Top PostsTop Posts
- Dumping a fork coin doesn't crash its price
- Meme Monday - Best Bitcoin Meme Gets 25,000 Sats
- Bitcoin Hypermonetization: Bubble Talk (2013) — 2 minute bitcoin
- 427 sats \ 1 comment \ @2minutebitcoin \ ~bitcoin \
January 15, 2023
- 427 sats \ 1 comment \ @2minutebitcoin \ ~bitcoin \
- đź‘€ Pleb Lab looking for Office Space
- 1005 sats \ 5 comments \ @ThrillerX_ \ ~bitcoin \
January 15, 2022
- 1005 sats \ 5 comments \ @ThrillerX_ \ ~bitcoin \
Top StackersTop Stackers
- @k00b
- 64.9k stacked \ 47.1k spent \ 27 items \
January 15, 2025
- 64.9k stacked \ 47.1k spent \ 27 items \
- stacker is in hiding for
January 15, 2024 - @k00b
- 4484 stacked \ 1914 spent \ 1 item \
January 15, 2023
- 4484 stacked \ 1914 spent \ 1 item \
- stacker is in hiding for
January 15, 2022
Top CommentsTop Comments
- #851311 on LN Roulette – A Lightning-Powered, Provably Fair Roulette Game
- 100 sats \ 18 replies \ @nout \
January 15, 2025You are generating the number 16 more often than other numbers and insiders use it to squeeze money out of others!!?! [...]
- 100 sats \ 18 replies \ @nout \
- #388719 on Meme Monday - Best Bitcoin Meme Gets 25,000 Sats
- 25.4k sats \ 2 replies \ @BitByBit21 \
January 15, 2024[...]
- 25.4k sats \ 2 replies \ @BitByBit21 \
- #122487 on First ever!! (lol) multiparty-S6 N party adaptor swap with musig! (on signet)
- 1948 sats \ 3 replies \ @windsok \
January 15, 2023my very basic understanding is that this allows a coinjoin to happen between multiple parties, but instead of having a single large coinjoin transaction that has everyone's inputs and outputs each party sends their own individual transaction. [...]
- 1948 sats \ 3 replies \ @windsok \
- #8101 on Daily discussion thread
- 22 sats \ 15 replies \ @k00b \
January 15, 2022I’m getting married today. [...]
- 22 sats \ 15 replies \ @k00b \
Top TerritoriesTop Territories
- ~bitcoin
- 31.6k stacked \ 6218 revenue \ 50.9k spent \ 234 items \
January 15, 2025
- 31.6k stacked \ 6218 revenue \ 50.9k spent \ 234 items \
- ~bitcoin
- 45.5k stacked \ 0 revenue \ 53.4k spent \ 567 items \
January 15, 2024
- 45.5k stacked \ 0 revenue \ 53.4k spent \ 567 items \
- ~bitcoin
- 13.3k stacked \ 0 revenue \ 35.3k spent \ 306 items \
January 15, 2023
- 13.3k stacked \ 0 revenue \ 35.3k spent \ 306 items \
- ~bitcoin
- 1434 stacked \ 0 revenue \ 1707 spent \ 78 items \
January 15, 2022
- 1434 stacked \ 0 revenue \ 1707 spent \ 78 items \
@Scoresby our conversation about supply has been going on for a year. I need to wrap it up finally with my direct response to this post.
Dumping forkcoins does crash their value.
Given that you've had very well-reasoned responses for the duration, and that my side of the argument is the weird, backwards side, I believe you have had the better showing in the debate.
What is your opinion then of Voskuil's Dumping Fallacy? Is he wrong, using terms differently, or is there a third option?
This is what Voskuil wrote:
It seems like he may be responding to an argument that was incorrect in the first place.
He's correct in saying that selling units from one side of a coin split does not change anyone's utility.
However, in order to sell more of a coin, you need to start selling it to people who gradually value it less and less. Thus, you are selling to lower marginal utility buyers when you sell more.
Simple example. Suppose Alice sells 1 BTC_A to Bob for 1 BTC_B. They both agree, and they both valued the coins at least at a 1:1 exchange ratio.
But suppose now Alice wants to sell another BTC_A. Let's say Bob is done buying BTC_A. Alice now has to go to Carol. But Carol doesn't accept a 1:1 exchange rate. Carol has a preference for BTC_B, and is only willing to buy BTC_A if Alice can give 2 BTC_A for 1 BTC_B. Suppose Alice is still willing to agree. The sale happens. The last traded exchange rate is 2 BTC_A for 1 BTC_B. Thus, the last traded price for BTC_A has gone down.
Which way the exchange rate moves depends on what the change is that drove the action in the market. If it's an increased demand for B (equivalently, increased supply of A), then the price of B (A) goes up (down). If it's an increased demand for A (equivalently, increased supply of B), then the price of A (B) goes up (down).
In the Alice example above, the changes were driven by Alice's increased demand for B.
The last few parts in the post about state subsidies and state-level dumping IMO are not relevant because I don't think we are using the word "dumping" to refer to state level action.
Why don’t sales change utilities?
Why are people making transactions then?
Utility drives action, not the other way around.
I suppose one could imagine a world in which the sale itself affects market participants' expectations or utility over an asset. But I think the burden of proof would be on the person who wants to argue from that point of view.
A simpler reason for transactions is that peoples' beliefs/utilities change, which cause demand/supply changes that then drive marketplace transactions.
I think you’re saying the utility function doesn’t change, which is probably false but also unknowable and not what I was reacting to.
I thought you were saying the participants’ utility levels are unaffected by the sale, which would be odd.
Seems like a "quantity demanded increases" vs. "demand curve increases" kind of linguistic ambiguity we're running into. Everyone gets tripped up over this!
Utility function doesn't change (necessarily). Utility levels change. Marginal utility changes due to being on a different point on the curve.
Do you normally refer to the function as “utility” instead of the level?
It’ll take a bit of work to gather my thoughts.
Your post did bring up the crucial point that we don’t really know which side is dumping, a priori. That doesn’t imply that one side isn’t dumping, though.
I've spent a lot of time thinking on this over the last year and I did always want to write one last post about it. Perhaps I'll save it for responses to your assessment though.
(I have truly enjoyed the discussions we've had on here re supply and demand, so thank you for the thought you've put into them)
It’s been great. My preference would actually be for you to put more of your thoughts forward first.
Then I can attempt to put a bow on it and you can untie that bow with your responses.
This sounds like a good plan. I'll try to make one last attempt at defending Voskuil's dumping fallacy before conceding that I simply don't understand it.