Re:The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of th...
by mbrock on Friday December 08, 2017 @11:46AM
(#15879973)
Multiple competing privately issued currencies is also a trope of libertarianism; people refer a lot to Hayek's The Denationalization of Money.
Re:The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of th...
by paulgb on Friday December 08, 2017 @03:42PM
(#15881869)
I've written about why I think this is a disingenuous comparison: https://paulbutler.org/archives/stop-dragging-hayek-into-bit...
Re:The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of th...
by mbrock on Saturday December 09, 2017 @01:37PM
(#15887237)
I don't claim that Bitcoin is a winner according to the criteria set out by Hayek, in fact it's obviously problematic as a unit of account as you explain.
The various decentralized stablecoin projects (disclaimer: I'm involved with one of them, MakerDAO) attempt to create competitive currency as laid out by Hayek, using collateralization and continual supply/demand tweaks to encourage a stable market price.
From that perspective, Bitcoin is indeed more like a trailblazer and a collectible precious metal, and not a serious contender for actual currency status. Still, it seems to have an important role in the ecosystem of denationalized currency.
One side wants bitcoin to be a decentralized store of value, untraceable, unseizable, a safe heaven for your wealth that's completely permissionless to use.
The other side wants bitcoin to be a currency for the day-to-day life that is cheap to use, a global currency to escape the (possibly shitty) fiat issued by your state and the banking system. Basically money for "the other 6 billion people" or "the unbanked" or whoever else that needs it.
The two visions don't contradict each other, however they have different priorities, and they make different technological compromises when faced with a problem (decentralized scaling).
This doesn't take away anything from your question, but one has to consider this divide when looking for answers.