pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 17 Apr \ parent \ on: The case FOR CCs meta
No. No. NO. NOOOOEH.
Fuck, I hate the Bitcoiners and their Gresham's obsession. Just no, #738907
being less anal about this, there's some logic in your story, since every version of bitcoin (on-chain, lightning, ecash) are the same, so they actually are (artificially?) fixed in price.
... but CCs aren't. They are strictly inferior, and don't have a market price fixed at 1 sat
I get your point in linked post about demand - I think. Do I get it right that you're saying that
my demand for the harder money is making me spend the weaker money first, because from my perspective I have less desire to hold on to the latter?Ultimately that means that the bad money "driving out" the good money is only valid until it goes to 0?
reply
not quite... it's that bad/good money doesn't have meaning until you're comparing it with some objective third thing... in the time periods where Gresham existed, and where the Law would apply, you have bimetallism i.e. there's a fixed ratio of gold to silver.
Meaning, there's an incentive for you to pay with the "cheaper" metal since one is always undervalued relative to the other since world market prices of gold and silver always move.
There's no such mechanism for bitcoin so the concept doesn't apply.
That you spend CCs first because they're less money-like than sats says nothing about good/bad money.
do bad cars drive(!) out good ones?
No, they coexist; and relative prices adjust
reply