Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09 📝 Original message:In Bitcoin we use the ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09
📝 Original message:In Bitcoin we use the term “supply“ as a reference to the number of coins minted. This colloquialism is commonly conflated with the economic concept of supply, and then injected into a supply/demand relation as if it had the same applicability. Economically supply refers to desire to sell, while demand refers to desire to buy.
e
> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:24, Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:
>
> To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.
>
> Even if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an assumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand determines price, not the amount of something in existence, hence the folly of S2F (1/monetary-inflation).
>
> e
>
>> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:15, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>>>> Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
>>> This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.
>> To be clear, are you claiming that there is no proof that coins are lost?
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
📝 Original message:In Bitcoin we use the term “supply“ as a reference to the number of coins minted. This colloquialism is commonly conflated with the economic concept of supply, and then injected into a supply/demand relation as if it had the same applicability. Economically supply refers to desire to sell, while demand refers to desire to buy.
e
> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:24, Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:
>
> To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.
>
> Even if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an assumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand determines price, not the amount of something in existence, hence the folly of S2F (1/monetary-inflation).
>
> e
>
>> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:15, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>>>> Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
>>> This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.
>> To be clear, are you claiming that there is no proof that coins are lost?
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org