I'm disappointed. Jbreher is like the smartest of you apes and this was a pretty feeble attempt at trying to portray bitcoin as having traits of money equal or better than metals:
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve.
No, it does not. Money is supposed to be boring - it's not supposed to "evolve" ...
Jeebus - now you're copy-pasting across subs? OK, I'll play along, and copy-paste my reply from where it belongs over to here where you insisted on draging it:
Stay on point. I did not say 'money needs to be able to evolve', I said that the definition of 'anti-fragile' necessarily is imbued with the ability to evolve.
You can claim that something needs to be unchanging if you want. While I disagree with you on this point, it is not a conversation I wish to carry out with you. You have a lot of monetary ideas which I think are just plain wrong, but they are axiomatic to you, and I don't care to tilt against that windmill.
However, when you appropriate a defined term, and claim a use for it exactly opposite of its accepted definition -- such as your misappropriation of anti-fragile -- you can expect to get called out on it.
the most amazing thing about bitcoin is you can build on top of it, create all manner of apps, applications, programming to incorporate a secure ledger into financial and business operations. thus ensuring bitcoin does evolve yet remains the same
in essence there is no need for a strongly tested financial network to evolve but yet can evolve with external systems