Hi Eric,

Your cryproeconomic theories may describe correctly Bitcoin as money, but fall 
short of describing a Bitcoin that would also offer reliable memory for other 
uses.

In consequence you miss, that:

1. If the reliable memory that enables money would have more uses then even 
temporary use of the memory would have utility, therefore value. Bitcoin as is, 
does not have consensus rules to enable reliable alternate uses.

2. Finite supply of coins implies a finite memory capacity of Bitcoin. 
Alternate use of the memory requires that units at least temporarily become 
un-fungible, enforced by consensus. Alternate uses would then have to compete 
for units of memory, which would give rise to a price paid to those enabling 
alternate use, even if temoprarily.

3. If giving up control temorarily has a positive price (through 2) and return 
of control is certain (enforced by consenus) then the price paid is riskless 
interest for those giving up temporary control.

4. If a use requires more units of memory then it imposes higher cost to use 
and it since memory units are finite it imposes more severe scarcity.

Further certainly subjective remarks:

Although burning and loss is unavoidable and therefore Bitcoin (as is) is 
unsustainable we should design systems that they sustain it as long as possible 
(as is). Therefore a requirement to burn for any of unlimited number of uses 
should be avoided.

We currently perceive borrowed money just as good as (fungible with) any other 
money. This is a consequence that money actually comes into existence through 
someone borrowing it. Money on your account is a loan you gave the bank and 
even paper cash is a loan you gave the central bank.

Bitcoin is different as it just is, it is not borrowed into existence. 
Therefore it is not fungible with borrowed version of itself. This however does 
not imply that its borrowed version is worthless as it might be worth something 
if there is a use for it.

Tamas Blummer

> On Jul 7, 2019, at 03:30, Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote:
> 
> I have published a summary here:
> 
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Free-Return-Fallacy 
> <https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Free-Return-Fallacy>
> 
> Barring any new consequential inputs I’ll refrain from further comment.
> 
> e
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to