It's only unstable in terms of other currencies, not goods services.

People like me aren't really interested in economics.  People like me want to build a world free from economics altogether.


I will tell you right now I do not, but you yourself have already implicitly agreed that you do work for the Manipulator in an earlier post you made.  Do you want me to recite it to you?

Actually, what you implicitly agreed to is that you do these things:
"suggest" changes to BTC that would make it more like regular physical centralized currencies.  Their suggestions hardly if ever add any value to our beloved crypto-currency, and when refuted and politely told why exactly they don't, these people just continue to plug their original argument.  Even when it is suggested to the suggester to just start his/her own damn currency, they often pass right over that possibility.

Regular people don't spend their free time to act this way on forums.  You're either compensated or insane.

Crypt, I think you might be mistaken on what the term economics means. It's merely the set of laws (in the sense of gravity, not Patriot Act) that govern exchange between individuals. Stuff like supply and demand... they exist until scarcity no longer exists.

I assume what you want is a world free from state control over economics altogether, no?

Been to the grocery store or the gas station lately?  The dollar is hardly stable in relation to food, water, or gasoline, and the period is far shorter than "5+ years".  How about the stock markets?  Commodity markets?  Forex markets?  Not exactly stable there either.  Natural gas or heating oil?  The dollar doesn't appear to be stable relative to anything but the penny.


In my opinion, Bitcoin is already a better idea.  Bitcoin has stable rules, well known in advance and unchanging.  You just think it is unstable because you don't see the feedback mechanisms in the system.

Care to answer my question?


Oh, and to Crypt_Current...


It doesn't really matter if you aren't interested in economics.  Economics is very interested in you.

So is Jesus Christ, Allah, the OTO, gravity, ITT Tech, Valued Opinions, and some medium named Tara.  I'll deal with economics interest in me in a similar fashion as I've dealt with all these:  Use it to afford myself a more comfortable living when I can do so without knowingly harming others in the process, and ignore it otherwise.  No one gets out of life alive, yet.

Try and prove that statement.

What did you misunderstand?  There are three live assentions claimed in the KJV of the Bible alone.  Disprove them.

Ah, I see, thanks for that Randy.

Yeah, I only said that "no one gets out of life alive" as a sort of assertion that everyone knows for sure that every human dies, but no one knows for sure that any human escapes or circumvents death.  So, "economics" and whatever else can "be interested" in me or threaten me or help me or whatever -- in the end I'll be six feet under and on that scale I'm a nihilist.

In the long run, we're all dead, right?

And yet, he didn't assert any such emprical evidence.  He stated it as a given, but didn't mention that it was a given on his part, and used it as a comparision of his correctness.  You can't make such an argument if there are dissenters, and at least all Catholics would dissent from the claim that "no one has gotten out of life alive, yet" would they not?  


Which is which?  I certainly made no claims at all, simply highlighted an example of a document that portends to dispute his position.  Since your the one who claimed that Hitler's head was alive, I assume that your's were the outrageous claims that you refer to?

I really don't think that you understand what's going on here, and I find it rather depressing to imagine that you could be an educated adult.


Both of you, as far as I am concerned.  Again, he presented no evidence at all, and neither did you.  I've made no claims to support, I expect the author to support his position, not the reader.


Of course I know that you were attempting to mock me, and that is part of what makes your statements both sad and amusing.  You assumed that my referencing a document that contradicts his (and your's, presumedly) premise means that I was trying to argue that either position was correct.  I was not.  I was highlighting that there exists a large percentage of people who would disagree with his assertion, and that he left said assertion unsupported as if everyone would naturally agree that he was correct.

Please tell me you are still in high school.


That's just it, 100% of historical sources do not confirm any such theory.  There are many historical documents besides the one that I referenced that have referred to such things.  Myths or not, not all sources support such a theorm.  You don't get to just dismiss those documents as myth, that's not your call.  It's also an intellectual cop-out.