高达1500度。而以莫氏硬度作为标准，黄金和白银的硬度在2.5-3之间，铁则达到了4.5的级别。黄金的高密度也决定了在相同体积下，其重量往往要高于其他金属。而在稀缺性方面，金银的产量相较于其他的常见金属，都处在较低的位置。而黄金比白银更加稀少，也决定了黄金的价值高于白银。
最后就是其传播性和文化性。说实话，传播这个属性是一个很难以界定的性质。从黄金本身的固有属性上讲，它之所以能形成“金”文化，一方面与其易分割性（可塑性）、稀缺性、便携性等属性早就的价值有关，另一方面又不得不考虑它的外观。易反光、金黄色，等等在人类视觉中，或许也天然占有一定的位置。但这些考量太过于玄乎，也比较难以考证，因此就不做深究。但黄金文化的兴盛，却是不可否认的。
一般等价物的必然性和人类文明在发展的不同阶段中对它的不同需求，为黄金抢占这一位置提供了一些得天独厚的优势。因此黄金在历史中占据了价值锚点，成为了储存价值的最终单位。
基于这些，当我们考察比特币的属性时，就会惊人的发现，它具备了黄金所具备的一切属性，同时它还更加的优秀。在稀缺性上，比特币总量恒定，且由于密钥的丢失，总体是属于通缩状态的。在易分割和易复原性上，更是完爆黄金，作为数字化的产物，任何有实体的物理存在都无法在这个领域中与其竞争。便携性同理。比特币的本质是信息，它的储存也是信息，只要脑子好，都不用写下来，把私钥记住，走到哪里都带着。正因如此，人们会说，比特币就是数字时代的黄金。
然而这种观点的缺陷性在文章开端就已经点明。黄金之所以能够成为黄金，是它得天独厚的优势恰逢了一个需要这些优势的历史时期，而现如今的历史阶段，就连黄金都已经退出了交易的舞台中央。它依旧保有如此高的价值，是由于历史的惯性和它所塑造的穿越数千年的文化。
因此如果要将比特币和黄金放到一起去，就必须回答比特币所面对的历史语境究竟是什么样子？
比特币的历史困境
如果把黄金和比特币在诞生之时的历史做个比较，就会轻易的发现，黄金所面对的是人类文明的萌芽期，历史的轨迹尚不清晰，文明的去向还比较模糊。而比特币则诞生于文明的壮年期，许多历史的规律已经确定，文明的形状已经得到了大致的勾勒。自从1971年理查德·尼克松宣布美元与黄金脱钩之后，全球进入了一个全新的信用货币阶段。
这个阶段在人类历史上也曾出现过。
事实上，信用货币的使用是早于金属货币的。早在公元前3500年，美索不达米亚的神庙中就有了关于信贷的记录。但当时的信用货币是原始的，其一切价值都来自于权力，无论这种权力的实质是暴力还是在通过暴力夺取后披上的宗教外衣。因此在不同权力架构中，信用的传递必然会遇到层层阻碍。一个信仰伊什塔尔和马尔督克的巴比伦人要如何说服一个信仰欧西里斯和拉的埃及人，他们神殿所记录的借贷信息是有价值的？并不是说完全不可能，而是说这种信用的流通成本是很高的。而黄金这样的金属，则极大的降低了这种成本。不需要在意信用来自于哪里，只需要交易具体的黄金就可以。换而言之，黄金要击败的，或者说要挤入的，是一个原始的信用货币体系。它天然带有严重缺陷。信用与金属，也就是货币史当中的票证主义和金属主义，在人类贸易的历史中是互相纠缠的，货币也一向具有信用和金属的二重属性。
如今的信用货币系统相较于古老的两河文明而言，实在是成熟和完善了太多。不可否认当今的货币依旧具有“金属”性。注意，此处的“金属性”是一个泛指，它的内涵实际上是生产资料，比如美元的根本价值中有很大的部分源自于它对石油的结算能力。虽然与过去挂钩金属的金本位货币系统已经有了巨大的不同，但其介入人类活动的形式却是相似的。这种“金属性”，相较于过去而言，已经削弱了太多，货币的信用属性则被极大的拔高了，乃至于可以说，如今世界上不存在钱，只存在信用。钱的流动，就是信用的流动。
这种货币体系的最大优势在于：它摆脱了金属这个最后的枷锁，彻底将资本这头有着无底洞的欲望的猛兽从牢笼中解放了出来。它能带来更繁荣的区域性盛世和更困苦的区域性贫瘠，也会给人类整体带来前所未有的危险和机遇。
人类的文明想要更快速的发展，更快速的迭代科技，创造出前所未有的财富和繁荣，都需要这个全新的信用货币系统来推动。基于优质主义的自由市场，正是有了对未来信用的提前使用，才催生出了一系列改变人类生活的科技。
对于资本而言，它自身的欲望就是无止境的复制，借人类之手，完成自我的壮大。“金属性”之于资本，如鲠在喉，如刺在骨。摆脱它，是资本历史运动的必要环节。
在这个极其完整的信用货币体系当中，狭义上的“金属”已经彻底退出了历史舞台，而广义上的“金属”，即包括石油、贸易路线的控制权、工业化能力、劳动力等等的生产资料，在信用体系中扮演的角色，也不如往日的黄金那般重要。
比特币比黄金优秀，这点无可否认，然而一个再优秀的黄金也只是黄金，黄金既然已经被资本对于繁殖自身的无限追求所淘汰，比特币又如何走马上任，接替黄金来到鹅城跟黄老爷斗法？
黄老爷对于新上任的县长，从来都是拉拢为主，总是要先以两大家族的刀乐诱之。比特币诞生至今，它非但没有成为黄金，成为新的价值锚点，给信用货币体系套上新的枷锁，反而在这个系统中成为了资本的新乐土。它的叙事与曾经的黄金无关，却成为了金融衍生品。可以说从比特币介入现今的信用货币系统开始，它与过去历史中的黄金，就完全是两副面孔了。
