Yeah, that doesn't fit with Mises Regression Theorem either. A commodity cannot borrow value from another commodity. You are essentially saying, "Bitcoin can't be considered money unless we all agree that it is digital money instead of physical money. It's pre-existing value is derived from physical money."
That's still just saying that we must agree that it has value as money before it can have value as money. That is NOT what Mises was saying. Mises held it needed to have value for some reason OTHER than being money. Such as gold being considered valuable as ornamentation, since it was aesthetically pleasing, never rusted or corroded, and could be relatively easily worked into intricate shapes, due to how soft it is compared to other metals.
Bitcoin doesn't have anything like this. Instead, Bitcoin was designed with the intention of having all the properties that make money valuable as money, and without any intent to have another utility outside of money underlying it. It was DESIGNED to be money, based on what we know makes a good money by observing other things that have been used as money, and then importing those properties into the digital sphere, to make the ideal money for the digital age.
Mises was wrong. A commodity didn't need to have a utility value outside of being used as money first. It's just that there was nothing that had been used as money before being used for another purpose first up to that point. Man had never had the ability to design, from the ground up, a money specifically for the purpose of being money. We had to use what was available to us in nature, perhaps with some modifications, which means it likely had some other use-case we had found for it first, and only later discovered that it would make an adequate form of money.
Bitcoin is entirely different, and I believe has proven Mises wrong on that point.
Bitcoin was designed and gained value as money FIRST, and only after that have people tried to use it for other purposes outside of money, which has actually hurt its value as money.
That is why I am saying #bitcoin is NOT a commodity on its own - it is just a digital form of gold ..like you can have gold in liquid form , solid or even a gas ( I guess :-) ..
The number 21 million is also interesting choice by Satoshi .. cuz by 2034 there will be 21 million bitcoin ( give or take ) and 210 million kilos of gold ..
So by 2034 - on bitcoin will be equal to ten kilos of gold .. which checks out all the price predictions ..
In essence , we have forged a digital form of gold and we are in proceas of achieving price parity ..
Yes ..we are early :-)
Bitcoin is not gold in digital form. Bitcoin is superior to gold in every metric. It is not "digital gold" in the same sense that ice is water in solid form, and water can also exist as a vapor...
When water becomes ice, an equal amount of water is no longer liquid. The actual molecules of water change. Same when it turns to vapor. Absolutely nothing about physical gold changes each time a new Bitcoin block is found and new sats are issued in the block subsidy. Physical gold is unchanged. This means Bitcoin is therefore an entirely separate thing from gold, though it was designed to have many of the same properties, only better.
What you are saying is poetic, but it has no basis in reality.
You are describing conservation of mass in physical world .. digital form doesn't has this limitation.. I mean if I take my picture , doesn't mean I cease of exist ..
Yet my picture can represent me on zoom calls ..
Right, but Bitcoin is not even a representation of Gold. It is its own thing.
Then... . It is NOT money ..chose what you want it to be :-) .. your wish is the reality 🙏
That is a false dichotomy. "Bitcoin is a digital representation of gold, or it is not money." No. Bitcoin can be and is money without being in any way a tokenized version of gold.
Sure .. 😊 .. it will be money for AIs .. humans will still use gold, bonds and central banks .. unfortunately
The choice is actually simpler than it seems -
Do we want #bitcoin the currency of internet ? .. or we want it money of both - real world plus digital ..
In second option - it is obvious to peg bitcoin with gold .. and equities and bonds and RE ..
Bitcoin doesn't need to be pegged to anything to be used in the "real world." It is intrinsically tied to the real world via the energy needed to find a block.
Quit trying to "fix Bitcoin" by saying it needs to be something other than what it is. It is perfectly scarce digital money, which turns out to be a better ledger system than any physical money ever was. That is true not only for digital application, but for "real world" application, too. No need to compromise its supply cap by pegging it to anything else.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
And yes .. superiority of form depends on the metrics .. some forms are better in certain aspects .. others are in others ..
For example digital form can travel at speed of light ..but you can't touch it like you do to a physical thing .. so .. beauty is in the eyes of beholder :-)
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
