Stack Buckworth

₿itcoin Only

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@SamCKx @bittybitbit86 the wealthy pay low % tax because capital gains should be taxed differently to income it’s already taxed money being risked. Meanwhile, the BOE’s own data shows QE inflated asset prices, transferring wealth upward. The problem isn’t low capital gains tax. It’s money printing

[Jeff Swanson @theswansjr]

I never intended to become a Bitcoiner.

I heard someone mention, “Bitcoin is digital gold.”
I read one article.
I bought $50 worth, then sold it at a profit five months later.

Then I read the whitepaper.
Then I started going deeper:

• Inflation
• The supply cap
• The issuance schedule
• The thermodynamic security model
• The game theory
• Monetary history
• The Cantillon effect
• The fiat endgame
• Deflation as the natural state of a free economy

And somewhere between "interesting technology" and "holy shit, every dollar I hold is melting," you cross a threshold.

Then I found myself pouring my savings into Bitcoin because I understood the math.

Once you see that 21 million is the only hard monetary ceiling humanity has ever coded into existence, you can’t unsee it.

Once you understand that Bitcoin is an escape from a debt-soaked empire printing itself into irrelevance, you stop asking whether you should buy it. You start asking why the hell you waited this long.

Bitcoin is a journey.

Get started in 2026.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@JoshMandell6 I was stung by a bee, £20 for a pot of honey!

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner also can’t cover bread it didn’t come from nobody, it came causally from the consumed inputs. That’s transformation, not production.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Two places. (1) Your definition of “produce” is gaining an asset from nobody but labour isn’t gained from nobody, it’s a pre-existing human capacity. (2) Your definition of “produce”

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Just as an aside I’d like your thoughts on this if you have time.

[Saifedean Ammous @saifedean]

Value is not a physical thing

To all the people who think bitcoin can’t have value because it’s not tangible...

Tangible assets constitute the following percentage of the Mag7 market caps:

Nvidia: 0.66%
Apple: 1.38%
Tesla: 4.06%
Microsoft: 7.29%
Alphabet: 8.39%
Meta: 9.56%
Amazon: 16.28%
Combined weighted average: 5.79%

If you liquidated all of these companies’ physical assets, they wouldn’t amount to 6% of their valuation. There have been days in which the market caps of these companies have moved by more than the total value of their physical assets.

If 94% of the value of the most valuable companies on earth is non-physical, then value does not have to be physical.

If digital things have no value, then you should have no problem with giving me your computer to erase all the data from it. I will return your computer to you in the same exact physical form. I will just press a few buttons that remove all your data, photos, and contacts, and make it impossible for you to restore them. If value can only be tangible, then all of these digital things have no value, and you shouldn’t mind me deleting them as long as the devices return in their original state. I don’t think you would.

Technology, data, business knowledge, customer base, brands, and so much more are non-physical assets whose value likely exceeds that of all the planet’s physical objects and land. This is something most people understand in their daily lives, but because most people have no understanding of money, they do not understand how it applies to money, too.

Most people think their money is physical, but in reality, most fiat currencies today are 90%+ digital, and usually less than 10% of the supply is physical paper money. There are no stacks of dollars in your bank sitting in a box under your name, available for you to pick up at any time. A tiny fraction of the money is physical, and the rest is digital, manufactured in various quantities by your bank, government, central bank, and other pedophiles, in quantities based on pure vibes. People still give this non-physical fiat money value because it is the only money they can use with a bank account, since governments only license banks that use their local fiat shitcoin. There is no need for the money to be physical to work; digital fiat money works as well as physical fiat money; or as badly.

Bitcoin is an entirely digital money, but it is given value for far more intelligent and peaceful reasons than fiat money. You can read more about that in my books The Bitcoin Standard and The Fiat Standard, which you can buy from Amazon or https://t.co/Va3iL87Ups.

A common objection to bitcoin’s value is: “But if people stop believing in the value of bitcoin it can lose all value.” But that is true of everything. If people stop believing in the value of gold, it would lose value and just become another worthless rock. If people stop believing in the value of electronic devices then Apple and Nvidia go to zero. If people stop believing in the value of Manhattan, then all Manhattan real estate goes to zero. If people discover that tomatoes are poisonous, they stop believing in the value of tomatoes, and the entire planet’s tomato industry goes to zero. Just because something is physical does not guarantee its value, as we can see from the infinite amount of sand and rocks on our Earth left completely untouched by human hands. Physical things can be valueless and non-physical things can have value. Value and physicality are two independent things that are orthogonal to each other. You are doing yourself a disservice if you are unable to benefit from the world’s most advanced money and best saving technology because you are unable to see that value can be non-physical in this one instance, when you have no problem seeing it elsewhere.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@I_Warned_You_68 @Economics21st @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Haha, I’ve had these debates 100s of times.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Your decomposition only works by quietly breaking your own definitions of both actions.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner “Produce labour” is a category error labour isn’t a new asset emerging from nowhere, it’s a pre-existing capacity. And bread isn’t “produced” in your sense either it’s causally dependent on the consumed inputs.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Aaaaaannd, deliberate avoidance of monetary valuation is philosophically interesting but creates real problems. RNW as a “heterogeneous sum”apples plus debt claims plus land can’t actually be added without some commensuration.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner You want me to keep going?

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner The RNW effect is identical, but economically they’re quite different, especially for policy analysis.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Similarly, destruction (an asset is damaged or lost a flood destroys Alice’s apple) seems different from consumption. Consumption implies intentional use; destruction is involuntary loss.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner The framework collapses this into “produce,” which obscures important economic questions about value-added processes…

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner I did, apologies. Who do you judge your level of understanding from? We are all random people on the internet no?

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Hey we were just trying to get to the bottom of what you and I (and others) understand.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Then who do you judge your level of understanding Gary Stephenson?

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Citing your credentials only makes you look less confident in your badly formed ideas. Have fun.

[Stack Buckworth @StackBuckworth]

@Economics21st @I_Warned_You_68 @DrBibekBhatta @Glinner Forced transfer is theft a physical world problem. Counterparty risk is structural baked into the instrument itself. Your bank deposit can be legally frozen, bailed-in, or inflated away by design. Bitcoin held in self custody has zero counterparty risk. That’s not the same.