You're not addressing the information. You're providing no information, substantive thought or critical analysis.

Bitcoin's fungibility, akin to cash or gold, faces no inherent flaw but reflects external pressures like governmental overreach, not the protocol itself. In monetary theory, fungibility ensures units are interchangeable, a criterion Bitcoin meets at its core, where one Satoshi equals another. Its transparent design enables verifiable auditability, reinforcing trust, integrity, and resilience-a feature absent in opaque systems like Monero. Bitcoin's transparent blockchain ensures auditable integrity, enabling proactive countermeasures against nefarious actions like double-spending or 51% attacks, fostering trust. Anyone, holders or newcomers can verify transactions or reject invalid blocks, sparking participation like buying Bitcoin or running nodes when threats, like nation-state, corporate, or central bank attacks, become visible, strengthening its self-sustaining security. Provable unethical actions against Bitcoin raise awareness, inspiring education, adoption, and political advocacy for values like private property and sound money. This openness turns perceived vulnerabilities into a robust security feature, enabling prompt calls to action that grow resilience. Ever-growing advancements, tools like CoinJoin, Lightning Network, eCash, and Nostr, enhance practical fungibility by enabling private, uncensorable transactions without sacrificing base layer integrity. Bitcoin’s open-source, fully transparent nature ensures perpetual advancement, open to all, with unstoppable free markets upholding its integrity. External interventions, like government restrictions seen with gold bans, cash tracking, or efforts against privacy tools like CoinJoin, do not undermine Bitcoin's intrinsic properties, just as state efforts failed to suppress cryptography. Its decentralized, unalterable cap and nation-state-resistant design erode centralized control, defunding mechanisms of arbitrary regulation. This ensures its sound money properties: scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, durability, verifiability, and universal demand sustain unmatched global adoption, outstripping alternatives prone to centralized risks.

Bitcoin's fungibility, akin to cash or gold, faces no inherent flaw but reflects external pressures like governmental overreach, not the protocol itself. In monetary theory, fungibility ensures units are interchangeable, a criterion #Bitcoin meets at its core, where one Satoshi equals another. Its transparent design enables verifiable auditability, reinforcing trust, integrity, and resilience-a feature absent in opaque systems like Monero. Bitcoin's transparent blockchain ensures auditable integrity, enabling proactive countermeasures against nefarious actions like double-spending or 51% attacks, fostering trust. Anyone, holders or newcomers can verify transactions or reject invalid blocks, sparking participation like buying Bitcoin or running nodes when threats, like nation-state, corporate, or central bank attacks, become visible, strengthening its self-sustaining security. Provable unethical actions against Bitcoin raise awareness, inspiring education, adoption, and political advocacy for values like private property and sound money. This openness turns perceived vulnerabilities into a robust security feature, enabling prompt calls to action that grow resilience. Ever-growing advancements, tools like CoinJoin, Lightning Network, eCash, and Nostr, enhance practical fungibility by enabling private, uncensorable transactions without sacrificing base layer integrity. Bitcoin’s open-source, fully transparent nature ensures perpetual advancement, open to all, with unstoppable free markets upholding its integrity. External interventions, like government restrictions seen with gold bans, cash tracking, or efforts against privacy tools like CoinJoin, do not undermine Bitcoin's intrinsic properties, just as state efforts failed to suppress cryptography. Its decentralized, unalterable cap and nation-state-resistant design erode centralized control, defunding mechanisms of arbitrary regulation. This ensures its sound money properties: scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, durability, verifiability, and universal demand sustain unmatched global adoption, outstripping alternatives prone to centralized risks.

Yeah, we're using computers. What's important is the information and critical thought

Oh please explain your claim, detail and evidence please, enlighten me.

Value is indeed subjective, and here it's driven by sound money (store of value, medium if exchange) properties - scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, durability, verifiability, and universal demand. Bitcoin's protocol, with its unalterable cap, incorruptible design, nation-state resistance, and support for uncensorable systems like Lightning and Nostr, uniquely satisfies these criteria, drawing global demand unmatched by any asset in history.

