 I think most of you already know me. If you don't, you can look me up on Twitter where I share annoying and toxic things. I think I will have a website ready finally after many, many years because I need a website to share some stuff. So maybe in two weeks it will be ready. Right now it's not. And let's start with the argument which is scarcity and Bitcoin. So first of all, a very short disclaimer. This is a very loaded term. And yes, it has a lot of different meanings in a common conversation and in economics and in physics. The common uses are definitely confusing and we will see a little bit of examples, some examples. The physical definition is maybe more simple but it's full of surprises that you will see and maybe it's not as useful as you could imagine. And also the traditional economical definition has some ambiguities. I mean, it is clear but in the most clear version I think it's not very, very useful. And you can find a few example of discussion about the usefulness of this classical definition when I love to trigger Eric Vosquill on Twitter. Eric is my favorite terminology Nazi on there and we like to trigger each other about definitions. It is better than me at definitions but I still think that there are some, it's not fully useful the way scarcity is discussed in traditional economics. Also with Bitcoin, we already know that many of the, all the, that most of the framework used in traditional economics is not as relevant as before because it's, now we have a different example of an economic asset, economic kind of property which is challenging in many, many way. So first of all, let's follow the standard. Let's follow, do not invent anything. And let's follow the discussion about Bitcoin scarcity that many, many of you will probably already have read in the book by Sefidiana Musa, the Bitcoin standard. So the Bitcoin standard discusses Austin economics for many, many chapters and then in the last few chapters it discusses Bitcoin and when Sefidiana has to relate Bitcoin with scarcity basically it discusses two main things. The first thing is that Bitcoin is the first real example of scarcity in the digital realm or in the realm of the information. Of course, we can have scarce physical object but information is never scarce because you can always copy it, you can always replicate it and Bitcoin is the first quote unquote. I will challenge this definition a little bit but it's safe to say it's first real or useful enough example of digital scarcity or informational scarcity. And the second sentence is that Bitcoin is the first example of absolute scarcity which is something that Daniel was already hinting at in his introduction, which is something which is very different from relative scarcity. Let's take a very quick look to Sefidiana's words. So the first thing that he says in the book at page 177 is with this technological design Nakamoto was able to invent digital scarcity because the first example of digital good that is scarce and cannot be reproduced indefinitely or infinitely in this case. While it's trivial to send the digital object from one location to another in digital network as it's done with email, text messaging or filed a lot it's more accurate to describe this process as copying rather than sending because the digital object remain with the sender and can be reproduced infinitely. Bitcoin is the first example of digital good whose transfer stops it from being owned by the sender. So when I send it to you, I don't have it anymore. Of course, he also says that beyond digital scarcity Bitcoin is also the first example of absolute scarcity. The only liquid commodity digital or physical with a set fixed quantity that cannot conceivably be increased until the invention of Bitcoin scarcity was always relative, never absolute. It is common misconception to imagine that any physical good is finite or absolutely scarce because the limit on the quantity we can produce of any good is never its prevalence in the planet or in the universe, but the effort and time dedicated to producing it. So with its absolute scarcity, Bitcoin is highly scalable across time. So this gets discussed again. There are many readers understood into this point but this point clashes a little bit with some subtleties with some nuances of a naive definition. So what is scarce? Scarce is something that comes in a limited quantity maybe in a few pieces, in a few instances and a few exemplars. So there is not much of it. There is less than we want of it. So something is scarce. The problem with this naive definition that we're using common language is that, well, we basically have two problems. The first problem is that physically speaking, this sentence will appear a little bit strange but I will try to show you that it's true. Everything, literally everything is scarce if we use the most naive definition. And when I say everything, yes, I also include digital information. There are trivial examples for scarce digital information that I will not use here because I want to go deeper. The trivial example are, for example, secrets. You can trade, you can exchange secrets because even when I tell you a secret, you have a copy and I still have my copy for the first, let's say that secrets are an ephemeral example of scarcity because the more the secret spreads, the less scarce it is in a very naive sense. But especially at the beginning, when the secret is not public by definition, it has a value of scarcity because few people knows it. But this cannot be used for, for example, in a monetary system because it loses its scarcity pretty, pretty fast. Basically it propagates with a very high inflation rate. Then there is another example of scarcity of digital information, which is trivial, which are, for example, patents. So fake fiat scarcity, which is not really natural, but it is imposed with violence. For example, I create, I write a book and I will send armed cops to beat you up if you reproduce my book. So if you reproduce my, I come to your home, I whistle a song. And if you also whistle the song, I will send somebody