5 ms·

USD is fundamentally different from cryptocurrency. For one thing, there will always be demand for USD because Americans have to pay taxes in dollars. If you’re

by medler 4y ago

USD is fundamentally different from cryptocurrency. For one thing, there will always be demand for USD because Americans have to pay taxes in dollars. If you’re an American and you make $X in a year, you have to buy ~1/3 of that in USD to pay your taxes, no matter what.

charcircuit 4y ago
America could get rid of taxes or stop existing altogether. There always exists a risk of demand drying up.
- spupe 4y ago
  In that scenario, I don't think anybody is using Bitcoins either.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Fair point.
datadata 4y ago
The fact that there is forced demand does not matter because the supply is potentially infinite. Look towards any episode of hyperinflation to see this on full display. You need both limited supply and non-zero demand to guarantee scarcity and thus value.
- orwin 4y ago
  That's no how money works, money is mostly created by demand (93 to 97% in developped countries with efficient banking system). And that money is easy to destroy too, you could destroy 93% of existing dollars by reimbursing the debt owned by household, companies and US government.
  - datadata 4y ago
    How can you just ignore dozens of hyperinflation episodes? Clearly there are situations where supply becomes infinite.
    - orwin 4y ago
      Sorry, i should have said: that's not how money works in modern economies. I'm not ignoring hyperinflation, but clearly it has nothing to do with Zimbabwe or Venezuela. The only comparison could be the Weimar republic, as this disaster was caused too by production deficits (France invading the Ruhr valley+ loosing colonial income), but obviously similarities stop there.
chrischen 4y ago
Bitcoin by that logic will also always have demand because you will have to pay your ransoms in it.
- sshine 4y ago
  It sounds like a joke, but yes, it is the things you can buy that determine a currency’s utility: Drugs, remittance, ransom, exiting a crashing fiat, and a 21st century gambling experience.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    So exiting a crashing fiat is like a fire extinguisher or a pistol, worthless until such a moment it is the only thing that isn't worthless. Drugs, too, I defend the actions of the victims of the opioid epidemic in seeking drugs, they were actively tortured for most of their waking hours by a multi-level-marketing pharmaceutical scam. Those drugs weren't recreational, they were an anaesthetic in response to malpractice. Like the Sacklers are literally hard drug dealers, they literally have a monopoly on legal heroin and cocaine. Or should I say OxyContin and Adhansia. They did that through legal bribes as a cover for additional fully illegal bribes, inviting doctors to hedonistic islands to get compromat, treating the FDA like their personal lapdog, disgusting acts of philanthropy with their ill-gotten gains, medical media, and the ordinary media. So like if they are cornering the market and intentionally cheating the patients out of antidote while increasing the doses of poison, you know what, don't tell me black is white. The legal market is shit and the illegal market is superior. And in fact the only limit to their cheating their patients out of medicine is presented by the black market, that's the resistance and why the problem wasn't even worse.
    - sshine 4y ago
      This response seems more related to the morality of drug addiction (through big pharma or dark web). I don't think you can say that the illegal market is superior. There's a lot of downside: Buying heroin and getting fentanyl is an example. My only claim is that cryptocurrencies are useful for things that are at odds with national governments (circumventing their legislation, or dealing with the fact that they're dysfunctional), since in those situations, fiat doesn't work well.

by medler 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago

America could get rid of taxes or stop existing altogether. There always exists a risk of demand drying up.

spupe 4y ago
In that scenario, I don't think anybody is using Bitcoins either.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Fair point.

datadata 4y ago

The fact that there is forced demand does not matter because the supply is potentially infinite. Look towards any episode of hyperinflation to see this on full display. You need both limited supply and non-zero demand to guarantee scarcity and thus value.

orwin 4y ago
That's no how money works, money is mostly created by demand (93 to 97% in developped countries with efficient banking system). And that money is easy to destroy too, you could destroy 93% of existing dollars by reimbursing the debt owned by household, companies and US government.
- datadata 4y ago
  How can you just ignore dozens of hyperinflation episodes? Clearly there are situations where supply becomes infinite.
  - orwin 4y ago
    Sorry, i should have said: that's not how money works in modern economies. I'm not ignoring hyperinflation, but clearly it has nothing to do with Zimbabwe or Venezuela. The only comparison could be the Weimar republic, as this disaster was caused too by production deficits (France invading the Ruhr valley+ loosing colonial income), but obviously similarities stop there.

chrischen 4y ago

Bitcoin by that logic will also always have demand because you will have to pay your ransoms in it.

sshine 4y ago
It sounds like a joke, but yes, it is the things you can buy that determine a currency’s utility: Drugs, remittance, ransom, exiting a crashing fiat, and a 21st century gambling experience.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  So exiting a crashing fiat is like a fire extinguisher or a pistol, worthless until such a moment it is the only thing that isn't worthless. Drugs, too, I defend the actions of the victims of the opioid epidemic in seeking drugs, they were actively tortured for most of their waking hours by a multi-level-marketing pharmaceutical scam. Those drugs weren't recreational, they were an anaesthetic in response to malpractice. Like the Sacklers are literally hard drug dealers, they literally have a monopoly on legal heroin and cocaine. Or should I say OxyContin and Adhansia. They did that through legal bribes as a cover for additional fully illegal bribes, inviting doctors to hedonistic islands to get compromat, treating the FDA like their personal lapdog, disgusting acts of philanthropy with their ill-gotten gains, medical media, and the ordinary media. So like if they are cornering the market and intentionally cheating the patients out of antidote while increasing the doses of poison, you know what, don't tell me black is white. The legal market is shit and the illegal market is superior. And in fact the only limit to their cheating their patients out of medicine is presented by the black market, that's the resistance and why the problem wasn't even worse.
  - sshine 4y ago
    This response seems more related to the morality of drug addiction (through big pharma or dark web). I don't think you can say that the illegal market is superior. There's a lot of downside: Buying heroin and getting fentanyl is an example. My only claim is that cryptocurrencies are useful for things that are at odds with national governments (circumventing their legislation, or dealing with the fact that they're dysfunctional), since in those situations, fiat doesn't work well.