In economic and cryptographic terms, Bitcoin’s so-called diminishing security budget is not a vulnerability but a deliberate design feature fostering resilience and innovation. The halving mechanism, reducing block subsidies to 3.125 BTC post-2024, aligns with Austrian economic principles of sound money, ensuring scarcity while incentivizing miners through rising transaction fees and Bitcoin’s appreciating value. Historical data shows network hash rate recovering post-halvings-2020 saw a 25% dip followed by a 20% surge within months-demonstrating market-driven adaptability. Bitcoin’s unstoppable worldwide free market and location-agnostic mining incentivizes energy advancement, efficiency, innovation and sustainability. #Bitcoin also enables the utilization of wasted and stranded energy. It harnesses remote and renewable energy, enabling infrastructure growth in underserved regions like sub-Saharan Africa (check of the company "Gridless"). Far from a flaw, this incentivizes global participation, securing the network as a public utility for an automated future, akin to essential software for AI-driven systems. Unlike inflationary models, Bitcoin’s transparent, finite supply fortifies it against centralization risks, ensuring long-term security and uncensorable integrity. Looking ahead, as block rewards approach zero over the next century, Bitcoin’s rising value ensures miner incentives endure, with each Satoshi carrying greater purchasing power. This drives global participation, leveraging energy innovations-from stranded renewables to micro-mining integrated into devices-securing the network as a public utility. Much like essential software, mining will underpin secure, uncensorable monetary and communication systems, including AI and drone networks, reinforcing Bitcoin’s decentralized integrity against any centralization threat. Speculating on Bitcoin’s future security budget overlooks its proven resilience. Altering a system, robustly designed for millennia of sound money and valued by millions, to address theoretical flaws risks disrupting its intricate design and balance. Such shortsighted interventions ignore Bitcoin’s market-driven adaptability, evidenced by post-halving hash rate recoveries, and its endurance against countless critics since 2009, from early skeptics to "crypto" enthusiasts and central banking naysayers, proving its design’s foresight.

Your point about money demand and purchasing power is well-taken but incomplete. In monetary economics, the predictability of a currency's supply does not inherently ensure its efficacy as a store of value. Bitcoin's protocol-enforced scarcity, capped at 21 million coins with diminishing issuance, aligns with Austrian economic principles of sound money, prioritizing absolute scarcity and verifiability over elastic supply models like Monero's tail emission. As Saifedean Ammous argues, Bitcoin's transparent ledger and scalable divisibility, bolstered by second-layer solutions like ecash or Lightning as experienced here on Nostr, deliver both robust integrity and private, efficient transactions-outstripping alternatives prone to dilution or hidden centralization risks. Even a tiny amount of money, like one dollar, could theoretically supply an entire economy if it’s divisible enough. Author of The #Bitcoin Standard, Saifedean writes: “What matters in money is its purchasing power, not its quantity, and as such, any quantity of money is enough to fulfil the monetary functions, as long as it is divisible and groupable enough to satisfy holders’ transaction and storage needs.” This comes from a summary of the book on Medium, which captures the essence of his argument about divisibility being key to a currency’s functionality, not its total amount. Something else he's said that I agree with: Money’s effectiveness depends on how well it can be divided to meet economic demands, not how much of it exists. For example, even a single dollar could work if it could be split into tiny fractions for transactions, much like how Bitcoin’s is almost infinitely divisible supports its scalability and rids any concern of "elasticity". A fixed supply, when paired with sufficient divisibility, can dynamically adapt to demand through market-driven adjustments in purchasing power, not artificial supply expansion. In summary, Bitcoin’s current and potential infinite divisibility through protocol upgrades or layered solutions eliminates the need for an elastic supply while preserving its scarcity. This makes it a superior alternative to gold, which is prone to capture and supply shocks, fiat, which suffers from centralized overissuance or any ever increasing commodity, even if the increase is predictable. Additionally, Bitcoin’s strictly capped supply of 21 million coins, paired with its scalable divisibility, distinguishes it from cryptocurrencies with perpetually increasing issuance, even if predictable. Such coins, akin to commodities, risk gradual dilution of value and susceptibility to centralized mining incentives, undermining their long-term reliability as a store of value compared to Bitcoin’s unalterable scarcity. By enabling transactions at increasingly granular levels, Bitcoin ensures that its fixed supply of 21 million coins can meet the demands of a global economy without diluting investors, rendering the elasticity argument obsolete. Saifedean argues that Bitcoin’s fixed supply is a cornerstone of its value as a money. Unlike fiat currencies, which central banks can print at will, or even gold, which can see supply shocks from new mining tech or discoveries, Bitcoin’s hard cap is coded into its protocol, making its scarcity absolute and predictable. This fixed supply with new issuance halving roughly every four years mimics the increasing difficulty of extracting gold but without the physical world’s vulnerabilities, like new mines flooding the market. In the book, he says Bitcoin’s supply schedule “ensures that at any point in time, there will only ever be a fixed amount in circulation, and no authority can change or violate this,” which he contrasts with gold’s historical supply swings, like the Spanish conquest or the California Gold Rush mentioned earlier. This ties into his broader point that scarcity, enforced by code rather than physical limits, makes Bitcoin resistant to the capture and manipulation gold falls prey to.

