lottin

24 ms·

391.
by lottin 4y ago
It's usually a combination of both. When the local currency is unreliable, as a result of bad government policies, the locals will try get hold of a stronger foreign currency. They will sell the local currency to buy the foreign curr
392.
by lottin 4y ago
It's inseparable from the technology. The technology is about issuing and transferring, and exchanging virtual tokens. This is all it does. And what can you do with virtual tokens? Not much, other than trying to sell them for money
393.
by lottin 4y ago
I'll leave you alone with your mental gymnastics.
394.
by lottin 4y ago
I don't have a theory (other that both CBDCs and cryptocurrencies are dumb). I'm merely pointing out that the idea that CBDCs are absolute evil while bitcoin is absolutely against evil is rather inconsistent in light of the fact
395.
by lottin 4y ago
So if you found out that a top pentagon official was working as a military advisor for the Taliban, that wouldn't ring any alarm bells to you. It's completely normal and there's nothing to worry about.
396.
by lottin 4y ago
I don't know about totalitarian systems. They are involved with CBDCs. How do you know they aren't proponents of CBDCs?
397.
by lottin 4y ago
Do you realise that some of the people behind CBDCs are Bitcoin developers?
398.
by lottin 4y ago
> since people don't have to cover physical electricity and GPU costs anymore it also means that the rewards can be much lower The amount spent on electricity in PoW is determined by the reward not the other way around. And from wh
399.
by lottin 4y ago
I don't know, it depends on what you mean by decentralisation. I don't even use this term because I find it's meaningless without additional context.
400.
by lottin 4y ago
You put the IOU in circulation by selling it or by giving it away. (I don't know what's so hard about that.) The point is that the act of writing the IOU doesn't create any new cars. And likewise the act of destroying the I
401.
by lottin 4y ago
It matters, because if you aren't careful you'll jump to the wrong conclusion (such as thinking that capital was destroyed, when in fact no capital was destroyed at all). Resources can be bought with money. Someone who has money
402.
by lottin 4y ago
I don't understand the question.
403.
by lottin 4y ago
Not only economic incentives, but contracts as well. Contracts are promises between individuals that are enforced by a third party, namely the judicial system. This way we don't have trust that everybody will do what they say they&#x
404.
by lottin 4y ago
No.. you're missing the point. The whole point of crypto is to create a market where a service is provided without relying on a contractual agreement between the provider and the consumer. If you don't have a problem using con
405.
by lottin 4y ago
No, the whole idea of both PoW and PoS is the same, namely to prevent a Sybil attack by requiring participants to incur an economic cost. In PoW, participants are required to buy electricity, whereas in PoS they're required to buy a v
406.
by lottin 4y ago
Because this only happens once the IOU has been put in circulation. In my example, the paper money I created was not put in circulation, consequently no redistribution effect took place. The analogy is solid and appropriate.
407.
by lottin 4y ago
No, it isn't. Let's say I take a piece of paper and write: "I will give the bearer of this piece of paper my car." Do I have created a new car? No. The piece of paper is still a piece of paper, and there aren't any
408.
by lottin 4y ago
You could give simple, logical, concrete definition of 'decentralised actor' and show the concept isn't gibberish. If you can't come up with anything, maybe you have to concede that it is gibberish.
409.
by lottin 4y ago
I'm not redefining anything. I'm an economist, and I know the terminology of economics well. Capital can refer to two things, either 'capital' (or 'real capital') or 'financial capital'. The defini
410.
by lottin 4y ago
Destroying money doesn't destroy capital. It doesn't matter who created it. Money is not capital. You're mistaking a claim on a good for the good itself. These are completely different things.
411.
by lottin 4y ago
Sorry. We were talking about what it means for an "actor" to be "decentralised". Now you're saying that a central bank is someone who has a monopoly on issuing their own currency. So apparently I'm a central
412.
by lottin 4y ago
A lot of people repeat what they hear without giving things any thought. I say it's gibberish because it doesn't mean anything. Try to explain what characteristics set a decentralised actor apart from a centralised actor. Remem
413.
by lottin 4y ago
If you set your own money on fire, the amount of wealth in the economy won't change. However you'll be worse off, because your share of the total wealth is now smaller (and everybody else's share is bigger).
414.
by lottin 4y ago
Money and capital are different things. Capital in a broad sense is any durable good that is employed in the production of goods and services. For example, a road. Money is not capital. Money is simply a good without intrinsic value tha
415.
by lottin 4y ago
What idea? The idea of "centralised actor" isn't even an idea, it's gibberish.
416.
by lottin 4y ago
I don't think banks need a correspondent bank in the US to work with US dollars. There are clearing houses, such as USD-CHATS in Hong Kong, that will settle transactions in US dollars.
417.
by lottin 4y ago
Nonsense. SWIFT is a Belgian corp. that provides inter-bank payments. It has nothing to do with the US or the US dollar. There is no US-issued license required to use dollars internationally. This is stupid.
418.
by lottin 4y ago
This is absolute nonsense. International trade is predominantly conducted in US dollars, therefore it's patently obvious that it must possible to transfer dollars abroad.
419.
by lottin 4y ago
> US-issued "Allowed to Handle US Dollars Electronically" License Source?
420.
by lottin 4y ago
What do you mean real dollars? Dollar deposits in bank accounts outside the US are as real as dollars deposited in US banks.

More ›