JackTheMimic @JackTheMimic - 2d
I will reiterate, my definition of value is the correct one. There is no such thing as inherent value. Every value is the speculation upon it by a human. Water is inherently valuable? How much would a drowning man pay for a bottle? How about a man in the desert? No good or service has intrinsic value. I emplore you to read Human action by Ludwig Von Mises or if you REALLY want to break it down as far as possible read Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard. All of your analysis hinges on that fact being untrue. I agree that Lightning isn't hard money because it's not money, angain it's a currency. The problem of a trilemma is that choosing more than 2 options of a trilemma is like choosing both options in a dilemma... It's logically impossible. Monero is dynamic in that it's two changes as the block changes. Its dynamic blocksize diminishes its security proportional to its scale. The security is based on its auditability not the signatures. The ability to audit and verify is what secures any blockchain. So, anyway I am not really into debating definitions. I am glad we agree that Fiat is destructive. I think bearing down on what makes sound money sound, is what really reveals what properties are important.
Yes #3 but I completely reject #4. By the Austrian logic, nothing is intrinsic, which was the basis for most of the previous post. Currency IS collateralized credit. That's what it is. Money is an asset that solves the coincidence of wants. It is a good not meant to be consumed. The 5 attributes of sound money are: Scarcity Verifiability Divisibility Portability Durability Currency is a technology that makes better the transactional functions of a money that has these attributes. The sole attribute of currency is that it is collateralized by the money. Bitcoin (like gold) is highly inefficient as a currency. I say Bitcoin is money not currency because it doesn't collateralize itself. All assets can be traded for goods or services, that does not make it a currency.
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.
"Given that non-decreasing demand is not assured the theory is invalid" That's rock solid logic right there, the demand for money will decrease therefore the subjective value of an absolutely scarce money will not sustain. Lol, just let me know when you walk up to a person and ask "Do you want some money?" And they say "Nah, I have enough."
JackTheMimic @JackTheMimic - 1d
...demand for money is infinite because it's the most saleable good. That should be obvious. Like I said, ask someone if they want some money, they won't refuse.
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.
