>These past ten years might be the earliest days of a new golden era of human flourishing, built upon censorship-resistant, sound money.
Good thing they used "might" otherwise I might have scoffed at this grandiloquent and unsubstantiated statement.
Yep, it's definitely a message to Bitcoin insiders, but that's not a bad thing. Sorry to fail your hopes.
> grandiloquent and unsubstantiated statement
Once you've studied money from a critical angle, you start to see that unsound money is the root cause of many of the problems with society and government.
The first ten years of Bitcoin (plus history leading to it) and sound vs unsound money are both huge topics in their own right. Perhaps it would be useful for me to include a little box at the end of each article with links to books and lengthy posts about these topics.
This is a real "if you have a golden hammer everything looks like a nail" philosophy.
I'd wager that the literature on banking and finance far outweighs resources on anything crypto. Specifically compared to papers on crypto coming from a neutral perspective.
Your statement is just plain wrong.
edit : clarification
That also describes the English language, and yet here we are, still using it.
In general, something that's lasted centuries is more likely to last centuries more, than something that's only lasted one decade.
Fiat money can be created or destroyed at any time, so it is the most unsound money. As purchasing power rises (falls), the central bank can create (destroy) money at will to counteract the trend.
Gold exploration increases as the price rises, causing the supply to grow to meet this demand. Yet it is hard to mine gold, and its scarcity means that the increase of supply relative to the existing stock is small (roughly 2% / yr). Thus it is more sound than other metals, which are easier to mine. It is also much more sound than fiat money.
Bitcoin's monetary base increases algorithmically, so there is no supply response to increased demand. On top of that, the monetary inflation rate tends toward zero over time. The supply will reach a maximum and stop increasing. This level of soundness is greater than that of gold in the long run.
A great scholarly treatment of money is The Ethics of Money Production[1]
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6520108-the-ethics-of-mo...
Adding more noise to the echo chamber certainly isn't a good thing. I'd be much more interested to hear about the problems surrounding the technology and how you envision them being solved. Most mining is centralized, no one actually uses it as currency, the entire thing is one big speculator market, etc.