to, basically to hurt you. So this is the state base, the government base, artificial scarcity. For example, patents low and copyright lows. And this is not very, this is not great as well because maybe you can maintain it for some time, but basically it's negative sum game. You don't create wealth. You don't create anything. We just destroy stuff. Anytime you send somebody to hurt somebody else to create some kind of artificial economical interaction which is not voluntary, instead of having multiplication of wealth, you basically have negative sum and destruction of wealth because now the victim will have to spend some money defending itself from my aggression and so on and so on. But these are trivial example of digital information that are scarce, artificial scarce or temporarly scarce via secret. A deeper example, I will use the mathematician, Norman J. Wildberg as an example. I'm sure that many, many other people represented the same problem, but I think that the way normal represents is very, very funny. So I suggest you to look it up on YouTube. You can find the video, the video, you can find the title in the bottom of the screen. The title of the video is numbers, the universe and complexity beyond us. And it's a part of, is a free course of data structures and math foundations. And it's pretty, I think it's one of the most simple example of what I want to share with you right now. It's very well done. So the first question then that this mathematician asks is how big is the universe? Of course, we can also assume that the universe is infinite or there are infinite universe, but at least assuming the fact that the speed of light is something we cannot, is like a hard limit. So how big is the universe that we can observe? The observable universe. And the observable universe, so if we consider the speed of light is basically in the most, let's say in the most optimistic in terms of expansion scenarios is about 10 to the 30 meters. So it's not that much, a cube to simplify. The universe, the observable universe is contained in a cube of 10 to the 30 meters. Maybe there is something beyond that, but we cannot look at it. So what is another question that you may think is completely unrelated is how can we, how small can we make a thing? And now it's now basically quantum mechanics waits in and now there is the point of Planck scale. Planck scale is the smallest, most short kind of distance we can do. Basically a cube, which is 10 to the minus 35 meter is a dimension under which we cannot go anymore because then we have basically uncertainty principle kicking in and making the concept of distance basically undefined anymore. So there is nothing which is bigger than a cube which is 10 to the 30 meters of a side. And there is nothing which is smaller by definition of a cube which has 10 to the minus 35 meters. So the next question that he asked is, okay, how many cubes of, how many cubes the smallest kind of cube that you can do can fit in the biggest estimation for the observable universe. So basically you have to multiply 10 to the 35. Basically I give you the results directly. There are about 10 to the 200 Planck cubes inside the observable universe. So the question that this mathematician asks is, okay, if we assume that we are good enough to create a hard drive which is as big as the observable universe, of course that's a little bit too big. But if we assume that we can create something big enough and we can use the cells, the cluster of the hard drive so small that they are just the smallest thing that you can never have, then you can at best write down if you assume, for example, a hexadecimal number, so your base is 16, you can basically create a 16 to the 10 to the 200 which is less than basically the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the third. So it's something which is smaller than the number 10, 10 titration four, the titration is basically the hyper operation of exponential. So you take 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 four times. This is the titration of 10. And we cannot write numbers after this limit even if we add all the universe for us just as an hard drive. So it's completely impossible to write down these numbers. So even if we think like the numbers are natural numbers are infinite, they are not. In the universe, there are actually everything is scarce and there is a limited supply in general of literally everything. So it's clear that this definition of scarce something that in our physical universe cannot be produced over some certain limit is a little bit useless because literally everything including information, including numbers are actually limited in our physical universe. Of course you could exclude something like a platonic ideas maybe you can say that yes, we will never be able to write a number which goes beyond 10 to the titration four. I mean, of course you can write down 10 to the 4 plus one but then when you want to go over significantly for example, to do addition and to do algebra you cannot do that anymore. But we can say that maybe the idea the platonic ideas of numbers are there even if we cannot write it down. For example, this mathematician is using this argument because he's opposite to the infinite concept in modern set theory. And so he's one of the people joining the constructivist, intuitive is the finitism idea of mathematics. But anyway, you can go a little bit abstract but physically speaking, everything comes in a limited supply. But then even if literally anything comes in a finite supply in a limited supply economically speaking and practically speaking nothing is scarce because the probability that we will ever, ever basically clash against the actual physical limit for most of the things is actually very, very small and close to zero. The number of private keys that you can have in Bitcoin if you consider Bitcoin private keys as 256 bits any combination, any permutation of 256 bits it's a little less actually because for elliptic curves you cannot use any combination but let's assume that you can use any