pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @telcobert 30 Mar \ on: FROSTR RELEASE devs
Great initiative, this should prove very useful for Bitcoin in the real economy, e.g. in international trade. Businesses usually require 2/n joint signers.
The next Bitcredit Protocol release v0.3-alpha is switching to Nostr, so this may be relevant for several streams:
- e-bill negotiation
- company chain signing (may need 2n/3-out-of-n)
- backing and guarantee asset transfers
- signing of project reward and ungovernance proposals
All cool stuff for developers, I am sure.
The economist's perspective is different, especially as OP includes merchants and shops. It is becoming quite clear that Bitcoin is stuck on (minimal) first order merchant level adoption which is reported to be regressing in El Salvador.
I think of Lightning network as a key part of what should become the abstract wholesale money layer of Bitcoin. Its key function will be to ensure verifiable honesty of the retail money layer nodes which will also handle privacy (for fungibility and censorship resistance).
These are very different requirements.
All cool stuff for developers, I am sure.
This economist's perspective is different, especially as OP relates to merchants and shops. It is becoming quite clear that Bitcoin is stuck on (minimal) first order merchant level adoption and it is reported to be regressing in El Salvador. The reason for this reality is rooted in economic laws.
For me, Lightning Network is a key part of what should become the abstract wholesale money layer of Bitcoin. Its key function will be to ensure verifiable honesty of the retail money layer nodes which are much better placed to handle privacy for monetary fungibility and political censorship resistance.
These are very different requirements to the ones assumed in this piece.
Chaumian e-cash is a far simpler tech base to build this, the key complexity being assured base money redeemability. Doable though. And LN can stay simpler, too.
That's reassuring. On the long run, you'll go bust and we don't need to read your "arguments". (As far as expletives go for arguments, that is.)
"People are not paying with bitcoin."
That is correct.
Let's ask why?
They don't know about it.
Ok. Let's educate them.
Done.
Now they are educated!
"People are still not paying with bitcoin."
Let's ask why?
They don't have bitcoin.
Ok. Let's sell them bitcoin.
It's great for value appreciation over 4 years.
Done. Now they hodl bitcoin!
"People are still not paying with bitcoin."
Let's ask why?
They don't earn in bitcoin.
QED: People will only earn bitcoin if businesses pay workers in bitcoin.
It is kind of correct that such similar was meaning, noting that more and more was piled on to the term with time. What those genuinely interested need to know is the power of those two little words in international trade agreements.
Take UNCITRAL CISG Art (2) as an example:
"A further nuance arises, however, in relation to a particular sub-category of cryptocurrencies: those issued by central banks. Though cryptocurrency fungibility is assumed by some existing literature, not all cryptocurrencies are alike. Central bank digital currencies (‘CBDC’s’) differ from other cryptocurrencies in one critical respect for CISG article 2(d)’s purposes: they have State backing, and also constitute legal tender in their issuing State for that reason. Though CBDC’s are not yet common, some States are ‘dabbling’ in this area, and China in particular has taken significant steps towards launching its digital yuan. If CISG article 2(d) is read as referring to State-issued money, CBDC trade (as one particular type of cryptocurrency trade) would actually be excluded from the CISG’s scope.
At first glance, the CISG’s differing application to these two types of cryptocurrencies might appear artificial. It must nevertheless be kept in mind that although CBDC’s have no physical representation via notes and coins, traditional State-issued money is often transacted electronically in any event: even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analogising CBDC’s with traditional State-issued money, for CISG article 2(d)’s purposes, therefore has at least some practical basis.
Differentiating CBDC’s from other cryptocurrencies for the purposes of the CISG’s application is not dissimilar to the existing distinction between equivalent traditional and digital goods that has plagued sales laws around the world and that I otherwise remedy (in the CISG context) in this article. This particular CBDC problem arguably reflects the law’s overall ‘nascent’ ability to deal with cryptocurrencies."
