georgecarlin

I agree printing money != printing wealth, in fact it has the exact opposite effect, it debases wealth. My argument is against the fallacy that since bitcoin's price is set by unregulated supply and demand, it has no value or is somehow less valuable than land or stocks, or is somehow intrinsically value-less. Bitcoin can be seen as the most credible implementation of pure Austrian price theory (notwithstanding some likely pumps at different exchanges etc).

Stock buybacks actually demonstrate my point. You only benefit from a buyback if they pay you more than what you paid for the share. Dividends are a separate issue as they apply to business being undertaken, and few people invest money based solely on dividend rate. IMO land as a speculative asset actually might the most appropriate comparison to Bitcoin.

At any rate, Bitcoin/Ethereum and others are fundamentally new asset classes, they are technologized money. They allow you to do things with value that were never possible before.

This doesn't make sense. You don't get anything for the company performing economic activity. The price of a (non-dividend-paying) stock is set strictly by supply and demand. You only get anything when you sell.. i.e. when someone is willing to pay you more than what you paid for your share.

No. "stocks/bonds/land/etc" are not actual assets backed by anything OTHER than scarcity. Land has value due to scarcity and utility (everyone needs somewhere to live). Stocks have value almost exclusively due to capital appreciation. You don't get anything for owning non-dividend-paying stocks. And owning dividend paying stocks just means money is not being reinvested (notice that Berkshire Hathaway has never paid dividends out).

Bitcoin is EXACTLY like land and stocks, except much, much, much more liquid and useful.

This makes less than zero sense

You used emacs for 10 years and never used cscope?

I think the fact that there is no Satoshi means that 1. his/her/their vision is up for grabs and 2. whoever did create Bitcoin didn't want people continuously asking him/her/them what their vision for this is. It hasn't even been 10 years, why are we already arguing over catechism?

Excuses excuses my friend!

Is this really the kind of thing we need to argue semantics about? We're doomed as a society if this is the top voted comment.

This is rly cool

-20 degree winters will do that to you if rain doesn't

The problem is collecting all this quality writing in an easy-to-consume and easy-to-access fashion. Of course we all know 10+ bloggers who we read and who offer great perspective, quality writing etc. The idea is to consolidate this content in one place which makes it easier to access and also to find new good-quality stuff.

Tbh this sounds like more work than just reading the book