JackTheMimic @JackTheMimic - 1d
So, no those two things aren't contradictory. Absolute scarcity is not a measurement. It is a true/false attribute. Scarcity in general has degrees yes. Corn for instance, there is a number of corn kernels on the planet. It's probably unknowable but there is a number. The problem is corn is a produceable good meaning even the last kernel on earth can be reproduced. Absolute scarcity means the number of something in existence is fixed. Such as the number of authentic Monet paintings, or Bitcoin. Subjective value theory has no qualms with this for goods because goods can be scarce but not absolutely scarce. A Monet painting being finite means it is technically priceless not because it is valuable but because it cannot be reproduced (authentically). Bitcoin's value is derived from the human valuation of the 5 properties I expounded upon earlier (Scarcity, Divisibility, Durability, Verifiability, and Portability). Scarcity is merely one of the five but the point is that it's scarcity is absolute or finite meaning it is perfectly scarce compared to all physical assets. It is all of the attributes combined with a human want for a neutral money that derives the value we see today.
No, that's not the claim. Fixed supply is necessary for a money to not be debased. That's all. That has proven to be a valued feature. As far as fungibility goes what is the argument? Either a bitcoin is a bitcoin and is worth the same or it's non-fungible because it's auditable or verifiable which one? Dollars have serial numbers and mints. Gold has specific molecules that CAN be serialized and verified as gold. If an asset is "Fungible" to the point of being indistinct, how does one verify supply? Beside ALL of that, fungibility is not an important attribute of a monetary asset. It is superfluous to the function of money. Like the money having a dead president on it or being a rectangle.
Fungibility is superfluous. It has no bearing on the perfect money. This is akin to saying the perfect money would look like a pear or would be able to bounce off of a steel table. Fungibility is unimportant because the previous owners of a money is irrelevant. An ounce of gold owned by a king is not a more or less perfect money because he can have been proven or not to have owned it.
It seems that at every turn you would like to debate facts. I am not really interested in doing that.