combination that is basically two, two day 256. And this is the total number, the total supply of private keys that we can use with elliptic curves. They are not infinite, there is a limited supply but the point is that we will never realistically hit this limited supply in any realistic configuration of a human civilization across the galaxy in the next trillion of years. So the point is that yeah, there is a finite supply physically but economically we will never touch it. And actually that's true for basically everything even things that we can say has a very a smaller limited supply than the number of a possible combination of natural numbers that we can write down or of a configuration of Bitcoin private keys of 256 bytes but even stuff like gold, they're actually not really limited in supply. I mean, there is a theoretical limits in supply in the universe but this is far, far beyond the kind of amount that we will ever touch in our realistic expectation for our civilization. So what happened with gold? Gold in a mine, I mean, the production of gold in the gold mines on the crust of the earth, it's limited in theory but then if the price goes up you just dig deeper. And we just touched the infinitesimal part of the earth crust for rare metal and for gold. There are a lot of cases of dooms day years and especially mainstream economists and Keynes answer Marxist and so other kind of pseudoscientists saying that we will run out of copper in year 1980. We will run out of uranium, we will run out of stuff. The fact is that we will never run out of stuff because if there is use, if there is demand the more demand there is when the supply goes down the price goes up. If the price goes up the incentives to just dig deeper goes up, go up as well. And so we just dig deeper and in the earth crust it's not easy to make an estimation of how much gold we are digging up compared to the amount of gold in the old planet. It's not an easy estimation but basically it's safe to say that it's way, way, way below 1% of the total gold but way, way, way below that because most of the heavy metals also are not in the crust they are in the nucleus of the earth. So there is way to go before we run out of gold but also if we eventually run out of gold on earth or if the cost to extract gold from the center of the earth is not enough, is not high enough to make it, basically to make it profitable we just go to mine asteroids at a certain level of price it becomes profitable to just go to mine asteroids. So what if you run out of asteroids? Well, just you just create gold. This sounds like something an alchemist will do with the philosopher's stone but it's actually something that you can do if the prices are not. You just take a heavier kind of element and you just send low velocity neutrons until you create some atoms of this gold. I mean, it's not very convenient it's very expensive to do that but if the price is high enough and if the demand is high and if the supply from other means is low enough you just do that. So you can create gold. We don't do that because it's not convenient and we probably never become convenient to just transmute other metals but we can if we have to. And for most uses interestingly enough not monetary uses and we will talk a little bit about why but for most consumption uses you can always find good enough substitute goods. So even if you cannot find gold for some jewel when the demand is other than that the market will just produce a substitute goods which is good enough to replace gold for that use for electronics, for jewelry, for everything we will just come out with alternatives and if there is no space anymore for raise we will just produce a place and so on and so on. This doesn't work with money actually because in the case of money it's a shelling point and you cannot really replace easily a shelling point because if you could everybody will move and it will not be a shelling point anymore. I mean game theory for collectibles and for money and for all that kind of property where the scarcity itself is basically the main utility. In those cases you cannot find easily substitute goods but anyway for most things including gold you can. So nothing is economically scarce, nothing, not even gold. Of course there are some exception in this case as well. For example, the amount of time that you have is limited supply also practically not just in theory because even if you can expand your life if you spend enough time in like life extension technology and so on, I mean you have some probability that you will just die anyway but maybe if you spend enough money you can actually extend your life for a while and maybe you can extend the life of the human civilization for a few billion years if you colonize other planets but eventually all the physical models that we have in the universe are basically either big crunch so the universe crunch crunching down or more likely entropic death of the universe when the entropy is so high and everything just basically terminated dynamically dies off. So it's a finite amount of time that we have to live. It's smaller than the age of the universe of course. It will realistically be the time of our life which is limited. This is a very deep consideration but actually there is an I mean even if time gets so valuable that there is a huge incentive to produce more time. In this case, if we talk about the time of our life producing more time becomes basically becoming more productive so that we can free up time that we for example, we create a new enterprise that we will free us from day to day job and so we will have more time to do other stuff and eventually if we are becoming too old there is some somebody can produce on the market life extension technology but eventually the universe is going to die. So time is the limited of time is supplied at the limit that the supply of time is limited and we will touch each of one we realistically touch this limit. We already do now like now my supply of time that I have for this presentation is probably not enough to finish meaningfully