The difference between a good and bad economist.

[Moon]

When say "better" by having lower confirmation time and lower cost (obv to transact) these definitions of "better" or "good" are fine in theory (even if they are not the same as my definitions), HOWEVER, it does NOT stand to reason that making something easier to TRANSACT is better for HOARDING.

And then you assert, but without a basis for saying such a thing, that no one will want to hoard something that they cannot send/spend because of high fee or slow transaction time.

I admit I was only going off of my own anecdotal experience. For me, transaction time is a factor in whether I hoard a crypto or not but I suppose that's irrelevant.

But I am sure you understand now my point, because I see you are sincere, I am not a basic player, have no fear of growth and change thru me. I am a major player in this game, hidden from you until now...

Hahah I can see why others say you are arrogant. I hope I understand, but I have a ways to go. What do you mean by "this game"?

Gold, is proof of something that costs a massive amount to transact, relative to anything bitcoin will ever cost, and gold must be shipped over sea and moved physically. Yet it is the most hoarded asset in the world.

I believe gold is the world's current best asset which is hoarded only because there is nothing else better. I believe bitcoin or another crypto will replace gold as the most hoarded asset and sound money. In order for that to happen, bitcoin needs to have similar or better properties than other cryptos namely price, transaction cost and speed, among traditional aspects of currency like ease of use and fungibility.

If bitcoin did not exist, I would have become a gold bug. Actually, I wouldn't have because bitcoin was the catalyst to learning a bit more about economics.

Science, observable reality, and reason, show you will learn from me if you continue to enter into dialogue on the subject of "What is Ideal Money".

I want to leave this point on its own, and I will continue in another post.

Cheers to sincere players and sincere play!

Yes, I hope to learn. If your posts are only a small preview of what is to come then I haven't been excited about learning and challenging my views since I first learned about bitcoin. What sites do you frequent? I don't want to waste your time asking for explanations since I'm sure much of what I say/ask is nothing new.

[JalToorey]

I admit I was only going off of my own anecdotal experience. For me, transaction time is a factor in whether I hoard a crypto or not but I suppose that's irrelevant.

Yes it's not as substantial as big blockers scream about especially in the way they are suggesting. Anyone who is sincere and not emotional can see the clear truth of this, whether from a scientific perspective, rational, or observable reality.

Hahah I can see why others say you are arrogant. I hope I understand, but I have a ways to go. What do you mean by "this game"?

Yes I see why they feel this way too, but always there are players that can laugh and have some fun, while admitting that I do in fact know what I am talking about. The missing factor is how horribly the ignorant players have treated me, and furthermore how we have ignored Nash, who did nothing but quietly calmly try to tell us how to save ourselves from ourselves.

The game and the players in it, are how we represent the problem (all problems) and solve it. Game theory. I can say "players" and then we can see "conflict" from a different perspective.

I believe gold is the world's current best asset which is hoarded only because there is nothing else better. I believe bitcoin or another crypto will replace gold as the most hoarded asset and sound money. In order for that to happen, bitcoin needs to have similar or better properties than other cryptos namely price, transaction cost and speed, among traditional aspects of currency like ease of use and fungibility.

No. Bitcoin needs to have "good" properties, by the Nashian definition of "good money" which is historically what gold had/has (but did not always). Nash explicitly describes what he means by "good", and his description is what I use as the definition for "good money". You see what we are "sold" as "good money" is actually "bad money" that no one wants so they circulate it. I promise, I am a good read of character, if you spend some time with the material and especially the meme story I quote this will all make sense. Its tricky but not complex. 20 years he went into the qualities of gold that make it exactly what me and you hope bitcoin might be.

If bitcoin did not exist, I would have become a gold bug. Actually, I wouldn't have because bitcoin was the catalyst to learning a bit more about economics.

Nash speaks to you:

And so the various currencies managed with “inflation targeting” would be comparable by users or observers who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies. And what I want to suggest is that “the public” or the users, those for whom a medium of exchange functions as a basic utility, may develop opinions that are critical of currencies of lower “value quality”. That is, the public may learn to demand better quality of that which CAN be managed to be of better quality or which can be manged to be lof the lower quality observed in so many of the various national currencies in the 20th century.

Yes, I hope to learn. If your posts are only a small preview of what is to come then I haven't been excited about learning and challenging my views since I first learned about bitcoin. What sites do you frequent? I don't want to waste your time asking for explanations since I'm sure much of what I say/ask is nothing new.

