4 ms·

Right, which means it is worth being spent. If spending is not worth it, then spending by and large dries up, resulting in a reduction of income to others, redu

Right, which means it is worth being spent. If spending is not worth it, then spending by and large dries up, resulting in a reduction of income to others, reducing the multiplier effect, and reducing the amount of actual trade that occurs. People continue to save as income opportunities dry up, and those with no income get royally screwed. With no risk taking occurring, things go back to bare essentials, which we are already very efficient at. Maintenance places are the only places which will maintain any expertise. To be fair, I think there is already a risk of this, in any situation where capital becomes severely unequal. However, by making the monetary token itself an item of (appreciating) value, rather than only as means by which trade is mediated independently and in arbitrary small parts between multiple parties, is a sure way to speed that process up.

hndamien 8y ago
THIs is a wonderful story that doesn’t make any sense. You are suggesting that there are two sets of people, those with BTC that is increasing in value and those without. Those with are spending nothing and getting fabulously wealthy not spending their appreciating asset. Meanwhile, on the outside the no-coiners suffer from the lack of trade and become destitute and the economy drives to a halt. This makes no sense for several reasons. The no-coiners could just buy a tiny fraction of a BTC with whatever fiat they have and become fabulously wealthy. When they do this they would be setting the market price even higher for all the rich Bitcoiners. All the of these fabulously wealthy holders think against deploying any capital to either enrich their life or increase their rate of return over asset appreciation. It is absurd to think that as an entire population becomes wealthier that was risk taking occurs, when it it people that are mired in debt that often take less risk. Before you respond remember these facts, the market price is set by buyers and sellers (trading). Bitcoin is infinitely divisible despite a capped supply. Gresham’s Law dictates that people will spend bad money first. Your no-coiner set has at least the ability to provide a service to begin wealth accumulation.
- hndamien 8y ago
  Should Read “less” risk taking.

hndamien 8y ago

THIs is a wonderful story that doesn’t make any sense. You are suggesting that there are two sets of people, those with BTC that is increasing in value and those without. Those with are spending nothing and getting fabulously wealthy not spending their appreciating asset. Meanwhile, on the outside the no-coiners suffer from the lack of trade and become destitute and the economy drives to a halt. This makes no sense for several reasons. The no-coiners could just buy a tiny fraction of a BTC with whatever fiat they have and become fabulously wealthy. When they do this they would be setting the market price even higher for all the rich Bitcoiners. All the of these fabulously wealthy holders think against deploying any capital to either enrich their life or increase their rate of return over asset appreciation. It is absurd to think that as an entire population becomes wealthier that was risk taking occurs, when it it people that are mired in debt that often take less risk. Before you respond remember these facts, the market price is set by buyers and sellers (trading). Bitcoin is infinitely divisible despite a capped supply. Gresham’s Law dictates that people will spend bad money first. Your no-coiner set has at least the ability to provide a service to begin wealth accumulation.

hndamien 8y ago
Should Read “less” risk taking.