pull down to refresh

I'm a third of the way through the video -- it's deeply annoying how clueless the moderator of the discussion is. So typical of academics I encounter, who have no clue about the relevant topic, they haven't read the book / paper / work of the person whose discussion they're meant to be moderating, and they even seem proud of their cluelessness:
~"Mattheus, you study something like that, I think. Or maybe you don't." Argh.
Not a criticism of the book, rather a criticism of dipshits, who are as numberless as the sands and stars. The other panelists are well-reasoned and informed, though, so the thing is worth watching.
This video summarizes Micah's views without having an annoyingly clueless moderator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiqHc6VCBbA
reply
thanks for posting this!
reply
about 2/3rd of the way through this interview...and I'm not really impressed.
A more recent video that was quite fun to watch. https://youtu.be/5f9s7HibZj8
Joe points out some flaws in his thinking, e.g. the decreasing incentives to selfish-mine as the block subsidy decreases. Also, on the econ side, Micah doesn't seem to appreciate the role of money as a SoV and would rather see it 'invested', which goes against the Austrian view that 'uninvested' money becomes more valuable for investing where / when better opportunities arise.
reply
Thanks for this, I'll give it a watch!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 19 Oct
I've always been interested in the long-term game theory of the decreasing block subsidy and how it will effect the economics of Bitcoin over time. I think it is a good thing, just a curious observer.
reply
I don't blame you, even some of the panelists are a little off with their answers.
reply