Read these quotes in order, but don't get discouraged on the words, finish reading EACH one. We are conditioned by natural disorder of society to reject truth. Nash gives it in plain and simple language, the only difficulty with understanding is we refuse to face it-we turn away: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1510638.0


https://medium.com/@rextar4444

I am pokertravis on reddit

And here is my contribution to the game: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/

[Moon]

Although the meme quote images are very relevant, I've not included them in the quotes below for readability. I've combined my replies from your two posts.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by quoting this one? If another crypto is better money then people will move to that one, away from bitcoin and lowering bitcoin's value just like people moving to bitcoin from dollars.

In regard to what people "move away" from and what people "cling to", people move away from money they are circulating and cling to money they are hoarding. This division, in how people "use" money (circulate or as a savings), is what you and many others are missing. I have a writing in mind, that shows Szabo missed this in shelling out and his kula conjecture. Nash doesn't miss this.

I understand there is a division between circulating money and hoarding money, but I believe this division will disappear once a cryptocurrency takes off. I don't know who Daniel Krawisz is, but he talks about a hyperbitcoinization event, where there will be a transition to bitcoin as a world currency.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hy ... 11.7-11.21

Anyway the block size LIMIT needs to be raised
This is a sentiment but core will not bend to sentiment, it is the one duty Satoshi bestowed on this. I know Ver would agree with this.

Agree.

Roger is trying to say that the price could have been higher because the uncertainty of the block size limit would be put to rest so investors would have higher confidence in investing in bitcoin. Impossible to prove, but the current increase in price is also not proof that the future of bitcoin is secure.

We agree then that uncertainty destroys the quality of bitcoin. Flux is terrible for its perceive future value, however, we are talking about quality in the sense that people will hoard it once the uncertainty wanes. People won't circulate bitcoin, this is what the congressional report I quoted explains. They will circulate fiat currency faster and faster, forcing our governments to reign in the currencies supplies thus asymptotically increasing the supply of money.

I guess where i'm getting hung up on is why people won't eventually stop using the circulating currency (in this case the dollar)? Why can't the hoarded money/asset and circulating money be one and the same? Can you explain "They will circulate fiat currency faster and faster, forcing our governments to reign in the currencies supplies thus asymptotically increasing the supply of money." as I don't quite follow?

I believe gold is the world's current best asset which is hoarded only because there is nothing else better. I believe bitcoin or another crypto will replace gold as the most hoarded asset and sound money. In order for that to happen, bitcoin needs to have similar or better properties than other cryptos namely price, transaction cost and speed, among traditional aspects of currency like ease of use and fungibility.

No. Bitcoin needs to have "good" properties, by the Nashian definition of "good money" which is historically what gold had/has (but did not always). Nash explicitly describes what he means by "good", and his description is what I use as the definition for "good money". You see what we are "sold" as "good money" is actually "bad money" that no one wants so they circulate it. I promise, I am a good read of character, if you spend some time with the material and especially the meme story I quote this will all make sense. Its tricky but not complex. 20 years he went into the qualities of gold that make it exactly what me and you hope bitcoin might be.

I will have to read Nash's Ideal Money. So far, I agree, I do not want fiat money.

If bitcoin did not exist, I would have become a gold bug. Actually, I wouldn't have because bitcoin was the catalyst to learning a bit more about economics.

Nash speaks to you:

And so the various currencies managed with “inflation targeting” would be comparable by users or observers who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies. And what I want to suggest is that “the public” or the users, those for whom a medium of exchange functions as a basic utility, may develop opinions that are critical of currencies of lower “value quality”. That is, the public may learn to demand better quality of that which CAN be managed to be of better quality or which can be manged to be lof the lower quality observed in so many of the various national currencies in the 20th century.

If the hyperbitcoinization event does happen, I don't think "the public" will have to learn to demand good money; they will be forced to use good money (knowingly or not) as no one wants to get stuck with bad money.

Read these quotes in order, but don't get discouraged on the words, finish reading EACH one. We are conditioned by natural disorder of society to reject truth. Nash gives it in plain and simple language, the only difficulty with understanding is we refuse to face it-we turn away: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1510638.0

I agree with each and every quote. I don't subscribe to Keynesian economics, at least my understanding of it.

https://medium.com/@rextar4444

I am pokertravis on reddit

And here is my contribution to the game: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/

Aside from Nash's "Ideal Money" can you link any favorite articles of yours or others that I may benefit from?

I read your post on Satoshi's keys and agree. It has been bugging me but I assumed that Satoshi would deserve what he got. If the price crashes out of fear, so be it, it was necessary. Once it's spent, he can't spend it again.

Thank you for your time.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I have no interest in arguing with children. If you don't plan on participating then you have no business being here.

I am not arguing with you, I am stating facts.

Users aren't going to use your network.

This is not a fact. This is you saying "I am stating facts", that makes it by definition YOUR OPINION.

