Best TruStories of the Week - #12


Please use the below format.




My Stake:

My Argument/Evidence:

You know the drill!! :slightly_smiling_face:


Note: I’d like to break the claims in the thought provoking article “There is no such thing as decentralized governance” written by Lawrence Lundy-Bryan. Because there are a lot of claims and sub-claims and because governance is a fairly complex topic, I’ll use this post as a starting point, purely to lay out the claims Lawrence makes in his post. Subsequent posts will be used to provide context and then to dig into each of the sub-claims.

The goal here is to try to accurately describe the various claims made throughout this article.

Category : Governance

Source :

Claim 1 : Governance is about “how can we best organize society / community” and “full decentralization” (meaning on-chain governance) is not the answer.

Author’s Argument : The challenges of decision-making is complex. While (bitcoin and other networks) allow us to enforce rules, we currently lack mechanisms for rule creation, amendment, and conflict (resolution).

Link: With rule enforcement, the author is referencing PoW consensus and ‘enforcement’ is the validation of blocks, but full decentralization doesn’t allow us to create, amend and/or resolve conflict. The author is arguing that when it comes to making decisions for a global community - we need more than rule enforcement.

Note: I’d note that there seems to be a call for governance and then a jump towards on-chain governance (i.e., full decentralization) without recognizing other forms of governance (off-chain).

Claim 2: The separation of powers allows us to understand the challenges of decision making.
Author’s Argument: The separation allows us to divide government (governance?) responsibilities into three areas to reduce the potential for concentration of power.
Link: This argument attempt to highlight the similarities between nation-state builders and crypto-network builders - both aim to reduce the potential for concentration of power as a key objective.

Claim 3: Crypto-networks today are like the executive branch lacking a functional legislative or judicial branch.

Author’s Argument: The author argues that the executive branch are core developers, often an ad hoc collective of individuals, that invented and are tasked with developing the network. While improvement proposals are a process for pushing decisions…there is not yet a mechanism for changing the executive within the system (instead forking is the dominant expression of unhappiness).

Link: The author is pointing out that if crypto networks had a legislative and judiciary, there would be limits to the concentration of power.

Note: I think the author is making an assumption that core developers, what he calls the executive branch, do not have checks on their power. The author may also be making the assumption that protocols with an improvement proposal process (BTC/ETH), also operate as ‘full on-chain governance’, so the idea of creating checks against the power of the executive branch is to prevent concentration of power.

Claim 4: Every decision cannot be fully ‘decentralized’ (the author references Dfinity, Tezos, Decred, as experimenting with formally delegating network policy responsibilities to the users of the network, more like direct democracy).

Author’s Argument: It would be a challenge to encourage participation in the creation and voting on network rules. Voter turnout could be a challenge (he references 40% voter turnout in Chile); moreover, with fully decentralized, on-chain governance, projects would have a challenge limiting voter fatigue. Finally, not all voters would have the technical expertise to make voting decisions.

Link: The author’s argument suggests that high voter participation and engagement, is required for fully decentralized governance (i.e., on-chain governance).

Claim 5 : Crypto networks need a judiciary branch, that can interpret the rules to resolve disputes.

Author’s Argument :

  1. Miners don’t really have any power to interpret.
  2. The “code is law” logic argued for doing a way with a court system, but this assumes new law is machine readable, you could avoid disputes by well designed (machine readable) law; this is a dream scenario (i.e., EIP-999, stuck funds)
  3. Crypto will have to plug into real-world legal infrastructure for the foreseeable future; SEC will see to that.
  4. As real world assets are on-boarded onto decentralized networks, there will need to be an arbiter of conflicts.

Link : How does the reason support the claim? It recognizes that dispute resolution is area that will be more important over time. It recognizes that blockchain networks will, inevitably, have to interface with the real world. There are already conflicts where people’s funds are at stake. Conflict is unavoidable if crypto wants to go mainstream.

Claim 6 : All conflicts cannot be automated away by perfectly written contracts.

Author’s Argument : As long as bugs exist in software and individual interpret information differently there will be conflicts to be resolved; all conflicts cannot be automated away by perfectly written contracts.

