Since I started to come into contact with Bitcoin in 2017, people have been constantly defining Bitcoin as a "scam."
Since 1 BTC = 10,000 RMB, it has been constantly criticized
It's already 2024, 1 BTC = 450,000 RMB, and some people still regard Bitcoin as a "pyramid scheme" and a "scam."
Such people are likely to be able to think in a single dimension.
We don't need to correct them, just be happy.
Back to the topic of this article, “What would happen to the world if everyone had a little Bitcoin?”
This is a thought experiment, and it may actually happen in the next 10 years.
We can’t say that everyone has it, but at least it’s not much worse than the coverage of the US dollar. I wonder if the US dollar will still be strong in 10 years?
Bitcoin is not a currency, or currency is just one of the "roles" of Bitcoin
The currency we understand in a popular sense must be an equivalent issued by the state with a clear trust carrier. Bitcoin is not issued by the state, but is generated based on code and operated by countless Bitcoin mining machines according to the consensus code.
During the operation, complex calculations are performed and it is based on blockchain technology. It is generated block by block in a one-way order and is irreversible.
The biggest difference between the two is centralization and decentralization, infinite growth and eternal quantity.
Almost every country has its own currency, which can be used freely in its own country for transactions. Some currencies can even be traded in other countries and become world currencies.
Behind this is the symbol of national credit, you can find its traces in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Mount Everest. And the deepest essence of this is national strength.
With this power, we can even force other countries to accept non-national currencies.
Thus, they regard their own country's currency as the world's currency, and finally reap the world through regulation.
It is really possible to sit in the country and easily control the whole world. Compared with the previous fighting and killing, financial warfare is more cost-effective.
Sometimes I wonder, if the world's currency leader today is not the United States, but other countries, is it likely that they will also control the world according to the logic of the United States?
With troops stationed in various countries and military bases all over the world, sometimes printing money crazily and sometimes cutting interest rates crazily, it is not impossible for the dragon slayer to become the dragon. Or is this the destiny of becoming the king of world currency?
From the country to the individual, it does not matter whether your words are right or wrong, but how hard your fists are, how sharp your knives are, and how many missiles you have.
What's more, there are not so many truths in this world. The strength of those who grasp the truth is always stronger than those who challenge the truth. Only then can the truth be true.
Let's take a simple example. For example, if there are always people smoking in the corridor of your residential area, making the public area full of smoke, and if the state stipulates that citizens can freely carry guns tomorrow, then see if anyone still smokes (of course, the number of people who oppose smoking must be large, haha).
If the law cannot explain something clearly, then use force and violence. Monopolizing violence is the most basic guarantee for many things. It is all nonsense that people are inherently good. It is not that complicated.
People are neither good nor evil. Whether they are good or evil depends entirely on the environment. This is human nature.
Bitcoin does not believe in human nature, but only in code.
If I say that I am as good looking as Daniel Wu, probably no more than 80% of people will agree (mjj who disagree), but if I say that 1+1=2, then 100% of people will agree
Of course, I am changing the concepts here. Opinions and facts cannot be compared at the same time.
But here comes the interesting part. If we only talk about facts, then there will no longer be any debate about right or wrong.
If we just talk about the facts, can't we reach a consensus at the lowest cost and with the highest efficiency?
If we just talk about the facts, can't we avoid doubts and achieve value?
