In other words, more crypto-think esoterica that has no relevance to the real world.

By real world I think you to mean 'average joe users'. Yup. Its not very novel for average users, hardly at all.

But that bitcoin will arise to replace the credit systems that facilitate actual base layer settlement is an amazing efficiency gain for the global economy. To think that has no relevance to the real world would be to cover ones own eyes.

Of course if you don't understand the difference between credit and settlement layers....

It's always the other person who doesn't understand, isn't it? As if you're in a select group who uniquely comprehends how money and credit works, based on some twist of logic learned in a crypto article that's regurgitated like the bar scene in Good Will Hunting. And always ending each post with some type of perceived dig, as if that somehow fulfills your delusion of omniscience.

What is large enough and what evidence do you have that it will happen? Why do you think it will force central banks to do anything?

I'm referring the conventional understanding of money and economics. That all our central bankers hold. MO is what I'm referring to as the settlement layer. What we generally use to 'transfer money' is a form of credit and eventually is settled effectively on the base layer unbeknownst to the transactors. If you think thats twisted logic, I'd like to assert you don't understand the conventional view of how our banking systems work.

Of course you haven't told me you disagree, because then I could prove you wrong. That leaves only ad hominem in your response. Do money and banks work like this in your opinion? Is this the conventionally held view? How about don't allude to me being wrong, put yourself out there and declare it.

I'm suggesting yes to both of these, and that given your pseudo disagreement disguised though an ad hominem that you never considered these things.

There can't be evidence obv. But for certain the market cap would have to encroach on gold's. I think thats a reasonable estimate. It has to be enough to not splash the price with the level of settlement so that will take time to mature.

If bitcoin never reached that level then I don't think my argument would stand. But for most people the reason they think its not useful enough to reach that level is because they aren't considering it as a high level/base layer settlement medium. If bitcoin does reach that level then the cost to send billions and trillions, on a SETTLEMENT layer level, is a tremendous cost savings. The amount of '3rd party' institution, legal costs, security etc. that would be cut out immediately make this obvious.

Its just not obvious to people that bitcoin does that...most of us don't understand the difference between credit money and base layer money.

The process then would be self-reflexive and fueled in the beginning by the speculation we see which isn't then a bubble because the high powered banks will be happily using it once its finished the major part of its speculation/saturation phase.

In my thesis, I use the assumption of hyperbitcoinization, a global economic event that sparks banks to have to re-act. Such an event might not happen but it properly counters the maximalist view that bitcoin would supplant major currencies. All central banks are prepared with a CBDC contingency plan for such an event:
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/02/...ital-currency/
It's not stated in the same way, but we can understand that creating a cbdc in response to the inflationary pressure of digital currencies and bitcoin is effectively the same as moving to a peg to the nuisance. It's like letting real estate into the CPI when the price goes too high (I meant to reference a news article about this, basically its trivial for a central bank to deal with an intense rise in the price of bitcoin that puts inflationary pressure on their respective currency).

I lay u out great odds that the US will lose its world reserve currency first .

You should revisit the 2008 crisis.
The cost was not marginal even if u think they were “insured”.
when you say it’s ok because the money is ensured by the government ( it’s not all btw , there is a limit ) it’s just mean u get trillions more debt on its citizen .
U don’t get paid anything , u paying for it .

And your digital funnies would still underperform.

We need someone here that at least CLAIMS to understand the global financial system better than me. Too many people implying they disagree but no one seems willing to say "I know this subject better than you and I'm willing to correct your mistakes in front of everyone". I don't mean to say or rely on anything that isn't conventional economic/financial theory.

Also the CBDCs thread was to be important and useful imo, because to lay out a good understanding of the difference between base layer money and 'credit' is critical to understanding bitcoin and its relationship to the existing financial system.

In your life time?

What replaces it?

Russia is finished, China is on a massive decline now. The Euro is whatever. Actually the next 50 years stand to be very prosperous for the USA (particularly if it can eventually get out of its own way politically).

I legitimately can't see what currency overtakes the dollar. And I'm not 100% sure Bitcoin won't, but it won't in your lifetime (almost certainly). If some weirdo digital credit thing passes it in a 100 years, ok I'd buy that. Maybe.