You are a child among adults. Insincere. Troll.

GO AWAY.

Stop disrupting otherwise constructive dialogue.

I understand what made you angry, you are a slippery one that is for sure

[JalToorey]

I understand there is a division between circulating money and hoarding money, but I believe this division will disappear once a cryptocurrency takes off. I don't know who Daniel Krawisz is, but he talks about a hyperbitcoinization event, where there will be a transition to bitcoin as a world currency.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hy ... 11.7-11.21

Yes the person that wrote that is ignoring reality, which is that there is global economy already in place. Bitcoin has macro-economic implications, meaning it will alter our current system, not replace or destroy it like the doomsdayer thinks. The key here they miss is that governments can make policies to make their fiat better quality, and so it has a long way to go before bitcoin destroys it.

This is what asymptotically means, it means ALL our money will adjust over time until it is "ideal". Ideal means no inflation over time, money that doesn't degrade in purchasing power.

I guess where i'm getting hung up on is why people won't eventually stop using the circulating currency (in this case the dollar)? Why can't the hoarded money/asset and circulating money be one and the same? Can you explain "They will circulate fiat currency faster and faster, forcing our governments to reign in the currencies supplies thus asymptotically increasing the supply of money." as I don't quite follow?

If the hyperbitcoinization event does happen, I don't think "the public" will have to learn to demand good money; they will be forced to use good money (knowingly or not) as no one wants to get stuck with bad money.


Aside from Nash's "Ideal Money" can you link any favorite articles of yours or others that I may benefit from?

I read your post on Satoshi's keys and agree. It has been bugging me but I assumed that Satoshi would deserve what he got. If the price crashes out of fear, so be it, it was necessary. Once it's spent, he can't spend it again.

Thank you for your time.

You have to think about what you mean by "circulate" and you have to forget about what players like Andreas have been shoving down peoples throats with emotional obfuscation. It's non-sense. Circulate means to pass, and you are going to pass something that is dear to you right? You are going to pass that which is LOSING value.

Its like the game "hot potato", you don't want the money that is bad, so you pass it, so does the next person, and so on, and this is the definition of circulate.

What you are suggesting is that is good money, and that is why people "use' it, and by "use" you mean circulate. Nash calls "good" money, money that is quality, it isn't getting worse over time, and this is why people want to KEEP it, and not give it away.

You are thinking that money that people to "use" (as in "spend), is "bad" money, but that is not Nash's definition of bad. Money that people don't use, or don't spend, is actually good money, it is money that is dear, it is NOT losing its value and that is why people would hoard it.

It doesn't matter our definitions, the simple fact is, people circulate, use, spend, shitty money. They hoard, want, and drive the price up for quality money, money that is not declining in value, like historically gold.

Now you might understand the secret of Keyneisan economics, they sell us the belief that inflation is good, but really what is happen is they are making the economy LOOK healthy by forcing people to part with their savings, by constantly degrading the value of the money. EVERYONE spends because that is the rational thing to do with shitty money-to get rid of it!

If the hyperbitcoinization event does happen, I don't think "the public" will have to learn to demand good money; they will be forced to use good money (knowingly or not) as no one wants to get stuck with bad money.


Aside from Nash's "Ideal Money" can you link any favorite articles of yours or others that I may benefit from?

I read your post on Satoshi's keys and agree. It has been bugging me but I assumed that Satoshi would deserve what he got. If the price crashes out of fear, so be it, it was necessary. Once it's spent, he can't spend it again.

Thank you for your time.

hyperbitcoinization won't happen, because people will hoard bitcoin because its valueable, they won't part with it, and parting with it is necessary for circulation. How can a money be circulated that no one is circulating?

Instead people will spend their fiat as much as possible and get rid of it. This is why the congressional report talks about an increased velocity of money AS people gain faith in bitcoin. People will hoard bitcoin and start spending their fiat.

Aside from Nash's "Ideal Money" can you link any favorite articles of yours or others that I may benefit from?

I read your post on Satoshi's keys and agree. It has been bugging me but I assumed that Satoshi would deserve what he got. If the price crashes out of fear, so be it, it was necessary. Once it's spent, he can't spend it again.

Thank you for your time.

Bah its difficult, perhaps if I know some of your passions I can show some articles that relate, most of my articles are written to poker players, and some to specific people or player types. But I think you can read the memes again and imagine Nash is saying "I've been afraid to speak out, but bitcoin is going to bring the world currency systems into order" Nash did something amazing, and he had to be secret about it.

[JalToorey]

I understand what made you angry, you are a slippery one that is for sure

You are a troll, stop disrupting our dialogue and go away child. You don't have the intellect for this, its why you couldn't do well in school.

