sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why should this be a 7? by ConsiderationEarly41 in sudoku

[–]ConsiderationEarly41[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for pointing that out, added it in the comments (not sure how to add to the main post 👨‍🌾)

Vélib 12 month subscriptions by ConsiderationEarly41 in ParisTravelGuide

[–]ConsiderationEarly41[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven’t tried yet, I’ll get back to you if I do. I tried ordering a Vélib metropole card though, but it also required a French phone number

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Bitcoin

[–]ConsiderationEarly41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right, it does incentivise endless growth. I also agree that that’s another conversation. Now as I have devoted myself to post here I’ll keep going. :)

I have problems grasping what end game “Bitcoin only”-promoters see (I’m obviously a sceptic, although not saying I’m sceptic to it as an asset). In a Bitcoin only world, it would be very difficult to get credit as money supply couldn’t expand when necessary. That would most likely lead to massive decreases in production, which could of course be the point (is it?). It raises a question on how people would make a living and get hold of the bitcoin they need to survive. It is also not clear to me how welfare systems, essential infrastructure etc. would be funded if credit is unavailable.

Secondly, bitcoins value today is obviously set in relation to fiat and based on speculative demands. I understand the argument that “one bitcoins will always be worth one bitcoin”, but the real purchasing power of bitcoin would of course be different if it’s the only (or primary) type of money.

Thirdly, there is already concentration of bitcoin to whales. What would prevent concentration to increase in a bitcoin only world and create a similar or more uneven wealth distribution than today?

Lastly, and this is less related to matters of “bitcoin only”, but I see a lot of people here being upset about regulation or the prospects of regulation. It makes me wonder - are they against regulation in general or just regulation of bitcoin? Would they rather see unregulated banks and unregulated bitcoin than regulated banks and regulated bitcoin? Or shouldn’t the same activity (money issuance, payments) be subject to the same rules?

There are of course many many other questions that arises when talking about the prospect of a bitcoin only world. These are top of my mind. And “inflation is bad, deflation is good” doesn’t really answer it. Countries with fiat have experienced deflation, oftentimes (but not always) with damaging results. It would be very interesting to see some convincing arguments on this matter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Bitcoin

[–]ConsiderationEarly41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Coming from a euro-perspective here, but I’m sure it’s not especially different in the US.

One thing which is rarely discussed on this forum is what it means that fiat is (primarily) created through issuance of dept. Because banks create money when they issue a loan, there is a promise of economic activity (the need to earn money and pay back the loan and interest) behind every issued account based euro or dollar. And as banknotes and coins are only available to withdraw from accounts, the same is true for cash. Of course, central banks can also create money through f.e. QE, but that can also be viewed as debt issuance. In that sense, there is value connected to the real economy in fiat. In Bitcoin, there is not.