pull down to refresh
If we imagine a world where airline miles had emerged as the dominant form of money, which category would they be.
Bitcoin code is not law, but subject to consensus. ERC-20 tokens are definitely fiat.
I wonder if Bob has heard this rational or understands the difference. It's actually pretty common for pro-bitcoin people to not understand consensus.
He talks a lot about blockchain but I haven't heard him explain proof of work or other ways bitcoin is different from the rest of crypto.
It was hard to grasp for me until the whole segwit2x mess. Then I understood that hardforks are a feature, not a bug. It is good that a minority can split off and have their fork. We may see that happen once more in September this year.
I've spent a lot of time talking to people that tried to solve "the hardfork bug" over the years. I think that the best example must have been Terra, which was running a consensus protocol that made chain splits "impossible". The result was corruption: 14 "miners" decided the faith of that chain in a closed meeting. It died. All of it. But with Bitcoin we can always choose to not consent to a change (or not consent with the status quo) and that is actually a very interesting feature. Imagine that we'd still be having fights about block size.
Agreed. I think it's a new form of money.
So based on how I read Mises, it's not fiat, because unlike in something rigid, like ERC-20, Bitcoin code is not law, but subject to consensus. ERC-20 tokens are definitely fiat.
It's also not commodity money as Mises describes it either, and of course it's not credit money. I agree with these.
So, based on this, I'd say it's
none of the above. I think the reason for his classification towards fiat is because he's artificially limiting his options based on a 1908 paper.