[Moon]

Yes the person that wrote that is ignoring reality, which is that there is global economy already in place. Bitcoin has macro-economic implications, meaning it will alter our current system, not replace or destroy it like the doomsdayer thinks. The key here they miss is that governments can make policies to make their fiat better quality, and so it has a long way to go before bitcoin destroys it.

This is what asymptotically means, it means ALL our money will adjust over time until it is "ideal". Ideal means no inflation over time, money that doesn't degrade in purchasing power.

So you're saying there will always be multiple currencies? How would governments increase quality of fiat?

You have to think about what you mean by "circulate" and you have to forget about what players like Andreas have been shoving down peoples throats with emotional obfuscation. It's non-sense. Circulate means to pass, and you are going to pass something that is dear to you right? You are going to pass that which is LOSING value.

Its like the game "hot potato", you don't want the money that is bad, so you pass it, so does the next person, and so on, and this is the definition of circulate.

What you are suggesting is that is good money, and that is why people "use' it, and by "use" you mean circulate. Nash calls "good" money, money that is quality, it isn't getting worse over time, and this is why people want to KEEP it, and not give it away.

You are thinking that money that people to "use" (as in "spend), is "bad" money, but that is not Nash's definition of bad. Money that people don't use, or don't spend, is actually good money, it is money that is dear, it is NOT losing its value and that is why people would hoard it.

It doesn't matter our definitions, the simple fact is, people circulate, use, spend, shitty money. They hoard, want, and drive the price up for quality money, money that is not declining in value, like historically gold.

Now you might understand the secret of Keyneisan economics, they sell us the belief that inflation is good, but really what is happen is they are making the economy LOOK healthy by forcing people to part with their savings, by constantly degrading the value of the money. EVERYONE spends because that is the rational thing to do with shitty money-to get rid of it!

I agree with everything above. What I'm talking about is the next step when people don't have bad money left to spend/use/circulate. I believe people will eventually stop accepting bad money because people will realize how bad it is. They can stop accepting bad money because they have an alternative which is bitcoin. Bitcoin has inherent advantages over fiat and in this case good money will make bad money extinct.

hyperbitcoinization won't happen, because people will hoard bitcoin because its valueable, they won't part with it, and parting with it is necessary for circulation. How can a money be circulated that no one is circulating?

Instead people will spend their fiat as much as possible and get rid of it. This is why the congressional report talks about an increased velocity of money AS people gain faith in bitcoin. People will hoard bitcoin and start spending their fiat.

What happens when you have no bad money left to part with? I believe bad money will become so terrible that people will stop accepting it. Who wants bad money? There might be some micro demand as a collectible but fiat as a currency will end.

Bah its difficult, perhaps if I know some of your passions I can show some articles that relate, most of my articles are written to poker players, and some to specific people or player types.

I used to play until the US government shut down the big sites. I only played microstakes so I don't know if that's enough understanding of poker to understand your articles.

But I think you can read the memes again and imagine Nash is saying "I've been afraid to speak out, but bitcoin is going to bring the world currency systems into order" Nash did something amazing, and he had to be secret about it.

Can you go into more detail what Nash means here? Specifically "bitcoin is going to bring the world currency systems into order" as I'm not sure what that entails. If by "world currency systems" Nash means government fiat then I sort of disagree. I believe governments will try to make better fiat (or bitcoin worse by sanctions) but bitcoin will win out and become the de facto world currency. Maybe not as fast as hyperbitcoinization but faster than when governments react because when they decide to act is when it'll be too late.



I agree with all of Nash's quotes but maybe I am missing the context of some. The one above speaks to me the most because the international currency that evolved is bitcoin.

[JalToorey]

So you're saying there will always be multiple currencies? How would governments increase quality of fiat?

Governments already use monetary policy to adjust the quality of money by controlling inflation. So indeed already so this:

The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of "inflation targeting" these responsible officials are effectively CONFESSING that, notwithstanding how they formerly were speaking about hte difficulties and problems of their functions, that sit is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money (as if by limiting the amount of individual "prints" that could be made of a work of art being produced as ("prints").

I agree with everything above. What I'm talking about is the next step when people don't have bad money left to spend/use/circulate. I believe people will eventually stop accepting bad money because people will realize how bad it is. They can stop accepting bad money because they have an alternative which is bitcoin. Bitcoin has inherent advantages over fiat and in this case good money will make bad money extinct.

You want to ask me about a world in which there is no bad money? Who would are dream of a such a world?

What happens when you have no bad money left to part with? I believe bad money will become so terrible that people will stop accepting it. Who wants bad money? There might be some micro demand as a collectible but fiat as a currency will end.

