Hard money does fix it. Surplus that you burn is waste. With hard money, real competition happens and the most efficient individuals (least wasteful) will be the most productive in society and this have the most money. Hard money specifically disincentivizes waste.
Discussion
What do you need money for, tho?
Nobody needs money, in an era without scarcity.
You can see it around here, with housing, for instance. At the moment, there is a major housing squeeze and prices are rising, but the people in the houses are accelerating their earthly departure and then the prices will crash into the ground. It'll be rather sudden, and then there'll be a glut of this hyperefficient housing.
Nobody is prepared for that, but you can see it in the East and in rural areas. Everyone has a house and the empty houses rot and have to be torn down as fire hazards.
It'll all be about destroying things to prevent gluts.
Who is going to buy the company shares from the Boomers?
Nobody. That is who.
I'm ready. My Uncle who listens to a bit of what I say is now ready. He's a boomer and had 5 houses. He bought a Bitcoin and sold a few houses when I tried to tell him much the same. I think he's been happy with that decision now. Everyone measuring the world with fiat do not see it and are not ready, you are right there and that's most people.
I'm stacking Bitcoin, but I'm increasingly unsure of what I'd ever spend it on.
Bitcoin will maintain its purchasing power, or even steadily rise in purchasing power, but the price of everything will also crash down.
Bitcoiners will have more money than they could ever spend, so most of it will end up just retiring, when they die. I suppose. I suppose that's how it'll redistribute. People will simply not spend it and it will become dead keys.
Hopefully it will be passed on rather than turn into dead keys. The game changes when everyday essential items can be easily and effortlessly bought with bitcoin.
"Spend and replace" just read as produce more than you spend.
If you are spending more than you're producing you are losing money over time.
If you're spending less than you produce, you're saving.
And you should save when you're young and middle age when you're youthful or highly skilled so that when you're older and less capable you can live on those savings.
We find ourselves in a weird transitionsry period where Bitcoin will not just grow at the rate of our productivity. It's monetizing and it has a long way to go. So early adopters will be very very wealthy. But in the long term, they will either carry it to the grave or pass it down. So on and so forth. Us that pass it down can only hope we instil our children with the same principles or sampling more than they spend.
Fun fact, 70% of families lose their wealth after the 2nd generation. 90% after the 3rd.
On man, I need to get my ghost-writer on a sci-fi novel called "The last Satoshi"
Good write up by Peter on this, and post from waxwing. Surprisingly, under reasonable assumptions about loss rates mostly, coin supply far out is just a function of emission and loss rate/entropy
Wouldn't just be an e^(-kt) type function? Or maybe that is what you said?
Was actually drawing a visual of it this morning with idea of maybe posting it for wider understanding. Will include here for fun, but since you're pretty mathy prob best to spend 5 mins reading Todd's write up (it's short and sweet)
nostr:note1g5lr9tc9sam4yxcf8evhq8gdll7k5m9utj3fde45jfh7l4dn9qwqza4xpr
Side note - in process of doodling I learned outflow is actually proportional to square root of height, following Toricellis Law (just a consequence of conservation of energy and kinetic energy being v^2...). So, the physical analogy is fatally flawed lol (but just imagine a dynamic spigot at bottom to compensate...)
People really need to stop taking Peter Todd seriously / giving him so much engagement
People need to stop stalking random women for over a year
Word
Yeah it’s just like a wrong thing to do. Especially when the woman makes it clear (even for the extremely autistic) that she would like for you to leave her alone.
Yah know stuff like changing your handle to a declaration of love for this woman and devoting your into bio to this woman.
Wait are you talking about random women or is that just code for Digit? 😢
“Code” if by code you mean just repeating the things you have said.
Where the fuck did I say something that you misinterpreted as calling Digit "random women" you fucking retard?
Did that even happen or are you just making shit up again?
I guess you won't answer - lucky for me, I don't care
Oh sorry. Random woman you talked to on the internet.
Again, what are you talking about?
You stalking a girl for over a year that you met on the internet and who made it clear to you that she doesn’t want anything to do with you. It’s all in the post that I quoted earlier. You admitted all this. Member? Your entire persona on here is based on this? Not sure how you would forget?