然而历史是在运动的，转机或许并不遥远了。
比特币的历史机遇
我们在本系列的第一篇文章中已经阐述了信任的历史运动与区块链之间的关系。区块链作为信任的去人类化补丁，一方面拿掉了人类作为“信任传递枢纽”的权限。另一方面，也可以视作为信任在资本主义运动中的加速器。因为信任的成本更低廉了，也就可以发行更多的信用了。
我们现在这里稍微解释一下，信任和信用的区别。信任是一个更广义的概念，它所具有的内涵涵盖了人类在相互交往当中的一切行为。而信用则是信任的一种量化表现，可以用来计算个体与个体，个体与群体，群体与群体，现在和未来之间的信任程度。
从这个角度去看，区块链与比特币的诞生，非但不是对如今信用货币系统的制衡，反而是助推它进一步走向疯狂的工具。然而这仅仅只是在一段狭小的历史中，被讲述的故事。如果讲历史的尺度放的更大一些，或许会看到另一个故事。信用并非无穷无尽的，这源自于人类寿命的有限性。要透支距离现在越遥远的信用就越困难。我能签下三十年的房贷，却签不下两百年的房贷，因为两百年后，我早就死了。这道理再朴素不过。区块链的出现，在某种程度上，加速了信用的透支，而当能被透支的未来都已经被透支干净，再遥远的未来已经难以触碰时，一个巨大的周期性危机自然而然就会到来。这段现在与未来之间的“信用”缺口，往往就是历史完成巨大转向的时机。秩序会被战争重塑，人类的文明会陷入大火之中，在焚烧殆尽后，留下重新建构的机会。
而比特币的历史机遇，就存在于这场大火之后。
当黄老爷，无论是自己还是在武举人的帮助下，完成了体面，鹅城终归是需要重塑秩序的。但新的鹅城，往往与旧的鹅城没什么区别。两大家族还是两大家族。那碉楼里坐着的是黄老爷还是武老爷，又有什么分别？终归是得有个老爷吧？
而区块链，或许就是这次循环中唯一的不同。它为大火之后，重塑秩序的那一代人提供了一个全新的选项：
老爷还是需要的，但老爷不一定非得是一个人了。
那时，比特币或许也将就此完成它的转身，从被当代信用货币系统裹挟，成为金融衍生品，到完成它的历史使命，成为全新货币体系的基石。
当然，这里说的比特币是指广义上的具备比特币属性的加密货币，而不是单纯的指中本聪那九页白皮书里的代币。毕竟未来充满了随机性，或许现在的比特币会彻底死去，却又有另一个应用着加密货币技术的新币种出现，成为未来世界的基点也说不定。
但如果比特币不死，未来真的如此写就。又有谁能估计它的价值呢？
69000美金？可能只是个微不足道的山谷罢了。
这把麻将打到了最后一个半庄，比特币这把国士无双能不能胡，拭目以待吧。
本文不构成任何投资建议，只是作者对未来的一些不着调的遐想，权当乐子看就好。
- 比特币这轮回撤会踩破26600的位置吗？
点赞：不会！
Mirror：会！
- For those of you who minted your @lensgardennft.lens
If you set your Twitter profile pic to be the Lens Garden Dynamic NFT.
It will also auto-update when you level up!
More to come!
- Hello #LENS NFT ENTHUSIAST
@lensgardennft.lens NFT Project on Lens Protocol is now live, providing an exciting opportunity for users to engage with the LensProtocol community and build their profiles. By participating and engaging with the platform, users can earn incentives and collaborate with other community members, ultimately contributing to the growth of the ecosystem.
mint price fixed: 20matic
The project has already seen nullk+ in minting from Lens users and OG's, posted on Twitter by @stani.lens. Despite having no marketing other than community posts. This success is a testament to the project's potential to become a valuable asset for community members as the ecosystem continues to grow.