Link : What links the reason to the claim is the assumption that there will be bugs, conflicts, and as more people are on-boarded, high quality conflict resolution is needed for people to trust the network.

Claim 7 : I would advocate for the creation of a network constitution that outlines the values of the community.

Author’s Arugment : When all code and data is open-source, values are only the sustainable competitive advantage.

Link : The argument supports the claim because with open-source, technological innovation is not what will drive user/stakeholder engagement. Moreover, articulation of values is a pre-requisite for formalization. Where checks and balances can be mapped out. Ultimately, the creation of a network constitution, the author argues, will help reduce concentration of power.

Claim 8 : We are building global communities, so we’re going to need politics.

Author’s Argument : We cannot just say what governance we want, and get the network to vote. We want to be inclusive, broad-based and diverse in decision-making to limit the concentration of power.

Link : To achieve the goals of being inclusive, broad-based and diverse in decision-making (and thus reduce concentration of power), we need politics because the challenge of decision-making for a global community is an inherently “social” challenge, not just a technical one.

Conclusion: If anyone sees a claim in this post that I missed feel free to add. Feedback is welcomed if you feel there are areas where i’m not capturing the author’s arguments accurately. In subsequent posts, I’ll include additional information for context and hopefully dive deeper with each individual claims.


Claim: Bitcoin will be a better store of value than gold

Category: Use cases


My Stake: Back 100 cred


Let’s quickly define what the stock-flow ratio is. “Stock” in this scenario means an asset that has not been used, while “flow” in this context means new units of that asset entering the market. For example, roughly 170,000 tons of gold have already been mined and are not being used to create items such as jewelry. Approximately 2,400 tons of newly mined gold enter the market every year, which means gold has a stock to flow ratio of around 71 (170,000/2,400). No other physical asset has nearly as high a stock to flow ratio. Consequently, considering there is such a sizable amount of stock, the new gold entering the market is not able to significantly alter the price of gold. In other words, the yearly price inflation of gold is minute.

Stock to flow is a good ratio to measure how much “store of valuey” an asset is. A store of value must be able to maintain its value vs. other goods over time. One of they key ways an asset can lose its value versus other goods is through inflation. Inflation occurs when demand for an asset cannot keep up with the increase in supply of that asset. Thus, when the amount of a new assets that can enter a market every year is minuscule compared to the amount of assets in the market, new supply should not outpace demand.


Back in September 2018, Bitcoin had an extremely high stock to flow ratio. This stock to flow ratio will only become better overtime. Coded into Bitcoin is a cap on the number of coins that can enter circulation. Hence, only 21 million bitcoins will ever be in existence. There were 17,248,087 bitcoins in existence in September 2018, or roughly 82% of all the bitcoins that will ever be mined. Every day, miners produce 1,800 new bitcoins. Therefore, bitcoin’s stock to flow ratio was 26.3 (17,248,087/(1,800 x 365)). While currently lower than gold’s stock to flow ratio, it is estimated that by 2025 bitcoin’s stock to flow ratio will be 120, which will be higher than gold. This increase will happen because roughly every four years, the inflation rate of bitcoin is halved.

Thus, bitcoin will be a far more effective store of value based on the stock to flow ratio than gold by 2025.


Claim: Nuclear energy is more environmentally friendly than other sources

My stake: Challenge claim 50 TruStake

Category: Energy


We are analyzing environmental friendliness based on the impact to oceans- water footprint, effect on marine life. We consider the above two subjects for the following reasons:

Water footprint assessments consider environmental impact in a sustainability assessment stage as freshwater is vital to our daily life while the supply of freshwater is limited. The oceans are a significant source of oxygen for our planet and are instrumental in the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. Marine species provide important ecosystem services such as the provision of food, medicines, and livelihoods.


  1. Water footprint: Amount of water consumed

The water consumed for energy production is fresh water. This implies that Power plants substantially contribute to water stress.

Gallons of water used per mega-watt hour of electricity produced. Source

Nuclear: 1101

Coal: 1005

Concentrated Solar: 906

Biomass: 878

Natural gas: 255

Geothermal: 15

Status: Nuclear energy leaves more water footprint than other sources of energy.

