原始文献 / 论坛帖 / Re: Bitcoin does NOT violate Mises' Regression Theorem
Re: Bitcoin does NOT violate Mises' Regression Theorem
Bitcointalk · 2010-08-27 17:32:07 UTC
做个思想实验，想象有一种贱金属，像黄金一样稀缺，但有以下特性：
- 颜色是无趣的灰色
- 不是电的良导体
- 强度一般，也不延展、不易锻造
- 没有任何实用或装饰用途
还有一个特殊的、神奇的特性：
- 可以通过通信信道传输
如果它不知怎的出于某种原因获得了一点价值，那么任何想远距离转移财富的人都可以买一些，传输过去，让接收方卖掉。
也许它能像你建议的那样循环获得初始价值：人们预见到它作为交换媒介的潜在用途。（我肯定会想要一些）也许收藏家、随便什么随机原因都可能点燃它。
我认为，货币的传统资格标准是在这样的假设下写成的：世上有太多稀缺的竞争物品，有内在价值自动加持的物品一定会胜过没有内在价值的。但如果世上根本没有能用作货币的有内在价值的东西，只有稀缺而无内在价值，我认为人们还是会用起某种东西。
（我这里用"稀缺"一词仅指潜在供应有限）
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)