1. Exquisite Tweets from @NickSzabo4, @SpocksBrains, @isskewl, @scottspiegel_12, @BrianEppert

    Crypto1ChanCollected by Crypto1Chan

    U.S. Federal Reserve to teachers and students (there will be a quiz!): “Traditionally, currency is produced by a nation's government.“
    files.stlouisfed.org/research/publi…
    Education or propaganda? At the very least it is quite incomplete. The following thread fills in some of the gaps:

    Reply Retweet Like

    NickSzabo4

    Nick Szabo 🔑

  2. "Money serves three functions in an economy: medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account."

    My bank account says that fiat failed miserably at #2. That means it fails as money, right? And they got it backwards. #2 comes before #1 & is more important. What say u Feds?

    Reply Retweet Like

    SpocksBrains

    Hodling Spock

  3. 2/ Many banks besides central banks issued bank notes that circulated as currency. See work of @lawrencehwhite1 & @GeorgeSelgin
    • Charted Bank of India, Australia, and China, 1954
    • Mechanic’s Bank, U.S.,1856
    • North of Scotland bank, 1945
    • Ipswich bank in England,1820s

    Reply Retweet Like

    NickSzabo4

    Nick Szabo 🔑

    3/ In the industrial revolution, factories had to attract workers with frequent pay that could be spent at bargain shops. The Royal Mint was not producing low-denomination coins, so factories minted their own. Was not the only time or place for private coins. ht @GeorgeSelgin

    Reply Retweet Like

    NickSzabo4

    Nick Szabo 🔑

  4. Missing tweet: 971823820905598977

  5. 4/ Vast majority of coins were minted by gvnts, but monetary use of metals was far broader than & long predated that of coins. International money was the metal not its form. "Pound", "drachma", "shekel" etc. were units of weight.
    unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/03/collec…
    unenumerated.blogspot.com/2016/12/weigh-…

    Reply Retweet Like

    NickSzabo4

    Nick Szabo 🔑

    Ethnography was confounded by colonial bans on native institutions. Despite this many recorded use of shells as store of value & medium of wealth transfer. Shell beads go back over 100,000 years in archaeology. Copper was first smelted to make beads.
    unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/confli…

    Reply Retweet Like

    NickSzabo4

    Nick Szabo 🔑

  6. I'm unconvinced that in the modern financial landscape of diverse liquid assets that appreciating store of value is necessary or advantageous for a medium of exchange/accounting unit.

    Reply Retweet Like

  7. "Illusion" suggests its form is arbitrary, but in fact its most common & sustainable forms are very non-arbitrary technologies.

    Reply Retweet Like

    NickSzabo4

    Nick Szabo 🔑

  8. The good needs to be durable, portable, divisible, and have intrinsic value(?). Only after those four qualities are met can the social illusion as “money” begin

    Reply Retweet Like

  9. I have to disagree but I understand why a person could think that in a debt/spending driven economy. The idea that not spending money could have a long-term value proposition is foreign to those who didn't experience savings APRs of +3%. Now u have to chase those returns w/ risks

    Reply Retweet Like

    SpocksBrains

    Hodling Spock

  10. I think the more important question involves the social utility and or ethics of the power to affect the balance between creditors and debtors.

    Reply Retweet Like

  11. Missing tweet: 971842754903932929

  12. If a society allows (or encourages) banks to enslave debtors through hidden and unjust taxation (printing money), regulatory and legislative rent-seeking (bailouts), and social programs that entrap (student loans), my opinion is ethics demands a re-balancing of incentives

    Reply Retweet Like

    SpocksBrains

    Hodling Spock

  13. Sure. But that good could be a bad form of money, if adopted. “Good money” commodities have intrinsic properties that make it good SOV’s, MOE’s, and UOA’s. Bitcoin is a commodity that has the strongest properties of money that ever existed

    Reply Retweet Like

  14. Agree but would like to point out this applies to Bitcoin operating within capacity, in full-block mode it becomes less portable due to delayed confirmation times and less durable as fees are highly corrosive.

    Reply Retweet Like

    BrianEppert

    Brian Eppert

  15. Great point. Though I’d argue that a small block size is a trade off in order to maximize Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. Hoping layer 2 (⚡️) increases its portability. (Although even without layer 2, BTC is still way more portable than gold & fiat)

    Reply Retweet Like

  16. 3% absent inflation or default risk is good. My earlier point was that low risk can turn out to be a false assessment, hence diversification. I do not disagree with your points, but I think real solutions are rarely as binary as polarized debate casts them.

    Reply Retweet Like

  17. Not sold on the merits of that argument especially to the degree of enforcing radical changes on BTC’s economic properties.

    I don’t begrudge your belief, but wouldn’t even a sufficiently small block size keep pace with technological advances?

    Frozen limit seems regressive.

    Reply Retweet Like

    BrianEppert

    Brian Eppert