Money is for benefiting each other by providing goods and s…

"Its value is future new production." This is where you lose me. Is this in reference to some Austrian econ reading I have missed, or is it just you formulating normal Mengerean monetary theory in the most complex way possible?

Within a Mengerean framework, BTC only fails IF the scaling attempts fail. Block size limit and no scaling would mean low saleableness and thus useless as money.

In the evenly rotating economy, the value of money is zero. Do you agree with that?

Well obviously BTC will fail to scale.

Yes, no economic exchange.

There's still exchange in the evenly rotating economy. It's just that no one has a reason to hold money because everyone is better off with assets that earn rent. Everyone replaces cash holdings as we approach the ERE with stocks, thus cash loses value.

Sorry, I was thinking of the final state of rest when sending away that twetch(?). Yes, I agree with your description. No uncertainty means no use of money.

There is no uncertainty that BTC will ever deviate from an evenly rotating economy in which nothing is produced.

New production is deviation from the ERE. Future new production is something that would benefit holders of cash, thus it is the value of cash. BTC has no future new production because no one would want to produce goods to sell in exchange for it.

The discrepancy of your certainty, and competent LN devs' certainty, is fascinating to me. I can just say that it leaves a fantastic future for you if correct, and if BTC also refuses to scale on-chain. The market will be judge in the long run.

Consensus in segwit is a matter of one IP one vote, but not in the positive sense, the 'soft' fork hack used to maintain the dev power structure is limiting. A 'Liberum Veto' of sorts. The inversion of the terms took years. Can the narrative change again?

I have mentioned this before, but good to bring up again for clarity. Withing the framework you describe, how does one square the enormous mkt cap of gold when little to none new production is sold in exchange for it?

Gold is not money and is valuable for reasons that have nothing to do with the value of money.

Blasphemy Daniel! Blasphemy!

Can you list some of those reasons? I think that would be very educational for other Austrians following the discussion, as that statement, to me, contradicts the monetary theory of Carl Menger.

Gold is physically scarce and durable. It won't wear out easily and there won't be that much new gold coming in. Unlike most other things, therefore, you won't lose value much if you keep it and do nothing with it.

That means gold is good for preparing for bad times, when things are being destroyed. Money is good for preparing for good times, when new things are being produced. Gold is only good for that when it is also money.

Gold is good because of its physical properties. Bitcoin has no physical properties. It is a purely imaginary good. Bitcoin is only good for being money. Gold can be money, but it is still be good for something when it is not money. Bitcoin is not.

BTC is purely imaginary good 🙂. Bitcoin can hold my data and keep it available for sale (or free as in free choice of beer) for as long as Bitcoin runs forward with new blocks of more valuable data (human progress).

even if LN worked, which it doesn't, it would fail to provide scale in a way comparable to on-chain. money transfer is but a subset of data transfer.

Bitcoin is imaginary and BTC is imaginary for people with very limited imaginations.

and money transfer with immutable yet updatable records on-chain is superior to recordless money transfer off-chain.

your "competent LN devs" are working on a technologically ill-conceived project based on economically shortsighted assumptions.

They are not "my" devs. And not all are what you would consider meat chomping maxis. Rusty Russel for example.

But I assume you see this as an opportunity. If your judgement is correct you may soon be a very wealthy snake charmer.

What if you change 'gold', for 'BTC' in the above. Why is it that being digital is so negatively impacting the essence of the factors you attribute gold's extremely high value to? Because digital scarcity can be replicated, and so is not scarce in itself?

I just don't get the leap you are doing when you differentiate between the two. It's sort of: 'Gold is valuable for bad times while not being money, but BTC can't be valuable for bad times since it can't be money.'

Gold is physical.

Gold is good because of its physical properties. BTC has no physical properties.

Yeah BTC hodlers are basically unthinking, unimaginative cavemen. Can't even grasp the dead-simple details of Mises's imaginary Evenly Rotating Economy construction, and how the value of money in that system changes conditional to deviations from it!

Right.

Part 1

Mike Maloney is host of, Hidden Secrets of Money; former Rich Dad/Poor Dad advisor; author of the best-selling precious metals book, Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver, and founder of GoldSilver.com.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyV0OfU3-FU

This explanation doesn't say anything though.
Me: "Why is physicality the source of value in context of high valuation of gold?"
You: "Gold is good because its physical."

https://twetch.app/t/603794a309d966b0000ff73fc888186feb1a750d5da4fd167791f8290a0fcee4

Bitcoin is not scare in this way because it is possible to create altcoins which have the same properties. You cannot make litegold or ethgold. There is just gold.

Thank you! This is what I was after. Now I understand your argument much better.

"BTC is digitally scarce and 'durable'. It won't wear out at all and there won't be that much new of it coming in. Unlike most other things, therefore, you won't lose value much if you keep it and do nothing with it."

You explaining a 10T USD mkt cap of gold sounds very much akin to BTC people explaining why BTC is great.

https://twetch.app/t/e8bb897bc142dd1e14b236ce7afd1eca1428670349b1d0562c2615ef2d048dcb money is a game-theoretic focal point. If bitcoin is not money, there is no reason to prefer it over an altcoin. If Bitcoin is money, then it is different from an altcoin.

This is a very good point. Scarcity can be replicated (to various degrees of success) in crypto, but only one will first be money, as in commonly used MoE. Great Schelling point that gold obviously didn't need.

The distinction is hard for @13459
https://twetch.app/t/e8089dd8bd50880fc2ca83750a0392f0bb8727ccbc2031e2e82f4532dc62d4a9

I agree with you and you can go over this infinite times. Right now the market is showing different signals and appreciations about BTC, but is beacuse there's inefficiencies in the information discovery process.

People can only act badly for so long.

I see this all the time in my own country, we fight for freedom and truth. The only tool left for us is the cultural battle and patience...
The market sooner or later corrects I guess

Don't forget to demonstrate opportunity cost!

russell works on solving engineering problems posed to him for a very good salary. respect.