Capt_Roger_Murdock

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@ErikVoorhees @tharp1982 Fentanyl is a great example of the "iron law of prohibition." https://t.co/E1JgCTAdLP

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@derose https://t.co/1pEZyTXASe

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Truthcoin ...making an indiv. tx). And a predictable, finite supply ("sound money" aspect) reduces friction of holding money between transactions. But the three requirements are interrelated, and the best money will be the one that satisfies all of them.

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Truthcoin Your three Bitcoiner types seem to each focus on a different requirement for good money. A large network effect reduces the friction associated with finding a transacting partner. Strong "tech" should enable fast, cheap, and reliably secure transactions (to reduce friction of

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@_jonasschnelli_ @samykovac No, you have to pay more (at least if you want to stay where you are) because the fair market value of what you're receiving has increased, and because you presumably did not previously negotiate a rental agreement that would preclude the current increase.

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@VinnyLingham I always thought 21 coins was a nice target and imagined "millionthaire" as the future label for the very wealthy few who achieved it.

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@ProfPieters Some related reading that you might find useful:
https://t.co/19l5wO7iWC

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@VinnyLingham @balajis @TheStalwart "And even if the government wanted to make such a guarantee, they couldn't do so credibly precisely because they can't simply conjure new bitcoins into existence." -4-

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@VinnyLingham @balajis @TheStalwart "Also, there's no system of implicit and explicit governmental guarantees that would back up the issuers of Bitcoin IOUs to make you indifferent as between the two." -3-

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Wecx_ The parallels obviously aren't perfect. But in theory, the difference you've identified should make Bitcoin superior to a traditional commodity because it means that the market can improve Bitcoin's monetary properties over time as technology advances.

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Wecx_ It's like fiat in the respect that it has essentially no non-monetary / non-exchange usecase. But it's like a commodity in that its value in equilibrium is equal to its marginal cost of production which has led some to dub Bitcoin a "quasi-commodity" or "synthetic commodity."

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Wecx_ “...such a thing just _might_ happen based on other people following similar line of reasoning to my own.”

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Wecx_ I.e. “bitcoin combines scarcity of gold with transactability of a purely-digital medium. It would make a phenomenal money if it could massively grow its network effect. If it does grow succeed, its value should increase several orders of magnitude from where it is now...

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Wecx_ The distinction between reliably-scarce-but-somewhat-difficult-to-transact “stores of value” and non-scarce-but-easy-to-transact “mediums of exchange” is a historical one that reflects the fact that, UNTIL RECENTLY, we didn’t have a single form of money that could do both.

[Capt_Roger_Murdock @MurdockCapt]

@Wecx_ The fact that transacting with physical gold is still relatively clunky is what allowed gold to be largely demonetized, because that friction led to increasing reliance on "layer two solutions" (i.e., banking) that were more easily subverted.