ICO tokens can be traded (indefinitely) for other things of value, so the comparison isn’t valid. I think we’ve both made our points clearly, so I’ll leave it at that.
Best, Eric > On Jun 30, 2019, at 12:55, Tamas Blummer <tamas.blum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 30, 2019, at 20:54, Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote: >> >> Could you please explain the meaning and utility of “unforgeable register” >> as it pertains to such encumbered coins? > > I guess we agree that some way of keeping track of ownership is prerequisite > for something to aquire value. > We likely also agree that the security of that ownership register has great > influence to the value. > > The question remains if a register as utility in itself gives value to the > thing needed to use that register. > I think it does, if people are interested in what it keeps track of, for > whatever reason, even for reasons you find bogus. > > It was not intentional, but I think I just explained why Ethereum aquired > higher market value by being register of ICO tokens. > > Now back to the coins encumbered with the debt covenant: > Transactions moving them constitute a register of covered debt and you need > them to update that register. > Should some people find such a register useful then those coins needed to > update this register will aquire value. > Does not matter if you think the concept of covered debt is just as bogus as > ICOs. > > Here some good news: If they aquire value then they offer a way to generate > income for hodler by temporarily giving up control. > > Tamas Blummer > >> >> The meaning in terms of Bitcoin is clear - the “owner” of outputs that >> represent value (i.e. in the ability to trade them for something else) is >> recorded publicly and, given Bitcoin security assumptions, cannot be faked. >> What is not clear is the utility of a record of outputs that cannot be >> traded for something else. You seem to imply that a record is valuable >> simply because it’s a record. >> >> e >> >>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 11:35, Tamas Blummer <tamas.blum...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 19:41, Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 03:56, Tamas Blummer <tamas.blum...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Eric, >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2019, at 23:21, Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What loan? Alice has paid Bob for something of no possible utility to >>>>>> her, or anyone else. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Coins encumbered with the described covenant represent temporary control >>>>> of a scarce resource. >>>>> >>>>> Can this obtain value? That depends on the availability of final control >>>>> and ability to deal with temporary control. >>>> >>>> For something to become property (and therefore have marketable value) >>>> requires that it be both scarce and useful. Bitcoin is useful only to the >>>> extent that it can be traded for something else that is useful. Above you >>>> are only dealing with scarcity, ignoring utility. >>> >>> There is a deeper utility of Bitcoin than it can be traded for something >>> else. That utility is to use its unforgeable register. >>> We have only one kind of units in this register and by having covenants we >>> would create other kinds that are while encumbered not fungible with the >>> common ones. >>> >>> Units are certainly less desirable if encumbered with a debt covenant. You >>> say no one would assign them any value. >>> >>> I am not that sure as they still offer the utility of using the unforgeable >>> register, in this case a register of debt covered by reserves. >>> You also doubt forcing debt to be covered by reserves is a good idea, I got >>> that, but suppose we do not discuss this here. >>> If there are people who think it is a good idea, then they would find >>> having an unforgeable register of it useful and therefore units needed to >>> maintain that register valuable to some extent. >>> >>>> >>>>> I think you do not show the neccesary respect of the market. >>>> >>>> I’m not sure what is meant here by respect, or how much of it is >>>> necessary. I am merely explaining the market. >>>> >>> >>> You are not explaining an existing market but claim that market that is not >>> yet there will follow your arguments. >>> >>>>> Your rant reminds me of renowed economists who still argue final control >>>>> Bitcoin can not have value, you do the same proclaiming that temporary >>>>> control of Bitcoin can not have value. >>>> >>>> It seems to me you have reversed the meaning of temporary and final. >>>> Bitcoin is useful because of the presumption that there is no finality of >>>> control. One presumes an ability to trade control of it for something >>>> else. This is temporary control. Final control would be the case in which, >>>> at some point, it can no longer be traded, making it worthless at that >>>> point. If this is known to be the case it implies that it it worthless at >>>> all prior points as well. >>>> >>>> These are distinct scenarios. The fact that temporary (in my usage) >>>> control implies the possibility of value does not imply that finality of >>>> control does as well. The fact that (renowned or otherwise) people have >>>> made errors does not imply that I am making an error. These are both >>>> non-sequiturs. >>>> >>>>> I say, that temporary control does not have value until means dealing >>>>> with it are offered, and that is I work on. Thereafter might obtain value >>>>> if final control is deemed too expensive or not attainable, we shall see. >>>> >>>> The analogy to rental of a consumable good does not apply to the case of a >>>> non-consumable good. If it cannot be traded and cannot be consumed it >>>> cannot obtain marketable value. To this point it matters not whether it >>>> exists. >>>> >>> >>> I meant with control the control of entries in the register which I think >>> is the deeper utility of Bitcoin. Final control is meant to be the opposite >>> of temporary which is the time limited control with some expiry. >>> >>> Thank you for your thoughts as they help to sharpen my arguments. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Tamas Blummer >>> >>>> Best, >>>> Eric >>>> >>>>> Tamas Blummer >>>>> >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
