[npoc]

I agree with most of what you say, but I stand by my main point which is that you need to understand what is terribly wrong with the current money we use, before you can start to understand the enormous significance of bitcoin.

You're correct, money is potential energy. A higher abstraction of energy than the physical energy we're used to, but potential energy nonetheless. Proof-of-work means that everyone must put in work of equal value to create bitcoin - the energy they put in to obtain it is stored within it - and this applies to everyone, whereas fiat allows bankers and people close to them to put in almost no work to obtain vast amounts of energy, simply because they have tricked the world into giving them a monopoly on creating it - fractional reserve is fundamentally a trick, a fraud. The more they can lend out (creating wars generates great demand for debt I hear), the faster the flow of free money into their bulging, overflowing pockets. I wonder how much they really have after centuries of this trickery? I heard someone posit that they have 93% of all the money while the rest of the world is fighting over the last 7%. That doesn't sound unrealistic to me.

Regarding bitcoin, I agree that the method of issuance (proof of work, like gold) is more important than the rate of issuance. But the rate of issuance is still extremely important - if bitcoin didn't have a capped supply, then it would be superseded by another form of itself that did, that would be a superior store of value (bitcoin's key use case currently). It's this that provides an enormous incentive for people to risk their wealth and adopt it in its current early stage and will ultimately go on to fuel it's amazing victory over the monstrously powerful and corrupt fiat system.

A creation that can do this would surely be one of the most important in the history of mankind.

[survirtual]

The capped supply just makes bitcoin a no brainer. It is the first cryptocurrency, so it will always have value, even in a purely historical sense. This makes it brain-dead easy to justify owning some of it, which is a very favorable trait in the invisible war for freedom it fights in.

But just as easily, a network of people can agree with different rules, and that's why I don't think it's so important. As long as the rules are transparent and well defined, that transparency itself is the revolutionary improvement.

[npoc]

> But just as easily, a network of people can agree with different rules

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.

The capped supply provides a _selfish_ incentive to each individual to hold bitcoin.

Everyone wants to the world to be a better place. More fairness, transparent rules etc - but most aren't willing to put in the effort to make it so. The capped supply forces them to either make it happen or become weaker than those that do. It taps into people's fundamental urges and drives them to make the world a better place by giving them no real choice in the matter. Do or die.

BTW. I prefer to differentiate between bitcoin and crypto.

Bitcoin is one of the most important inventions in mankind's history ultimately going to $∞, while crip-toe is a snake pit of scams/flawed projects all going to $0 in the long term.

Also, describing bitcoin as an asset makes more sense than as a currency. Becoming a viable currency some time in the future would just be the cherry on top of the cake.