3 ms·

Is your thesis that BTC failed because it’s price is not stable? I don’t think that is a good metric. Most asset prices are not stable. By all the metrics I con

Is your thesis that BTC failed because it’s price is not stable? I don’t think that is a good metric. Most asset prices are not stable. By all the metrics I consider, it’s pretty damn successful actually. Just because you want it to fail, doesn’t really matter. It is not failing, in fact, we had a country adopt it as legal tender last year, with another few to follow in 2022. I like that kind of failure!

cookiengineer 5y ago
A stable economy should be the goal of every economy. Otherwise it cannot not be defined as an economy. My thesis is that BTC failed at exactly that. It's the opposite of stable. BTC only works advantegous for the HODLers because they actually buy things in another currency, and not in BTC. If they would have to buy electricity, food and shelter and actual physical assets via BTC, they would have to pay millions for it; because BTC is in the state of maximum inflation eversince the HFTs went on it. I would recommend you read up on the financial crisises that happened all over the world after the second world war, and what the obligations of a central bank (e.g. European central bank) are and why they exist, and what they prevent. Otherwise this "but it's awesome cause I think I'm rich" discussion is gonna be pretty pointless, because we have really opposing views on what "stability" means in regards to e.g. inflation vs. amount of goods that back up the economy's currency.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  This was never about personal enrichment, it was about freedom and sound money. At least to me. I am a cypherpunk. I am well aware of the monetary systems post WW2. What happened was the great US did what no other nation could do in history — monetize their debt and get the world to treat it as their money. It was genius, really. The problem emerged where Governments got really slack with the backing. Now we just print it any time it is politically expedient. I want a system where that isn’t possible. Bitcoin was invented to solve this problem.
  - cookiengineer 5y ago
    Sorry, I was referring to the European countries that were on the other end of that deal. We couldn't afford creating a credit-based system at the time, and the issue was that the inflation was so high that you literally had bills with "1.000.000" printed on it because the paper was running out on a daily basis. The issue that I see behind BTC and other crypto currencies is that they kind of want to introduce a new good that balances the value of the currency: computation power (and maybe bandwidth/storage). But these goods are heavily dependent on the physical world, the progress of other economies (e.g. chip shortage is gonna hit BTC real hard soon, I "would predict") and the advancements of tech (e.g. ASICs or FPGA-based hash generation methods that are more efficient than what's available to everyone). Those dependencies is what I think are messed up, because they favor the ones that already have money in the physical space. As long as the goods required by the crypto currency are in the physical space, this inflation and behaviours of created sub-economies iteratively failing at some point won't change. I don't have an idea how to solve it, it's just what I've come to realize after years investing in the crypto currency space; and observing the shitshow that's NFTs right now. The current state is certainly not what BTC or any crypto currency was intended for as an idea, and getting a database entry somewhere because you were the first is not a reasonable approach to how an economy should work, algorithmically speaking. We need a better approach for throttling and redistribution of wealth, because the gas price in ETH obviously isn't enough. If an economy favors the ones that were in it first, it's also not an economy that can scale. Because it will result in an oligarchic bank-like structure, where money is hoarded that cannot flow and push the rest of the economy where it would be needed to get out of unfavorable situations like poverty (that is in regards to goods aka only having an old computer).

cookiengineer 5y ago

A stable economy should be the goal of every economy. Otherwise it cannot not be defined as an economy. My thesis is that BTC failed at exactly that. It's the opposite of stable. BTC only works advantegous for the HODLers because they actually buy things in another currency, and not in BTC. If they would have to buy electricity, food and shelter and actual physical assets via BTC, they would have to pay millions for it; because BTC is in the state of maximum inflation eversince the HFTs went on it. I would recommend you read up on the financial crisises that happened all over the world after the second world war, and what the obligations of a central bank (e.g. European central bank) are and why they exist, and what they prevent. Otherwise this "but it's awesome cause I think I'm rich" discussion is gonna be pretty pointless, because we have really opposing views on what "stability" means in regards to e.g. inflation vs. amount of goods that back up the economy's currency.

randomhodler84 5y ago
This was never about personal enrichment, it was about freedom and sound money. At least to me. I am a cypherpunk. I am well aware of the monetary systems post WW2. What happened was the great US did what no other nation could do in history — monetize their debt and get the world to treat it as their money. It was genius, really. The problem emerged where Governments got really slack with the backing. Now we just print it any time it is politically expedient. I want a system where that isn’t possible. Bitcoin was invented to solve this problem.
- cookiengineer 5y ago
  Sorry, I was referring to the European countries that were on the other end of that deal. We couldn't afford creating a credit-based system at the time, and the issue was that the inflation was so high that you literally had bills with "1.000.000" printed on it because the paper was running out on a daily basis. The issue that I see behind BTC and other crypto currencies is that they kind of want to introduce a new good that balances the value of the currency: computation power (and maybe bandwidth/storage). But these goods are heavily dependent on the physical world, the progress of other economies (e.g. chip shortage is gonna hit BTC real hard soon, I "would predict") and the advancements of tech (e.g. ASICs or FPGA-based hash generation methods that are more efficient than what's available to everyone). Those dependencies is what I think are messed up, because they favor the ones that already have money in the physical space. As long as the goods required by the crypto currency are in the physical space, this inflation and behaviours of created sub-economies iteratively failing at some point won't change. I don't have an idea how to solve it, it's just what I've come to realize after years investing in the crypto currency space; and observing the shitshow that's NFTs right now. The current state is certainly not what BTC or any crypto currency was intended for as an idea, and getting a database entry somewhere because you were the first is not a reasonable approach to how an economy should work, algorithmically speaking. We need a better approach for throttling and redistribution of wealth, because the gas price in ETH obviously isn't enough. If an economy favors the ones that were in it first, it's also not an economy that can scale. Because it will result in an oligarchic bank-like structure, where money is hoarded that cannot flow and push the rest of the economy where it would be needed to get out of unfavorable situations like poverty (that is in regards to goods aka only having an old computer).