Bitcointalk · Bitcoin does NOT violate Mises' Regression Theorem

中本聪,2010 年 8 月 27 日

SN-1677 已核对来源,附原文与上下文。

阅读语言
中文译文

作为一个思想实验,设想有一种金属,稀缺如黄金,却具备以下特性: - 颜色是无聊的灰色 - 不是电的良导体 - 不特别坚固,但也不柔韧、不易锻造 - 对任何实用或装饰用途都没有价值

以及一项特殊而神奇的属性: - 可以通过通信信道传输

倘若它出于任何原因获得了哪怕一点价值,那么任何想远距离转移财富的人都可以买入一些、传输出去、再让接收方卖出。

兴许它可以像你暗示的那样循环地获得初始价值:人们预见到它在交换中的潜在用处。(我肯定想要一些)兴许收藏者、随便什么理由都能点燃它。

我认为传统的货币资格标准是在这样一个假设下写成的:世界上有太多稀缺物在互相竞争,一个自带内在价值自动启动机制的东西必将胜过没有内在价值的东西。但倘若世界上没有任何具有内在价值的东西可用作货币,只有稀缺而无内在价值,我想人们仍然会选用某样东西。

(我在这里用「稀缺」一词,仅指潜在供给有限)

ORIGINAL · 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)
上下文
← 上一条 SN-1677 · 当前 下一条 → 在档案中查看完整主题串 →
来源
Bitcointalk 原始链接 ↗ 记录编号 SN-1677