listen to uncommon core, every episode starting with the first, and you'll have a nice view from the inside. signal-to-noise ratio in crypto is atrocious, high signal sources are alpha
single best tip for navigating the space.
the best thing you can do in crypto is cut out noisy sources, this eliminates reddit, youtube, hacker news and most news sites. crypto twitter has some high signal, but curate regularly.
follow smart individuals religiously, podcasts are probably the best. thanks for uncommon core, i hadn't heard of it. bankless is another high signal podcast (although eth-maxi).
this is a reference to a famous Milton Friedman quote "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" — of course this is a tautology, but he didn't mean the trivial version when he said it, but rather he was making an empirical claim.
in this piece it looks like the author is making the tautological version of the claim, by following up and describing it as "a function of money printing" — which is obviously true it is a function of money printing and several other things
To be clear, inflation is not a function of money printing. For example, under metallic standards (so no money printing), countries would experience inflation or deflation as a result of trade imbalances (because a trade deficit leads to a net outflow of precious metals, and vice-versa).
metallic standards often had debasement (that's why it's called debasement). but also no one is arguing that inflation is a function of ONLY money printing, but no one can argue that money printing is not one of the inputs that determines inflation
Including the computation and data on-chain enables other parties to use it trustlessly and verifiably. If you, for example, wanted to make an algorithmic central bank that reacted to inflation numbers you would need on-chain CPI in order to do that. Similarly you may want to index your interest rate to the CPI in some way (like LIBOR). It becomes a lot more useful when on-chain than in a central database
It’s not trustless, because you’re trusting the scraping NGO to put the correct price data on the chain. You can verify that it came from the NGO with a simple signature; you don’t need the chain for that.
nah fam that won't likely be the final topology of the network. you can have oracles all the way down and a slashing risk for those that deviate significantly from the consensus prices and CPI numbers. so you're trusting the economic design of the system to appropriately incentivize the participants to give honest data
Don't want to duck your question but: the reason this is hard to get a handle on is that it's really complicated.
It's not that the premises and protocols themselves are complicated — sure, they're technically sophisticated, but they can be explained simply. The problem lies in that it is very hard to predict the economic consequences and security guarantees of the various consensus mechanisms. Frankly, if Bitcoin hadn't been working flawlessly for the past 12 years very few people would guess that it would work.
so nice to see the hackernews crowd finally figuring it out!
i totally agree with you. i feel that if you keep digging, you'll find yourself convinced over time that BTC's "technical challenges" are not the flaws that they originally appear, and that in the long run crypto does make sense as a currency itself, in addition to a financial infrastructure.
There is no alternative for the monetization of an asset. Gold was the same. Some people believed in it, many didn't, and as it monetized over time those that believed in it early benefited most.
The same is the case with anything valuable that might become money, including the USD, if you consider that it was originally distributed in a manner that was pegged to gold and that gold was monetized in the same way as described above. The idea that you could materialize a money in any other way is unsupported by history.
Yes, but you can choose how much risk to take on using your leverage weight. You don't have to accept the baseline risk of the inherently riskier asset. It's easier to start with a less risky portfolio and weight it accordingly than it is to derisk a portfolio which is intrinsically riskier.
yes but the beauty is that, due to the lack of a central authority, the game theory of the situation virtually ensures that no one would ever do that — that is, take bitcoin2 seriously
I don't know if I agree with that. Like take the example of a country whose currency collapses due to government mismanagement and its people decide that they would be better off with a cryptocurrency. I'm not sure how realistic this is, but it's at least a scenario that I see proposed from time to time. Those citizens face a trade-off when deciding between Bitcoin and Bitcoin2. Bitcoin has a lot of active miners, which is valuable, as it means their future transactions will be more secure. But Bitcoin is also very expensive, and difficult to acquire. Joining the bitcoin economy is entering into a game where other players (bitcoin early adopters) have a huge head start, and these newcomers have nothing. If they instead start a new chain, they will need to bring their own compute power, but will have an opportunity to have a meaningful share of the tokens, and therefore some amount of influence on steering the currency.
It's probably unlikely that an enfranchised bitcoin user would be incentivized to jump to a newborn chain, but I don't think it's the case that a new user is always incentivized to adopt the existing chain. As the price of bitcoin increases, and the remaining coins to be issued decreases, a new chain becomes more attractive for new users.
Well Bitcoin does have almost central authority - if Top 3 mining pools decide to change their software in literally any way, then everyone else will comply of will be left in the dust. It's not that hard for 3 people to agree on a common action plan.
