Quote from: SamTsuedo on December 11, 2014, 01:16:40 AM

...the gist of my argument and that is a quote or a paraphrase of the Satoshi Nakamoto that Bitcoin will either absorb the total global economy which stands at $100 trillion now, or will cease to exist. Do you understand that the man who created Bitcoin is saying that there is no middle ground?

...

So again, the creator of Bitcoin has stated on record - written statement that BTC will either gobble up the whole of global economy or fail and cease to exist. The middle ground does not exist according to Satoshi Nakamoto. You may argue with me, but this is not me just making up things it is the quote / paraphrase of Satoshi's statement. This is one of the most important statements about bitcoin and yet everybody wants to avoid any talk about it.

Can you please provide a link to the Satoshi statement in context? Was it on this forum?

I believe I know which theory Satoshi was ascribing too. It is called the Moldbug Monetary Theory. Moldbug is a central figure in the Dark Enlightenment.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html

Quote from: Mencius Moldbug

Moldbug Monetary Theory (MoMT) is a post-Austrian theory of money. It is a minor refinement of Mises' standardization theory, which asserts that money is standardized by the demand for a standard medium of exchange. Rather, I assert, the demand is for a standard medium of saving.

...

You need to sell your silver and buy some new medium of saving X, which you will sell in 2030, in exchange for pizza, cruises and wine. What X should you choose? What X will get you the maximum pizza, cruises and wine?

Thus, the goal of the rational actor is to choose the X that everyone else will choose (assuming they choose right), but choose it first. In standards terms: pick the winner, be an early adopter.

...

We see the fundamental instability of monetary competition. Stable systems are buffered - they experience negative feedback. But this is very much a positive-feedback story. Whoever starts winning, can be expected to keep winning. A tiny breath of air, and the pencil, balanced on its point, falls over.

This explains some facts - for instance, why bimetallic standards are historically unstable. Across the millennia, governments are always trying to fix gold-silver ratios, and always failing. One money drives the other out by Gresham's law. But even if no one is so foolish as to fix this unfixable price, in the end there can be only one.

...

Consider the case of competition between ordinary 20th-century fiat currencies. These predictably depreciate against each other all the time - that is, different currencies exhibit different interest rates. Why doesn't all international currency competition collapse, as our gold-and-silver model has? Why didn't everyone in America in 1979 switch to D-Marks?

Good old forex has a very powerful buffer mechanism: the balance of trade. If country A starts to adopt country B's currency, country B's currency rises versus country A, which gives country B (ceteris paribus) a trade deficit relative to country A. This implies a flow of money from B to A: negative feedback. This feedback is absent from our gold-silver model because, and only because, we've assumed that gold and silver users are homogeneously distributed.

Moldbug is correct that the reason national currencies exist is because national governments exist. We don't individually trade internationally, thus most of us don't need a global unit-of-account, but the world is shrinking now and that is why now there is a push underway towards a global currency (or at least region currencies which regional free trade blocs, e.g. the Asian Union coming 2015 where there will be free movement of workers to any country in ASEAN).

What Moldbug is saying is that no matter what vehicles you might use to transact in, you will always be converting value back to the one monetary standard (one for your country or in the near future region or global monetary standard).

I believe Satoshi's point is that Bitcoin's value as an economic unit can not survive without taking over the world and becoming the monetary standard. And yes this is 100% correct. Even though Moldbug's timing was off, he correctly predicted How Bitcoin Will Die.

This doesn't mean Bitcoin won't live on as a bastardized payment mechanism folded into Paypal, Coinbase, etc.. But it does mean the economic unit of Bitcoin will not be what is traded long-term. Because the world population will standardize on a monetary unit and prefer to hold their balances in their unit-of-account.

Realize what unit-of-account means. It means you have no exchange volatility in your life. You can budget and plan.

So yes Bitcoin is mostly a speculation. It doesn't have the features to do a "coup" as Moldbug says.

And the blackswan is could anyone create an altcoin that could do that "coup"?

Well I have had an alternative theory based on Moldbug's theory. I figured out that the global economy could bifurcate. Meaning we might end up with one monetary standard for the Knowledge Age and another one for the dying Industrial Age.

Why? Because there is a Coasian barrier between the two, akin the logic above about barriers to direct trade across national boundaries.

I've detailed those arguments in my and AnonyMint's archives.

I know what I am doing. And I am so far out in the economics stratosphere compared to you neophyte wannebees, it is no wonder you don't understand me.