The NFTs are minted 1:1 with Lens profiles, with no maximum supply. The first NFT minted as your identity is not tradable and will automatically upgrade as your interaction increases, while the second and subsequent NFTs will be tradable and come with unique utilities. However, details about these utilities are not yet disclosed to the public, to prevent idea copy from other projects.
To mint the NFT
• visit
https://lensgardennft.xyz/
• connect your Lens wallet
• scroll to garden, and click on mint.
• view your nft here
https://opensea.io/collection/lens-garden-nft
If users have been active on Lens, they will see their former level NFTs, and they need to mint the one with the highest level. Other NFTs are not mandatory to mint but can provide additional rewards.🤫
For more perks and rewards, users can also participate in the crew task, which is already live at:
https://crew3.xyz/c/lensgardennft/questboard.
To learn more about LensGarden or Lens Protocol, users can follow educators on Lens such as @cryptoholic2200.lens @danisnearby.lens @0xzelda.lens @iamyakuza.lens who provide valuable insights and alphas.
As with many other successful projects like Aptos, ENS, ARB, and @korudao.lens being early is advantageous, and LensGarden presents another opportunity for users to reap the benefits of being ahead of the curve.
For more information, read my former post https://lenster.xyz/posts/0x012b94-0x1b4d
Don't forget to like, comment, and mirror to help Lens algorithm.
The possibilities are endless with LensGarden NFT Project on Lens Protocol, and users won't want to miss out on this exciting opportunity to engage with the community, earn incentives, and build their profiles.
Join discord for questions:
https://discord.gg/lensgardennft
#lensgardennft #lensGardennft #contentcreation
- what u curious at babe
- Finally, notifications that you’ll want to read 🤩
Get instant alerts for any wallet, any activity, any chain.
Learn how 👇
https://zerion.mirror.xyz/qp1JfS4SXozvJdVOhcaCQLkUTZm0lYk0sLHlmAL3qJ0
Beyond Ethereum. Receive real-time alerts for any wallet activity on Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, and more…
Customize your multichain notifications. Track activities that you only care about: trade, mint, send, receive, and more…
Find alpha 💎 Now with mobile notifications for on-chain actions
Download Zerion 🔮
https://link.zerion.io/V0oSs5Ffpyb
- lens Garden in my dream
- Is this little BULL market over or not?
Over: Mirror!
Not over: 💗Like!
- Hide and Seek🧐
- 据 Hamburg-news 报道，Web3 金融科技公司 Heartstocks 宣布完成 500 万欧元融资，一批中型家族办公室、天使投资人和慕尼黑 Web3 风投 Vanagon Ventures 参投。Heartstocks 利用区块链技术将实物藏品、股票和实体公司转换为可投资的代币化证券，以吸引更多人参与投资。
- Mirror this For WMATIC!!!
Long Article (1): Blockchain - The Dehumanization of Movement of Trust
All things are really only words
in a tongue of endless gobbledegook
that someone or something is writing in a book
that is the history of the world.
Excerpt from Borges' "The Compass"
On January 3, 2009, I was a young person in China and didn't feel the impact of the economic crisis. Life went on as usual, riding the school bus to and from school every day and eating fried chicken strips sold on the street for 3.5 yuan per pack. At most, the word "crisis" was mentioned more often in conversations about national affairs among my elders. I had no idea that on the periphery of this historical event, the world's first Bitcoin block, Block #0, was born. More than a decade has passed, and the effects of that economic crisis seem to have been smoothed over by the soaring US national debt and the decade-long prosperity of the US stock market. Meanwhile, that once-insignificant block has now become the cornerstone and pillar of an entire industry. Perhaps when future generations truly enter the de-naturalized Metaverse era, this block, born quietly amidst the financial tsunami, will be regarded as the "singularity of the Metaverse Big Bang."
This is the fascinating aspect of history: not only does it tell different stories at different heights but also conveys different information at different times. Individuals and groups, present and future, write different " gobbledegook". Therefore, when people truly attempt to grasp history, they must ultimately transcend individual and even collective limitations, place abstract concepts and symbols that drive history at the center stage, and treat humans as their tools, as intermediaries connecting their past and future, to restore the movements of these concepts in history and depict the shape of the future.
This series of articles will examine the roles that some blockchain projects may play in this historical movement based on this historical concept and attempt to describe their futures.
As the first one of the series, we will try to place blockchain within the entire human historical movement today and find its position, laying the foundation for future articles.
<The Movement of Trust>
The 2008 financial crisis not only left countless people with painful memories but also mercilessly exposed the financial industry's vulnerabilities. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, numerous shadow banks faced a run, and the fortress of trust built by the elites of the Land of the Free crumbled overnight. Although they have recklessly rebuilt a structure on the remaining foundation over the past decade or so, history tells us that it is bound to be another story of "seeing him build a high tower, seeing him feast guests, and seeing his tower collapse."
