Subnostr

Here, you go, five years. Beat 484% increase. Have fun. 😅

This entire debate is pointless. Hardly anyone can beat Bitcoin saving in returns. Nvidia, maybe, and that only once. Not 5-year span after 5-year span after 5-year span after...

vinney...axkl 1y ago

You are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting me.

I'm not endorsing fiat money or fractional-reserve banking.

I'm endorsing free banking on a free market with real, hard money (Bitcoin). In free banking, individuals can choose to save or choose to take loans (which are other people's _actual_ savings - real claims on real resources) + interest for the service of acquiring resources sooner rather than later.

You disagree about the **ethics** of interest. That's all. It's completely disingenuous for you and nostr:npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku to start to insinuate that I'm a proponent of fiat banking.

Also, you are basing your lending argument on comparing Bitcoin to fiat. That's then not an argument about "lending" itself (in a hard-money context), nor the ethics of interest, it's just pointing to the fact we all already accept: hard money is better than fake money.

Yes, great, agreed. That's not what we were debating... You've veered this into a weird territory and those not paying careful attention are getting the wrong idea.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

free banking, fiat banking, same stupid game

it's not the ethics of interest... islamic halal loans and jewish kosher loans are contracts

terms are set in stone, until the escape clause is triggered

any variable interest rate destroys that and incentivises one party to base their offers on contracts that put them in control of that rate, and then they can never lose

that is the problem, and if you don't understand how fundamental that is to the fallacy of fractional reserve banking there's not much more for me to say except think about it a bit more

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Fine. What about a fixed interest rate? Do you have a problem with that?

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

if it's in the contract, and it can't be changed without bilateral agreement, the interest is fine, it's baked into the deal, it's essential to the economics

you defer future gains to give someone a chance to produce better gains than you estimate you can make

that's a halal contract, and that's not what any kind of fiat money finance is about

vinney...axkl 1y ago

But that (fixed interest rate loans) is all I've been talking about.

Yet you and nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl have been shifting the goalposts and straw manning like crazy to make me out to be a fiat lunatic.

If you agree there is nothing wrong with freely-agreed upon fixed rate loans, then we agree and we can finally shut up. The issue started when nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl seemed to allude that "any interest rate == usury"

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

fixed interest rates are fine, did i say they were not?

just the reneging is not ok, and that's the essence of what usury means, it's a form of theft

Laeserin 1y ago

Nobody said that we consider them usury. We're neither Jewish nor Muslim.

I picked the building of a major road with a bridge, to illustrate the sort of project that would be difficult to finance by private interest-bearing loans. In the near past, they were financed by the state and the money was simply pressed out of the populace through taxation or through cheap loans to the private builders that were supported by inflation.

That said, full-recourse loans (as opposed to something backed by collateral) are a form of indentured servitude, if they cannot easily discharge the debt. Mortgages (except the ones that allow you to walk away and leave the key) and US student loans are typical non-dischargeable, full-recourse loans.

Laeserin 1y ago

I did not say that. I wrote an entire wiki article describing what usury is and said that I am generally against charging interest. That is because fixing the interest and then fiddling with the monetary supply, so that inflation/deflation effects the returns, is how they get out of the clause through a back door.

They can't do that as easily with Bitcoin. So, tell me how that makes sense in a rapidly deflating currency on a mid-term or long-term contract?

Obviously, it is possible for a week. Maybe a month, for a small loan.

But... 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?

No. It is economic nonsense.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

I think aside from her moral beliefs, Laeserin's mathematical point is you can't denominate loan interest in Bitcoin because it's so deflationary and you can't really expect profit on loans under the early years of a Bitcoin standard for the same reason. Equity investment might be profitable but lending becomes a charitable act while there's such a deflationary currency available. Anyone borrowing 10 BTC will have a hard time returning 10 BTC while each Satoshi is gaining value faster than the rest of the economy's assets.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

this is something that modern people barely even understand

until you have worked for a few asshole employers, then you learn a nice and important fact about contracts

unilateral binding in contracts is a violation of contract law

that is, if the asset being handled is not bilaterally handled, it is slavery

this is why at any point in an employment contract you can just walk out and sign off and trigger the escape clause

what fiat and free banking fractional reserve contracts do is make it so that one party does not have the right to cancel the contract when the other party changes the terms

that is a violation of contract law, it is not honoring your word and it is essentially deceit

Laeserin 1y ago

You are trying to explain why the hardest money ever invented can be used to create a system of interest-bearing loans. Yes, it can. People can do anything they want.

