3 ms·
> You’re so up your own ass it’s ridiculous. What makes you think so? I am not bolstering around unlike your "I understand the Chord protocol ... far better th
by lostmsu 4y ago
> You’re so up your own ass it’s ridiculous.
What makes you think so? I am not bolstering around unlike your "I understand the Chord protocol ... far better than you understand currencies" or your original "You wrote a lot of words to not say anything at all". Look in the mirror much?
> When currencies are unstable, A. This is why currencies need to be relatively stable.
Where A is essentially "some participants can not function". Which is exactly what I said. Except my point was for you to consider what entities can possibly function in the situation of unstable currencies (including in principle), and if such entities already exist, how viable is the economy of such entities.
On the highest level, volatility is just a rate of change, so if you change the time scale what was volatile suddenly does not look volatile anymore.
- likeabbas 4y agoIf the volatility of a currency swings for too long, interest in using that currency decreases eventually to the point where no one will use it aside from those who have to (like the people in a specific country). We will likely see this with all cryptocurrencies at some point. This leads back to the definition of a currency, which needs to be stable for people to want to use it. At this point, bitcoin is not a currency people use to transact things. It's a store of value as a speculative investment that is mostly being traded by bots trying to profit on the volatility swings.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]