Blockchain was born in the ruins of the trust edifice. From a historical perspective, the birth of blockchain was inevitable, as it represents a crucial link in the broader movement of trust in human transactions.
As any transaction ultimately aims for profit, its bottom line is lower costs and risks. Therefore, the movement of trust in transactions naturally tends towards lower costs and risks. However, for movement of trust, the tool it initially chose, humans, created a seemingly unsolvable contradiction between lower costs and lower risks.
Let's first look at how the concept “trust” reduces costs.
In a natural environment with limited resources, people must cooperate with each other to survive. However, unlike the Trisolarans or Professor X, humans on Earth do not possess the ability to read each other's minds. The purposes of both parties' behavior are unknown under these conditions, making cooperation extremely difficult and more likely to result in life-and-death struggles. The emergence of trust mechanisms allows people who initially could not cooperate to work together to accomplish tasks like hunting and form organized and structured groups. But this primitive credit mechanism is extremely costly, often requiring extensive interaction and many rounds of game-playing.
In layman's terms, I need to spend time getting to know someone to determine if they are trustworthy.
To reduce costs, the concept of trust reveals its second mechanism: transferability. Trust can be established between people through the transmission of information. In this way, I don't need to start building trust and engage in games with a stranger from scratch; I can simply find a third party who has played games extensively with both of us to vouch for our trustworthiness.
This is the first stage of the trust movement. It successfully lowers its costs by using third parties.
However, we can easily discover that trust is necessarily a posteriori. Its emergence, whether indirect or direct, must go through game-playing. Its transferability merely significantly reduces the required number of games.
The drawback of a posteriori concepts lies in their uncertainty. What happened yesterday may not happen tomorrow. What was trustworthy in the past may not be trustworthy in the future. Concepts like trust, which require humans as transmission hubs to reduce their costs, must face the significant flaws of humans as a tool. In the context of globalization, third parties acting as trust transmission hubs must exist in some form. This necessity allows them to control and monopolize the power of transaction verification and record-keeping. In other words, they can use the power in their hands for evil to seek greater benefits for themselves whenever they want.
And if there's any truth that history has validated, it is that people will do evil. People can do evil without any gain, let alone when doing evil reaps the world and amasses immense wealth.
As trust transmission hubs will inevitably do evil and eventually perish, each instance of evil and demise means the trust movement needs to return to the previous stage, re-enter the game of cost reduction, and once again make people its transmission hub, thus falling into a vicious cycle. However, since fluctuations in trust costs cause cyclical depressions and bring disaster to human groups, humans, as subjective beings, naturally seek methods to break this cycle and address the fundamental contradiction between costs and risks for trust while correcting themselves and trying to avoid such disasters. In other words, with each cycle, some force accumulates among humans to break this cycle, until it is eventually overcome.
Before 2009, even if people were aware of the flaws and problems in the existing trust system and knew how disgusting the faces of those trust profiteers were, there was virtually nothing they could do about it. Human transactions simply could not do without them, and there were no other tools for trust beyond humans.
But after January 3, 2009, everything seemed to change.
<Blockchain: The Dehumanization of Trust>
In previous paragraphs, we mentioned that the core contradiction faced by trust is the flaw of humans as tools. Once humans monopolize the verification power of the trust system, it forces trust into a vicious cycle. People in this cycle are also victims and will naturally seek ways to break free from it. Therefore, if we believe that trust can ultimately complete its own movement, then a dehumanized tool must appear in the process of this movement, for trust to realize itself.
What this tool is, no one knows before history tells its own story. But from the knowledge we have today, it is, and seemingly can only be, blockchain.
There is a wealth of high-quality popular science on the basic operation mechanism of blockchain on the Internet, which we will not elaborate on here. At the end of the article, we will attach a link to popular science content that we think is well-explained, for everyone to understand on their own. Next, let's mainly talk about how blockchain accomplishes dehumanization.
What we mean by dehumanization here is not that humans no longer participate in blockchain activities. Instead, humans used to be the only means for the concept of trust to complete its movement. However, the emergence of blockchain allows trust to continue its movement in the form of this technology. Humans on this path, then, have changed from being tools of trust to being tools of blockchain. Blockchain, as a patch for the trust movement, has thus begun its own movement, which is also the new path of the trust movement.
In the movement of blockchain, the third party originally used to reduce costs in the trust movement has been transformed from a small human group into mining machines and computing power. Of course, these mining machines and computing power are still held by a small number of people, but blockchain takes the power of transaction verification away from these people and distributes it to every participant through locked code. In this way, the space and possibility for humans to do evil are greatly reduced.