Fiat will evolve until it gets better and better, and there is a ceiling in regard to "good-ness" and that ceiling is money that doesn't degrade in value over LONG periods.

I used to play until the US government shut down the big sites. I only played microstakes so I don't know if that's enough understanding of poker to understand your articles.

You have already understood me more than most, and because of that, I dub you a "good" player.

Can you go into more detail what Nash means here? Specifically "bitcoin is going to bring the world currency systems into order" as I'm not sure what that entails. If by "world currency systems" Nash means government fiat then I sort of disagree. I believe governments will try to make better fiat (or bitcoin worse by sanctions) but bitcoin will win out and become the de facto world currency. Maybe not as fast as hyperbitcoinization but faster than when governments react because when they decide to act is when it'll be too late.

You where taught to hate governments, fiat, central banks, institutions etc. But without them our civilization could not flourish and survive. They will grow and evolve as they are very strong and stable legacy systems, the technology like bitcoin will cause them to act better in regard to the people. Today governments print bad money because it makes sense for them (as selfish actors to do so) tomorrow they will print ideal money for the same reason). Wiping this observation away and says "I don't like fiat so I don't think people will use it and they will use bitcoin instead" is a sentiments, not an argument based on reason

I agree with all of Nash's quotes but maybe I am missing the context of some. The one above speaks to me the most because the international currency that evolved is bitcoin.

You didn't identify with the first meme that Nash feels we need to reason about money like a technology?

Cheers friend!

[Moon]

You want to ask me about a world in which there is no bad money? Who would are dream of a such a world?

Yes, in a way. Bitcoin is currently the best 'good money.' I dream of such a world.

Fiat will evolve until it gets better and better, and there is a ceiling in regard to "good-ness" and that ceiling is money that doesn't degrade in value over LONG periods.

I don't see how fiat will ever be better than crypto-currencies. Fiat will always need people to issue it and people are corruptible, prone to mistakes, and slow. Fiat will also have inflation which makes it inherently bad money. Why accept money that will lose value when you can accept money that doesn't (this case being both currencies being equal if somehow fiat got on par with bitcoin in terms of quality)?

Bitcoin is already at the ceiling in regards to good money and will gain value relative to fiat as more people invest and use it. Admittedly bitcoin is new but I have confidence it will climb.

You where taught to hate governments, fiat, central banks, institutions etc. But without them our civilization could not flourish and survive. They will grow and evolve as they are very strong and stable legacy systems, the technology like bitcoin will cause them to act better in regard to the people.

Actually, I was what some libertarians would derogatorily call a statist. I was relatively blessed; I've always had food and shelter. I went to college thanks to financial aid. I thought government was good and criminals were evil. Thanks to the internet I learned and changed so much (even now conversing with you). I learned how prevalent corruption and greed is. Once I realized government could be wrong, my world view kind of fell apart. It was rebuilt by reading, questioning, and challenging my views.

I agree that we need some sort of social structure and that governments enabled us to flourish. Like how I believe crypto-currencies will replace fiat, I believe government will forced to be more efficient or will be replaced by technology. Current financial institutions provide services as middlemen for transfer of value and while it is/was the best we have, a lot will be downsized or eliminated thanks to bitcoin. In the same way, I believe technology will downsize government because the government is the middleman between policy and the will of the people. That is in the future and another topic.

Today governments print bad money because it makes sense for them (as selfish actors to do so) tomorrow they will print ideal money for the same reason). Wiping this observation away and says "I don't like fiat so I don't think people will use it and they will use bitcoin instead" is a sentiments, not an argument based on reason

When governments realize that they need to print good money, it will be too late because bitcoin will have spread too far to outlaw it. I don't believe I wiping the observation away, fiat is bad money because it is managed by humans and no one wants bad money. Sure, governments will take steps to improve their fiat but bitcoin will still be better.

I believe bitcoin/crypt-currency is the best good money. I guess I should ask you what advantages government issued fiat will have over bitcoin to keep people using fiat? To keep it in the game?

It seems like it's coming down to would you rather have money managed by humans or money managed by programming, all other things being equal? I would choose the latter because people are imperfect.

You didn't identify with the first meme that Nash feels we need to reason about money like a technology?

The one I quoted was very prophetic to me. What's great about cryptos/bitcoin is that money and technology is one and the same.

Cheers!

[JalToorey]

I must pull only one aspect of your sentiments out. I need a razor so we can simplify.

My friend, you follow and agree with the Nashian reasoning up until a point...then at this point you ask, but what will happen when there is no bad money.

Is this a problem you feel we need to solve?

That would be a world of ONLY Ideal Money.

Stop thinking beyond this.

