Note: The techno-economic paradigm theory of money: Under each technological regime, a different form of money thrives.

Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to

The only way to make maturity mismatching safe is with the presence of a lender of last resort standing ready to lend to banks in case of a bank run. Note: Seems a bit much? I think the underlying point that money has a lot of downstream effects is good though the importance of sound money can be explained for three broad reasons: first, it protects value across time, which gives people a bigger incentive to think of their future, and lowers their time preference. The lowering of the time preference is what initiates the process of human civilization and allows for humans to cooperate, prosper, and live in peace. Second, sound money allows for trade to be based on a stable unit of measurement, facilitating ever‐larger markets, free from government control and coercion, and with free trade comes peace and prosperity. Further, a unit of account is essential for all forms of economic calculation and planning, and unsound money makes economic calculation unreliable and is the root cause of economic recessions and crises.While bitcoin is a new invention of the digital age, the problem it purports to solve is as old as human society itself: transferring value across time and space. Ammous takes the listener on an engaging journey through the history of technologies performing the functions of money, from primitive systems of trading limestones and seashells, to metals, coins, the gold standard, and modern government debt. Exploring what gave these technologies their monetary role, and how most lost it, provides the listener with a good idea of what makes for sound money, and sets the stage for an economic discussion of its consequences for individual and societal future-orientation, capital accumulation, trade, peace, culture, and art. Compellingly, Ammous shows that it is no coincidence that the loftiest achievements of humanity have come in societies enjoying the benefits of sound monetary regimes, nor is it coincidental that monetary collapse has usually accompanied the collapse of a civilization. differentiating between a good’s market demand (demand for consuming or holding the good for its own sake) and its monetary demand (demand for a good as a medium of exchange and store of value). Human beings’ lower time preference allows us to curb our instinctive and animalistic impulses, think of what is better for our future, and act rationally rather than impulsively. Note: I think there is an argument that keynsianism is a coordination problem. If one government adopted Keynesianism and the others didnt then in the short run that gov would conquer the other bringing in more resources and roping the system up. Only after they had conquered everyone and there was nowhere else to go would they colapse? A la rome?

BTC Standard Hashrate Token BTCST - CoinGecko BTC Standard Hashrate Token BTCST - CoinGecko

While Bitcoin is an invention of the digital age, the problem it purports to solve is as old as human society itself: transferring value across time and space. Author Saifedean Ammous takes the reader on an engaging journey through the history of technologies performing the functions of money, from primitive systems of trading limestones and seashells, to metals, coins, the gold standard, and modern government debt. Exploring what gave these technologies their monetary role, and how most lost it, provides the reader with a good idea of what makes for sound money, and sets the stage for an economic discussion of its consequences for individual and societal future-orientation, capital accumulation, trade, peace, culture, and art. Compellingly, Ammous shows that it is no coincidence that the loftiest achievements of humanity have come in societies enjoying the benefits of sound monetary regimes, nor is it coincidental that monetary collapse has usually accompanied civilizational collapse. Any industry in which people complain about their asshole boss is likely part of the bezzle, because bosses can only really afford to be assholes in the economic fake reality of the bezzle. The value of money, supposed to be the unit of account with which all economic activity is measured and planned, went from being the value of the least volatile good on the market to being determined through the sum of three policy tools of the government—monetary, fiscal, and trade policy—and most unpredictably, through the reactions of individuals to these policy tools. Governments deciding to dictate the measure of value makes as much sense as governments attempting to dictate the measure of length based on the heights of individuals and buildings in their territories. One can only imagine the sort of confusion that would happen to all engineering projects were the length of the meter to oscillate daily with the pronouncements of a central measurements office. Only the vanity of the insane can be affected by changing the unit with which they’re measured. Making the meter shorter might make someone whose house’s area is 200 square meters believe it is actually 400 square meters, but it would still be the same house. All that this redefinition of the meter has caused is ruin an engineer’s ability to properly build or maintain a house. Similarly, devaluing a currency may make a country richer nominally, or increase the nominal value of its exports, but it does nothing to make the country more prosperous. Y es que este es un libro más sobre historia del dinero y el impacto de distintos patrones monetarios en la economía real que sobre Bitcoin, al que solo dedica los tres últimos capítulos (Ch.8 – Digital Money; Ch.9 – What is Bitcoin Good For?; Ch. 10 – Bitcoin FAQ). Bitcoin can be best understood as distributed software that allows for transfer of value using a currency protected from unexpected inflation without relying on trusted third parties. In other words, Bitcoin automates the functions of a modern central bank and makes them predictable and virtually immutable by programming them into code decentralized among thousands of network members, none of whom can alter the code without the consent of the rest.Market participants can enter and exit Bitcoin mining exposure in any size, any time, at a low cost than actual physical bitcoin mining which requires maintaining a mining rig. A lot of the argument hinges on the notion of time preference – that a sound money which can’t be inflated away incentives people to think longer term. One of the interesting side effects of the It’s a disconcerting reminder that ersatz ‘libertarian’ thought, at its edges, looks a little bit authoritarian: sound money forces you to be more morally upright. After all, the ostensible hero in this morality play is Rothbard whose ‘Ethics’ (cited by Ammous) ultimately resolve into allowing parents to starve their children to death if they wish (presumably a result of high time preference); a problem of neglect that, Rothbard tells us, could be solved through a free-market in babies. This is not classical liberalism, or even mainstream libertarianism, but the hard-core anarcho-capitalism of sociopaths. The Bitcoin Standard podcast is releasing a recording of the weekly Saifedean.com discussion seminar.