my discussion about anyway I will try. So there is another kind of things that is very that is actually limited in a practical sense which is free energy. We usually talk about energy like we are consuming energy we used to use renewable sources because you're running out of oil we are running out of fossils we are consuming these and we are consuming that this is actually not true because energy doesn't get consumed energy doesn't just transfers from one thing to the other. So you cannot waste energy energy is always there physically speaking what you can waste is free energy which is basically what we can call low entropy energy. So if we burn wood to make heat we can do that but we cannot actually leave smoke to cool down to get some wood. So it doesn't work at the reverse entropy the second low thermodynamics says that entropy always increases. So when we have some kind of energy at low entropy when we consume it we will never have it again we are just destroying it. So what are actually what we are consuming when we talk about renewable sources and oil and everything is not actually oil. I mean oil is irrelevant. If we run out of oil we can if we have enough energy we can create the atoms of oil one by one inside the lab. The point that we don't do that because it's super complex and super expensive but if it was needed we could do that in principle. So the only thing that is scarce is not oil but it's actually low entropy. So there is a lot of low entropy though because in order to run out of low entropy in our planet we will probably have to create the Dyson sphere around the sun consuming all the energy of all the atomic nucleus in the planet and then maybe we run out of low entropy. And low entropy I don't want to get too much into depth about this but low entropy paradoxically enough before we say that information is relevant because it's not scarce because you can reproduce it but actually low entropy in a physical sense can be called information but this is in a strange use a very particular use of the word information. Another example actually can be Bitcoin. The reason Bitcoin may be one of the very few things that are actually scarce in a practical sense together with time, free energy, low entropy and information is that Bitcoin is basically produced consuming free energy. So the proof of work mechanism of production links Bitcoin with free energy or low entropy in a very direct way using ash collision and proof of work. So there is a link here. Just to give you a few example of this discussion I Googled a little bit if any economist ever tried to define scarcity with low entropy or with free energy and I found some stuff. I don't know how good these books are actually. I just read a few chapters but on Google books I found these natural economic science or writing economic fundamentals by this Mr. or Dr. Fudulu and he discusses basically low entropy as the original economic original scarcity and then you can find from catastrophe to chaos a general theory of economic discontinuity and you can find basically discussion about low entropy being the main point of the main origin of scarcity on the actual practical word and then you have this like an entropy theory of value by Jing Chen. So I found some stuff in the recent days but I think that you can find something most related to Bitcoin which is very, very good article by Robert Bridlow and Robert basically this article is called Bitcoin and the tyranny of times scarcity and it goes back to my point and to the point that many people have done also Saifedean somewhere in the Bitcoin standard there is this point that time is the only scarce commodity. I will say that it's true but also low entropy is another way of putting it and Bitcoin is closely related with low entropy. So there is a practical scarcity which is just basically this. So let's try to go to a little bit more rigorous definition because we have seen that with a very naive definition so something with limited supply basically everything is scarce even numbers the numbers that you can write down in the universe they are scarce, there is a limited supply and everything is not scarce meaning that eventually we will have more of everything if we want, including something like free energy I mean free energy is scarce but if we need more free energy we just start doing a annihilation of we can just extract energy from a nucleus of uranium and we can fire up the whole world for I mean we just create a dozen sphere around the sound and we have a lot of free energy for a lot of time. So it's not really practically scarce. The definition, the rigorous definition basically came down to two different sub definition. One is relative scarcity. Relative scarcity is basically whatever has a demand supply ratio which is high enough to generate a price. I forgot to close the double quote but anyway the point is that air, oxygen on earth is not scarce because yes there is a lot of demand for oxygen because we want to breathe but there is more supply than demand and so nobody is selling oxygen on planet earth because there is more than there is demand. So it's not a scarce good because yeah there is a finite amount physically of oxygen in the atmosphere but there is not enough supply to generate, sorry enough demand to generate a price at that supply. Of course, if you remember the movie the beautiful movie Total Recall with the great actor Ernest Schwarzenegger you will recall yeah that basically there are merchants selling and buying oxygen on Mars because on Mars oxygen is actually scarce. The supply of oxygen on Mars is not zero but is lower than the demand and so there is scarcity and so there is an economic relationship developing around it. On the planet earth for now it's not really scarce. If you are on Mount Everest and you need to breathe and you're out of your oxygen supply and then you still or you buy your oxygen supply from your Sherpa guide in that case oxygen is scarce. Same goes for water like water in the Great Lake region is not scarce. Water in the middle of the Sahara is