[JalToorey]

And the other aspect, I cut out to make a simple point. You keep trying to say crypto's are more Ideal than fiat.

Firstly if you believe governments are evil then you are very religious person, and by religious I mean you don't covet reason.

But more importantly, when we are talking about "good money" and "bad money" and "ideal Money", we took great pains to explain EXACTLY what we mean and you have destroyed our definitions and ignored them.

Good money is money that doesn't lose its purchasing power over time FULL STOP.

Do not conflate this with your belief that fiat is "bad", and non-fiat is "good".

You are confusing the argument.

I don't care about good and evil; I am talking about a money that doesn't lose its purchasing power over time.

[Moon]

I must pull only one aspect of your sentiments out. I need a razor so we can simplify.

My friend, you follow and agree with the Nashian reasoning up until a point...then at this point you ask, but what will happen when there is no bad money.

Is this a problem you feel we need to solve?

That would be a world of ONLY Ideal Money.

Stop thinking beyond this.

Ah okay. I was under the impression that you were saying fiat money must exist. If it doesn't we are on the same page. I am saying bitcoin/crypto is the ideal money.

[JalToorey]

Ah okay. I was under the impression that you were saying fiat money must exist. If it doesn't we are on the same page. I am saying bitcoin/crypto is the ideal money.

Fiat does not mean bad.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Lobbyists.

[Moon]

And the other aspect, I cut out to make a simple point. You keep trying to say crypto's are more Ideal than fiat.

Yes I say that because I was under the (false?) assumption that your claim was that fiat will always exist.

Firstly if you believe governments are evil then you are very religious person, and by religious I mean you don't covet reason.

Hahaha no, I don't believe governments are evil. Just that people are corruptible. I believe corruption is bad for society as a whole. I covet reason and logic very much.

But more importantly, when we are talking about "good money" and "bad money" and "ideal Money", we took great pains to explain EXACTLY what we mean and you have destroyed our definitions and ignored them.

Sorry, where did I destroy our definitions and ignored them?

Good money is money that doesn't lose its purchasing power over time FULL STOP.

Yes, and I believe bitcoin will fulfill that role as it matures. The 21 million coin limit ensures this.

Do not conflate this with your belief that fiat is "bad", and non-fiat is "good".

Bitcoin is the best "good money" that exists right now. I am saying that fiat can't be "good money" because people control it and people are corruptible. Fiat cannot be "good money" because it will lose its purchasing power over time due to human nature.

You are confusing the argument.

I don't care about good and evil; I am talking about a money that doesn't lose its purchasing power over time.

Can you reiterate the argument? I, too, don't care about good and evil. I claimed that humans are prone to mistakes, corruption, apathy, and slow. Because fiat is managed by humans it is the "bad money" side of the coin while gold/bitcoin is "good money" side because the latter can't be corrupted and will not lose purchasing power over time. Well, I believe gold will lose purchasing power now that bitcoin exists. When gold begins losing purchasing power, it will become "bad money."

I hope I make sense. Please point out exactly where you disagree or where I am wrong.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

When I sit down at a blackjack table, there is usually a person there with a set strategy.

As for me, I play the best hands.

This upsets the player with a set strategy as I am the wildcard, the wildcard that throws their game off.

[JalToorey]

Fiat cannot be "good money" because it will lose its purchasing power over time due to human nature.

This is wrong. You are being religious not scientific. Governments can choose to make good money or bad money. Traditionally, as selfish actors, they have made bad money for the people, which is good for them.

Now that we have bitcoin, the game has changed...

If governments print "bad money" the people will leave it to hoard bitcoin...

So governments, if they wish to survive, will make their currencies better.

Stop saying governments can't make their money better, its not true..

[JalToorey]

When I sit down at a blackjack table, there is usually a person there with a set strategy.

As for me, I play the best hands.

This upsets the player with a set strategy as I am the wildcard, the wildcard that throws their game off.

I played professional poker for years, have studied the philosophy of game game theory intensively, and re-written the future of the game in relation to that theory.

You are throwing cliches out again, making absolutely no point at all, purely aiming to disrupt otherwise useful dialogue. What happened in your life, that causes you to waste the scarce and precious time you have, engaging in dialogue in which you do not have the capacity, intellect, or knowledge to participate in?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

When I sit down at a blackjack table, there is usually a person there with a set strategy.

As for me, I play the best hands.

This upsets the player with a set strategy as I am the wildcard, the wildcard that throws their game off.

I played professional poker for years, have studied the philosophy of game game theory intensively, and re-written the future of the game in relation to that theory.

You are throwing cliches out again, making absolutely no point at all, purely aiming to disrupt otherwise useful dialogue. What happened in your life, that causes you to waste the scarce and precious time you have, engaging in dialogue in which you do not have the capacity, intellect, or knowledge to participate in?