  1. Impact on marine animals

“When nuclear plants draw water from natural water sources, fish and other wildlife get caught in the cooling system water intake structures. While this is an issue for all power plants with water-cooled systems, a study completed in 2005 in Southern California indicates that the problem is more acute for nuclear facilities. The study investigated impacts from 11 coastal power plants and estimated that in 2003, a single nuclear plant killed close to 3.5 million fish–32 times more than the combined impact of all of the other plants in the study.”


However, Canadian Nuclear Association website states the following on recent improvements:

“While it is true that water intake and cooling systems of shoreline power plants could affect aquatic life, water-intake systems are now normally located deep enough to minimize effects on fish, and shaped to avoid fish entrapment. Designs of water-discharge systems have been modified to help cool the water before it is returned to the lake, and the systems are located to reduce effects on aquatic life”


Fossil fuels seem to have more indirect impact on marine life through climate change than direct. The acidity in water has increased by 30% since the Industrial revolution owing mainly to fossil fuel burning affecting corals, shellfish, sharks, clownfish and other marine life.


Claim: USA has more immigrants than any other country.

@priyatham posted it on real-world claims

My Stake: Back Claim 100 Cred

Category: Immigration

Challenges: Latest source of collective data that I could find is from 2015

My Arguments/Evidences:

As of 2015, based on mere numbers,

In 2015, two thirds (67 per cent) of all international migrants were living in just twenty countries. The largest number of international migrants (47 million) resides in the United States of America, equal to about a fifth (19 per cent) of the world’s total. Germany and the Russian Federation host the second and third largest numbers of migrants worldwide (12 million each), followed by Saudi Arabia (10 million), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (nearly 9 million), and the United Arab Emirates (8 million).

Source: UN Migration Report 2015

Immigrants and their U.S.- born children now number approximately 89.4 million people, or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population , according to the 2018 Current Population Survey (CPS).


But considering the size of a country and population, based on the percentage of population metric, Vatican city had 100% of it’s population immigrated, UAE had 83.7%., Germany at 14.9% and USA at 14.3%.


Claim: 5G can be up to 1,000 times faster than 4G and has 100 times less latency


Category: Telecommunication

My Stake: Challenge, 100 TruStake


The claim from the Barclays link says the source of this claim was the FCC. But upon looking at the FCC site and google searching “FCC 5G 4G 1000”, there was no links I could find where the FCC said this.

I did find these two mentions of it on FCC site

Source: 2013

Source: 2017

They do not talk about how the testing was done as these papers were written when 5G was just getting developed in standard bodies. These are only theoretical numbers as there was not even lab equipment to test 5G.

The first thing we need to clarify is that cell phone speed varies.

Speed in a wireless network depends on many factors such as network conditions, number of concurrent users in the coverage area, the location of the user in the cell etc. Theoretical speeds under lab testing will be much faster than commercial deployment numbers will be far less. Latency in a 5G network will vary based on network conditions and low latency is guaranteed only if both source and destination are in a similar 5G coverage area.

I looked at the speed and latency reported by telecom operators and following is the data.


The numbers reported by the FCC are theoretical numbers only. From speed and latency reports provided by telecom operators, 5G is only 10-20x faster than 4G although 5G does appear to have 100x less latency than 4G.


Claim: The 8 Hour Sleep Rule is a myth.


Category: Health

My stake: Back 100 Cred


Sleep is generalized as an activity in our lives instead of it being connected to our genetics. A classic generalization is a topic which is currently being discussed 8-hour sleep rule. We all have experienced ups and downs in our sleep cycles be it due to our physical or mental state, activities carried out during the day and so on. But these external triggers might not be the only reason which affects the sleep cycles. This needs to be explored in depth. Factoring out any external stimuli, I will consider the only genetic composition of human beings and how it impacts sleep cycles especially insomnia.