No, no one can control the price of #bitcoin. No one can make more bitcoin and there is no way to know if a Country or a company is going to start buying bitcoin. There is no way to know when small businesses or groups of people around the world will start buying more bitcoin. Discourse on Bitcoin's price stability often overlooks its decentralized nature, rendering attempts by large entities to peg its value-whether to gold or a fixed dollar amount-futile. Historical precedents, from Roman coinage to the Medici banking collapse, reveal centralized assets like gold succumb to capture and manipulation, whereas Bitcoin's fixed supply and global, permissionless market ensure it flows to long-term holders, reinforcing its role as an incorruptible store of value. Any effort to control its price only accelerates its distribution to stronger hands, as its value derives not from centralized dictate but from subjective, free-market dynamics rooted in scarcity and sovereignty. Bitcoin demonetizes gold. Beyond your claims, including your claims of being educated on bitcoin, you should study bitcoin more. Or keep trying to guess the price or how people will set the price of bitcoin. Good luck. Assertions that gold's role as a store of value (SoV) predates fiat currency and persists independently of it overlooks the historical mechanisms through which gold's monetary role has consistently intertwined with centralized control and, ultimately, fiat systems. While gold's inherent properties: scarcity, divisibility, portability, and near-universal desirability have long positioned it as a preferred medium of exchange and SoV, these same attributes render it vulnerable to capture and manipulation, fostering centralization that paves the way for fiat-like systems. My argument is not that gold lacks value absent fiat but that its practical application as money throughout history reveals a paradox: its strengths enable its adoption, yet its physicality ensures its capture, leading to systems of control that mirror or evolve into fiat arrangements. Historically, gold's role as a SoV has been inseparable from power dynamics. From the Roman Empire's aureus to medieval European coinage, gold's concentration in the hands of rulers, conquerors, and elites often through war, tribute, or monopolistic mining enabled its use as a tool of centralized authority. The spoils of conquest, such as the influx of New World gold into Spain during the 16th century, illustrate this capture. The resulting supply shock fueled inflation, destabilizing economies across Europe, as documented by historians like Fernand Braudel, who noted price increases of 300-400% in Spain over a century. Similarly, the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855 disrupted monetary stability, flooding markets with gold and undermining its purchasing power locally. These examples counter claims that gold's supply growth has consistently been outpaced by productivity. While human productivity has indeed grown, gold's supply is neither predictable nor stable; technological advancements in mining (e.g., hydraulic mining in the 19th century or modern cyanide leaching) and transportation (e.g., transatlantic trade routes) have repeatedly introduced supply shocks, altering its scarcity and value in localized economies. The purchasing power of gold depends not only on economic activity outpacing supply growth but also on the absence of manipulation. Gold's physical nature makes it prone to adulteration (e.g. debasement with base metals, as seen in Roman and Byzantine coinage) and centralized control, whether by mints, banks, or governments. The emergence of fractional reserve banking in the 17th century, rooted in goldsmiths issuing receipts for gold they held, directly ties gold to fiat-like systems. These receipts, circulating as currency, often exceeded physical gold reserves, creating a proto-fiat mechanism prone to overissuance and crises, evidenced by the collapse of early banking houses like the Medici. This historical trajectory demonstrates that gold's use as money facilitates centralized systems of credit and control, which are precursors to modern fiat currencies. To dismiss concerns about gold's vulnerabilities as "simple forgery", underestimates the systemic implications. Adulteration, hoarding, and monopolistic control are not mere aberrations but intrinsic to gold's physicality. Unlike a purely digital or decentralized asset, gold's verifiability requires trust in intermediaries mints, assayers, or banks which invites manipulation. The transition from gold-backed to fiat currencies in the 20th century, culminating in the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971, was not an anomaly but a culmination of gold's limitations: its centralization enabled governments to shift to fully fiat systems, unmoored from physical constraints yet built on the trust gold once commanded. The supply shocks, coupled with technological shifts in mining and transport, have repeatedly disrupted gold's stability as an SoV. These flaws, capture, manipulation, and erratic supply mean that gold's role as money, while enduring, is neither independent of nor immune to the centralized, fiat-like systems it engenders. Far from being a stable SoV in isolation, gold's history reveals a cyclical pattern of concentration and control, challenging the notion that it stands apart from fiat dynamics. Also, study Austrian economics, value is always subjective. Through remembering 12 words, bitcoin offers borderless, nationstate resistant, incorruptible money with no physical encumbrance. Nothing else on Earth can or ever has been able to provably make that claim. The ability to send money anywhere on earth instantly with no intermediary and almost no fees, combined with the ability to move massive wealth anywhere in 15 minutes cheaply with no physical encumbrance is valuable. What would it cost to move gold and how long would it take? Security, crossing boarders, its weight, all add to transport cost. How about someone leaving a war zone, in a dangerous part of town, a refugee or anyone crossing a border. What's safer, 12 words or carrying gold? Worth looking into the human rights foundation to see how bitcoin has helped dissidents and people escaping atrocities around the world. Anybody who wants sovereign savings will value bitcoin, regardless of your thoughts on it. If you don't believe bitcoin is verifiable and unstoppable, study it and learn. If you're curious or think the assertions made about bitcoins capabilities could be valuable if true but you're skeptical, find out for yourself to know for sure. Conviction comes from education and seeking truth.

