4 ms·

> Back the dollar by gold [...] The second will prevent a lot of the scams. Oh boy... Bitcoin in many ways is idealized gold (unlike the real one, its supply i

by lxgr 2y ago

> Back the dollar by gold [...] The second will prevent a lot of the scams. Oh boy... Bitcoin in many ways is idealized gold (unlike the real one, its supply is actually limited), yet there is no shortage of scams around it. On the contrary, a gold standard would remove one of the most essential tools modern governments have: That of monetary policy. That sounds like a good idea if and only if there's an extreme shortage of trust in the government and institutions, and even then it's only the lesser of two evils (the other being inflation) and comes at a high price.

tomrod 2y ago
Well, bitcoin does have an upper limit, but rug pull coins don't. The exact number is ₿20,999,999.9769
- lxgr 2y ago
  Well, if you believe that that somehow makes Bitcoin immune to scams, I have a wallet address where you can send me some right now and I "promise to return you twice the amount to give back to the community"... Note that Bitcoin might have a monetary cap built in, but source code is not actually capable of preventing people from denominating IOUs in it.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    I don't think they were rebutting that, it's just that Bitcoin supply is only capped if you consider it the one true currency, but there is no cap on the supply of forks that perform identical function, only difference being adoption. It's like you could take the entire gold supply and put it through a Star Trek replicator, but now you have the job of convincing the world that your vault is full of gold too
    - lxgr 2y ago
      But even in a world of only Bitcoin and no way to make alternate coins, all kinds of bad things are still possible, as there is no mechanism to prevent people from starting fractional reserve banking all over. The only way to prevent that is to somehow completely eliminate all trust from all economic activity. Without trust, breach of trust becomes trivially impossible.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        Of course. My comment doesn't claim it doesn't. My only point was that BTC has limited supply. In almost all other ways, crypto is not great.
        troupo 2y ago
        BTC being limited isn't great either. Because it only stimulates saving up.
        tomrod 2y ago
        Honest feedback request: how can I be more explicit when noting a fact without connotation or judgment?
        troupo 2y ago
        You were explicit. "I'm most other ways crypto isn't that great". Were "other ways" is in juxtaposition to "being limited". But being limited isn't great either
        tomrod 2y ago
        Much obliged.
      - monero-xmr 2y ago
        If you removed the word “bitcoin” and just created a hypothetical word like “currency X” and focused on its pros and cons, then you could abstractly identify why it would be good or bad. Transfer speed - X would need to be fast. Difficulty to counterfeit - X would need to be fraud proof. How easy it is to custody - X would need to be easy to store with minimal cost. Inflation - X would need a predictable inflation rate and immune to politics. If you judge dollars, gold, and bitcoin by such a measure, I would argue Bitcoin holds up well
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I always considered that there is real possibility for that limit to be removed by hard fork. Governments can come together and tell that from block x forward reward is back to 50BTC or whatever. And only on this chain can you pay taxes.
  - desumeku 2y ago
    Good luck enforcing that.
hot_gril 2y ago
The monetary policy we have coerces people into passive investing, creating bubbles. When rates are low, you see bogus "tech" plays like wifi water dispensers, that's the scam the author means. Also makes taxes weird, e.g. why capital gains aren't the same as income (today USD ≠ past USD). Gold standard is wasteful though; Fed could just keep a steady money supply instead. But it's our scam. The Fed isn't only diluting Americans' money; USD is a world currency, and the US tries to keep it that way by whatever means. So we kinda benefit from that.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Yes, inflation incentivizes spending and/or investments, and (in moderation) that's generally a very good thing. The only other alternative that doesn't create incredibly bleak incentives for anyone that doesn't inherit wealth would be wealth and estate taxes, but good luck getting either passed or reformed.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    I don't see why the economy benefits long-term from people spending/investing only to get the money off their hands. Especially when it gets parked in things like gold and real estate just cause those supplies are sorta fixed.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      Asset bubbles are indeed a sign of monetary and fiscal dysfunction, but so are hoarding and excessive wealth accumulation.
      - hot_gril 2y ago
        We have the combo right now, hoarding in assets. Inflation doesn't make rich people/corps spend more, just invest it differently.
    - intended 2y ago
      Investments move to stocks and equity. Real estate itself gets traded via proxy on the markets.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
Monetary policy is a form of central planning. Central planning suffers from several issues, primarily due to insufficient ability to model the economy in a way that can reliably make valid predictions, but also due to being a single point of failure due to either incompetence or capture. Speculation bubbles seem to be the main cause of economic collapses prior to centralized currency. Could we perhaps address that in a more targeted way, rather than jumping straight to handing government control of money? Side note: Government controlling money not being necessary and furthermore not even being the American historical norm may be surprising to many readers. I would encourage you to look that up, it’s quite interesting.
- intended 2y ago
  And the gold standard isn’t? As someone said elsewhere - a working knowledge of economic history is crucial to be a part of this discussion.
  - pfannkuchen 2y ago
    The gold standard is also central planning. But, where the heck did I say anything about the gold standard? I’m referring to private banks issuing receipts for metal deposits, which can be freely sold or traded. This is the origin of currency, no? The exchange rate between everything and everything else naturally floats in such a system, so there is no central planning. > a working knowledge of economic history is crucial to be a part of this discussion Here, let me get you a towel for that egg on your face, rude sir.
    - intended 2y ago
      But thats the heart of the gold standard. The only difference here being that you’ve described it before things like watering gold down, fraud, volatility, bank failures and the rest resulted in it coming under a single aegis. Issuing currency against gold is what the gold standard is all about. What do you think it was? And eggs are expensive, you should save them for later.
Aeolun 2y ago
> That sounds like a good idea if and only if there's an extreme shortage of trust in the government and institutions Umm, yes. Doesn’t that make this a perfect moment to do such? I can’t recall any other point during my life my trust in the US government was this low.