Genetics plays a part in sleep

This blog post entitled Scientists find seven genes for insomnia summarizes the argument based on research led by professors Danielle Posthuma and team set out to identify the genetic factors for reported insomnia. They carried out a genome-wide association study (GWAS), together with a genome-wide gene-based association study (GWGAS). GWGAS examines the correlations between genetic variations within a single gene.

The article states insomnia shares a genetic background with other illnesses/disorders like restless legs syndrome (RLS) and periodic limb movements of sleep (PLMS). RLS affects approximately one in ten adult Americans. Between 80% to 90% of patients with RLS have PLMS. The researchers also found that PLMS, RLS, and insomnia all share a variant in the same MEIS1 gene.

Thyroid hormone

Another article in the same field has speculated the link of genes which may influence sleep patterns by regulating thyroid hormone levels. The link of thyroid imbalance and its effect on sleep is well documented. Can Your Thyroid Gland and Thyroid Hormones Cause Sleep Disorders? Hhypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism may have impacts on sleep, including Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Insomnia and Night Sweats.

Moreover, an estimated 20 million Americans have some form of thyroid disease and up to 60 percent of those with thyroid disease are unaware of their condition. Source: American Thyroid Association (ATA)


Since genetics related sleep disorders (PLMS, RLS, and insomnia) affect more than 10% of adult Americans, a sizable chunk of adults I conclude on that the generalization of 8 Hour Sleep Rule is a myth and one size fits all recommendation is not apt for everyone.


Claim: 8-hour sleep rule is a myth

Category: Health

Source: Web MD

My Stake: Back 100 cred

My Argument/Evidence:

Most medical doctors/researches recommend adults to get at least 8 hours of sleep. Though, I feel that might not be the case. We’ve generally been taught that 8 hours is the standard for sleep, emphasizing quantity over quality. However, sleep quality varies by REM cycle, when the brain is actively paralyzed, lasting roughly 90 - 110 minutes. The National Sleep Association believes to be a functioning adult, 4 REM cycles are needed at a minimum. Basic math would imply that sleep at those guidelines would vary from 6 - 7.33 hours (360 minutes - 440 minutes).

Furthermore, some people with the DEC2 Gene mutation need even less sleep! The DEC2 gene is a mutation that allows short sleepers to feel well rested and alert. DEC2 helps control levels of orexin, a hormone involved in maintaining wakefulness. About 1% of adults have this mutation, implying that they sleep (and thrive!) on less than 8 hours of sleep.


Claim: The 8-Hour Sleep Rule is a myth

Category: Health


My Stake: Back 100 Cred

My Argument/Evidence:


An individual goes through four stages of sleep. Each stage of sleep has different functions in terms of body repair and contributing towards feeling refreshed on awakening, and all stages have to be part of an individual’s sleep cycle.

Argument and Evidence:

There are two types of sleep: non-REM and REM.

The stages are: N1, N2, N3 or deep sleep (sources prior to 2007 divided deep sleep into N3 and N4; this analysis considers all mentions in sources of 3 and 4 as “N3”) and REM. (Source 1, Source 2)

N1 is a transitional stage lasting about 10 min and occurs just once when someone goes to sleep. The other stages do NOT progress linearly but rather cycle the first time like below:

N2, N3, N3, N2, REM (source) before repeating N2, N3, REM, etc

Duration of Sleep Stages:

N2: 10-25 minutes

N3 (Deep Sleep): 20-40 minutes; for each subsequent cycle, time spent in N3 decreases

REM: The first REM stage lasts about 10 minutes; for each subsequent cycle, time spent in REM increases; the final REM stage lasts about 60 min

According to The Sleep Council, a good night’s sleep consists of 5 or 6 cycles.

I calculated how long it would take to go through 5 cycles of sleep, using the minimum sleep stage durations above:

Assumptions in calculations:

  1. Since time spent in N3 decreases, I am using 20 min for cycles 1-3 and 10 min for cycles 4-5
  2. Since the first REM stage lasts 10 min and the final is 60 min, I progressively increased each REM stage duration by 10+ min

Cycle 1: N1, N2, N3, N3, N2, REM (10+10+20+20+10+10) = 80 min

Cycle 2: N2, N3, REM (10+20+30) = 60 min

Cycle 3: N2, N3, REM (10+20+40) = 70 min

Cycle 4: N2, N3, REM (10+10+50) = 70 min

Cycle 5: N2, N3, REM (10+10+60) = 80 min

Total: 360 min = 6 hours

Conclusion: An individual could go through the five cycles of sleep recommended by The Sleep Council in 6 hours.


