conceded, a deflationary unit will tend to gain in value as surrounding economy grows.
So you (or Nash) is positing a value unit that stays exactly constant with the economy? This seems impossible to me, as the surrounding economy is ever changing. second by second even.
Also, it is very different from the other constants you mention such as watts or satoshi, as those are things that remain immutable regardless of surrounding environment.
I'm only repeating myself. The man himself argues if you introduce something that is relatively stable in relation to a Nash (relative meaning the best on the market) then then the market will accept it as its beacon for inflation hedging. Every government fiat must now compete whereas before they didn't have to. The argument used to be they would devalue our fiat in order to spur spending. But this doesn't help create a stable unit of value which what we need (and therefore such measures create chaos).So you (or Nash) is positing a value unit that stays exactly constant with the economy? This seems impossible to me, as the surrounding economy is ever changing. second by second even.
Also, it is very different from the other constants you mention such as watts or satoshi, as those are things that remain immutable regardless of surrounding environment.
NOW because of bitcoin's gold like properties as the new inflation hedge in town, that is FAIRLY stable in relation to a Nash, governments will have to tend to the QUALITY of their money, where quality refers now to stability in relation to a Nash. So ultimate evolution of this game, is an tendency towards a CEILING of idealness which is a perfect relation to a Nash.
Bitcoin will force our central banks to print ideal money. And we will lock in a stable unit of value, a Nash.
This is needed for optimal efficiency of our global economy.