It's you who is the "fucking statist moron". Because legal tender laws are "fucking statist" in their nature.
So true bitcoiners actually do not support legal tender laws. Clearly that's not you imbecile retard who simps to states.
The challenge was - and ES solved that Gordonic know perfectly in a sly way - to name it "legal" tender. Of course imbecile statist retards like you and likely the IMF people don't grok that.
Again: Piss off and don't ever talk to me again. Go to some playground to the other imbecile retards.
It's you who is the "fucking moron", mate. And you sadly lack manners, every time I see you self-important clown.
The true significance for Bitcoin being called "legal tender" has nothing to do with anything what you write. That's all government stuff, for those who love that the government can just force people to do as it pleases by violence.
This wording is all about some legal consequences which it has in certain international accords. Takes a knowledge which you lack even more than manners or intelligence.
Piss off and don't ever talk to me again. Go to some playground for imbecile retards.
That is very interesting. Since Heckscher wrote this in 2021, was he perhaps one of the "one or two very good economists in Sweden" mentioned by F.A. Hayek below?
If yes, I'd be most interested in more detail to the following episode. It is actually quite a crucial matter for the monetisation of Bitcoin.
“During World War I the great paper money inflation in all the belligerent countries brought down not only the value of paper money but also the value of gold, because paper money was in the large measure substituted for gold, and the demand for gold fell. In consequence, the value of gold fell and prices in gold rose all over the world.
That affected even the neutral countries. Particularly Sweden was greatly worried: because it had stuck to the gold standard, it was flooded by gold from all the rest of the world that moved to Sweden which had retained its gold standard; and Swedish prices rose quite as much as prices in the rest of the world.
Now, Sweden also happened to have one or two very good economists at the time, and they repeated the advice which the Austrian economists had given concerning the silver in the 1870s, “Stop the free coinage of gold and the value of your existing gold coins will rise above the value of the gold which it contains.
The Swedish government did so in 1916 and what happened was again exactly what the economists had predicted: the value of the gold coins began to float above the value of its gold content and Sweden, for the rest of the war, escaped the effects of the gold inflation.”
"A Free-Market Monetary System" (1977)
Friedrich A. Hayek
The missing part is a "credit money" layer not just credit.
Drafts issued against value given, not just a simple promissory notes.
Negotiable credit is a very different thing to credit money.
Why the interest?
It is correct that IOU's can be abused, like many other things.
However, it is foolish to deny their positive use as instruments of credit facilitating division of labour in modern economies.
Credit in real goods is what powers capitalistic production and supply chains for consumers' real world lives. We cannot eat bitcoin. Or gold for that matter.
On 'cheating': Cheating banks and trusting fools will always be punished, usually within a few years of less. Honest banks persisted in the past for hundreds of years. Only the government has the power to cheat unpunished and force their 'licensed' (enslaved) banks to cheat through regulation.
Yes, that is correct.
The basic credit money instrument is a best a draft or a promissory note. It must be issued against value given to be 'credit money' else it is inflationary 'fiduciary media'.
- Gold is problematic, though. Bitcoin has fewer attack vectors.
- Paper is also problematic. An electronic / cryptographic format is advantageous.
The OP explains (hopefully) that money is a construct and system.
Until the system is complete, including the credit money layer, Bitcoin is a commodity, no more no less, and what we are doing is barter.
PS: Government or what it says does not come in. Austrian Economics demonstrates by logic that it does not need the government to make a money. Government can and will fuck up liberty money, though, if they find any angle to do so.
So, with Bitcoin, it has beed extremely hard for them so far to fuck up the base money layer. And Bitcredit Protocol hopefully is similarly good at keeping them off the credit money layer. We will see.
Q: Since when they are not? Who decided that?
A: Take your pick: 1913/14 or 1933. See chart.
Q: Can Bitcoin be money?
It can be. To get there, we must get the credit money layer right.