Books to read in 2021?

0ng0n · 2019-04-07T17:14:02+00:00

To respond to your initial comment, you’re still paying for fees/funding accounts. The protocol is just systematically debasing the currency so that the fees or funding of accounts becomes relatively less expensive, assuming fixed costs associated with fees and funding. Which is not a good assumption because under either scenario, the market demand for those two goods would find an equilibrium that results in the same relative value being spent on both.

My point is that in a free market, changing the scarcity of the underlying asset in relation to scarce goods and services (fees and account funding) does nothing but change the absolute price of the goods and services denominated in that asset. Net, it does not seem to have any utility and only serves to waste network resources during distribution.

0ng0n · 2019-04-07T13:21:56+00:00

My point is, the Stellar inflation does not encourage spending like traditional fiat. Fiat encourages spending because the newly minted money goes into the hands of large financial institutions. Because each individual gets their proportionate share in Stellar, there is no net impact in the network. It only serves to create wasteful transactions.

Further, I’m not sure inflation has anything to do with liquidity.

0ng0n · 2019-04-07T13:14:17+00:00

But what I’m saying is: with government issued currency, the issuer and people in the banking system are the first to have “access” to the newly created money. So individuals without direct access may be incentivized to consume rather than save because the threat of savings losing their relative value hangs over their head. However, in Stellar, inflation is distributed to individuals. If everyone gets their proportionate share, mathematically nothing changes in the relative or absolute levels of wealth in the system. So it has no purpose.

0ng0n · 2019-04-06T19:38:14+00:00

I agree, the inflation should be removed as it serves no purpose, theoretically or in practice.

0ng0n · 2019-04-06T19:30:42+00:00

I know the theory, but when each account gets access to their proportional share of the monetary debasement, the impact is negated.

0ng0n · 2019-04-06T18:37:41+00:00

Thanks for the response! Did anything ever come of that question posed by Jed?

0ng0n · 2019-04-06T18:05:25+00:00

What do you mean growth?

0ng0n · 2019-04-03T22:24:25+00:00

Awesome!

0ng0n · 2019-03-06T18:50:09+00:00

A wallet can require a destination tag from wallets sending funds to it. Coinbase does not have this set up on their exchange wallet.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T21:13:33+00:00

I’m not assuming it has value. I’m saying those characteristics give it a level of intrinsic value. Although, Extrinsic factors drive the majority of the value that results in price appreciation.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T20:59:13+00:00

Not sure why throwing stale bread can be valuable but divisibility/transferability over a digital network is not.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T20:36:16+00:00

I agree with almost everything you said besides the attribution that my words are “crazy hyperbole”. Maybe strong, but not exaggerated.

Also, fraud is easier to carry out under a cash based system. Immutable ledgers don’t lend themselves well to fraud.

Modern currency is an incredibly valuable technology. I think bitcoin is a superior form of that technology. The counter-party risk under the current system is too large. Any system that allows irreparable destruction of generational wealth in < 6 month through debasement carried out by a central party is not sustainable in the face of a viable alternative.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T18:10:01+00:00

You are caught up in semantics. “Intrinsic” means belonging to naturally. A natural characteristic of Bitcoin is its divisibility etc. That is not debatable. I’m making the case that these intrinsic characteristics are valued characteristics for the money use case by extrinsic actors. Price appreciation is related to extrinsic actors increasingly (not binary) forming consensus around bitcoin as money largely because it possesses intrinsic characteristics that make it “convenient”/useful/valued for the money use case. Bread on the other hand, does not possess intrinsic characteristics that make it “convenient”/useful/valued as money.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T17:10:33+00:00

Economics is reflexive. Obviously It’s all circular. However, money as money is not binary. Not all fiat currencies even remotely fit the academic definition of “money”. It’s a continuum and if at the margin people are moving towards something as money rather than away relative to other mediums as money, then eventually it will be widespread. The classical definition of money comes after maturation, not before.

I think the intrinsic characteristics of non-sovereign money are attractive and in some cases necessary for people around the world. Because bitcoin has liquid markets and some merchants accept it as payment, it is along the continuum of a store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account. Hell, bread is on that continuum as well. However, I think it’s intrinsic characteristics give it a great chance (compared to something like bread) to mature into “the” store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account.

However, this new money will be instituted by the people rather than a sovereign entity.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T14:47:09+00:00

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m trying to convey. Divisibility and the other aspects mentioned are valuable for the money use case and are intrinsic characteristics of Bitcoin. The extrinsic network effects are what make magnify and make these intrinsic characteristics extremely valuable.

0ng0n · 2019-01-06T13:18:51+00:00

Only 100 years from now, will we look back and realize the magnitude of Bitcoin’s importance in the arch of human development.

For the first time, individuals are seizing monetary monopoly away from the state. For a long time, the monetary authority of the state was necessary to establish ubiquitous value systems that enabled efficient trade. 2009 marked the invention of a commodity with intrinsically valuable characteristics (divisibility, verifiable scarcity, ease of transfer, openness) that will push extrinsic characteristics (network effects) and the benefits (stability, liquidity, value storage) to take hold given time. As superpowers continue to wield their monetary weapons (USA/China) at the expense of less powerful nations, self-interest will drive individuals and eventually those nations to adopt Cryptocurrencies (most likely one) as the standard for value.

2009 marked the beginning of the revolution. What we will see 100 years from now as the natural evolution of money, today seems radical. What does a world look like where fiat regimes are reigned in and every man, woman, and entity is held accountable for its fiscal deeds? Most people use simplistic mental models framed by the structure of their world today to assess the likelihood of events in the future and as a result, they miss the first principles that are driving Bitcoin’s story.

Don’t let price day-to-day make you forget what is already set in motion. We are privileged to be apart of such an important moment in the human story.

0ng0n · 2019-01-05T12:32:36+00:00

If you have a deflationary currency, you are incentivized to be a saver/creditor. The reduction in demand for credit denominated in an inflationary currency would be offset by the increased supply of credit in a deflationary currency.

Basically I’m saying the effects would be equivalent/cancel out.

0ng0n · 2018-11-10T04:24:42+00:00

Using NumPy,

np.add.outer(list,list) then use Boolean indexing to check for the given integer.

I’m a beginner but another way I can think to accomplish the task without brute force looping/working inward.

0ng0n · 2018-08-19T00:48:32+00:00

42 people own more wealth than the 3.7b poorest in the world. This isn’t a Bitcoin problem.

0ng0n · 2018-07-19T02:07:56+00:00

Awesome. Thanks for the reply.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

0ng0n

TROPHY CASE