回复：比特币并不违反米塞斯的回归定理
原始发布页
打开来源页面查看 1 个交叉存档
做个思想实验，设想有一种基础金属，像黄金一样稀有，但具有以下性质： - 颜色是乏味的灰色 - 不是良好的电导体 - 不是特别坚固，但也没有延展性或不易塑形 - 对任何实际或装饰用途都没有用处
以及一种特殊的、神奇的性质： - 可以通过通信信道传输
如果它不知为何、出于任何原因获得了某种价值，那么任何想把财富远距离转移的人都可以买入一些，将其传输出去，再让接收者卖掉。
也许正如你所说，人们预见到它作为交换手段的潜在用途，它便能以一种循环的方式获得初始价值。（我肯定会想要一些）也许是收藏家，任何随意的理由都可能点燃这个火花。
我认为，传统上对货币的资格要求，是在这样一种假设下写出的：世界上有如此多相互竞争的稀缺物品，一个凭借内在价值自动完成冷启动的物品，必然会胜过那些没有内在价值的物品。但如果世界上没有任何具备内在价值且能用作货币的东西，只有稀缺但没有内在价值的东西，我想人们仍然会采用某种东西。
（我在这里只用“稀缺”这个词表示潜在供应量有限）
英文原文
展开英文原文
As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties: - boring grey in colour - not a good conductor of electricity - not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either - not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property: - can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)