Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.
Yes so to make both of you correct, as you both know you are, we simply point out that the markets act intelligently based on psychology. They know that this consensus hasn't been secured, so they are frozen as we are in what the future will hold. The whole world clearly awaits this decision, and of course they don't rationally or logically or consciously know this, but if we are following the markets and the current currency crisis, this is clear.
If we "believe" in bitcoin, that it is the future of our financial system, then we see that gold/usd/bonds are super inflated, all tangible things including bitcoin are down...and we are awaiting this consensus to create the signal to snap from the defact gold/usd standard to the bitcoin standard overnight. To many this is a dream, but it has been pointed out that clearly such things have happened in this past:
Revolutionary or Evolutionary Changes or Reforms of Systems of Money
Our topic is focused on an ideal, specifically on “Ideal Money”, and it is not hard to see that there are naturally different routes by which a system of money might become either improved or might become, in some senses, more degraded and less worthy of praise. Change can come at a stroke, like when Alexander cut the Gordian knot, or it can come in a gradual fashion, through many smaller steps, and this latter can be classed as the pathway of “evolutionary change”.
It is easy to illustrate cases of “revolutionary” reform or change in systems of money. A good example came in 1717 when Isaac Newton, supported by George II, fixed the value of the local UK currency to a precise amount of gold that defined the value of the currency (the “pound”) in such a way that it was immediately recognizable throughout the Continent (of Europe) as of a fixed value in relation to generally accepted standards (of the time). (And this was the origin of the “gold standard”.)
Another example of revolutionary change was when Argentina attempted to establish an internationally respectable system of money by means of a “currency board”. (This attempt failed conspicuously, but the failure was rather similar to a bankruptcy event involving an ordinary commercial bank which simply turned out to have insuffic-ient “capital”.)
When the use of paper and printing was developed in China that made possible a “revolutionary” change, namely the introduction of paper money.
Jacques Rueff, F. A. von Hayek, and R. Mundell are notable scholars and economists who have particularly contributed to the theories of how a system or systems of money might be improved in an effectively revolutionary fashion. For example there has been a quite dramatic improvement in the (internationally perceived apparent) quality of the money used in the countries of Italy and Greece simply because they have moved through the revol-utionary transition of renouncing the use of the lira or the drachma and have accepted the use of the newly established “euro” unit.
Not completely unrelated, we have shown under the concept of "ideal poker" that certain "network" standard too have dramatically arisen over night to end old standards. And that such network have essentially evolved into "e-currencies" that are like an archaic version of bitcoin. Such dramatic change does in fact happen over night, regardless of whether popular public opinion is "complacent":
Shortly after the contract was awarded, the start of the American Civil War caused the stage line to cease operation. From March 1861, the Pony Express ran mail only between Salt Lake City and Sacramento. The Pony Express announced its closure on October 26, 1861, two days after the transcontinental telegraph reached Salt Lake City and connected Omaha, Nebraska and Sacramento, California. Other telegraph lines connected points along the line and other cities on the east and west coasts.[61]
You see I have the only knowledge of the lecture series, and so I am the only one able to relate it (I claim this looking forward to being proved wrong!). I post INCREDIBLY relevant but admittedly incredibly dense material. But we should not treat it like religion and numerology, it is very simple, when one has a clear picture of the logic and science, without the myth of "satoshi", then one can make clear extrapolations about truth.