by lxgr 2y ago

tomrod 2y ago

Well, bitcoin does have an upper limit, but rug pull coins don't. The exact number is ₿20,999,999.9769

lxgr 2y ago
Well, if you believe that that somehow makes Bitcoin immune to scams, I have a wallet address where you can send me some right now and I "promise to return you twice the amount to give back to the community"... Note that Bitcoin might have a monetary cap built in, but source code is not actually capable of preventing people from denominating IOUs in it.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  I don't think they were rebutting that, it's just that Bitcoin supply is only capped if you consider it the one true currency, but there is no cap on the supply of forks that perform identical function, only difference being adoption. It's like you could take the entire gold supply and put it through a Star Trek replicator, but now you have the job of convincing the world that your vault is full of gold too
  - lxgr 2y ago
    But even in a world of only Bitcoin and no way to make alternate coins, all kinds of bad things are still possible, as there is no mechanism to prevent people from starting fractional reserve banking all over. The only way to prevent that is to somehow completely eliminate all trust from all economic activity. Without trust, breach of trust becomes trivially impossible.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Of course. My comment doesn't claim it doesn't. My only point was that BTC has limited supply. In almost all other ways, crypto is not great.
      - troupo 2y ago
        BTC being limited isn't great either. Because it only stimulates saving up.
        tomrod 2y ago
        Honest feedback request: how can I be more explicit when noting a fact without connotation or judgment?
        troupo 2y ago
        You were explicit. "I'm most other ways crypto isn't that great". Were "other ways" is in juxtaposition to "being limited". But being limited isn't great either
        tomrod 2y ago
        Much obliged.
    - monero-xmr 2y ago
      If you removed the word “bitcoin” and just created a hypothetical word like “currency X” and focused on its pros and cons, then you could abstractly identify why it would be good or bad. Transfer speed - X would need to be fast. Difficulty to counterfeit - X would need to be fraud proof. How easy it is to custody - X would need to be easy to store with minimal cost. Inflation - X would need a predictable inflation rate and immune to politics. If you judge dollars, gold, and bitcoin by such a measure, I would argue Bitcoin holds up well
Ekaros 2y ago
I always considered that there is real possibility for that limit to be removed by hard fork. Governments can come together and tell that from block x forward reward is back to 50BTC or whatever. And only on this chain can you pay taxes.
- desumeku 2y ago
  Good luck enforcing that.

hot_gril 2y ago

The monetary policy we have coerces people into passive investing, creating bubbles. When rates are low, you see bogus "tech" plays like wifi water dispensers, that's the scam the author means. Also makes taxes weird, e.g. why capital gains aren't the same as income (today USD ≠ past USD). Gold standard is wasteful though; Fed could just keep a steady money supply instead. But it's our scam. The Fed isn't only diluting Americans' money; USD is a world currency, and the US tries to keep it that way by whatever means. So we kinda benefit from that.

lxgr 2y ago
Yes, inflation incentivizes spending and/or investments, and (in moderation) that's generally a very good thing. The only other alternative that doesn't create incredibly bleak incentives for anyone that doesn't inherit wealth would be wealth and estate taxes, but good luck getting either passed or reformed.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  I don't see why the economy benefits long-term from people spending/investing only to get the money off their hands. Especially when it gets parked in things like gold and real estate just cause those supplies are sorta fixed.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Asset bubbles are indeed a sign of monetary and fiscal dysfunction, but so are hoarding and excessive wealth accumulation.
    - hot_gril 2y ago
      We have the combo right now, hoarding in assets. Inflation doesn't make rich people/corps spend more, just invest it differently.
  - intended 2y ago
    Investments move to stocks and equity. Real estate itself gets traded via proxy on the markets.

pfannkuchen 2y ago

Monetary policy is a form of central planning. Central planning suffers from several issues, primarily due to insufficient ability to model the economy in a way that can reliably make valid predictions, but also due to being a single point of failure due to either incompetence or capture. Speculation bubbles seem to be the main cause of economic collapses prior to centralized currency. Could we perhaps address that in a more targeted way, rather than jumping straight to handing government control of money? Side note: Government controlling money not being necessary and furthermore not even being the American historical norm may be surprising to many readers. I would encourage you to look that up, it’s quite interesting.

intended 2y ago
And the gold standard isn’t? As someone said elsewhere - a working knowledge of economic history is crucial to be a part of this discussion.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  The gold standard is also central planning. But, where the heck did I say anything about the gold standard? I’m referring to private banks issuing receipts for metal deposits, which can be freely sold or traded. This is the origin of currency, no? The exchange rate between everything and everything else naturally floats in such a system, so there is no central planning. > a working knowledge of economic history is crucial to be a part of this discussion Here, let me get you a towel for that egg on your face, rude sir.
  - intended 2y ago
    But thats the heart of the gold standard. The only difference here being that you’ve described it before things like watering gold down, fraud, volatility, bank failures and the rest resulted in it coming under a single aegis. Issuing currency against gold is what the gold standard is all about. What do you think it was? And eggs are expensive, you should save them for later.

Aeolun 2y ago

> That sounds like a good idea if and only if there's an extreme shortage of trust in the government and institutions Umm, yes. Doesn’t that make this a perfect moment to do such? I can’t recall any other point during my life my trust in the US government was this low.