Why is it that cryptographers made so much more money off Bitcoin than Austrian economists did?
-
To put it simply, that interpretation requires a "base trading price" for the commodity upon which a money price can be based. It was believed that without this "base price" Bitcoin would be impossible to price. Now we understand that yes it's hard to price but it is not zero.
Yes this was always a fallacious argument that comes from taking economic theories too dogmatically. It's like arguing that an insurance contract can't be useful as an insurance contract until it's useful for something more concrete, say generating power or growing food.
![Giacomo Zucco [I identify as a -e^iπ vampire]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1172971162919415813/Pn8O2gkx_normal.jpg)
-
-
It also helped me, when designing bit gold, that I studied the actual archeology and ethnography of the origins of money, and knew that money or something very much like it rose millenia before the dawn of spot commodity markets and widely respected property rights.
-
Would love to know any sources you might remember off hand on this topic of the origins of money. Thanks.
-
Prior to that time, my main source was the first few chapters of Roy Davies and some related readings in archaeology and ethnography about shell money etc. But I've since expanded my reading, you can finds refs in my own works:https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/954225789129469952 …
-
Excellent, thank you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I always joke with my friend who sold me on this argument (I was leaning toward the "but it already has a price" side) that he cost me my chance to get a ton of Bitcoin early on lol.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.