#Bitcoin And to address bitcoin's hard cap. Even a tiny amount of money, like one dollar, could theoretically supply an entire economy if it’s divisible enough. Author of The Bitcoin Standard, Saifedean writes: “What matters in money is its purchasing power, not its quantity, and as such, any quantity of money is enough to fulfil the monetary functions, as long as it is divisible and groupable enough to satisfy holders’ transaction and storage needs.” This comes from a summary of the book on Medium, which captures the essence of his argument about divisibility being key to a currency’s functionality, not its total amount. Something else he's said that I agree with: Money’s effectiveness depends on how well it can be divided to meet economic demands, not how much of it exists. For example, even a single dollar could work if it could be split into tiny fractions for transactions, much like how Bitcoin’s is almost infinitely divisible supports its scalability and rids any concern of "elasticity". A fixed supply, when paired with sufficient divisibility, can dynamically adapt to demand through market-driven adjustments in purchasing power, not artificial supply expansion. In summary, Bitcoin’s current and potential infinite divisibility through protocol upgrades or layered solutions eliminates the need for an elastic supply while preserving its scarcity. This makes it a superior alternative to gold, which is prone to capture and supply shocks, fiat, which suffers from centralized overissuance or any ever increasing commodity, even if the increase is predictable. Additionally, Bitcoin’s strictly capped supply of 21 million coins, paired with its scalable divisibility, distinguishes it from cryptocurrencies with perpetually increasing issuance, even if predictable. Such coins, akin to commodities, risk gradual dilution of value and susceptibility to centralized mining incentives, undermining their long-term reliability as a store of value compared to Bitcoin’s unalterable scarcity. By enabling transactions at increasingly granular levels, Bitcoin ensures that its fixed supply of 21 million coins can meet the demands of a global economy without diluting investors, rendering the elasticity argument obsolete. Saifedean argues that Bitcoin’s fixed supply is a cornerstone of its value as a money. Unlike fiat currencies, which central banks can print at will, or even gold, which can see supply shocks from new mining tech or discoveries, Bitcoin’s hard cap is coded into its protocol, making its scarcity absolute and predictable. This fixed supply with new issuance halving roughly every four years mimics the increasing difficulty of extracting gold but without the physical world’s vulnerabilities, like new mines flooding the market. In the book, he says Bitcoin’s supply schedule “ensures that at any point in time, there will only ever be a fixed amount in circulation, and no authority can change or violate this,” which he contrasts with gold’s historical supply swings, like the Spanish conquest or the California Gold Rush mentioned earlier. This ties into his broader point that scarcity, enforced by code rather than physical limits, makes Bitcoin resistant to the capture and manipulation gold falls prey to.

Bitcoin has a hard cap of 21 million