17zmPi…WWU2

Another way to phrase it: no miner has to accept blocks that are larger than they can handle.

Therefore, there's a sweet spot where blocks are as large as possible (to maximize revenue), but not too large that they won't be accepted.

Likely the soft cap is for the blocks they create, not the blocks that they accept as valid.

All Bitcoins require majority hashrate to be honest. If the majority are dishonest, the system fails.

Miners set the limits for both the blocks they create and the blocks they accept from others as valid.

Any miner that's too ambitious can get forked off the network by pushing a block larger than the majority can handle.

New model for book publishing:

Author uploads his book to be hosted by miners. Instead of selling whole books, the miners sell pages. Each page turn is a transaction.

Customer logs into MB and has every page from every book available to him for pennies.

Imagine no customer ever thinks "Do I want to buy this book?"

They just have an interface to all books and can open them and read whatever they want.

That would be ideal, which is why I want universal seamless acceptance of all cryptos. That way, we can find out which money has the best properties.

I don't know which professor you're referencing (lol looking forward to edits on Twetch), but the latter part might be true.

It might be a bad sign for the NZD if nobody wants to hold it, but that's separate from whether or not it's being used as an MoE

That's not true. I am accepting NZD and then swapping them with a different party for USD, which then I might hold. "Acceptance of a currency in exchange" is different than "accepting an holding the currency exchanged."

In this context, a method of payment is still a medium of exchange. If I trade my shoes for some USD, then immediately sell my USD for gold, the USD has served as a medium of exchange.

Mere acceptance doesn't mean it's a MoE, but it's a necessary step.

Imagine that customer X will only but product Y with crypto (for whatever reasons).

In that case, it's clear the crypto is be used as a MoE, even if the merchant immediately swaps it for fiat.

I have absolutely no desire to hold New Zealand Dollars. However, if a payment processor makes it easy for me to accept them, by immediately swapping for USD, then I can use them as a MoE for the people that want to pay me in NZD.

Yes. The more a good can be successfully used in exchange, the more utility as a currency.

New breakthrough in internet speeds. 44 Teramegs/second.

I think Bitcoin can handle bigger blocks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/internet-speed-world-record-fastest-download-a9527236.html

/pay @318 $1

We all have equal access to truth. We do not have equal proximity to truth.

Curiosity is always justified, because when you look closely enough, our theories are never good enough to explain reality. There are always missing bits and imprecise concepts.

Yes, "given reasonable assumptions," then min wage causes disemployment effects. But these assumptions are empirical - many in the domain of psychology. It's possible that employees become inspired after a min wage hike. Unlikely, but at least conceivable

I don't think the concept is precise enough. Money is a unique good that doesn't fit squarely into any existing conceptual toolbox that I've come across.

Are you asking for my economic theory or Rothbard's? If the latter, he'd say money is a present good.

If a pump grows the network, and the coin has the correct technical fundamentals, then it will hasten that coin's general acceptance as a medium of exchange.

If you're actually interested in my ideas, you might enjoy my critique of the overextension of apriorism in Austrian Economics. Hoppe is the main target of criticism, but it applies to Rothbard too.

http://steve-patterson.com/abuse-apriorism-economics/

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.

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.

Probably not revolutionary. But still a huge improvement in its utility.