If Amazon would accept bsv to save it and pay its employees on bsv then it is helping, otherwise it is just dumping bsv to the market to convert to fiat. As @24 says, we do not need masses, they need bsv, we want to give our bsv only to other bitcoiners
Post by twetch#1832
That's just straightforwardly incorrect. I suspect some kind of aprioristic reasoning error. If Amazon accepted BSV, it would obviously be a massive win and cause the price and utility to immediately jump up.
And "the masses" can just buy BSV with fiat...
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 515
- Time
- 2020-05-19T00:15:13Z
- Signer
- 17zmPibuXUuDsPnW5B4UVsV9jin35HWWU2
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#1832
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
17zmPibuXUuDsPnW5B4UVsV9jin35HWWU2 VerifiedReplies (18)
Overcomplicating this.
With any asset, if it increases productivity it increases value. If it doesn't it only increases the credit cycles amplitude around it's productivity growth trend.
Amazon accepting BSV is good, it means more usage. But just in my opinion it isn't very revolutionary being able to buy junk off the internet, or a coffee down the street.
Probably not revolutionary. But still a huge improvement in its utility.
The more bsv amazon has to dump the lower the price, is like giving bsv to weak hands, masses buy, amazon sells. only when amazon (merchants) demand bsv because they understand its value, only then it will help. The aim is to make merchants bitcoiners.
We do not need a pipe through which bitcoins passes.
fiat=>bsv=>fiat = back to where we were.
who wins? exchanges
We need fiat=>bsv=>saving and then bsv=>bsv=>bsv
No that is correct. That is the austrian theory of money.
There is no one Austrian theory of money. If you think this is Rothbard's interpretation (which I'd disagree with), then he's got his own flavor of monetary theory that other Austrians disagree with.
Rothbard was just following Mises.
And many Austrians think Rothbard is worse on money than Mises. I tend to agree, but it's been a while since I've read him. I know he abuses apriorism, like Hoppe afterwards.
Regardless, Mises-Rothbard is only one sect of Austrian monetary theory.
Could one say that if merchants favor BSV then the a priori would be that it is accepted?
I think the distinction to be made is that you can have acceptance without favoritism but not the other way around.