Don't call other people clueless. Without trade credit, Bitcoin cannot monetise. We stay on fiat. You want that? Fine. I don't.

BOE is a time-proven instrument from gold times to do this.

Fallacy 1: False necessity: There is no need for banks when using bills. That's the point. It's peer-to-peer!

Fallacy 2: Category error. To blame bills when somebody abuses them is bad logic. You can abuse any kitchen knife. Or Bitcoin for that matter.

Sp, back off. There are enough explainers out already if you really care instead of trolling.

Darth, will you ever stop trolling?

I have already explained how the bill of exchange proper has nothing to do with the abusive practices in your video. Like the Kitchen knife, a bill is a useful thing when used correctly, but of course it can be abused. Like many things. As the detractors of bitcoin claim that Bitcoin is for criminals.

Fact is, without Bitcoin-denominated peer-to-peer credit issued for production, goods in the supply chain, the fiat system will live on. The real economy cannot adopt bitocin and the statists will hunt our on/off ramps. Think it through, for heaven's sake.

Fallacy or the usual Darthcoin trolling.

Should Wright Brothers not bothered with inventing the aeroplane because prior designs did not work?

They are both 'credit risks'.

Counterparty risk refers to the other party of a contract (e.g. delivery of rice or oil), Issuer risk to the issuer of a financial instrument (e.g. bond or bill of exchange).

Counterparty risk is significantly greater in terms of complexity, volatility, and contagion.

– Bitcoin M0 (commodity money) has none of these two risks (there are others). – Contract parties paying with eCash settles C/P risk (Cashu and Fedimint can do) – Issuer risk (slow/fast rug) must be eliminated on the mint level (needs Bitcredit Protocol).

More about this in a few weeks. Stay tuned.

With the mint it's actually 'issuer risk'. Small but important difference.

If you listen to the Pod, it describes the needed changes and the motivation.

As I mentioned, this simply does not work, there is no such choice because there CANNOT be. Real goods flowing needs elastic medium of exchange.

Hayek wrote quite lucidly in "Prices and Production" if you care about economics.

If not, I have no time to teach this.

The answer is No. This "thing" is not "operating as or behind a financial institution". It is a peer-to-peer "thing". Assertive comments produce bad karma if claimed without verification

As regards bills of exchange, the documentary correctly recognises several evils:

What Cal Washington apparently does not know: Merchants strictly only accepted commercial bills issued "against value". This means they were created as medium of exchange ("money") as the first leg against a sale of B2B goods. (Akin to Bitcoiners "proof-of-work"). Financial ("dry") bills were rightly not accepted as money. Bills issued against goods correctly cancel out when used to purchase final goods in the second leg of real exchange. The proceeds were needed and used to redeem the bill. It is an enabler of exchange.

It is not the fault of the instrument if nation states pervert it by corrupt laws, enforcing legal tender and dry issuance against government bonds.

In no way does this diminish the urgent need for the (unperverted) instrument in the Bitcoin system, so that business and trade can start to adopt Bitcoin.

So you claim. Did you notice that Businesses don't do businesses with Bitcoin? Even after 15 years the real economy is on fiat.

I think I know why that is so.

And we are building what's needed so that businesses can use Bitcoin. If you don't get it or don't want to get it, is totally irrelevant.

QED. Clueless. Bye.

That's the point. Businesses use bills of exchanger peer-to-peer, amongst themselves.

There's no financial institution.

Normally, I do not engage with trolls, but I have a free minute. So:

First: As (from your past comments) a provably total clueless troll, you don't get to call others "clueless normies".

Last: At least listen before talking your rubbish.

Too few bitcoiners "willing to spend bitcoin"

That's exactly the critical point: To "create Bitcoin spenders" businesses must pay workers in bitcoin, so they "earn Bitcoin". Workers must spend most if not all their earnings.

Economically, that can only work if we re-create the socalled "Wage Fund" in Bitcoin like we had in Gold Standard times before fiat.

It is fairly clear how this can be done and built.

"this time it clicked more with me" Glad to hear it. Bitcoin in the real economy requires quite a different thought model, not "gold producer" for M0 but "circular trade finance" for M1.

"they turn it into colones" Exactly the sore spot. Sellers do that because - for all their faults - colones capability includes a Wage Fund for the earning/spending paradigm.

In a full Bitcoin system the sellers at the Uvita market accept bitcoin and then don't exchange it for colones but they redeem the bitcoin-denominated bills of exchange which paid for their merchandise on stock. Circularity.