If Bitcoin is inevitable because it's the hardest money, why was gold replaced by fiat?
Discussion
Too risky to transfer gold that wasn’t easily divisible. Easier to settle at an end of some period vs every time you transact.
Sure but in the end the hardest money at the time (gold) was replaced by the softest possible money in human history (fiat).
Bitcoin is also easier to settle a the end of some period of time vs every time you transact.
Yeah because fiat is derived from gold-backed paper. They didn’t have better alternatives than paper. Silver was used too but it’s still a coin and still heavy.
Bitcoin doesn’t carry the same transfer risk as gold, it’s a better alternative, even if not settled every time you transact.
There's no point entertaining "bitcoin is inevitable" proponents as serious people.
I've been in that camp in the past so I don't judge their character by it, but the argument itself is very silly
Gold doesn't have nukes. Bitcoin doesn't need them.
Because gold’s flaws made fiat necessary. Now fiat’s flaws are making bitcoin necessary.
money needs flexivity to adjust to economic demand and thus gold as a hard asset could not suppport this requirement. Thus the need for fiat.
nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a's Broken Money has the answer to this. It was technological advancements that made gold too cumbersome. Specifically that of communication: the telegraph kicked it off, then the telephone and eventually the internet. Transactions were moving faster than settlement so fiat and credit/debt were the only systems that could move at that speed.
But now we have Bitcoin, which is not only hard money, but can provide final settlement as fast as an internet transaction. Best of both worlds.
Gold could still have been backed 1:1 though
It didn't take much trying to avoid going extinct while replacing gold with fiat
Bitcoin exists in the time of mass death, people who are capable of surviving now will probably be capable of understanding money