Bitcoin Standard Podcast - Saifedean Ammous The Bitcoin Standard Podcast - Saifedean Ammous

Note: Gold, by comparison, is harder to mine – even with price increase it is hard to mine more thus hard to inflate the fundamental driver of human progress is not raw materials, but technological solutions to problems. Technology is by its nature both a non‐excludable good (meaning that once one person invents something, all others can copy it and benefit from it) and a non‐rival good (meaning that a person benefiting from an invention does not reduce the utility that accrues to others who use it). In conclusion, the Bitcoin coders face a strong incentive to abide by consensus rules if they are to have their code adopted. The miners have to abide by the network consensus rules to receive compensation for the resources they spend on proof‐of‐work. The network members face a strong incentive to remain on the consensus rules to ensure they can clear their transactions on the network. I have personally no idea if the world would be a better or worse place today if we had continued with a free market and following the Austrian school of economics. Saifedean's views of the golden past are probably simplistic and the problems of today's globally connected and overpopulated world are probably far more complex than the author (or anyone on the planet) could possibly understand - BUT I can see with my own eyes that my generation's buying power is absolutely ridiculous compared to my parent's generation, despite us working significantly longer hours in supposedly much higher classed and higher paid jobs. Libertarian or "Austrian economics" explanation of money. Discussing the history and social impact then anticipating the role of bitcoin.Beginning with a history of gold, Ammous looks at different types of money in history and shows how Bitcoin fits in. Irrespective of the disapproval of the Austrian school, commodity monies have existed alongside other monies of varying types for thousands of years, variously competing and complementing according to context. Monetary systems largely emerged through top-down socio-political arrangements: from temples and priests, to Pharaohs, philosopher kings, Knights Templar, merchants, notaries, credit-brokers, bankers, governments and central banks. In contrast, the traditional methodology of the Austrian school seeks to develop theories and narratives based on a priori deductive reasoning of the presumed desires of individual human actions ( praxeology they call it). Any legitimate role of governance in the multidimensional socio-political relations around money is assumed away by ideological fiat, derided as an unnecessary intervention in the market which can only end in disaster. More dogma than theory or history. The history of money is complicated, and far more interesting than the simplistic narrative presented. The second half of the book is largely raw Bitcoin Maximalism. Not all of it is wrong per se, but it reeks of a zealotry. The sections of the book covering the scaling debate are incredibly biased, presented without nuance, and even factually wrong in many places. Although gold was supposedly demonetized fully in 1971, central banks continued to hold significant gold reserves, and only disposed of them slowly, before returning to buying gold in the last decade. This analysis may help explain why Bitcoin has resisted all attempts to change it significantly so far. The coordination problem of organizing a simultaneous shift among people with adversarial interests, many of whom are strongly vested in the notion of immutability for its own sake, is likely intractable barring any pressing reason for people to move away from current implementations.