Quote from: dinofelis on April 22, 2017, 03:24:10 PM

Quote from: IadixDev on April 22, 2017, 11:19:53 AM

It's always like this, bitcoin would be the first, and it doesnt look like it's out of some kind of academicians comitee in government or Europe or financial institutions with clear economic theory behind.

I think the economic theory behind bitcoin is extremely clear: it is the "sound money doctrine". The gold bugs ideology in other words, but with that difference (which, in my opinion, will kill it) that there are a few extremely rich gold bugs from the start, which get their wealth on paper by the influx of newcomers. The difference with real gold is that the system itself is a money hog with an increasing amount of friction. Bitcoin's whales are "new riches" made in 2 or 3 years time, contrary to the long (and half-religious) history of gold. This is not going to be socially accepted, the seigniorage is too large. The "inverse emission model" with a lot of cheap mining in the beginning, when the circle of those that knew was ridiculously small, and the diminishing emission when its price was increasing, gives a socially unacceptable seigniorage distribution, which has all the aspects that are needed for a huge greater-fool speculative bubble, giving rise to hoarding, and a market liquidity which is rather small. This looks more like black tulips than money. In the mean time, however, the influx of fresh blood ("adoption") is financing all this. Until it won't.

Some would say currency is always a form of religion, if religion are taken in the sense of a binding between different persons based on common belief in how each other should behave, there is always a religious thinking behind monetary system, and even regarding the amount of pseudo fanatism around bitcoin, it can still be sign there is something going on, and i doubt this fanatism is created by this idea of bitcoin