Edit: thank you for the gold, kind sir or madam.
Consider this thought experiment and try to think of possible solutions to the problem.
For those who believe that bitcoin should entirely replace fiat currency, what happens when you loan bitcoin at interest? Well immediately one would think, “sure, no problem, you just pay back your original loan plus a bit more bitcoin in interest.” Sounds fine right?
The problem is, the moment that one person lends a bitcoin and charges interest, it sets in motion a dilemma that I don’t think many people are considering right now. You have effectively created an obligation to pay back more bitcoin than will ever exist.
Currently, this may not present as much of a problem because there is always more bitcoin being mined. What happens when we’ve mined the final coin? So now you have 21 million bitcoin in existence, no more being created and yay the government isn’t stealing our wealth by printing more money. One institution loans 100,000 bitcoin at interest to a bunch of different clients. It is to be paid back in 5 years, with a total repayment of 130,000 bitcoin. There now exists 21 million real bitcoin with 30,000 additional bitcoins needed to be paid to someone and they don’t exist.
Surface level you may say “well, that’s okay because the people who borrowed the money will obviously make more money as a result of their loan which was used to build a business that generates income, and they can use that to pay back the loan’s interest.” Sure this may seem fine, and work for a bit, but the fact of the matter is that you still have 30,000 more bitcoin that at any point in time is owed and cannot be created. Still workable though because of the velocity of money and how it circulates.
What happens when more loans are created? What happens when eventually, 1 million or 10 million bitcoins have been lent with interest due? What happens when the total loan obligations exceed the total amount of bitcoins in existence?
What happens if before the final coin is mined, if they aren’t being mined fast enough to keep up with repayment obligations and it significantly slows down economic progress because no further loans can be made?
What is your solution to this potential issue?
Load more comments
Hi everyone. I am a gay cis-male who has an honest interest in becoming educated on transgender and gender identity issues. I'm ashamed to say that I have not done much investigation into the issues that affect my non-binary brothers and sisters (I hope I'm using the term correctly, please forgive and correct me if I'm not). I consider myself a supporter of everyone's gender identity and sexuality, because I don't feel the state or anyone else should really care about things that are intrinsic to you and do not affect anyone else.
Just a warning, there are a lot of triggers in this video, and a lot of sensational phrases used to drive home her point, which clearly shows her bias towards her position. But some of the topics she discusses, I would like to discover more by hearing other sides of the issue by people it actually affects. Below I'll post some of her points and some questions that it raises for me:
From what I gather, no one really disputes the fact that most people are born either male or female as per biological markers (chromosomes, etc.). The issue isn't biological markers of gender, but non-cis people feel that they do not necessarily identify with the gender they were born as. Non-cis people don't dispute the fact that they may have DNA of a biological male or female, but that is separate from their gender identity? (This is my basic understanding, please feel free to clarify/correct if I've gotten something wrong here.)
Again, my understanding is non-cis people electing to go through HRT and surgery are not trying to change all of the genetic biomarkers of gender, but they do so to align their physical appearance more with what they feel their gender identity is?
My initial thought on this was "okay, if someone truly felt that they were Margaret Thatcher, what are the differences between that and saying you identify as female when born as a male." My counter-argument to my thought is "non-cis people don't actually try to say that they are someone else in specific, having lived another person's specific life experiences. What they are saying is that they feel that their emotions, feelings and thoughts align more with a certain gender (or non-specific gender) whose general behavioural characteristics can be adopted to suit your own personality."
Thoughts: I'm not too sure on this one. Can one identify as an amputee, feeling so closely aligned in thought and emotion with an amputee that it would be reasonable to have their leg cut off so as to conform closer to their personal identity? Usefulness of body parts aside (I would argue a leg is more useful than breasts,) what are the arguments (if any) that identifying as an amputee when you're not, and identifying as a female when you're not, is a false equivalency?
Do non-cis people actually claim that gender identity is hardwired in the brain, or is this just being put up as a straw man argument by this doctor to discredit the transgender community? If it is claimed as hardwired, are there counter-examples to this doctor's idea that it would result in identical twins always having the same gender identity?
Okay, this is just anecdotal evidence and correlation does not imply causation. However, I'm curious to know if other transgender people can think back to similar situations in their early development as to when they first started feeling different, and if there was any particular trigger they can think of that may have started it off. I know when I was younger, around the age of 6 or 7, I saw a psychologist because I would often say "I wish I was a girl, it would be so much easier if I was a girl." I didn't have the best upbringing, but not horrible. But what I do remember is my entire family except my dad was girls and I didn't have a strong father figure and I often felt left out of fun activities because I wasn't a girl. For me though, the benefits of being a boy still outweighed being a girl and I had strong male friends who I bonded with. I wonder if this could have been a tipping point for me between going down the path of entrenching transgenderism in me or not?
Is this a case of risk/benefit analysis? Transgender people are aware of the risks of the medicines, but to them the rewards outweigh the risks, or are these risks exaggerated to prove her biased point?
What are your thoughts on this? Is guidance and intervention to give children all options available important to do in some cases, or should all gender-confused kids be immediately treated as allowing for them to take their own path and just providing the most supportive environment possible for them to make that decision without interfering in it.
Again, I am doing this to learn about different perspectives so I can come to an informed opinion on the topic. I know that there are a lot of emotions and trauma surrounding this, and if I've triggered anything with some people, I sincerely apologize. When I see videos like this, that only present one-side (and the multitude of comments to those videos of uninformed people spewing their opinion), I am always curious to get the other side so I can learn more and speak intelligently on the issue when it comes up in person. Love you all and thanks for any insight you might have. Please remember that there is no judgment here from me on any of my ideas, and if some of them are very ignorant, I really truly am not looking to offend, and am very opened to being enlightened on those issues.
Load more comments