an economic good because it has scarcity. So relative scarcity basically it's a good definition is a consistent definition. This is the definition for example that we fight about when we discuss with Eric Boswell because this is the traditional economic definition of scarcity. Whatever has a demand which is not enough to satisfy sorry a supply which is not enough to satisfy all the demand and so you basically produce a price. So in this sense every single economic good every single example of property is scarce. So Bitcoin is not more scarce than toilet paper or then gold or then anything including water in the Sahara or water in some deserts of North America. So everything is scarce economically, not everything, everything which has a price in a market is relatively scarce in that market. The problem with this definition is that it is consistent, it is good. It is the right definition in the traditional economic history but it's not very interesting especially for to explain the difference. I mean, there is a difference between Bitcoin there is a difference between gold and water and there is a difference between Bitcoin and gold and this difference is not really well detected by this definition of relative scarcity because cigarettes are the same as toilet paper which is the same as gold which is the same as Bitcoins while absolute scarcity is actually we can give two different definition of absolute scarcity. The first is a little bit, it's not very well defined I think but we could say that something is absolutely scarce when the price, I mean, it has a price so there is a demand supply ratio that justifies the emergence of a price. There is more people wanting it than supply and the price is so high that I wrote that anybody, my bad I wanted to write that nobody could actually pay for it. So when the price of a good is so high that nobody can pay for it which means that only the current owner will never sell it, will just consume it because the price would be too high to even find somebody with enough wealth to buy it. Maybe we can argue that this can be some kind of definition of absolute scarcity but it's a bad definition. The better definition actually has to do with the inelastic change in supply with respect to demand. So when you have relative scarcity but these relative scarcity changes because basically the demand goes up but the supply cannot go up together with the demand or in the other way around the demand goes down but the supply remains up. In this case you have an absolute abundance because maybe you have the price going down and down and eventually to zero because we increase the supply we find a way to, for example at the end of Total Recall I don't want to spoil you the movie but at the end there is oxygen for everybody and so there is a lot of supply compared to the demand and the price eventually goes to zero and so everybody can just take oxygen without stealing and without buying, purchasing oxygen. So this second definition is very interesting because it doesn't really relates with the equilibrium price and the equilibrium of demand and supply like relative scarcity. Relative scarce is anything that has a price. Absolute scarce in this sense is anything where the supply cannot grow enough to meet the, I mean the growth in the supply rate change is not as big as the growth in the demand change rate. So a good example is for example in the short term we have the example of shortages for if we have COVID-19 hysteria in the United States and elsewhere we have a shortage of respirators is not the respirators are infinitely are absolutely scarce meaning that you cannot produce more respirators. You can produce how many respirators you want in theory. The problem is that the demand of respirators went up so much that there was not actually a possible supply change. The supply change of respirators was lower to catch up than the rise in the demand. And so we have a shortage of respirators and the same a little bit more funny maybe but we have seen the same with toilet paper during the COVID-19 hysteria people, I mean, hospital where they were short they thought they were short on respirators and people thought they were short on toilet paper for some reason. In that moment toilet paper became absolute scarce but for a while only short term. This usually lasts longer. These shortage phenomenon they last longer when you have a basically state intervention in regulation or price control. So in Venezuela toilet paper was scarce and still scarce. There is still shortage because there is socialism so everything is basically absolute scarce because the price control in inhibits the mechanism of supply regulation. And so the demand remains very, very high and the supply never arrives. And the same with food under socialism and basically everything under socialism. And so there is short-term absolute scarcity and there is long-term absolute scarcity which is funny because if you look for some good some properties, some economic good that becomes absolutely scarce because the demand goes up faster than the supply and then remains like that forever with very good guarantees of always remaining like that. Well, I can think about Satoshi's so the fraction of Bitcoins and well, not much except for this very, very high level information or a low entropy, super scarce physical feature of the universe, but while information or low in a physical sense or low entropy they are only absolutely scarce in a timeframe that is like a galactic civilization timeframe where we just run out of stars in the galaxy. And so we have a problem of shortage, which is long-term in the case of Satoshi's, this problem of shortage basically arrives already in a few years from now. So it's a little bit more relevant and more consequential and more important. So in this definition, Bitcoin is actually I come back to the definition of Saifedean inside a Bitcoin standard. I think they are a good definition. We can actually debate, we can be a little bit more obnoxious and we can actually be annoying and about a few precise nuances