Then this must be pissing you(s) off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JalToorey]

Then this must be pissing you(s) off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely not. To the contrary, I am quite happy that you are so able to clearly show people that you are not interested in any sincere interaction, instead you are simply here to disrupt my attempts at sincere dialogue towards shared meaning-your purpose here is to piss me off...

Do I understand this correctly?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Then this must be pissing you(s) off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely not. To the contrary, I am quite happy that you are so able to clearly show people that you are not interested in any sincere interaction, instead you are simply here to disrupt my attempts at sincere dialogue towards shared meaning-your purpose here is to piss me off...

Do I understand this correctly?

I am definitely here to disrupt your corrupt agenda.

[JalToorey]

I am definitely here to disrupt your corrupt agenda.

Yes this is clear, which is why I alerted the owners/mods because you are going to destroy their reputation and this forums.

Nonetheless I point out the rest of us are hear to find shared meaning in dialogue. Not for conflict.

Again I don't write this to you. I'm writing it for the lurkers so they can understand who you are and what your stated purpose here is.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I am definitely here to disrupt your corrupt agenda.

Yes this is clear, which is why I alerted the owners/mods because you are going to destroy their reputation and this forums.

Nonetheless I point out the rest of us are hear to find shared meaning in dialogue. Not for conflict.

Again I don't write this to you. I'm writing it for the lurkers so they can understand who you are and what your stated purpose here is.

I am allergic to propaganda, I break out in conflict!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JalToorey]

I am allergic to propaganda, I break out in conflict!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have helped everyone see you are a troll now, and now players on both sides of the debate will not give anything you say any validity.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I am allergic to propaganda, I break out in conflict!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have helped everyone see you are a troll now, and now players on both sides of the debate will not give anything you say any validity.

When you say troll, it reminds me of those 90s dolls with colorful hair.

[Moon]

I am disappointed my response did not go through so I have to retype..

This is wrong. You are being religious not scientific. Governments can choose to make good money or bad money. Traditionally, as selfish actors, they have made bad money for the people, which is good for them.

Technically governments can choose to make good money but in practice that is not the case because humans who control fiat are fallible. History shows that fiat that was "good money" eventually turns into "bad money." Governments have kept "bad money" circulating by limiting transactions of "good money" but bitcoin can't be sanctioned. Crypto is an entirely different beast because it is both a currency and a store of value.

Now that we have bitcoin, the game has changed...

If governments print "bad money" the people will leave it to hoard bitcoin...

So governments, if they wish to survive, will make their currencies better.

Stop saying governments can't make their money better, its not true..

Agree. I am not saying governments can't make money better. They will try. It is futile because bitcoin is "good money" compared to fiat. If both fiat and bitcoin have exactly the same properties, human greed or error will make fiat "bad money."

I also read your medium post.

The users of a currency CAN’T circulate bitcoin en masse, while SIMULTANEOUSLY deeming it worthy of hoarding (ie price is raising in relation to other alternative options).

I am saying that the users of a currency can IF they only hold that one currency. This will happen because the "bad money" will cease to be accepted for trade.

[JalToorey]

Technically governments can choose to make good money but in practice that is not the case because humans who control fiat are fallible. History shows that fiat that was "good money" eventually turns into "bad money."

Yes governments have the option to print good or bad money, and historically they have chose (and sold us the idea of) bad money. But nash says if you introduction an international medium for exchange between all the currencies then this will change the nature of the game.

How do you not see this?

Now that bitcoin is here, if a government prints bad money the peoples will leave it for good money. The governments cannot rationally allow the citizens to leave fiat, so they will be forced to print better fiat.

Governments have kept "bad money" circulating by limiting transactions of "good money" but bitcoin can't be sanctioned. Crypto is an entirely different beast because it is both a currency and a store of value.

No it is not, but you wish it to be. Again, currency comes from latin "to circulate", and store of value implies hoarding. These are opposite words so it is illogical for you to suggest. Green is not blue; Day is not night.

Agree. I am not saying governments can't make money better. They will try. It is futile because bitcoin is "good money" compared to fiat.

They will more than "try" the will be forced to or their currencies won't survive. You are dreaming of a world with no evil governments but you must allow for the possbility that fiat will simply tend towards idealness, and remember idealness doesn't mean "crypto" idealness means money that doesn't lose value over time.

If both fiat and bitcoin have exactly the same properties, human greed or error will make fiat "bad money."

Again you have said something logically absurd. If fiat and bitcoin have the same properties then how can it be that greed can corrupt fiat but not bitcoin? Human greed does not control feet. There are no evil monsters, its all just science of economics.

