3 ms·

No one said anything about building law into money, nor about making digital money more like physical money. We're just adding information about who is being re

by natrius 11y ago

No one said anything about building law into money, nor about making digital money more like physical money. We're just adding information about who is being rewarded. That's it. Individuals can use that information to make decisions about who to reward, and that's what money is for.

CyberDildonics 11y ago
But that's not all. If anyone does anything with the information then the money diverges from ideal money because it is no longer as fungible. The usability becomes crippled and more complex in the best case, while completely unusable in the worst case. The end result is that people won't choose that money. The idea of what people 'should' use or 'the money that would be best for everyone' is shaky - people will use what serves their purposes the best. For the first time people have real choice in the money they use, and they aren't going to choose something with regard to the greater good, it never works like that in a system of people with competing incentives except through violence. The same idea coincides with inflation. People say 'a deflationary currency won't work'. The truth is, it will work at some point because it must - no one given a choice would choose an inflationary currency all else being equal. While all else is certainly not equal, people for the first time have that choice. The same applies to colored coins.
- natrius 11y ago
  You're overestimating the loss of fungibility. When someone decides to stop rewarding a polluter, they'll broadcast that fact to the public. They can limit that to future rewards rather than past rewards. It would be rare for money you hold to suddenly become worthless. I agree that no one wants that, which is why I don't think large swathes of society would do something they don't want. It could happen, though. This isn't about making a choice for the greater good. Choosing a currency that lets you decide who to reward gives you power. People like power. They will grab it.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    You don't know this, because no one really does. Plenty of people are trying to predict the future of crypto-currencies like they know without a doubt what will happen. Choosing who to reward is a power money already gives you. Cross reference the companies you find to be the worst in the world with their stock prices to see if your theories hold up.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > The truth is, it will work at some point because it must - no one given a choice would choose an inflationary currency all else being equal. That's exactly backwards, if one has to choose between the two, both being available, everyone chooses to spend inflationary currency; it should be obvious why and it's a well known truism even: bad money drives out good money. Quite simply, money that retains or increases in value doesn't serve the purpose of money very well and will always lose to money that decreases in value. The purpose of money is to spend it, not save it, it's for trade, not storing as an asset, and money that decreases in value has a built in incentive to be spent and thus better serves its purpose.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    What you are saying only holds up until about 40 years ago. The 2500 years before that contradicts what you are saying. > bad money drives out good money It does not. More ideal money drives out less ideal money. If you knew that one form of money would inflate and another would not, would you transfer to the non-inflationary money or would you spend every last cent of your current money? You don't have to look far to see that what you are saying is ridiculous. Argentina, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc. are recent examples of national currencies being less than ideal. The only thing preventing Argentina and Venezuela from using US dollars is violence. Zimbabwe eventually converted to US dollars. At the same time, if you took a long view and were going to put away $100,000 in US dollars or $100,000 in gold and you would come back in 100 years to get it, which would you do?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > What you are saying only holds up until about 40 years ago. The 2500 years before that contradicts what you are saying. A tautology. > It does not. More ideal money drives out less ideal money. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law > You don't have to look far to see that what you are saying is ridiculous. Argentina, Venezuela, Zimbabwe You're confusing inflation with hyper inflation, a common mistake. > At the same time, if you took a long view and were going to put away $100,000 in US dollars or $100,000 in gold and you would come back in 100 years to get it, which would you do? As I already told you the purpose of money is not to save it, I would not store 100k liquid as cash; cash does not exist to save, it exists to trade. Save assets, not money. Money is a tool, inflation only bothers those who don't understand how the tool works and try and use it inappropriately.

by natrius 11y ago

CyberDildonics 11y ago

But that's not all. If anyone does anything with the information then the money diverges from ideal money because it is no longer as fungible. The usability becomes crippled and more complex in the best case, while completely unusable in the worst case. The end result is that people won't choose that money. The idea of what people 'should' use or 'the money that would be best for everyone' is shaky - people will use what serves their purposes the best. For the first time people have real choice in the money they use, and they aren't going to choose something with regard to the greater good, it never works like that in a system of people with competing incentives except through violence. The same idea coincides with inflation. People say 'a deflationary currency won't work'. The truth is, it will work at some point because it must - no one given a choice would choose an inflationary currency all else being equal. While all else is certainly not equal, people for the first time have that choice. The same applies to colored coins.

natrius 11y ago
You're overestimating the loss of fungibility. When someone decides to stop rewarding a polluter, they'll broadcast that fact to the public. They can limit that to future rewards rather than past rewards. It would be rare for money you hold to suddenly become worthless. I agree that no one wants that, which is why I don't think large swathes of society would do something they don't want. It could happen, though. This isn't about making a choice for the greater good. Choosing a currency that lets you decide who to reward gives you power. People like power. They will grab it.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  You don't know this, because no one really does. Plenty of people are trying to predict the future of crypto-currencies like they know without a doubt what will happen. Choosing who to reward is a power money already gives you. Cross reference the companies you find to be the worst in the world with their stock prices to see if your theories hold up.
gnaritas 11y ago
> The truth is, it will work at some point because it must - no one given a choice would choose an inflationary currency all else being equal. That's exactly backwards, if one has to choose between the two, both being available, everyone chooses to spend inflationary currency; it should be obvious why and it's a well known truism even: bad money drives out good money. Quite simply, money that retains or increases in value doesn't serve the purpose of money very well and will always lose to money that decreases in value. The purpose of money is to spend it, not save it, it's for trade, not storing as an asset, and money that decreases in value has a built in incentive to be spent and thus better serves its purpose.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  What you are saying only holds up until about 40 years ago. The 2500 years before that contradicts what you are saying. > bad money drives out good money It does not. More ideal money drives out less ideal money. If you knew that one form of money would inflate and another would not, would you transfer to the non-inflationary money or would you spend every last cent of your current money? You don't have to look far to see that what you are saying is ridiculous. Argentina, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc. are recent examples of national currencies being less than ideal. The only thing preventing Argentina and Venezuela from using US dollars is violence. Zimbabwe eventually converted to US dollars. At the same time, if you took a long view and were going to put away $100,000 in US dollars or $100,000 in gold and you would come back in 100 years to get it, which would you do?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > What you are saying only holds up until about 40 years ago. The 2500 years before that contradicts what you are saying. A tautology. > It does not. More ideal money drives out less ideal money. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law > You don't have to look far to see that what you are saying is ridiculous. Argentina, Venezuela, Zimbabwe You're confusing inflation with hyper inflation, a common mistake. > At the same time, if you took a long view and were going to put away $100,000 in US dollars or $100,000 in gold and you would come back in 100 years to get it, which would you do? As I already told you the purpose of money is not to save it, I would not store 100k liquid as cash; cash does not exist to save, it exists to trade. Save assets, not money. Money is a tool, inflation only bothers those who don't understand how the tool works and try and use it inappropriately.