It's not that humans no longer participate, but that humans no longer monopolize power.
When it comes to blockchain, decentralization is always mentioned. However, the essence of decentralization seems to have always been up for exploration. The center removed by blockchain is the third party, but at a deeper level, it is the centralized power in human hands, that is, the degree of human participation in the trust movement.
Therefore, the essence of decentralization is dehumanization.
This value is precisely the significant role that blockchain technology will play in human trading activities. The many projects based on blockchain that truly have the intrinsic value of serving this movement are attempting to complete the "dehumanization" of the financial industry based on today's credit system and even all trade.
In other words, in this market filled with countless scams and bubbles, projects that can truly provide value in the future must be in line with the historical mission of the blockchain movement, helping trust to complete its movement. They must adhere to the dehumanizing nature of the blockchain movement.
In the following time, we will examine existing projects in the market and predict the necessary projects that may appear in the future according to the direction of the dehumanizing movement of blockchain.
This article only examines trust in the context of human trading activities. In fact, trust, a core mechanism of human civilization, not only occupies an important position in trading activities but is also linked to almost all human behaviors. In later articles, we will also touch upon the movement of trust in other fields and explain the roles that blockchain will play in those areas.
How January 3, 2009, will be remembered in history is unknown for now, but we are certain that it must be a harbinger of the advent of a new era.
Thank you for reading this far.
💗If you Like this!
Mirror If you want More!
Comment If you want to make a point!
- Mirror this For WMATIC!!!
Long Article (1): Blockchain - The Dehumanization of Movement of Trust
All things are really only words
in a tongue of endless gobbledegook
that someone or something is writing in a book
that is the history of the world.
Excerpt from Borges' "The Compass"
On January 3, 2009, I was a young person in China and didn't feel the impact of the economic crisis. Life went on as usual, riding the school bus to and from school every day and eating fried chicken strips sold on the street for 3.5 yuan per pack. At most, the word "crisis" was mentioned more often in conversations about national affairs among my elders. I had no idea that on the periphery of this historical event, the world's first Bitcoin block, Block #0, was born. More than a decade has passed, and the effects of that economic crisis seem to have been smoothed over by the soaring US national debt and the decade-long prosperity of the US stock market. Meanwhile, that once-insignificant block has now become the cornerstone and pillar of an entire industry. Perhaps when future generations truly enter the de-naturalized Metaverse era, this block, born quietly amidst the financial tsunami, will be regarded as the "singularity of the Metaverse Big Bang."
This is the fascinating aspect of history: not only does it tell different stories at different heights but also conveys different information at different times. Individuals and groups, present and future, write different " gobbledegook". Therefore, when people truly attempt to grasp history, they must ultimately transcend individual and even collective limitations, place abstract concepts and symbols that drive history at the center stage, and treat humans as their tools, as intermediaries connecting their past and future, to restore the movements of these concepts in history and depict the shape of the future.
This series of articles will examine the roles that some blockchain projects may play in this historical movement based on this historical concept and attempt to describe their futures.
As the first one of the series, we will try to place blockchain within the entire human historical movement today and find its position, laying the foundation for future articles.
<The Movement of Trust>
The 2008 financial crisis not only left countless people with painful memories but also mercilessly exposed the financial industry's vulnerabilities. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, numerous shadow banks faced a run, and the fortress of trust built by the elites of the Land of the Free crumbled overnight. Although they have recklessly rebuilt a structure on the remaining foundation over the past decade or so, history tells us that it is bound to be another story of "seeing him build a high tower, seeing him feast guests, and seeing his tower collapse."
Blockchain was born in the ruins of the trust edifice. From a historical perspective, the birth of blockchain was inevitable, as it represents a crucial link in the broader movement of trust in human transactions.
As any transaction ultimately aims for profit, its bottom line is lower costs and risks. Therefore, the movement of trust in transactions naturally tends towards lower costs and risks. However, for movement of trust, the tool it initially chose, humans, created a seemingly unsolvable contradiction between lower costs and lower risks.
Let's first look at how the concept “trust” reduces costs.
In a natural environment with limited resources, people must cooperate with each other to survive. However, unlike the Trisolarans or Professor X, humans on Earth do not possess the ability to read each other's minds. The purposes of both parties' behavior are unknown under these conditions, making cooperation extremely difficult and more likely to result in life-and-death struggles. The emergence of trust mechanisms allows people who initially could not cooperate to work together to accomplish tasks like hunting and form organized and structured groups. But this primitive credit mechanism is extremely costly, often requiring extensive interaction and many rounds of game-playing.
In layman's terms, I need to spend time getting to know someone to determine if they are trustworthy.
To reduce costs, the concept of trust reveals its second mechanism: transferability. Trust can be established between people through the transmission of information. In this way, I don't need to start building trust and engage in games with a stranger from scratch; I can simply find a third party who has played games extensively with both of us to vouch for our trustworthiness.
