JackTheMimic @JackTheMimic - 2d
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.
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.
"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."
...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.
Money, the class of good, is the most saleable not a specific money... This is like saying Gold isn't money because it isn't the most saleable. I mean, either you are being purposefully obtuse or you don't understand what you are saying.
