I was just thinking about an analogy that might help people to understand why this is a false dichotomy. Money as a tool for storing and transferring value can be compared to a bucket for storing and transferring water. Fiat, supposedly a good "medium of exchange," is like a bucket that's easy to pour without spilling but that has a hole in the bottom, allowing water to leak out over time (inflation). Gold, supposedly a good "store of value," is like a bucket that doesn't leak, but that's heavy and hard to pour without spilling (high transaction costs). But "store of value" and "medium of exchange" aren't really separate functions. The point of storing value is to eventually access via a subsequent exchange. A bucket that didn't leak, but that spilled 95% of its water every time you tried to pour it would be essentially useless. And a medium of exchange wouldn't work if it couldn't do at least a reasonable job of storing its value between exchanges. It'd be like a bucket with no bottom (or a currency in hyperinflation). But the ideal monetary "bucket," the one we should expect to ultimately outcompete all the others, is one that doesn't leak or spill. That's the potential that cryptocurrency offers. And that's why any crypto that sets out to be a high-friction "digital gold" will end up instead as "digital lead."
This reminds me of the 2011 period when I was praising the virtues of Bitcoin in the Mises forum: since I had a strong background in Austrian Economics I grasped almost immediately the awesomeness of Bitcoin as perfect money and I thought that that would be obvious for most of the members there.@freetrader: Amazing. This very forum here seems to me to be the or one of the strongest Austrian economics outposts in the whole crypto ecosystem.
I suspect he's writing something that paints us into the Keynesian corner and them into the Austrian one to ease his mind (or that of his followers) that they are really keen on 'sound money', given the unsoundness of the recent exchange rate.
right, apparently there is a BTC pool (~30%) that plans on forking off to segwit2x regardless of the cancellation. they are removing hash power from BTC hoping to lower dif, so that forking off with 30% is possible.Somewhere on rbtc I read that 30% of HP was taken offline a while ago. Does anyone know anything more about this?
Societies (= collectivism) never survive. Societies prosper until they collapse, and they collapse because they prospered, until they don't (on diminishing return on additional investment in additional complexity). Tainter's law. It always works until it doesn't:
maybe they can mine BCH and help find 6 new blocks so we see the new DAA work