This is the first stage of the trust movement. It successfully lowers its costs by using third parties.
However, we can easily discover that trust is necessarily a posteriori. Its emergence, whether indirect or direct, must go through game-playing. Its transferability merely significantly reduces the required number of games.
The drawback of a posteriori concepts lies in their uncertainty. What happened yesterday may not happen tomorrow. What was trustworthy in the past may not be trustworthy in the future. Concepts like trust, which require humans as transmission hubs to reduce their costs, must face the significant flaws of humans as a tool. In the context of globalization, third parties acting as trust transmission hubs must exist in some form. This necessity allows them to control and monopolize the power of transaction verification and record-keeping. In other words, they can use the power in their hands for evil to seek greater benefits for themselves whenever they want.
And if there's any truth that history has validated, it is that people will do evil. People can do evil without any gain, let alone when doing evil reaps the world and amasses immense wealth.
As trust transmission hubs will inevitably do evil and eventually perish, each instance of evil and demise means the trust movement needs to return to the previous stage, re-enter the game of cost reduction, and once again make people its transmission hub, thus falling into a vicious cycle. However, since fluctuations in trust costs cause cyclical depressions and bring disaster to human groups, humans, as subjective beings, naturally seek methods to break this cycle and address the fundamental contradiction between costs and risks for trust while correcting themselves and trying to avoid such disasters. In other words, with each cycle, some force accumulates among humans to break this cycle, until it is eventually overcome.
Before 2009, even if people were aware of the flaws and problems in the existing trust system and knew how disgusting the faces of those trust profiteers were, there was virtually nothing they could do about it. Human transactions simply could not do without them, and there were no other tools for trust beyond humans.
But after January 3, 2009, everything seemed to change.
<Blockchain: The Dehumanization of Trust>
In previous paragraphs, we mentioned that the core contradiction faced by trust is the flaw of humans as tools. Once humans monopolize the verification power of the trust system, it forces trust into a vicious cycle. People in this cycle are also victims and will naturally seek ways to break free from it. Therefore, if we believe that trust can ultimately complete its own movement, then a dehumanized tool must appear in the process of this movement, for trust to realize itself.
What this tool is, no one knows before history tells its own story. But from the knowledge we have today, it is, and seemingly can only be, blockchain.
There is a wealth of high-quality popular science on the basic operation mechanism of blockchain on the Internet, which we will not elaborate on here. At the end of the article, we will attach a link to popular science content that we think is well-explained, for everyone to understand on their own. Next, let's mainly talk about how blockchain accomplishes dehumanization.
What we mean by dehumanization here is not that humans no longer participate in blockchain activities. Instead, humans used to be the only means for the concept of trust to complete its movement. However, the emergence of blockchain allows trust to continue its movement in the form of this technology. Humans on this path, then, have changed from being tools of trust to being tools of blockchain. Blockchain, as a patch for the trust movement, has thus begun its own movement, which is also the new path of the trust movement.
In the movement of blockchain, the third party originally used to reduce costs in the trust movement has been transformed from a small human group into mining machines and computing power. Of course, these mining machines and computing power are still held by a small number of people, but blockchain takes the power of transaction verification away from these people and distributes it to every participant through locked code. In this way, the space and possibility for humans to do evil are greatly reduced.
It's not that humans no longer participate, but that humans no longer monopolize power.
When it comes to blockchain, decentralization is always mentioned. However, the essence of decentralization seems to have always been up for exploration. The center removed by blockchain is the third party, but at a deeper level, it is the centralized power in human hands, that is, the degree of human participation in the trust movement.
Therefore, the essence of decentralization is dehumanization.
This value is precisely the significant role that blockchain technology will play in human trading activities. The many projects based on blockchain that truly have the intrinsic value of serving this movement are attempting to complete the "dehumanization" of the financial industry based on today's credit system and even all trade.
In other words, in this market filled with countless scams and bubbles, projects that can truly provide value in the future must be in line with the historical mission of the blockchain movement, helping trust to complete its movement. They must adhere to the dehumanizing nature of the blockchain movement.
In the following time, we will examine existing projects in the market and predict the necessary projects that may appear in the future according to the direction of the dehumanizing movement of blockchain.
This article only examines trust in the context of human trading activities. In fact, trust, a core mechanism of human civilization, not only occupies an important position in trading activities but is also linked to almost all human behaviors. In later articles, we will also touch upon the movement of trust in other fields and explain the roles that blockchain will play in those areas.
How January 3, 2009, will be remembered in history is unknown for now, but we are certain that it must be a harbinger of the advent of a new era.
Thank you for reading this far.
💗If you Like this!
Mirror If you want More!
Comment If you want to make a point!
- **Pro-Argument:** The banking crisis has led some funds to choose Bitcoin as a safe-haven asset, resulting in the recent rise in BTC prices.
