Discussion about Sath's series
Point 1 - it would be good to point out, what exactly was decentralised in the early days of 1970s story. This part is not so well connected with the rest.
Answer (from Sath) - Communication was decentralised (i.e. the internet was created). I guess i could have added a parth about, only when web browers became popular in the mid 90's did the internet we know now become widespread
Point 2 - how will you connect the story to Bitcoin? See the graph connection with another node.
Answer (from Sath) - You have to wait and find out! --- but here is the preview with enough spoilers:
Blockchain/DLT is an Internet techonology. The Internet is the foundation on which it is built (it doesnt work without it). Bitcoin is a protocol that 'sits on top of' the TCP/IP protocol. Smart Contracts will be a layer that sits on top of the Bitcoin protocol. Decentralised Application layer protocol may sit on top of those protocols... and so on. Thinking about what protocols actually are and do, and examples of existing one, will help us understand which blockchains are actually meaningful projects. i.e. Filecoin is a good example of a protocol token that allows decentralisation of hard-disk storage.
Comment (from Mihail): agree, a node about VCs thinking about layers of the protocols. ... looking forward to your next articles
Point 3 - Internet is not only technology, but also economics and intermmediaries around it. To me, cryptoeconomics of Bitcoin is probably the main invention of Satoshi. What do you think?
Totally agree. This "Building Blocks" series is meant to be just a factual explainer on how it all works trying to start from as bottom level as possible. I wanted to start at the internet level because sometimes it is easy to forget the obvious. And later when thinking about economics and philosophy we need to remember the obvious. You posted a great link in the other node:
https://blog.coinfund.io/fat-protocols-are-not-an-investment-thesis-17c8837c2734
The point he makes about protocol 'silos' idealism/reality is such an important one.
Point 4
(Sath) - "Centralisation is Easier" section and the continual comparison to databases is a bit overdone. Blockchain solutions clearly are not aimed at single entities (companies or people). Blockchain is an innovation in cross-enterprise workflow - it works best for entire industries. So yes, a vertically integrated company would do better to upgrade their IT systems, since they own the whole supply chain but if you are dealing with many different corporate entities or regulators in the supply chain then getting everyone to upgrade all their systems/data centres/create better API's doesn't actually work.
Point 5 - about "Bitcoin has no Intrinsic Value"
Sath's point seems to be that Bitcoin has to be a useful payment system, otherwise it has no intrinsic value, isn't it?
My thinking (MT) is expressed in the note about "Bitcoin discovery".
(sath answer) bitcoin is money and like all money it needs to be useful for buying something - it is not useful by itself (no intrinsic value). More importantly, it needs to be useful for buying something with less opportunity cost than using another currency.
I think most 'hodl' bitcoin fanatics buy it because it is perceived as a better store of value than anything else (they are buying a store of value) or they are just speculating on future use cases. These reasons alone won't be enough to make bitcoin a top global currency.
Bitcoin does have many future use cases. I personally think it will be a core part of the internet of the future - but the future is not here yet :)