3 ms·

> the other has a mathematically demonstrably finite supply. The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the cu

> the other has a mathematically demonstrably finite supply. The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. > tries to be at least obfuscate what money is used for and by whom. It really doesn't in any meaningful way. I'd suggest the true benefit is that there is no centralized preconditions on what transactions can be added to the ledger. Any two valid addresses can always transact if they pay the ledger fee. > the other is designed to enhance freedom It's designed to not have centralized control outside of 51% attacks. Whether that actually "enhances freedom" remains to be proven. Having to tether yourself to the internet and pay a fee on every transaction may strongly work against this actual point in practice.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
>> the other has a mathematically demonstrably finite supply. > The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. That's a different problem, that's the market-cap / # of coins issue. You don't spend an integer number of bitcoin, you spend the fraction you need, so it's not really a problem. The PP was talking about how Bitcoin was devised to not allow anyone to arbitrarily make more coins. (Some BTC forks have different minting policies, but BTC itself can't be changed.) Our central banks on the other hand, were devised precisely to allow the government to create money when needed. There's no way the USA would adopt BTC as its central currency for example because it would lose that ability.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > There's no way the USA would adopt BTC as its central currency for example because it would lose that ability. Yup. A government surrendering their ability to print money is unthinkable. They'd be giving up a major policy enforcement tool. To quote the obviously relevant: "“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.” So said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
lumost 4y ago
A currency which naturally grows in value is self defeating. Currencies, by their nature, are abstract constructs devoid of value. Now imagine that just by holding onto money, you made more money- no need for pesky investments or risk. If btc became the dominant currency, it would quickly become a regressive tax on people who actually need to spend money.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > A currency which naturally grows in value is self defeating. An opinion, neither backed by any obvious nor posted arguments. > Currencies, by their nature, are abstract constructs devoid of value. My above remarks goes triple for this one. Bordering on the dogmatic as a matter of fact. > If btc became the dominant currency I don't think that'll ever happen. First because Bitcoin isn't very practical as a currency - it's pretty obvious at this point -. Second and much more importantly: Bitcoin is an should remain an escape hatch. Every functioning human organization needs checks and balances to be functional. For every power, there needs to be a counter-power so that said power can't be abused. Until very recently, there was pretty much no counter power when it comes to the ability of governments to debase their currency (aka imposing a hidden tax on their citizenry). Bitcoin is exactly this: it is a counter-power that finally allows folks to run with their wealth if a government starts to mismanage their currency (and historically they have always proven that given enough time, they will). I would never wish for Bitcoin to become the dominant currency. It's perfect where it's at right now.
ur-whale 4y ago
> The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. You can subdivide Bitcoin to a very tiny fraction indeed, and in that sense, the supply is quasi infinite. However, if you own _one_ Bitcoin, you own exactly 1/21millionth of the entire supply of the stuff there will ever be, and that will never change for as long as you hold on to it. In that sense, the supply is absolutely finite. A close analogy is gold: if you assume for a second that there is a finite amount of gold on the planet (not an unreasonable assumption), then: you could cut up a gold coin down to its individual atoms, and that would be a whole effing lot of them (not practical, obviously, which is why gold didn't last as a currency. OTOH, Bitcoin, being digital doesn't have that problem). And if you own one ounce of gold, you own a never-changing fraction of the supply. So: Gold supply, according to definition one (divisibility) is infinite. But according to definition two (they don't make any more of the stuff), it's finite. I am of the opinion that the second definition is the one that matters when it comes to understanding the properties of Bitcoin as a financial instrument.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

>> the other has a mathematically demonstrably finite supply. > The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. That's a different problem, that's the market-cap / # of coins issue. You don't spend an integer number of bitcoin, you spend the fraction you need, so it's not really a problem. The PP was talking about how Bitcoin was devised to not allow anyone to arbitrarily make more coins. (Some BTC forks have different minting policies, but BTC itself can't be changed.) Our central banks on the other hand, were devised precisely to allow the government to create money when needed. There's no way the USA would adopt BTC as its central currency for example because it would lose that ability.

ur-whale 4y ago
> There's no way the USA would adopt BTC as its central currency for example because it would lose that ability. Yup. A government surrendering their ability to print money is unthinkable. They'd be giving up a major policy enforcement tool. To quote the obviously relevant: "“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.” So said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.

lumost 4y ago

A currency which naturally grows in value is self defeating. Currencies, by their nature, are abstract constructs devoid of value. Now imagine that just by holding onto money, you made more money- no need for pesky investments or risk. If btc became the dominant currency, it would quickly become a regressive tax on people who actually need to spend money.

ur-whale 4y ago
> A currency which naturally grows in value is self defeating. An opinion, neither backed by any obvious nor posted arguments. > Currencies, by their nature, are abstract constructs devoid of value. My above remarks goes triple for this one. Bordering on the dogmatic as a matter of fact. > If btc became the dominant currency I don't think that'll ever happen. First because Bitcoin isn't very practical as a currency - it's pretty obvious at this point -. Second and much more importantly: Bitcoin is an should remain an escape hatch. Every functioning human organization needs checks and balances to be functional. For every power, there needs to be a counter-power so that said power can't be abused. Until very recently, there was pretty much no counter power when it comes to the ability of governments to debase their currency (aka imposing a hidden tax on their citizenry). Bitcoin is exactly this: it is a counter-power that finally allows folks to run with their wealth if a government starts to mismanage their currency (and historically they have always proven that given enough time, they will). I would never wish for Bitcoin to become the dominant currency. It's perfect where it's at right now.

ur-whale 4y ago

> The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. You can subdivide Bitcoin to a very tiny fraction indeed, and in that sense, the supply is quasi infinite. However, if you own _one_ Bitcoin, you own exactly 1/21millionth of the entire supply of the stuff there will ever be, and that will never change for as long as you hold on to it. In that sense, the supply is absolutely finite. A close analogy is gold: if you assume for a second that there is a finite amount of gold on the planet (not an unreasonable assumption), then: you could cut up a gold coin down to its individual atoms, and that would be a whole effing lot of them (not practical, obviously, which is why gold didn't last as a currency. OTOH, Bitcoin, being digital doesn't have that problem). And if you own one ounce of gold, you own a never-changing fraction of the supply. So: Gold supply, according to definition one (divisibility) is infinite. But according to definition two (they don't make any more of the stuff), it's finite. I am of the opinion that the second definition is the one that matters when it comes to understanding the properties of Bitcoin as a financial instrument.