(thank you) Ok, fair enough in a sense, but that an exchange gives a market cap does is not necessarily an indication of the underlying value. There was nice article about this that is summarized as follows: If I create a currency with 1 million tokens and sell you 1 for a dollar, is the cap really worth a million?
Aaron W. wanted to contest my points too (although he re-read and conceded some), that he already sold and had a gain in equity.
But the real point is that no such idea is going to usurp what Satoshi left.
There is no founded argument that bitcoin needs to evolve. Ver’s suggestion that bitcoin will get so popular that the cost will cause everyone to leave is asinine-it makes no sense.
The world needs a new standard that doesn’t evolve. It’s not about bitcoin. It’s about fiat. Bitcoin will force fiat to improve and this is the natural reality we are about to observe.
Fiat will improve until its (near) perfect.
Bitcoin cash doesn’t serve this purpose it doesn’t attend to this problem. It’s another alt-coin that is inferior to other proposals.
I’m just going by what John Nash said, basically an international e-currency with a stable supply will force the central banks to compete and therefore inflation target for money that has a strong standard of quality.
If we agree to that we can start to philosophize about the future.
Bitcoin cash is worthless in such a dialogue. I don’t know what else to say if we don’t see this.
Cheers, thx Trace
Also by the way, Bohm extrapolated all his works from Jiddu Krishnamurti (Bruce Lee’s philosophical inspiration too!). It’s all relevant because Bohm and Nash were addressing Einstein’s works and came to more or less the same conclusion.
