ballofrubber

5 ms·

1.
by ballofrubber 5mo ago
This mixes up real depreciation with monetary debasement. Lettuce rotting is not an argument for money rotting. Perishable goods decay, machines depreciate, buildings need maintenance, and inventories have storage costs. Prices can reflect
2.
by ballofrubber 2y ago
PoW makes green energy investments possible. Today. https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/_b_Green_...
3.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
I don't know if this is comparable. Even if UN would finally vote to deem the invasion illegal (note: it apparently is not by the democratic votes of the UN), it probably wouldn't be stopped either. I think comparing real world wa
4.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
Good point. I think the subtle difference is that the traditional political democracy coerces the minority to use the system how they like it (ofc. not everywhere, maybe more on the money/legal tender side of things), whereas with Bitc
5.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
Well there are no votes, so you can't force anyone to run anything. You run what you like and hope others do as well. As I said miners follow users, not companies.
6.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
It might not be "democratic", to me personally it seems fair as you are not forced to run the rules that are imposed by others. It might not be the wise decision, but the market will decide on the "better" rules.
7.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
Additionaly it's also different as in "the majority does not change my rules", they can be wrong in the long run and my rules become majority again.
8.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
Arguably a lot of discussion is open to anyone (Bitcoin mailing list, Core github repo), where anyone is free to post their opinion on topics themselves. It is not democratic as in "you have a vote to force others to comply to the majo
9.
by ballofrubber 4y ago
Reducing headcount _should_ be normalised. Here in Germany companies are almost forced to not lay off people. IMO this creates bad dynamics and makes people dependant on companies. If switching company would be easier, workers could demand
10.
by ballofrubber 5y ago
The second point is objectively wrong. PoW needs participants to spend capital in order to keep the organization running, thus not the rich get richer, but the more efficient get richer. PoS participants have no sell pressure and no way of
11.
by ballofrubber 5y ago
PoW is a lot different, as burning real world resources (energy) brings sell-pressure to miners, whereas PoS only has cost of locking the funds. This means that regardless of the size of your "operation" cost scales very flat. PoS
12.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
I'm astonished that you have such a strong opinion, while not even trying to understand how pricing works. Good thing you're not gambling on that! Media hype typically drives demand, not supply. Supply in bitcoin is a very fundame
13.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
Unfortunately my salary is fixed today as well and not only does it shrink as a portion of global productivity, but also as a portion of the monetary supply.
14.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
And that is financial manipulation how? The supply got less, while the demand didn't decrease. The intrinsic value increased because of the network and lindy effect, which is why institutional investors jumped in. Bitcoin entered a spe
15.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
Tbh. my very basic knowledge comes from strongly opinionated austrian economics literature, which tends to confirm my bias, and from [0], which at least gives me some data points to refer to. Do you mind giving me some of your arguments why
16.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
> No authoritarian would EVER cut off or filter the internet in their country. Nope, has never happened, will never happen. You're right, Myanmar just did that! Scary to think of it. Fortunately Bitcoin works over more communication
17.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
That's great for you, honestly! Rich get richer today by being closer to the money source. In the "bitcoin standard" non-rich people can even keep their money in the bank and don't lose purchasing power by not risking it
18.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
I think that the chairmen of the fed and ecb arguing about bitcoin is a strong signal of a challenge. As I and the video mentioned Euro and USD is not easily accessible in those countries, Bitcoin doesn't need permission though. What y
19.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
Salaries are negotiable and the renegotiation lever is skewed towards the employee. e.g. "i accept the pay cut of 3%, but will need 2 days of vaction more" vs "please employer pay me 3% more to combat inflation" You won&
20.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
In a non-inflationary monetary system cost of goods decreases every year, thats how productivity growth works. You seem to have it backwards, this is where the Econo101 book from the parent comment might help ;) /s Inflation drives dow
21.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
> Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff. Exactly, however bitcoin is infinitely better money than gold and makes the "gold standard" viable. Fortunately the gold standard has a lot of proponents
22.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
I think from a scientific view, allowing and observing the experiment bitcoin is extremely interesting. Nothing like it has challenged economic thinking in the last decades. It is very productive for a large population of the world.[0] Not
23.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
> As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as t
24.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
As an employee I would rather have the lever in renegotiations. I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk. If you don't invest your bitcoin in productive assets you will be behind peers who d
25.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
(1) I think people assume that just because bitcoin exists banks will vanish. Bitcoin is the protocol that banks can use, but individuals as well. Also, micropayments on Bitcoin exist today. I encourage you to download a lightning network w
26.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
I would say that it shouldn't be the role of a government to govern over money. The economy is very complicated. There are no models that can predict the output of changing its parameters. It wasn't possible before to have the pro
27.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
These low hanging counters have been discussed over a lot. Transaction cost is pretty low in multiple views: - You can globally settle billions of dollars worth of bitcoin for less than 10$ [0] - FIAT Settlements between banks is a complica
28.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
Would you care to share your Econo101 knowledge? I'm not an economist, but nothing has convinced me yet that bitcoin is not the best form of money.
29.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
> The amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the USA alone could power the Bitcoin network for 1.7 years I don't know about you, but I see people escaping tyranny in monetary policy as le
30.
by ballofrubber 6y ago
The motivation is extremely simple, as you can just short bitcoin, do your stunt and then cash in the rewards as you just crashed bitcoin. However the game theory behind what you are saying is completely nonsense, which is why no one ever d

More ›