Nick Szabo  🔑

I feel like that summary better matches my conception than yours. You’re positing that non-money properties are vital

Actually, the original post ended on the contrary: "However, the good news is that it is a technology, & can achieve utility post hoc." Non-money properties is vital..in the long run. Government fiats existed for a long time, but none survive the long run.

But this could be neatly explained by the incentives to inflate in fiat systems. I don’t see how utilitarian uses of gold versus fiat obviously contribute here

what could? fiats fail because of inflation & therefore irrelevant to bitcoin?

Aren’t you saying fiats fail because they lack non-money properties? My response would be they fail because they lack any restraint on supply, and the allure of inflation is too great for governments

No, they have decent moneyable properties as good as gold K fair since historically that's how we see them continually failing, but in reality, their value becomes marginalized by competition & they are forced to print or lose monetary power But if we ignore that it still fails

It fails because there are no economic calculations without utility outside of a MoE. Man can rationalize more efficiently; marginalize its value against all other goods with every different utility the good has. What should the objective purchasing power of $1 dollar be?

Who the hell knows. Its value is made up. You can't marginalize a fiat against anything. 1 Bitcoin? is that a months rent? A lambo? A tropical island? What's an ounce of gold? It's a necklace, it's 20 gold teeth, it's 10 yards of wiring, it's the plating for a sink, etc.