Why don't you go set up a Bitcoin bank that lends out the principle for large projects and receives the principle+interest back and consistently beats hodling? Show us how its done.

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Doesn't make practical sense while fiat money is still so broadly accepted. Because as you point out, the gains of "just holding" are better.

But that won't always be the case. On a Bitcoin standard, those "nosebleed" gains will disappear.

And you will once again have people seeking investment for projects they don't have the savings to start on the day they want to start it.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

The core disagreement between the two of you seems to be over how deflationary Bitcoin is under a Bitcoin standard

To you, the Bitcoin standard hasn't started until we finish the wave of adoption driving value to increase

To Laeserin, we're already in the early days of the Bitcoin standard

Laeserin 1y ago

No, we are disagreeing about whether Bitcoin is even a deflationary currency. Even a rate of 20% would make almost all lending unprofitable.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Couldn't deflation get below 20% someday though? I'd imagine it stabilizing someday to deflate by as much as gold and silver inflate, maybe times two for lost keys, that's still probably less than 10% a year

Laeserin 1y ago

Yes, humans could die out so fast that BTC deflation slowed or even reversed.

Or a competing currency could take part of the monetary demand. A gold coin or CBDC, or a US treasury bond giving 40% rates in WW3, or whatever. That's what they're trying to do, now. Take away demand for Bitcoin with an inflationary money, to make interest-bearing credit great again.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Sorry but if humans are dying out we're gonna have algorithms printing money and posting new all time high trades on those tickers on the outsides of the buildings on wall street just like when life signs could be detected in new york city

Laeserin 1y ago

I humans were dying out that rapidly, there wouldn't be any point in investing, as goods and resources would just be lying around, waiting to be used. People would revert to scavenging and most advanced civilization would decay.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Not the way things are headed. It's simple statistics, everyone is moving out of New York because it's becoming such a police state and corporations are taking over. If you graph the trend out into the future it projects that the last 100 people in Manhattan will be a tribe of NYPD officers answering to a mayor chat bot that has them drink Kool aid after all the server racks have been moved to the top floors for sea level rise

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Hahahahahhaaha

vinney...axkl 1y ago

As a friendly thought experiment, how would you make a profit in lending bitcoin given a 20% deflation rate? If you were tasked to do such a thing, how would you achieve it?

Laeserin 1y ago

Lend to the US government at 21%. They always get their money.

vinney...axkl 1y ago

why wouldn't I just loan to a well-positioned startup at 21%?

vinney...axkl 1y ago

you're saying that 21% is effectively 1%, right?

Laeserin 1y ago

Because you risk the loss of the principle and the principle is tied up for X years, for a measly 1% return. That does not cover the risk premium.

You need some nearly-guaranteed returns, like the US government can give because they have the monopoly on violence.

vinney...axkl 1y ago

So charge 27%?

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Haven't you just redefined the base rate?

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

No because she's not a central bank so even if she's guessing right she can't guarantee profits for herself and her cronies by changing it again on a whim

If I'm getting what she's saying

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Like, with no party running the circle of monetary flow, no debt system can really be stable

vinney...axkl 1y ago

"[...] This division of labor benefits the saver by delegating to the bank the task of successful forecasting – in which the saver may have no skill or desire to perform. Delegating the lending to the bank would in most cases provide the customer with a more secure investment than if he were to lend the money out himself on the basis of his own judgments of entrepreneurial success

...

Interest payments primarily are paid for the service of acquiring access to capital sooner rather than later

...

Bob has deposited money in a bank that will invest it in projects for him. it promises 5% interest.

Joe acquires a loan for 100 dollars + 10 percent interest from this bank. [after some time]

Joe has responsibly paid the bank the principal of his loan (one hundred dollars) along with the ten percent interest (ten dollars). The following month, Bob arrives to collect his investment, at which point in time, the bank may return to Bob his principal and interest or offer to keep the funds and renew the lending agreement. Even if Bob refuses the offer to continue and decides to collect his funds, both parties benefit as both parties become five dollars richer. Even Joe the borrower benefited by gaining access to capital needed to start his small business sooner as opposed to his waiting later. Perhaps starting the business at that current point of time was crucial to its success"

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Who did anything about guaranteed profits? No profits are ever guaranteed. That's what separated the successful from the successful and insured society is benefitting from people's endeavours.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

🏦

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Wow sorry, billions of typos! Fixed:

"Who said anything about guaranteed profits? No profits are ever guaranteed in a truly free market. That's what separates the successful from the unsuccessful and insures value is delivered to society from the efforts of the successful"

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Banks are just gonna prefer equity for a while I'd bet