"It's a money, a medium of exchange!" "You don't trade it, you hodl!"

This is an embarrassing thread. Hayek would roll in his grave to see today’s Austrian academics and their indifference to Bitcoin. You got your “sly round about way” only to dismiss it. It’s like we discovered alien life, but the astronomers prefer debating with flat earthers..

What in the world are you talking about?

Your complete dereliction of actually understanding the biggest thing to happen in your field in a century because you’re too busy debating MMTers. It’s embarrassing.

I'm pointing out errors in bitcoiners' claims. Then there are a bunch of cultists thinking that is somehow opposition to bitcoin. I suggest you read the words instead of relying on arbitrary emotional nonsense. You know that's not me.

Bitcoiners are pointing out errors in yours. I’m not saying “you’re opposed to it”, I’m saying A) you don’t understand it & B) you prefer wasting time debating Kelton et al instead of actually focussing on the biggest development of your field. Hayek would be ashamed.

They're not. They're claiming obvious nonsense such as "to hold is to exchange." And the contradiction I started out pointing out: that to become a universal medium of exchange, it'll have to be exchanged--but plenty of bitcoiners "hodl forever." It's a cult with its own logic.

How do you think they got the coins to hold in the first place? Come on now Per, think it through.. Is the Thai Baht not money because you can’t use it at your local shop? Or is it money because a large network of people accept it as such.. A network of say, millions of ppl..

Don't be an idiot. Nothing becomes a medium of exchange because it is bought once and never again.

Mises never put a required frequency on exchanges for money. That base-layer Bitcoin is being used at low frequency does not disqualify it, most Bitcoiners ARE exchanging small amounts regularly on Lightning. So now who is making up their own theories?

This is ridiculous. Why don't you try to restate Menger's argument about how something becomes a money without the exchanges? Let me know how it goes.

x.com/Conza/status/137416972… @KonradSGraf

I don't think he's wrong.

Ok. Great. So this is more raging against "hodling forever" (in literal terms)? I think there should be an understanding it can also be charitably interpreted as meme/caricature, and at whatever point, they will eventually spend... So I get being hyper critical and yes, many Bitcoiners are economically illiterate... But it seems like it's more than that? Bitcoin is money now (*within a given context*) which is the better definition KG gives imo. There are individuals it is their unit of account, most common MoE etc. For El Salvador? Legal tender. Most common MoE there? Maybe not. Globe? Obviously not. But it's an empirical question. At what point do you accept it would be money?

Not being hyper critical. I'm merely pointing out the contradiction in claiming both that the proper use of Bitcoin is "hodl forever" and that it will soon (?) become money. The former negates the latter. Yet there are a whole bunch of people claiming both. Loudly.