Hence the term "capitalism". We understand that when we place savings in shares of a growing company, our savings are put to work by that company, productively, and yield a reward in dividends paid from cashflow and/or appreciation due to growth, all of which are general benefits (at least as long as the management and organization is not sociopathic, which turns out to be a bad assumption). Why is it so difficult to understand that holding bitcoin yields value appreciation realized in purchasing power? It is a share in a distributed corporation, governed not by contemporaneous management by the pre-programmed management embodied in the code running on the nodes of the network. It is adding value by creating social benefits. The market prices those benefits. Shareholders are rewarded for providing investment capital by buying those shares which we call bitcoin.
Please stop comparing bitcoin to stocks. It is kind of annoying how people like to describe bitcoin by whatever suits the particular argument. In general it's a currency, but when an argument arises that it is a currency of low quality, then it suddenly becomes a stock. And If I explain that if bitcoin is a stock, then you are buying stock from a company that actually uses it's resources without any gain, then I'l bet it becomes a commodity. Imagine a company that digs a hole, then covers it up again, then digs it again and repeats the process to eternity. But the company is saying that this use of resources is very constructive, and some fools believe it. This would be the case if bitcoin would be anywhere near in being a stock. But, bitcoin is not a stock and it's nowhere close to being a stock. It's a commodity at best.
If the world's "wealth" -- meaning energy consumption -- continues increasing exponentially then we will all die in fire. If that is your inflationary paradise, we have very different world-views.
I agree with you here, that this is a matter of different world views. One view says that we have to conserve our resources, because if they end then there will be nothing left to consume. The other view tells that we have to consume resources to discover new resources to use on our benefit. I tend to fall on the second view.
No, everyone who is brainwashed by the Keynesian school "knows" that. It is a false knowledge, which has never been true, as history demonstrates abundantly.
Now, this got interesting! Tell me how is it false knowledge and tell me when has history proven that it is false knowledge.
Your complaint about bitcoin boils down to this: You can't force people to use their savings on what you want them to use it for. I regard that as a feature, not a bug.
If an country would adopt this "feature" in it's currency then it will soon fall behind competitiveness, because it hurts both trade and production. That is why countries are not using this model. The bitcoin community isn't a pack of tortured geniuses who knows the answer how to prosper, while the rest of the world is just so dumb, that they wont understand the enlightened truth. This is the work of the cult mentality that I've been talking about.
You don't see the store of wealth use case as a beneficial one. I do.
Speculative investment is not store of wealth. If someone sees a commodity, that's value is purely based on speculation as a good store of wealth, then that someone shouldn't handle money. Speculative value is a fragile thing that can appear and disappear very very fast.
Why should any more resources be used to run the network than those which add economic value? Why should any less resources be used, for that matter? Ah I see, again you aspire to be a central planner. Why is your planning better than a soviet appatchik's, or a western central banker's? Both are miserable failures. It is hubris, effrontery, to pretend to know better how to price money than does the invisible hand.
This last line is a little hard to understand what point you are actually trying to make. Is it "if you don't like work that has no gain or vision, then you are a soviet central planner or an evil banker". If I'll buy myself a 1mil.$ supercomputer to play Doom 2, then will I become Of the People and For the People, like the bitcoin community is? Or will I just be really smart for my thorough and constructive investment and use of resources?
Poll