Claim: Bitcoin is more decentralized than Ethereum
Source: Various
My Stake: Back with 1 TruStake

  1. Wider geographic distribution of nodes dilutes network risk. important factor to consider for decentralization.

  2. Geographic dispersion of nodes can be thought of in two ways – within individual countries (nationally) and across multiple countries (internationally).

  3. National distribution protects against natural and man-made disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes electric grid failure, etc) and local laws. International distribution protects against disasters too, but more importantly against national laws.


International decentralization
It looks like BTC has more nodes in more countries than ETH. BTC is more decentralized geographically across countries. For example, the top three BTC countries (US,Germany, France) have 50.34% of the nodes while the top three ETH (US, China, Canada) countries have 62.1%.

This may give a slight advantage to BTC if a country or countries were to (try to) ban or restrict crypto.

This conclusion is consistent with the work of Balaji Srinivasan and Leland Lee who calculated the international level of decentralization of ETH and BTC using a Gini coefficient inspired index.

Gini coefficient scale: 0 = completely decentralized, 1 = completely centralized.

Although BTC comes out better in international node distribution, the difference in Gini coefficients is slight (0.84 BTC to 0.85 ETH). In fact the difference is so slight that the Nakamoto coefficient developed for that paper, and also shown on the chart above, returns the opposite (but again, very similar) outcome – a score of 3 for BTC and 4 for ETH. A higher Nakamoto coefficient indicates greater decentralization. It basically measures the number of entities that need to be compromised in order for network to be taken over.

National decentralization
Based on Emin Gun Sirer’s, (et al.) research BTC nodes are more concentrated geographically within countries while ETH nodes are more distributed.

This is likely because of (a) the lower barrier to entry of GPU mining with ETH rather than ASICs with BTC, and (b) the longer history of BTC allowing time and incentives (economies of scale) for greater concentration of mining in places with cheaper electricity.

One could posit that ETH is slightly more decentralized nationally while BTC is more decentralized internationally. But allowing for margins of error, even that might be stretching the truth. All things considered the degree of geographic decentralization of the BTC and ETH networks is currently very similar.


Claim: Gold is a better SoV than Bitcoin currently

My stake: Back, 100 Cred


Store of value is proportional to a monetary good’s salability across time (a factor of how desired it will be by others over time and how resistant it is to unexpected supply increases, which dilutes the value of each monetary unit held) which is measured by the stock-to-flow ratio.

Therefore, to determine which is a superior store of value, I will consider:

  1. what has the highest stock-to-flow ratio
  2. what is most likely to maintain its value in terms of: $USD and % of Total Supply owned


Stock-to-Flow Ratio:

Today, Gold has the highest stock-to-flow ratio of any monetary technology in the world. Since 1970, gold’s annual stock-to-flow ratio is ~56.5

In ~May 2020, the Bitcoin inflation rate will be adjusted from 12.5 BTC per block to 6.25 BTC per block

By my calculation, Bitcoin’s stock-to-flow ratio will surpass gold’s approximately on 5-27-2020. Therefore, as a store of the value measured by the stock-to-flow ratio, Gold is the best in the world today but it will be surpassed by Bitcoin in 14.29 months

Store of Value in terms of: $USD

Since Gold has a much lower historical price volatility in $USD terms than Bitcoin (as a result of its 100x market cap), it is more likely to maintain its value in $USD terms across time

% of Total Supply owned

Since the stock-to-flow ratio of Bitcoin will surpass gold’s in May 2020, an individual can more easily own a higher percentage of the total Bitcoin supply assuming their investment horizon is more than ~3 years (to allow time for the greater stock-to-flow ratio of Bitcoin beyond May 2020 to compensate for its lesser stock-to-flow ratio in the interim period prior to the Bitcoin inflation rate halving)


In terms of stock-to-flow ratio, Gold is the best store of value in the world today, however, Bitcoin will inevitably overtake it around May 2020.