**Counter-Argument:** Cryptocurrency companies with the ability to "print" more tokens (such as Tether) have issued stablecoins without sufficient collateral, creating a bubble.
Please leave your opinions and thoughts in the comments section below!
- 正题：银行危机导致了部分资金选择比特币作为避险资产，进而造成了最近BTC币价拉升。
反题：具有放水能力的币圈公司（如Tether）在无充足担保的情况下增发稳定币造成泡沫。
请在下方评论区留下你的观点和看法！
- Street Art 🍃🔥🫧
- mirror + collect = 1 wmatic
- 长文（1）：区块链-信任的去人类化运动
万物都是一种语言的词汇
某人或某物用它们夜以继日地
写下那无尽的谵言呓语
这就是世界的历史。
节选自博尔赫斯《罗盘》
****
2009年1月3日，身在中国，年少的我并没有感觉到经济危机带来的冲击。生活还是一样，每天坐着校车上下学，吃着街边三块五一包的炸鸡柳。最多是长辈的言谈里的国家大事，多了“危机”这个词。我更是无从得知，在这个历史性事件的边缘，诞生了世界上第一个比特币的区块，Block#0。十几年过去了，那场经济危机所造成的影响似乎在陡增的美国国债和十年美股长牛的繁荣中被抚平，而那个彼时毫不起眼的区块，如今也已经成为了一整个产业的基石与支柱。或许当未来的人们真的进入到去自然化的元宇宙时代，这个曾淹没在金融海啸当中，悄无声息地诞生的区块，会被视作为“元宇宙大爆炸的奇点”。
而这正是历史的有趣之处，不仅仅在不同的高度，讲述着不同的故事，还在不同的时间传递出不同的信息。个体和群体，现在与未来，写下来的是不一样的“谵言呓语”。因此当人真正试图去把握历史时，终归是要超过个体的局限，乃至于超过群体的局限，将推动历史的那些抽象的理念与符号置于舞台中央，把人类视作它们的工具，作为它们联系自身的过去与未来的中介，才足以还原这些理念在历史中的运动，并以此描绘未来的形状。
本系列文章便将基于这种历史观念，去审视当今的某些区块链项目在这一历史的运动中所可能扮演的角色，并试图描述它们的未来。
作为系列的第一期，我们今天将尝试把区块链放置于整个人类历史的运动当中，并寻找到它在其中所处的位置，为日后的文章打好基础。
本系列文章并非是专业的研究报告，不构成任何投资建议。它们仅仅只是一个私人的罗盘，在弥漫浓雾，遍地歧途的市场中，试图寻找方向而已。
信任的运动
2008年的金融危机，除了给无数人造成了痛苦的回忆之外，还毫不留情的扒光了金融产业的底裤。雷曼破产，众多影子银行遭遇挤兑，自由灯塔之国的精英们用心良苦建立起的信任堡垒，在一夜之间就剩下了残垣断壁。虽然在过去的十余年间，他们破罐破摔，用涸泽而渔的方式在残存的地基上重新搭建起了一座建筑，但用历史的目光去审视，那必然又是一个“眼见他起高楼，眼见他宴宾客，眼见他楼塌了”的故事。
而区块链，就诞生在信任大厦的废墟之中。而从历史的角度去看，区块链的诞生是一种必然，因为它是信任这个概念在广义的人类交易活动中，运动路径上至关重要的一环。
由于任何交易都是以盈利作为最终目标。它的底线是更低的成本与风险。因此，信任这一理念在介入交易活动时的运动路径，自然也是向着更低的成本与更低的风险这一方向发展。然而对于信任而言，它在发展初期所选用的工具，也就是人类，导致了更低的成本与更低的风险之间，出现了一个看似无解的矛盾。
我们先来看看信任是如何降低成本的。
在有限资源的自然环境中，人必须要与彼此展开合作才能够生存。然而不像是三体人或者X教授，蓝星上的人类并不具备读取彼此内心想法的能力。双方的行为目的，在这种条件下是未知的，因此合作的展开极其困难，反而更容易陷入你死我活的斗争之中。而信任机制的出现，能够让原本无法合作的人，变得可以联手完成捕猎，形成有组织有架构的族群。但这种原始的信用机制成本极其高昂。往往需要大量的相处时间与充分的博弈次数。
用人话说就是，我得花时间了解一个人，才能知道丫值不值得信任。
为了降低成本，信任展露了它使用人类的第二个机制，可传递性。人与人之间，可以通过信息的传递产生信任。这样一来，我不需要跟一个陌生人从头开始建立信任，发生博弈，只需要找到与我们双方都充分博弈过的第三方作为担保，就可以在一定程度上信任彼此。