I think once we start admitting it WILL eventually, then it starts to imply that it will actually be in most of our lifetimes. There is something self-fulling with respect to a natural force driving it being propelled by an eventually common understanding of it. We haven't really had the ability previously to reason a money into existence like this. If economists start to agree it will likely become the reserve currency it wouldn't make sense not to get as much of it as cheaply as possible I think.

I want to ask you/others can it be the reserve currency but without being commonly used by the average citizenry?

Someone convinced you that USD can't be settled because there are central banks involved in the exchange of money and credit. And now that you're convinced you've integrated it as fact and think others are in the dark about some information you "know".

That's the nature of insurance - it has to be paid for somehow. The alternative is to lose 100% of your money, which is what has happened to unregulated crypto time and time again.

I'm surprised you didn't have a pocket full of authorities at the ready like you've trotted out before every time you've parrotted something you've read but don't understand.

[QUOTE=jbouton;57949160]I think once we start admitting it WILL eventually, then it starts to imply that it will actually be in most of our lifetimes. There is something self-fulling with respect to a natural force driving it being propelled by an eventually common understanding of it. We haven't really had the ability previously to reason a money into existence like this. If economists start to agree it will likely become the reserve currency it wouldn't make sense not to get as much of it as cheaply as possible I think.

I want to ask you/others can it be the reserve currency but without being commonly used by the average citizenry?[/QUOTE]

No. And why would anyone actually want that? People want dollars all over the world to use them. It would be weird to want them and not use them.

And it also can't be some crazy moon fuel and be the reserve currency. This is about stability, easy of trade/commerce, transparency and predictability. There also needs to be a steady supply. If we can continually lose bitcoin via all manner of methods, that's also not good.

As the thing is designed now, it makes a terrible reserve currency in my very basic understanding of the concept.

But something better could in theory come along. Something probably government made. Like some digital super dollar.

The usd is the settlement medium. What do mean it can't be settled? You have stated you know more about the financial system than me in this post. You have also stated you will now correct my mistakes. Proceed please.

You haven't argued against anything I have said. If I say that you aren't bringing any proper counterpoint, thats not an ad hominem just because it makes you look bad.

Also happened to stonks time and time again. See: Enron, Madoff....

This is what a reserve currency is tho. In "dollarized" nations much of the dollarization is a reference to credit based dollars. Furthermore much of the banking itself is effectively credit based. The reserveness is that it ultimately settles the transactions but in a geographically distant location.

This didn't end well for you the past few times but I admire you're tolerance for pain. You pulled a random fallacy out of your butt and now are challenging me to disprove it. You stated one can only settle USD via "physical cash or thru an account with the fed."

I can hand someone a Treasury bond as payment. Issued by the Federal government outside the purview of the Federal Reserve

I can transfer funds in my Paypal account to someone else. Paypal doesn't have an account with the Federal Reserve and the charter bank they do business with is only utilized when transferring money between banks (cash out) or handling credit card transactions.

Businesses falter and fail. What does that have to do with the underlying currency?

Well that's a stretch. I admit that eventually our sun will implode. I'm confident it won't happen in our lifetime.

I am suggesting that any mainstream economist and central banker will agree with the fact that you can only settle via usd or reserves. This is the conventional definition and conventional economics.

Ur strawmanning. I have made a conventional distinction between M0 layer settlement and what I am calling "credit" money which are layers on top of the settlement layer. There are very distinct from each other. That you can pay a friend in different mediums they prefer is not the same use of the word 'settlement'.

Infinite time scales allow impoverished theories to never be proven wrong. As you succinctly state re: sun example.

See, now that'd be a suckers bet. How would I collect? Also, for you to win, USD would need to not only be replaced, but be replaced by the yuan. I like my odds on that. So maybe we can agree to meet somewhere, like Omaha, and settle up with something that will actually be valuable if either scenario happens, like ammunition.

Here we go, time to start redefining terms when the original argument doesn't hold. Appeals to authority to begin in 3..2..1