I am saying that the users of a currency can IF they only hold that one currency. This will happen because the "bad money" will cease to be accepted for trade.

You are conflating definitions of "bad money", you are saying fiat is "bad" and therefore people won't accept it. "Bad money" is money that doesn't have a stable quality and everyone accepts it today because everyone wants to spend "bad money". People don't spend "good money" they hold on to it for there lives.

If you are trying to tell me that this whole process of bitcoin vs fiat will end in the end of central banking as we know it and only good money will survive and then there will be only bad money, then I will ask you why you don't understand what Nash is saying when you are simply repeating his words.

[Moon]

Yes governments have the option to print good or bad money, and historically they have chose (and sold us the idea of) bad money. But nash says if you introduction an international medium for exchange between all the currencies then this will change the nature of the game.
How do you not see this?

I do see it. I ask you to think past the point when government is forced to print better “bad money.” Citizens will not have to use this better “bad money” since they will not want it.

Now that bitcoin is here, if a government prints bad money the peoples will leave it for good money.

Exactly!

The governments cannot rationally allow the citizens to leave fiat, so they will be forced to print better fiat.

But do you not realize government cannot stop citizens from leaving fiat because there is no way to stop bitcoin? Better fiat will not be good enough because there is the Achilles’ heel of humans managing fiat whereas bitcoin does not have this weak point.

No it is not, but you wish it to be. Again, currency comes from latin "to circulate", and store of value implies hoarding. These are opposite words so it is illogical for you to suggest. Green is not blue; Day is not night.

Definitions of words change. Fiat circulates and also has a store of value albeit a terrible one.

They will more than "try" the will be forced to or their currencies won't survive. You are dreaming of a world with no evil governments but you must allow for the possbility that fiat will simply tend towards idealness, and remember idealness doesn't mean "crypto" idealness means money that doesn't lose value over time.

Bitcoin is the ideal because it doesn’t lose value over time. I know that governments will tend toward idealness but they cannot reach it because people who control the money are not perfect.

If both fiat and bitcoin have exactly the same properties, human greed or error will make fiat "bad money."

Again you have said something logically absurd. If fiat and bitcoin have the same properties then how can it be that greed can corrupt fiat but not bitcoin? Human greed does not control feet. There are no evil monsters, its all just science of economics.

I apologize for not being clear. If fiat and bitcoin have the exact same properties except fiat is managed by humans and bitcoin is managed by programming, fiat will lose the trust of the citizens because fiat is managed by people who are fallible, while bitcoin is managed by code which cannot be corrupted.
Imagine both fiat and bitcoin with equal usage, value, etc in the world. Only difference being fiat is managed by people while bitcoin is managed by code. The moment one worker managing fiat loses, steals, or expands the supply by even $1 makes fiat flawed and unable to compete with bitcoin.

You are conflating definitions of "bad money", you are saying fiat is "bad" and therefore people won't accept it.

No, I am saying fiat will always be “bad money” because humans manage it and humans make mistakes.

"Bad money" is money that doesn't have a stable quality and everyone accepts it today because everyone wants to spend "bad money". People don't spend "good money" they hold on to it for there lives.

How can you spend “bad money” if no one accepts it? If I try spend a piece of paper with “$100” handwritten on it no one will accept it because it is the utmost “bad money”. I am saying people will have all of their entire worth in bitcoin because people lose out by even holding fiat/“bad money.” If a person’s entire worth is in bitcoin then they must spend some of it, even if it is “good money” to buy necessities.

If you are trying to tell me that this whole process of bitcoin vs fiat will end in the end of central banking as we know it and only good money will survive and then there will be only bad money, then I will ask you why you don't understand what Nash is saying when you are simply repeating his words.

What part do I not understand? Once fiat goes extinct, bitcoin itself can become “bad money” when another crypto-currency with better features/properties is developed becomes “good money.” Do you think that fiat will always exist?

Also do you know where I can find Nash’s “Ideal Money” as I can only find the lecture on it?

I appreciate your patience with my understanding of money.

[Moon]

Hey JalToorey, I was reading up on Gresham's law, "both forms required to be accepted at equal value under legal tender law" according to wikipedia. Bitcoin and fiat do not have to be accepted at equal value. I would say Thier's law applies to bitcoin/fiat which I have been arguing will happen since in this economic theory, "good money" drives out "bad money." I have been saying no one will want to accept "bad money" which is fiat in our debate and Thier's law supports this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%2 ... .27_Law.29

I would like to read your response to where exactly I am wrong in my previous post and this one.

[JalToorey]

Yes i am going to write and essay that re-solves these two as I understand this better now I believe. I am meditating on the subject atm.