这就是信任运动的第一个阶段。它通过使用第三方，成功的降低了自己的成本。
然而我们可以很轻易的发现，信任这个概念必然是后验的。它的产生，无论是间接的，还是直接的，都必须要经过博弈。只是它的可传递性极大的降低了所需的博弈次数而已。
后验概念的缺陷在于其不确定性。昨天发生的，明天未必会发生。过去可以信任的，未来未必可以信任。而像信任这种需要人类作为传递枢纽为其降低成本的概念，更是需要面对人类这一工具本身的巨大缺陷。在全球化的背景下，作为信任传递枢纽的第三方无论以什么形式出现，都是必须存在的。这种必要性让他们掌握并垄断了交易的验证和记录的权力。也就是说，只要它们想，就可以利用手中的权力作恶来为自己谋取更大的利益。
而如果有什么真理是得到了历史验证的，那恐怕就是：人一定会作恶。人不为了私利都可以做恶，更何况做恶的时候还能收割世界，赚下无数财富。
由于信任传递枢纽必然会作恶，也必然会消亡。而其每一次作恶与消亡，都意味着信任运动需要回归到上一阶段，重新进入降低成本的博弈中，而博弈的结果，却又是让人成为其传递枢纽，就此陷入了恶性循环之中。但由于信任成本的起伏会带来周期性萧条，给人类族群带来灾难。人作为具有主观性的生物，在修正自身，尝试回避这种灾难的同时，自然而然也在为信任寻求着打破这种循环，解决成本和风险的根本性矛盾的方法。换而言之，这种循环每经历一次，都会在人类当中积蓄一些打破它的力量，直到某个循环之后，彻底摆脱。
09年之前，即使有人知道如今信任系统的缺陷和问题，知道那些信任皮条客们的丑陋嘴脸有多么的恶心，实际上也拿它们毫无办法。因为人类交易活动离不开它们，信任除了人类之外，也不存在任何其他的工具。
但2009年1月3日之后，一切似乎有了转机。
区块链：信用的去人类化
****
在之前的段落里，我们提到了信任所面临的核心矛盾是人类作为工具的缺陷。人一旦垄断了信任系统的验证权，就会迫使信任落入恶性的循环当中。人在这循环之中，也是受害者，自然会寻求摆脱这个循环的方式。因此，如果我们相信信任最终能完成自身的运动，那么在这个运动的过程中，就必然会出现一个去人类化的工具，供信任用以实现自身。
这个工具究竟是什么，在历史讲完自己的故事前，无人知晓。但仅从我们如今所掌握的知识来看，它是，似乎也只能是区块链。
区块链的基本运作机制，互联网上有大量的优质的科普，在这里就不做赘述了。我们接下来主要聊聊区块链是如何完成去人类化的。
我们这里所讲的去人类化，指的可不是人类不参与区块链的活动了。而是说，曾经人类是信任这一理念完成运动的唯一途径。但区块链的出现，却允许信任通过这项技术的形式来继续自身的运动。人类在这条路径上，则由信任的工具，变为了区块链的工具。区块链作为信任运动的补丁，就此开始了自己的运动，它的运动，也正是信任的运动的新路径。
在区块链的运动当中，原本信任运动里用以降低成本的第三方，由一个人类的小群体，转换为了矿机和算力。当然，这些矿机和算力依旧是掌握在少部分人手中的，但是区块链对于交易的验证权，却将权力从这部分人手中拿走，将其通过锁死的代码，分配了每一个参与者。这样一来，人类作恶的空间和可能性就被极大的降低了。
并非人类不再参与，而是人类不再垄断权力。
提到区块链，总会提到去中心化。然而去中心化的本质却似乎一直有待探讨。被区块链去掉的这个中心是第三方，但更深层的是人类手中的中心化的权力，也就是人类在信任运动中的参与程度。
因此，去中心化的本质，是去人类化。
而这一价值，正是区块链这项技术在人类的交易活动中，将扮演的重要角色。基于区块链的诸多真正具有为此运动服务的内在价值的项目试图完成的，也正是让建立于现如今的信用系统的金融业，乃至所有的贸易，都完成“去人类化”。
换而言之，在这个存在着无数骗局和泡沫的市场中，真正在未来能够提供价值的项目，必然是符合区块链运动的历史使命，帮助信用完成运动的项目。它们必须要遵从区块链运动的去人类化本质。
在接下来的时间里，我们会依照区块链的去人类化这一运动方向，去审视现如今市场中既存的项目，以及预测未来可能会出现的必要项目。
本文仅仅只是将信任置于人类的交易活动中进行了审视。实际上信任这一个人类文明的核心机制，不仅仅在交易活动里中占据了重要的位置，它几乎与所有的人类行为挂钩。在日后的文章中，我们也会涉及到信任在其他范畴中的运动，并解释区块链将在那些领域里扮演的角色。
2009年1月3日将会如何被历史铭记，现在无人知晓，但我们确定，它一定是某个时代降临的前兆。
感谢你读到这里。