and clarifications but I think that the general point made by Saifedean is kind of strong. So Bitcoin is not the only or first example of relative scarcity in information realm because secrets are already scarce, but they are ephemeral. They cannot make a good form of money because you can exchange a secret, actually not exchange you can inflate the secret, telling the secret to somebody else. And after a few hopes, the secret is basically completely common. So you lose control of the scarcity of the secret very, very soon. So you can trade the secrets, but just for a while then they become worthless very, very soon. You cannot have money based on secret. Actually in Bitcoin, you need a secret to move your money but you only need it until you transfer it then you don't need it anymore. So you already have digital scarcity, relative scarcity in the economical sense but ephemeral in secrets. And it is basically also ephemeral and also very destructive in a government government created a violence based scarcity like patents or copyrights where you need somebody which will go to hurt somebody else if he shares an information that he didn't even subscribe any contract to keep secrets. So this is not the same of industrial secrets. This is copyright. Copyright means that if you come under my house and you whistle a song, and if I hear the song I didn't sign any contract with you. I decided to whistle the song back and you send somebody to hurt me because I did that. This is a negative sum process that destroys economic resources like any kind of violent non-voluntary intervention. So Bitcoin is not the only but is the best example of sustainable long-term relative scarcity in the information realm quite just like Saifedian said. And it is the only example of long-term absolute scarcity because you can have absolute scarcity of toilet paper or respirator for a short term but then eventually the supply structure will increase the supply and will meet the demand. But with Bitcoin you can't, why? Because you have the fundamental property of Bitcoin which is basically difficulty adjustment plus also the halving but especially difficulty adjustment. So even if the price goes up and there is more incentive to do mining the hash rate will go up but then the difficulty will adjust. And so you will have the same rate of supply which is basically 6.25 Bitcoin every 10 minutes for four years and then half and then half and then half. And this you can tweak a little bit because for example, if there is if the price goes up for the next years the time interval will be a little less than four years and if the price doesn't go up it doesn't go up the time interval will be a little bit more than four years but essentially the average is four years and you cannot go, I mean you cannot significantly change it. So this is what Saifedian clarified a lot talking about stock-to-flow ratio. I think that most of you are already familiar by now with this meme. There is a lot of debate about prediction of the price due to stock-to-flow but the stock-to-flow just mean you take the stock of Bitcoin so how many Bitcoins are there in circulation and you take the flow so how many Bitcoins are produced every year and then you create the ratio of this and this kind of stock-to-flow ratio is actually immutable it's going higher and higher in Bitcoin with halving and cannot be made lower in no realistic scenario except the total failure of Bitcoin itself while with gold the stock-to-flow ratio is actually good because it's like 100 or something like that that means that every year the amount of gold extracted compared to the amount of gold already in the economy is actually basically 1%, sometimes it's 2% but this is good because it means that in the price of gold goes up to X then the incentives for to mine will go up to X then with a lot not immediately with a lot of time and a lot of effort the production of gold will go from 1% to 2% but it will not go to 200% so the total supply will not go from 100 to 200 it will just go from 100 to 102 instead of 101 so it's a very good inelasticity of supply with regard to demand with Bitcoin is even better because basically there is no way you can increase the supply rate even if the demand increases so this is the only example of long-term absolute scarcity except of course for this very philosophical but also very realistic but more philosophical concept of time and free energy and information so free energy and information there is so much that will not run out of it until we create the giant Dyson sphere around the sun so there is a lot of time for that and time will not we not go away until we die and we will die eventually but when you can try you can hope to extend your lifetime with some weird experiments for a while but then eventually you will die anyway because the universe will just entropically die so there is no hope in I mean I'm sorry for transhumanist and extropians but you will die anyway because eventually the universe will just entropically die but your time is absolutely scarce but except for time in your life long Bitcoin satoshes are also absolutely scarce there's a difference you don't know how much time is left on your life I mean most of us we don't know we hope some but we don't know we exactly know how many satoshi can be produced if Bitcoin doesn't fail of course this is assuming that the incentives of Bitcoin the social incentives are strong enough to keep the production rate absolutely unchanged if Bitcoin is ever going to change the supply rate the supply change rate I think that Bitcoin will lose completely this kind of feature and in that scenario Bitcoin in my opinion will lose basically any interesting feature because it will prove to be not resistant to any kind of social pressure so eventually if you can do inflation in Bitcoin eventually you can do KOS in Bitcoin as well it just proved to be not resistant to political pressure and to cultural pressure but I don't think this is realistic actually and I think that Bitcoin is a good example of long-term absolute scarcity