ramontayag
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
It is a way to transfer value. I'm from the Philippines and I'm seeing increasing usage in remittance or getting paid salaries from abroad.
I also get a better feel for what else bitcoin is doing with this podcast episode "Alex Gladstein on Why Bitcoin Matters for Freedom" https://pca.st/aQy0
It sounds like what you said is that the singularity may not happen because cryptocurrency deflation will make cryptocurrencies more attractive to hold compared to inflationary fiat. I'm fairly certain I understood it wrong.
Won't people move more of the money into deflationary currencies if they are accessible and exchange friction between the inflationary one and deflationary one is acceptable?
I appreciate the appreciation!
Intrinsic value discussion aside (which is its own discussion worth having), I would certainly like to keep more of my money in gold vs my local currency if gold were easy to get and keep. Peter Schiff says goldmoney.com does this, but I'm not interested in owning a certificate.
You bring up a good point though. The closer I imagine ourselves being at the event horizon, the fuzzier the details become. For example, I don't know what "stable enough" is exactly. I guess the question is now, will it ever get close enough to go past the event horizon?
I appreciate your replies - not sure if I mentioned it earlier to you, but I posted it here in HN because there is no shortage of smart people willing to express their thoughts.
It's a more long term view of the impact of cryptocurrencies concerning government issued currencies.
I don't think gold is the right medium for the singularity because it is not easy to obtain and subdivide. It needs to be in the the vicinity of choosing the inflated coin on one hand, and the more valuable coin on the right.
Perhaps it's this trait that will keep Bitcoin volatile? Because it's easy to go in and out of it, volatility will remain high?