pull down to refresh
Ok, you just aren't listening. Have fun talking to yourself and making pretend arguments with nonexistent opponents. I hope it helps you feel very clever.
no i'm listening and i agreed to play by your rules, let's call it "exchange ratio" and agree that it's gonna be store of value -> medium of exchange -> unit of account.
it's you who is not listening to my question. i think you and every American driver out there should really ask yourself: "between two hard monies that are both cannot be inflated, do i want to use the hard money that takes 4200 units to fully fill up my truck, or the hard money that takes only 180 units to do the same job? in other words, do i want to use the hard money that takes 700 units to fill up 10 gallons of gas, or the hard money that takes only 30 units to do the same job?"
the medium of exchange you choose will dictate how many minutes yourself and future generations have to spend at the counter to be able to buy stuff and calculate the numbers in your accounting books. it adds up over time.
why do countries with inflated currencies tend to stay poor? i think partly it's because people are tired from doing maths and lack the energy to do more important stuff. many businesses in those countries simply ignore the accounting book because it's gonna be a bunch of extra zeroes for every item that they have to write/read/communicate. without a proper accounting book, those businesses tend to stay small and local and live day by day without thinking / planning for the long term.
we're in the business of designing and adopting hard money, something that's gonna replace both gold which ruled for 5000 years and the dollar which ruled for 100 years. remember 95% of world's population still don't really use bitcoin. if you want to replace traditional monies that were there for hundreds and thousands of years, your alternative money gotta be really damn good. 700 units vs 30 units is a big difference. if you choose a money that requires American people to count, communicate, and calculate 700 units every time they have to buy 10 gallons of gas (a basic item), they will very likely prefer to continue using the dollar. because why would they choose to use a currency that looks somewhat similar to inflated vietnamese dongs? and if they don't want to use your money as medium of exchange, it will never become a unit of account.
Your chicken and goat example perfectly proves my point. To make that trade, you had to establish a numerical ratio ('3 chickens for 1 goat') before the physical trade occurred. In that exact moment, the goat is literally the unit being used to account for the transaction. It doesn't matter if you haven't priced your blueberries yet; you had to agree on a unit to execute that specific trade.
You claim the assets in these early exchanges are 'not yet money.' That is dictionary nonsense that contradicts everything Bitcoiners stand for. If '1 Sat = 1 Sat' and Sats are 'hard money today,' then they are money the second they are used in a transaction. They don't need to wait decades for an academic to grant them permission.
You are hiding behind macroeconomic semantics because the reality of the checkout counter defeats you. Let's play by your rules: If the asset used in those early transactions lacks a clean, conversational pricing ratio—if it forces a working-class guy to calculate and say 'Gimme forty-two hundred' just to put 60 gallons of gas in his work truck—that physical exchange (MoE) stalls. The human brain rejects the friction. And if those early exchanges fail, it never scales to become your global UoA.
You can cling to how economists defined a word in 1892, but if the numbers on the price tag exhaust the human brain, your Medium of Exchange is dead on arrival.