Believe me if bitcoin was the mainstream currency of choice we would be in a far far worse condition.
I know you have deep-seated insecurities on this but nobody here is suggesting a complete swap out from fiat to bitcoin. What is being proposed is offering choice to people. You want to deny them that choice.
We have learnt that a fixed money supply is not fit for purpose (meeting the needs of technology driven superfast growing economies) j
It's interesting that you cite the notion of 'meeting the needs of technology-driven superfast growing economies'. Technology is driving us towards a deflationary future - and this Keynesian model of driving people into debt - driving them further into rampant consumerism and in the process destroying the planet - all to fuel the growth that this model demands - isn't going to be able to keep up with it.
If you believe that all those previous periods would have been ones of economic bliss, or even better than they were, if only we had a fixed money supply, well I can't prove you are wrong, but I profoundly believe that to be the case.
I don't know enough about it - it's something I want to put some time into learning more about. Bitcoin gets criticised in terms of being deflationary - whilst looking back at the experience of the gold standard. I don't know if it's as simple as that - as bitcoin brings something else to the table with a programmatic monetary system that everyone knows from the outset and nobody can mess with. Otherwise, as I pointed out above, we are heading towards a changing environment - a deflationary environment over the longer run due to tech moving forward at pace. My understanding is that this keynesian driven fiat approach isn't going to be able to overcome that - and so, we will have to find a way of adjusting to a deflationary environment anyway.
As a thought experiment what if it was a valid alternative currency? I think it would be a serious impediment to mainstream monetary policy and in the (perceived) interests of society the authorities would be forced to act.
The greatest threat to bitcoin is competently managed fiat currencies. If they're run flawlessly, then there's a much lesser case for bitcoin. If bitcoin is adopted to a point where it limits the ability of that country's CB to implement monetary policy, it means that they have screwed up royally and failed that country's citizens. If they're concerned about that eventuality, it's totally in their hands. Don't mismanage and it won't be an issue.
Duke of Marmalade said:
I don't think it is nearly so far along that road as to threaten mainstream monetary policy.
I agree - albeit with the understanding that this isn't an objective as far as the vast majority of crypto proponents are concerned. In fact, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone couldn't see this as a force for good. Imagine if you're a dictator or wayward regime in the developing world. If bitcoin has gotten to a point where its understood by people and its easier to use, you know that if you screw up with the sovereign currency through mismanagement - you're going to lose total control. It has the potential to offer people an alternative if the incumbent is being mismanaged. It provides an incentive for all of those regimes not to mismanage.
Duke of Marmalade said:
The issue of criminal utility is a separate one which I am trying to stay out of it as it only gives @tecate the excuse to accuse me of persecuting the cult.
The issue of criminality has been well and truly dealt with - ergo, there's no more criminality in bitcoin's use than there is with cash fiat or electronic fiat. The tar and feathering on that score is exactly that - tar and feathering. The same with the 'cult' references that you persist with - in an attempt to sully it....from the proponent of the '[broken link removed]' cult.
What a brass neck? Do you remember shouting from the rooftops that Professor Roubini had used the term "store of value". That was seriously out of context.
Apples and oranges your Dukeness. I recall it being discussed whilst all the while acknowledging that he was continuing with the bile and vitriole he reserves for bitcoin. It was an attempt to walk something back as he knows it's being established as a store of value despite his protests going back years already. Bitcoiners gave him hell for it - and so he returned to doubling and tripling down with the hate-filled anti-bitcoin outbursts.
On the plus side, it's at least something that you acknowledge that you purposefully took Stevens' comment out of context. A contrived allegation that I have done the same previously doesn't justify that.
My reference to Stevens view of central bankers highlights a big rift in the cult between those (like yourself) who think that central bankers are the anti christ
I don't believe that central bankers are the 'anti-christ'. I've never stated such a thing - over the course of 4 years of discussion here. What I have pointed to is in line with what Stevens mentions - i.e. that programmatic money is far preferable to the whims of 12 unelected officials in a central bank. Even when making genuine attempts at managing a currency (which I believe the vast majority certainly are), the outcomes aren't always in the interests of society. That's before we get to human flaws and the ability for individuals to totally mismanage. Time and time again, we have examples of sovereign currencies that have been mismanaged - with a list of current examples available in any given year.
Duke of Marmalade said:
and those who in "humility and empathy" understand that they simply can't help their upbringing.
If you're comparing Stevens' approach to the bile and vitriol that emanates from the nutty professor, I know exactly what you mean.