In terms of maintaining value in $USD terms, Gold is the best store of value in the world today and is likely to remain so due to its significantly larger (100x) market capitalization and relatedly low volatility against $USD. However, this ignores the upside potential of Bitcoin as a freely competing, superior monetary technology. In short, volatility and growth potential are two sides of the same proverbial coin, so while gold is more likely to maintain a stable $USD price it is much less likely to appreciate in $USD price when compared to Bitcoin.

In terms of percentage of total supply owned, Gold is the best store of value in the world today, however, Bitcoin will inevitably overtake it around May 2020, but Bitcoin will require an additional ~22 months (beyond the 14 months to halving for 36 months total) to compensate for its interim inferior stock-to-flow ratio.



Claim: Bitcoin is more decentralized than Ethereum on Development Subsystem (1) and Exchange Subsystem (2)

Stake: (1) Challenge 5 Cred / (2) Neutral

Assumptions/ Evidence:

We are measuring decentralization from development and exchange perspectives.

(1) Development Decentralization is an important vertical because all the nodes and clients run on software that connect to the blockchain (Bitcoin Core for BTC, Geth and Parity for ETH). The users have to trust on the software specifications that are built, upgraded and defined by the open-source developer community.

(2) Exchange Decentralization is a worthy vertical to consider because nowadays, centralized crypto exchanges hold the private key for the users and to matchmake the buyers and sellers. An exchange hack like MtGox (where back then ~70% bitcoin transactions) would pose huge impact to the crypto community.

Another more subtle centralization influence that exchanges could have is on voting power. As Vitalik said “an exchange can offer interest rates for deposits (or, even more ambiguously, use the exchange’s own money to build a great interface and features), with the exchange operator using the large quantity of deposits to vote as they wish.”

(1) Development Decentralization (no. of Github commits and contributors)

Bitcoin Core Github - However, the top 2 Github users made ~2600/20000 commits.

Geth ETH - However, the top 2 Github users made ~3600/10000 commits.

Parity ETH - The top 4 Github users made ~4000/12000 commits. (The contribution looks more balanced for Parity.)

Both BTC and ETH shows that a small number of engineers may do most of the work. It’s also hard to measure the influence of each commit that the engineers have on bitcoin development. Most clients only run on Bitcoin Core in BTC but ETH has 2 clients (parity & geth). By considering that and the numbers above, it seems that ETH could have higher degree of Dev Decentralization than BTC.

(2) Exchange Decentralization (% Distribution of exchanges controlling trading volume)

Data from CoinMarketCap (disregarding OTC markets and API likely not inclusive to all exchanges).

Over past 24h trading volume (3/23/2019) -

BTC markets: Top 10 markets processing ~27.88% trading volume, no.1 Bitmex ~5.47%.

ETH markets: Top 10 markets processing ~27.06% trading volume, no.1 Dobi Exchange ~4%.

From the above numbers, it looks like BTC and ETH exchanges markets are not too centralized.

There are many options for users to use different exchanges and market pairs to trade BTC & ETH. (Wondering why the large exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken aren’t top in the lists)

There is no dominant exchange, however the top exchange processing ~5% of trading volume is still significant to move the markets if the exchange goes down or gets hacked.


Following up with some context/background information that I think would be helpful as we dig into each of the claims. (note: I’ve gone back to add numbers to each claim for organization).

Please refer here for claims/arguments.

Claim 1 Context / Background Info: The author makes a valid point that today’s well known protocols (BTC/ETH/ETC), inherited governance features from the open source tradition (Linux) and the “foundation model” from Ethereum.

However, a bulk of the argument for separation of powers (trias politica) is in contrast to what the author calls ‘full decentralization’, on-chain governance. It’s unclear if the author is making a distinction between the open-source tradition, foundation model and on-chain governance because those three are distinct.

Also, the relationship between on-chain governance and oligopolies (i.e., concentration of power) has also been explored in this previous TruStory claim.

