Ok, let’s sum up the authors argument for bitcoin: We want a fiat currency tracked by a ledger The rules of this system are managed by a handful of developers The developers and their changes are...
Ok, let’s sum up the authors argument for bitcoin:
We want a fiat currency tracked by a ledger
The rules of this system are managed by a handful of developers
The developers and their changes are accepted or rejected by a majority of the community
So they want a currency controlled by a government. Just a different government than the existing governments.
I was following the argument until it transitioned to arguing for bitcoin. Right before they mentioned bitcoin, I said aloud “please don’t say bitcoin”. The author mentions a lot of really serious issues about currency, but failed to show that bitcoin actually adresses these issues. The only issue that is remotely addressed is governments being able to “tax” citizens by deflating the value of their currency. Bitcoin actually does kinda solve that, but you are still taxed per transaction with transaction fees, and bitcoin still does have deflationary pressure through mining rewards.
Haven’t watched this one. Does she address the tension between speculative investments (where it’s great if they go up over time) and fixed-income investments like loans? In a previous article,...
Haven’t watched this one. Does she address the tension between speculative investments (where it’s great if they go up over time) and fixed-income investments like loans?
In a previous article, she made the valid point that a loan is implicitly shorting the underlying currency. But we don’t want to turn a mortgage into something as risky as shorting a stock.
Borrowing an unpredictably appreciating asset is very bad. Predictability is key. A stable inflation rate is the best way to make things fair between borrowers and lenders.
Bitcoin fixes supply, resulting in price volatility due to unstable demand. To keep the price stable, supply needs to increase with demand.
I don’t think so, but I could certainly have missed it. She doesn’t even really discuss volatility and predictability of bitcoin. She mentions that currencies being unstable is bad, and uses the...
I don’t think so, but I could certainly have missed it.
She doesn’t even really discuss volatility and predictability of bitcoin. She mentions that currencies being unstable is bad, and uses the many recent examples we have about different countries having or causing hyperinflation. But when she gets to bitcoin, she mentions that its value has been both higher and lower than most other currencies as if that’s a good thing.
Her argument about why banking is flawed is really good. I think it’s worth watching for that part. But when she gets to bitcoin it comes out to: “here are all the reasons bitcoin is different from traditional banking”, but forgets to mention why it’s better. And most of the ways it’s different don’t address the causes of the issues she outlined with banking.
Ok, let’s sum up the authors argument for bitcoin:
So they want a currency controlled by a government. Just a different government than the existing governments.
I was following the argument until it transitioned to arguing for bitcoin. Right before they mentioned bitcoin, I said aloud “please don’t say bitcoin”. The author mentions a lot of really serious issues about currency, but failed to show that bitcoin actually adresses these issues. The only issue that is remotely addressed is governments being able to “tax” citizens by deflating the value of their currency. Bitcoin actually does kinda solve that, but you are still taxed per transaction with transaction fees, and bitcoin still does have deflationary pressure through mining rewards.
Haven’t watched this one. Does she address the tension between speculative investments (where it’s great if they go up over time) and fixed-income investments like loans?
In a previous article, she made the valid point that a loan is implicitly shorting the underlying currency. But we don’t want to turn a mortgage into something as risky as shorting a stock.
Borrowing an unpredictably appreciating asset is very bad. Predictability is key. A stable inflation rate is the best way to make things fair between borrowers and lenders.
Bitcoin fixes supply, resulting in price volatility due to unstable demand. To keep the price stable, supply needs to increase with demand.
I don’t think so, but I could certainly have missed it.
She doesn’t even really discuss volatility and predictability of bitcoin. She mentions that currencies being unstable is bad, and uses the many recent examples we have about different countries having or causing hyperinflation. But when she gets to bitcoin, she mentions that its value has been both higher and lower than most other currencies as if that’s a good thing.
Her argument about why banking is flawed is really good. I think it’s worth watching for that part. But when she gets to bitcoin it comes out to: “here are all the reasons bitcoin is different from traditional banking”, but forgets to mention why it’s better. And most of the ways it’s different don’t address the causes of the issues she outlined with banking.