9/ Like many astutely observed, if it was possible to create money this way (by hooking up a bunch of computers together), we wouldn’t have to wait until now. Make no mistake, PoW mining & Nakamoto consensus are crucial in the creation of digital hard money.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @hugohanoi
We have fiat money, and tradeable rewards points and airline miles. There are thousands of examples (even excluding fiat money). Bitcoin is very different from these, with many advantages, but it's incorrect to say that evidence suggests you need unforgeable costliness.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul
I fell it was obvious so didn’t add a qualifier but unforgeable costliness is a mandatory requirement only for hard-to-manipulate sound money. You can of cos do whatever you want with make-believe unsound money: fiat, reward points, travel miles, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
Isn’t it the opposite? If funny money can so easily gain real value, doesn’t that suggest unforgeable costliness isn’t necessary for something less funny?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul
Having a price tag doesn’t construe “real” value. Anything can have a price tag above its true value due to people being irrational or threat of violence. But in the long run things always return to their true value.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
You’re now totally down the “no true Scotsman fallacy” with circular reasoning. You: historic evidence suggests money must have unforgeable costliness, then dismiss the 92%+ of the world’s actual money and tens of billions in sellable rewards and airline miles. Circular.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul @hugohanoi
2/ you’re free to argue that all current fiat and all the other money-like assets will eventually fall to zero, but you have to acknowledge and give a reason why you think past evidence will cease to apply.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul @hugohanoi
3/ you can argue that once people have BTC as an option that all fiat will fall to zero. Then you have to explain why people seemed eager to abandon gold for fiat and why BTC will be so different from gold.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul @hugohanoi
4/ lastly, if something is liquidly sellable at a price for 40+ years, claiming it doesn’t have “real” value is bad semantics. You don’t get to define what the world values. I may not like soda, but it has value to people.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul
On the contrary, in the relatively short history of the modern fiat, there has been plenty of evidence (evidence, not arguments) that fiats either go bust or lose most of their purchasing power. Honest question: why are you in crypto if you believe in fiat Ari?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
In fact, if the central bankers had succeeded in maintaining a sensible fiat money system - as make-believe as it is - there would be ZERO chance for something like Bitcoin to exist. Real is real is real. Semantics is not the issue here.
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.