Claim 2 Context / Background Info: It’s hard to disagree with reducing concentration of power, but the trias politica model is proposed in reaction to “full decentralization” (on-chain governance). And for good reason (see here and this thread for some supporting data).

Nevertheless, the lack of a clear distinction between on-chain, open-source tradition and Ethereum’s foundation model means the author may be implying that ‘trias politica’ may be the only way to reduce concentration of power. That is debated.

Claim 3 Context / Background Info: The author seems to suggest that the ‘executive’ here are both “core developers” AND “the foundation”. Bringing up a mechanism for changing the executive within the system – implies that the current system has in place, a model where executives are chosen or elected (it’s not clear that that exists, unless the author is proposing the executives be chosen/elected for a finite period of time).

| think the author is making an assumption that core developers, what he calls the executive branch, do not have checks on their power. It’s important to point out that the EIP process is not just core developers; it also involves other people choosing whether to implement a patch to update the client software and, after that, it involves miners/users updating their software or not. Thus, multiple “checks” on core developers along the way.

What would support the author’s argument for having multiple branches would be to represent other voices in the system (non-developers, application builders on L2)

The author does make a valid point implying a lack of conflict resolution mechanisms. (for example, listen to Vitalik’s take on Ethereum’s governance in a recent episode of Into the Ether podcast, around 10 mins 23 second mark).

Claim 4 Context / Background Info: Please refer to this claim for background.

Claim 6 Context / Background Info: For an in-depth debate on why all conflicts cannot be automated away, we discuss some of this in this claims analyzing Vlad Zamfir’s “Against Szabo’s law” article here.


I love your argument because this is something that is so debatable. Excited to debate this on the TruStory app soon :slight_smile:


It’s interesting and I agree that geographical dispersion of nodes does play a significant role in how decentralized clients run on the btc/eth network.

Do you know why does ETH has a higher Nakamoto coefficient (meaning more decentralized) than BTC while the top3 country concentration % of ETH is higher than BTC (meaning more centralized?)? Thanks :slight_smile:


Claim: Gold is a better SoV than Bitcoin currently.

Of the 7 properties usually categorized under Store of Value
“Censorship Resistance
Established history
I picked just the first two to substantiate my argument.

My Stake: Challenge[50 TruStake]

Why Censorship Resistance matters?

a censorship-resistant asset is one that cannot be stopped/confiscated by an authority, including governments. Users are uninhibited from owning or transferring value at their discretion. No entity, not even banks, exchanges ,developers or miners should have any undue influence on a user’s assets.

Why verifiability matters?

Verifiability is a primarily security-focused attribute, which helps prevent theft and forgery. And can help in tracing back the source/ownership of the asset as well as whether it is a true or fake asset. Easy verification increases the confidence of its recipient in trade and increases the likelihood a trade will be consummated

My Argument/Evidences:

Censorship resistance

Censorship resistance: (Assumption)The idea that no entity can seize wealth that is stored in BTC, or block transactions is definitely one of BTC’s biggest strengths.

Gold can get seized pretty easily due to their physical nature.

-> Transactions vs exchanges - But Quadriga CX

Some specific examples of how to stop Bitcoin transaction/

  1. 51% attack:

Although there have been scenarios of 51% attack on altcoins, bitcoin is yet to face one.

Feasibility of 51% attack on bitcoin:

If an attacker rented mining power from NiceHash, it’s estimated that a one-hour 51% attack would cost ~$230k (need to calculate RoI)


If a criminal earns bitcoin through illegal means/ finds a way to hack or steal it is very difficult to seize the bticoins if he secures it.

  1. Given what happened with Quadriaga CX and the rumours surrounding, such instances can prove to be acts of bitcoin seizure by exchanges

Some specific examples of how to stop gold transactions

  • seizure/confiscation
  • Being outlawed

Historic scenarios:

  1. @masher brought up a valid point regarding censorship resistance, gold ownership has been made illegal before in the USA. FDR made it illegal to own gold in 1933

To protect the dollar/protect the fed. At the time, the USD was backed by gold. If people wanted to redeem their USD for gold en masse, the fed didn’t have enough gold in reserves to satiate that demand. Would have crushed the USD I.e. prevent hyperinflation.

