pull down to refresh

48 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 4 Dec
Big discussion here (and most natural fix): #291420
And yes, a free market between active and passive Bitcoin users is moral choice, and that's why it's more important than "stupid 21M meme" (copyright by Peter Todd ;)
"It makes sense. Something akin to what the central banks do by setting interest rates, but algorithmic, leading to a 'natural' (rather than manipulated) level of inflation"
P.S. "If we would have four years long network difficulty regression - then it's emergency, and new code handling such danger - should delay halving to the next halving, until difficulty will recover"
reply
I had lived through the internet bubble in 2000 to 2001 when everybody talked about how the internet would change everything and that it was the dawn of an entirely new economy, a New Economy in capital letters, where the old rules were meaningless and the sky was the limit. Prices of internet company shares seemed to know only one direction: up. Media and markets were in a frenzy, every new stock with a ‘.com’ appended sold like hot bread rolls. But all parties must end, and the dot-com bubble ultimately did burst with losses reaching hundreds of billions of dollars. Millions of investors lost their money and many faced financial ruin.
I lived through the crashes of 98 and 2000 and made tons of money using both options and shorts on .com companies. I made the most on the crashing Cisco prices.
You can borrow and lend BTC as banksters do without f*cking up the interest rate by two simple methods: 1. No reserve ratio, if you have one you can lend one — you cannot lend out what you do not have! 2. Use the pure time preferences of the owners of the BTC. If they say the interest rate for a year is 50% that is what you have to give them, or not borrow. This will equilibrate the supply and demand of the BTC to borrow and lend.
reply