It does, you can download an apk and install it on Android.
7,928 karma · joined January 13, 2015
Now you have the web AND the in-device app stores. Even more choice.
That is a huge claim, thrown around by you with no backing. You could get a few economists to discuss that for ages without reaching a conclusion.
Unless you're talking about the layman's definition of monopoly, which means "whatever I want it to mean".
This is particularly relevant when there's the Amazon app store, and app preloads, and the Korean app store, and Fortnite isn't available on the Play store.
And that's before we get into the fact that iOS competes with Android, and that includes the app stores. This would be like complaining that to get a product to be sold by Walmart, you need to get Walmart to sell it.
No matter how you look at it, consumers never had so many choices, prices have never been this low, and app distribution has never been so easy.
Yeah, because laws protecting inefficient business are great for society and consumers.
No business "deserves" protection. Consumers do, but not business.
You seem to be confusing "1 pound of gold" with "a piece of paper saying that bank X will trade this for 1 pound of gold".
The two are not the same.
Oh, definitely! Those in power don't understand that much of economics, and those voting don't really understand that much of technology.
[Edit: sorry, I didn't get the sarcasm :) ]
Gold wasn't a deflationary currency, not only that, the supply of gold increases over time, and some times suddenly such as when the Spanish empire started extracting gold and silver from the new world resulting in the Spanish Price Revolution.
Seriously, please go take some economics classes...
You can't just make gold out of thin air. Same with a bitcoin.
You can, however, issue gold-denominated notes in $5M even if you only have $1M in the bank. But you're not lending gold, you're lending paper currency.
Where am I saying that bitcoin will decrease in value? Bitcoin is a deflationary currency, not an inflationary one.
If bitcoin was the only game in town, it would always (disregarding short-term cycles) increase in value, because the economy is growing.
You're literally creating a broken system by design. Don't complain when it doesn't work.
Just like in emerging markets with high interest rates: if your government pays 10% per year (real terms) interest on its bonds, would you invest in a business that would only return 9%?
No, nobody would ever invest in it. But there's a reason the government is paying 10%: to reward the risk of lending money to it.
In the case of bitcoin, the only reason there is this deflationary "tax" is because someone arbitrarily decided that the supply of bitcoins should remain constant.
So you're voluntarily fucking up your economy.
Sure, "we could relax that and make the supply increase over time", but that doesn't address fluctuations on the demand for money, resulting in harder oscillations.
And then "but then we could have the supply adjust dynamically based on some guidance from economists plus the balance of supply and demand for money".
Well, congrats, you just recreated the modern monetary system.
Because the velocity of money isn't determined by market forces, it is determined by how easy it is for money to flow.
If bitcoin was the dream it aspires to be (instant, easy, transparent money transfers anywhere in the world), velocity of money tends to infinity, and the value of bitcoin goes to zero.
> The idea of an asset that always increases in value (or a "free lunch", let's call it) is explicitly disowned by every theory of economics, from the Austrians & monetarists to the Keynsians & the Marxists.
I'm not talking about an asset that always increases in value. I'm talking about a fixed supply of money, which would on average always represent more value (since the economy is growing on average) year after year.
As the supply of bitcoin will never increase, but there demand will (on average) always increase, a single bitcoin will represent a larger amount of value each year after year.
Therefore, it is a deflationary currency.
If there are 10 million websites out there linking to a single article when referencing X, even if such article doesn't include X verbatim, that article will rank high in queries for X.
FRB is essentially a form of "double spending", but under certain conditions to maintain stability.
Bitcoin doesn't allow double spending. Neither does gold.
Why would you? You can get better returns by simply holding it (since it is deflationary) than by lending it out or investing in productive assets.
And even if you deposited, you can't "double spend" the bitcoin, so you can't do FRB with it.
> So basically this debate is not whether fractional reserve banking is possible with bitcoin, but whether banking with bitcoin would continue to resemble banking now.
It is both. You need FRB to dynamically adjust the supply of money and keep a balance with demand.
And the fact that nobody will invest, which kills economic growth.
No new startups, no new factories, no new bridges, no new houses, etc...
But again, you are confusing deflation with deflationary currency.
That's why it is trivial, the velocity of money doesn't change the deal, unless it is varying wildly, and in that case, you're screwed anyway...
The claim isn't even wrong, it doesn't make sense.
In the case of USD, for example, a USD created by a bank is indistinguishable from one you deposited on the bank.
You could say that being able to double spend in certain conditions is a feature of modern currencies, and largely necessary for a stable economy, which is impossible under bitcoin.
If the economy is growing in the long term and the supply of money is constant, the value of money (vs. goods) will always increase, and everyone has an incentive to hold currency instead of investing in the economy.
The result is that you can't raise capital for a startup or for an infrastructure project.