  1. Bloomberg reported that Bank of England denied Venezuelan government to repatriate USD 1.2Bn in gold holdings belonging to the nation-state. Despite, whether it is a positive or a negative move for Venezuela and people, this is an economic sanction imposed by a third party and thus a failure of censorship resistance in case of gold as store of value.


The cryptographic signature in conjunction with the distributed ledger system guarantees authenticity and proves ownership of every BTC in circulation.



  • More easily verifiable

To make generating bitcoins difficult the Hashcash cost-function is used. Hashcash is the first secure efficiently verifiable cost-function or proof-of-work function. The beauty of hashcash is that is is non-interactive and has no secret keys that have to be managed by a central server or relying party; hashcash is as a result fully distributed and infinitely scalable. Thus, bitcoins can be verified with mathematical certainty. Using cryptographic signatures, the owner of a bitcoin can publicly prove she owns the bitcoins she says she doe


  • hacked/stolen

Eg:Outside of transactions, compromise on security -wallet can lead to hacks.

Although the chemical purity of gold can be tested easily to avoid fakes, it is next to impossible to prove the ownership of gold based on physical properties alone, which becomes an issue when trying to prove ownership in the case of theft.



  • Proving ownership needs trusted middlemen documenting gold transactions

Sophisticated criminals have used gold-plated tungsten as a way of fooling gold investors into paying for false gold. Bitcoins, on the other hand, can be verified with mathematical certainty.

Conclusion: Based on the two properties, Gold does not seem to be a better store of value, currently.


@eddyso Really good question. That question is the reason I decided back the claim with only 1 TS.

As you said, ETH comes with a slightly more decentralized Nakamoto coefficient (4 vs 3) but BTC comes out with slightly better Gini coefficient (0.84 vs 0.85). In both cases the difference is very small and if considering some margin of error and accounting for day to day fluctuations, the results might flip.

It might also have something to do with ETH having a longer tail distribution (many more small scale miners contributing minuscule hash power) than BTC. So while the top3 countries have a higher centralized concentration of ETH, it is spread more widely but weakly than BTC.

This data is a bit out of date, but it shows that ETH has more than 3x the number of nodes than BTC.


Claim: Bitcoin Won’t Survive Without Either Increasing Coin Supply Beyond 21M or Increasing Transaction Fees

Category: Mining

Stake: Challenge, 25 cred


There has been some worry that Bitcoin will not be able to incentivize miners to secure the network when block rewards end in 2140.


Even without block rewards, Bitcoin can survive and thrive.

If the price of BTC is high enough, miners can still be profitable businesses purely on tx fees while hash rate remains high without needing to make any changes.

BTC price would need to be roughly $199,870 for the transaction fees to be equal to the current revenue miners receive from block rewards. What I did was multiply the transactions in the last 24 hours by the average transaction fee in BTC terms, which then gets me the 24-hour transaction fees for Bitcoin. I then took the value of the dollarized Bitcoin block reward total for the past 24 hours and divided it by the 24-hour transaction fees for Bitcoin priced in BTC. I pulled all of my data from I did the analyses a few days ago.

If BTC compounds at the same rate it has in the past 6 years, which is over 60%, it should surpass $200,000 in price in 7 years. While I think the yearly growth rate will slow, I do believe that it will likely surpass $200,000 by 2140 when block rewards end, meaning that miners will receive the same compensation in transaction fees then in dollar terms as they do today in block rewards in dollar terms.


Claim: Apple’s new credit card will hurt crypto adoption

Category: Adoption

Stake: Challenge, 100 Cred

Argument: Since tech giants are opportunistic by nature and they tend to play the long game, so this card will actually be Apple’s gateway to get into crypto in the near future.

According to this article:


I’m going to take the opposite stance and back the original claim. If the narrative around Bitcoin being the digital store of value is what we’re banking on, then I would think that the transaction volume is lower and not higher. With a lower transaction volume, the price would need to be way higher or the transaction fees would need to be way higher.

Open to feedback on why I’m wrong.