📅 Original date posted:2019-07-07
📝 Original message:Hi Eric,
Your cryproeconomic theories may describe correctly Bitcoin as money, but fall short of describing a Bitcoin that would also offer reliable memory for other uses.
In consequence you miss, that:
1. If the reliable memory that enables money would have more uses then even temporary use of the memory would have utility, therefore value. Bitcoin as is, does not have consensus rules to enable reliable alternate uses.
2. Finite supply of coins implies a finite memory capacity of Bitcoin. Alternate use of the memory requires that units at least temporarily become un-fungible, enforced by consensus. Alternate uses would then have to compete for units of memory, which would give rise to a price paid to those enabling alternate use, even if temoprarily.
3. If giving up control temorarily has a positive price (through 2) and return of control is certain (enforced by consenus) then the price paid is riskless interest for those giving up temporary control.
4. If a use requires more units of memory then it imposes higher cost to use and it since memory units are finite it imposes more severe scarcity.
Further certainly subjective remarks:
Although burning and loss is unavoidable and therefore Bitcoin (as is) is unsustainable we should design systems that they sustain it as long as possible (as is). Therefore a requirement to burn for any of unlimited number of uses should be avoided.
We currently perceive borrowed money just as good as (fungible with) any other money. This is a consequence that money actually comes into existence through someone borrowing it. Money on your account is a loan you gave the bank and even paper cash is a loan you gave the central bank.
Bitcoin is different as it just is, it is not borrowed into existence. Therefore it is not fungible with borrowed version of itself. This however does not imply that its borrowed version is worthless as it might be worth something if there is a use for it.
Tamas Blummer
> On Jul 7, 2019, at 03:30, Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:
>
> I have published a summary here:
>
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Free-Return-Fallacy <https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Free-Return-Fallacy>;
>
> Barring any new consequential inputs I’ll refrain from further comment.
>
> e
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190707/861a3d6f/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190707/861a3d6f/attachment.sig>;
Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cc…ex8m8
2023-06-07 18:19:13
in reply to nevent1q…3m6k
Author Public Key
npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8Published at
2023-06-07 18:19:13Event JSON
{
"id": "2fb40d3e1616c0faecf8fc59aae0f98e4d37475319dc41e4b9d96c2e5a754578",
"pubkey": "c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7",
"created_at": 1686161953,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3c9e48adf555bcb684b7db89a8331285e9e31548be31a167a1f1d6aff4b3cbf3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cbd82b7e8eee2fafbe6206e80efcbec7be2110bb2298fca3d6ba418816d944ea",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-07-07\n📝 Original message:Hi Eric,\n\nYour cryproeconomic theories may describe correctly Bitcoin as money, but fall short of describing a Bitcoin that would also offer reliable memory for other uses.\n\nIn consequence you miss, that:\n\n1. If the reliable memory that enables money would have more uses then even temporary use of the memory would have utility, therefore value. Bitcoin as is, does not have consensus rules to enable reliable alternate uses.\n\n2. Finite supply of coins implies a finite memory capacity of Bitcoin. Alternate use of the memory requires that units at least temporarily become un-fungible, enforced by consensus. Alternate uses would then have to compete for units of memory, which would give rise to a price paid to those enabling alternate use, even if temoprarily.\n\n3. If giving up control temorarily has a positive price (through 2) and return of control is certain (enforced by consenus) then the price paid is riskless interest for those giving up temporary control.\n\n4. If a use requires more units of memory then it imposes higher cost to use and it since memory units are finite it imposes more severe scarcity.\n\nFurther certainly subjective remarks:\n\nAlthough burning and loss is unavoidable and therefore Bitcoin (as is) is unsustainable we should design systems that they sustain it as long as possible (as is). Therefore a requirement to burn for any of unlimited number of uses should be avoided.\n\nWe currently perceive borrowed money just as good as (fungible with) any other money. This is a consequence that money actually comes into existence through someone borrowing it. Money on your account is a loan you gave the bank and even paper cash is a loan you gave the central bank.\n\nBitcoin is different as it just is, it is not borrowed into existence. Therefore it is not fungible with borrowed version of itself. This however does not imply that its borrowed version is worthless as it might be worth something if there is a use for it.\n\nTamas Blummer\n\n\u003e On Jul 7, 2019, at 03:30, Eric Voskuil \u003ceric at voskuil.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I have published a summary here:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Free-Return-Fallacy \u003chttps://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Free-Return-Fallacy\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e Barring any new consequential inputs I’ll refrain from further comment.\n\u003e \n\u003e e\n\u003e \n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190707/861a3d6f/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190707/861a3d6f/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "fc7dd046fbf9dea466854d356bd1833929b933a537ede1be32dab86fd5738dce66302b32800acda8aac06e1c6d8b6aaa37dcff0d719cdb57dd2c7c420df1bc77"
}