The hashing part is kind of orthogonal. The real negative outcome of quantum computers getting reliable and powerful would be that ECDSA would be broken (using Shor's algorithm variants). This would make every coin stealable by anyone with access to such a computer. Some coins would be easier to steal than others (P2PK would be the easiest - and all of Satoshi's coins are P2PK). The Bitcoin network would keep working, but coin-ownership would be meaningless.
I started reading the article assuming it was an April fool's joke. After a bit into it, I thought it was not a joke. When the self-deprecation began, I was again convinced it was a joke - but at the end of the article, I think this is not a joke. It's a rather good take on why Bitcoin maximalism is what it is.
Some degree of ETH-maximalism will be required in the future given the sheer number of pretender L-1 blockchains snapping at ETH's heels. Writing about BTC-maximalism sets the foundation for that culture.
Zero Knowledge Contingent Payments are one approach. Encoding everything that you might want to buy as an input to a ZKP system is a stretch, obviously. But at least, that's the spirit of this philosophy.
As for "Crypto-less federated systems like Mastodon and friends" - you have to ask yourself why they don't work at scale. That's the key insight of Bitcoin. You need to have a system-native incentive for the nodes to do their thing, and this system-native thing (BTC the currency, in Bitcoin's case), should have outside value. Many wiser people have said this (not on HackerNews maybe), that money is the only use case for a blockchain.
Austrians and the HN community talk past each other because it's not easy to get the latter (which I am a part of) to see that their large salaries in FAANG companies are partly due to the Fed largesse.
Most smart contracts on Ethereum, or other blockchains are only immutable in their marketing material, but not in practice. Either they use an obvious PIMPL/Proxy contract (OpenZeppelin, a popular smart contract library suite has proxy contract that many others use: https://docs.openzeppelin.com/upgrades-plugins/1.x/proxies), or they have other subtler hooks that can be used to change what ABI/function calls to the smart contract does. These hooks are only usable by privileged actors (surprise surprise).
Smart contracts being immutable is a joke, almost. And more importantly, even if they were immutable, proving that formally for a Turing complete language is impossible.
Bitcoin smartly avoided this by making its smart contracts dumber.
That'd be quite expensive. And as you manipulate prices across blocks, arbitrageurs would arb it back to "market price". Uniswap V3 allows for a 3rd party smart contract to ask its Uniswap V3 Oracle to employ a 9 day moving average price - which is of course, not very useful as a "spot price", but is super hard to manipulate.
Many European countries also charge negative interest rates. In Switzerland, where I live, bank balances above CHF 100K gets a flat -0.75% interest rate.
That's true. It's a verifiable "burn of electricity". The only upside to the burning is the verifiability. If there was some other way to generate this verifiable scarcity of something that we all agree on (electricity is kind of universal, that way), that would be better - obviously.
There's your argument for Bitcoin. It cannot be planted by anyone, like tulips. Its supply cannot be increased arbitrarily. Tulips, in fact, could be a bit more complicated. Bitcoin is quite simple that way. Spent electricity is stored and traded - and is a good yardstick to measure other things, etc. etc.
You mean digital signatures - and yes, we use signatures everywhere in public key cryptography.