I'm respectful of economists if they've even bothered to research Bitcoin's market signal in the past tense: supply, demand, the normal things economists are supposed to research when they see a strong market signal.
-
People think of the regression theorem backwards. That Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange, regardless of quality, means that it must have had some other use prior, but that tells us nothing about what that use was. Anyway, even bringing up the regression theorem is so 2013.
Haha, that use heavily involved the entirely reasonable foresight that something designed from the ground up to be useful as money would actually be useful as money.
-
-
To say money’s use value was money, is to commit yourself to the circularity Mises was trying to resolve.
-
Nick is saying something more nuanced than that. Plenty of fantastic literature was written on the subject back in 2012-2013: Šurda: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/economics-of-bitcoin.pdf … Graf: http://www.konradsgraf.com/blog1/2013/2/27/in-depth-bitcoins-the-regression-theorem-and-that-curious-bu.html … Krawisz: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-original-value-of-bitcoins/ … Enjoy!pic.twitter.com/A67dKEAiGF
-
Second this. The original use of Bitcoin is a censorship resistant store of value/collectible. From this value, the regression begins.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In 2013, I was at Mises U, talking to David Gordon about Bitcoin. He brought up the regression theorem argument. I pointed out the above. He said, "Oh yeah, that makes sense." And then we moved on. Be like David Gordon.
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.