It’s just weird behavior overall. This pretending to forget bit.
Why is this so hard for you?
Just screenshot the part where I said whatever you took as "Digit is random women"
No. You said it all man. You have it posted all over your profile that you’re trying to find this woman who you know for a fact wants nothing to do with you.
Still waiting
Pay me 20k sats right now and I’ll do the work you could do yourself.
Nah, I'll just continue assuming you can't do it until proven otherwise
Oh you’re legitimately more concerned about me calling her a “random woman” than you are about me calling you out for admitting you’re a stalker. Ok cool. That makes sense.
You didn't actually read what you were replying to that whole time? 😂
Oh no I’m still just solidifying that you are aware that I’m calling you a stalker over and over again and you have no room to deny it. Because you have already made it your entire persona on this and two other websites.
You’re deeply mentally ill.
I don't call loving Digit stalking but it's a pretty vague word so yeah, it is pointless to argue with retards who use it differently 🤙
Yes, what’s described in that message can reasonably be called stalking, particularly emotional or digital stalking.
Here’s why:
🚩 Key Red Flags:
1. Persistent focus on someone who wants no contact:
“I was respecting her wishes to not go around talking about her too much…”
• This implies she explicitly wanted boundaries, which are later broken.
2. Attempting covert contact while bypassing consent:
“…recognizable to her, but not identifiable enough for anyone to connect the dots…”
• This suggests the person is trying to secretly reach or provoke a response from her without her direct consent.
3. Monitoring for signs of life and interpreting ambiguous signals:
“…the only communication from her… was a kinda scary Spotify playlist…”
• This is an example of obsessive behavior—parsing random digital activity as meaningful communication.
4. Increased obsessive behavior based on unverifiable rumors:
“Someone claiming to be her brother saying she committed suicide… panic intensified…”
• Regardless of emotional distress, this behavior escalated rather than de-escalated after this.
5. Admitting that their online presence is a vehicle to reach her indirectly:
“The only point of having the npub was… while she would be able to recognize who it was…”
• This crosses into using public forums as indirect messaging tools, which can feel invasive or coercive.
You have it right for BTC, was just eager to share what I thought was surprising limit for fixed emission
Human beings will always have a natural heirachy about them. Some of us are more productive than others. Those that are more productive would like a way to measure that productivity. Theyve earned more than the less productive. No matter how much of a surplus we have there will always be classes of people based on their economic output.
You missed the part where none of us produce anything, anymore.
Humans will always be productive. It's in our nature. Human action.
We will have more war. That's usually what we do, when we have nothing better to do.
Some war and some rapine and some burning of fields...
War is how humans deal best, with both scarcity and surplus.
Too many factories producing too many goods?
Drop a bomb on them.
Too many wheat fields producing too much bread?
Burn them.
Too many single ladies, lazing about all day, bored?
Well, we have a plan for that, too.
Sounds about right
Burning Ukraine brought back sensible bread prices, to Western Europe. Bread used to cost so little, that people treated it like garbage.
Now, we keep the leftover bits and make croutons, or bread puddings or dumplings or crumbs...
Burning Ukraine brought the doener price up to 8 euros. But the doener is still too large and cheap, and it's making us fat.
How many Ukraines do we need to burn, to get a 16 euro doener?
Asking for a friend...
Well no. The one with softer money will have more exports and your production will die
Why would the softer money have more exports? Because they can print money to skew economic data to produce more goods in high demand sectors? But that money printing doesn't make REAL productivity. It's artificially inflated by sprinting to make more goods if you will. That would cause malinvestments and the hard money economy would be slower but much more efficient with much less waste.
If everyone has Bitcoin, then nobody has an advantage.
Well yes but they're arguing a fiat economy would beat a bitcoin one because they can export more. Akin to China vs US. But it's apples to oranges because they both have their own fists.
My assumptions are based upon widespread bitcoin adoption, I suppose. I'm not including monetary differentials.
Because hard money can buy more. It simple ss that. For the same reason imports are expensive for the one with softer money. It is up to the profile of the economy of the country what is better. For example soon Bulgaria will enter the eurozone it seems and € is harder than the currency it has now. Will that be good for Bulgaria or a disaster? I can bet that it will be a disaster.