-
Filc, so basically the whole point of your posts is that you are obsessed with an obscure meaningless definition which is shared by a miniscule proportion of population.
-
[quote user="boniek"]I just said it in my previous post - constant inflation.[/quote] This is the monetarist approach. That does not necessarily mean it's incorrect, but it's not founded in praxeology either. Even if you have constant inflation, as the number of users increases, from the perspective of an individual user, the marginal
-
boniek: [quote user="boniek"]my view it was done purposefully to extract as much money from people as possible in shortest amount of time[/quote] The question however is, what are the alternatives? I only see two. Higher built in inflation, which obviously invalidates a crucial point of Bitcoin. Another one is to assign creation of Bitcoins
-
[quote user="filc"]I already conceded(pages ago) that BTC's, or anything, could indeed be made a money if it were done so by decree. That is necessarily true.[/quote] Could you please specify what do you mean "by decree"? In the context of money, this usually refers to the initiation of force by the government. This is clearly
-
Nielsio, if possible, could you address my point that Bitcoin does have a non-monetary value? To repeat/rephrase it, the non-monetary value is created because government interferes with money (e.g. by legal tender and confiscating gold) and that creates a market gap. As long as government continues to interfere with money, and unless displaced by another
-
[quote user="boniek"]system was designed in such a way that early adopters stand gain A LOT.[/quote] If you think about this objection more thoroughly, you will realise that any human endeavour benefits early adopters, but only if it subsequently shows successful. If it's not successful, they bear the loss. If this was somehow relevant
-
[quote user="boniek"]I would not accept them if they were not redeemable in fiat.[/quote] Bitcoin is not redeemable in fiat. It is traded against fiat. Noone, including the "issuers", has the obligation to redeem Bitcoin in anything.
-
[quote user="filc"]Bitcoins do not have an established existing history of exchange ratio's. Instead they borrow the already existing exchange ratio's history of the dollar.[/quote] Historically, the Euro also did not have an established existing history of exchange ratios, but was derived from preexisting currencies. The difference
-
filc, you still have not responded to my arguments. But I will address your points nevertheless: [quote user="filc"]I keep repeating words like "Exchange Ratios" and economic calculation and in my mind I see everyones eyes glaze over like I'm speaking French.[/quote] Some of your claims regarding exchange ratios and economic
-
filc, I have hear many Austrians object to calling government fiat "money". If you look at Mises Wiki article about money , it says: [quote]Money did not and never could begin by some arbitrary social contract, or by some government agency decreeing that everyone has to accept the tickets it issues.[/quote] and [quote]For a good to become