Seems like you have an agenda here.

> And that will drive an economy into the ground

A consumerism-based, Earth-killing economy. But it will give raise to more sustainable economies.

Feudalism says hello...

> Everyone involved in covering it up should be tried as traitors, as I don't just say that as a hyperbole.

Don't expect them to speak out then.

Maybe if Betteridge's Law wasn't so often true we wouldn't see it brought up every time.

Or maybe if so many people didn't want to sound smart with little effort...

Wrong. If you can buy the same amount of most things with the same amount of currency over a period of time, then we say that currency is stable.

We rather say the economy is stable, then. If most things go awry after a war, that's not because of the currency and nobody will care about the currency either ... except for traders crossing borders and exchanging currency. In the world market, if currency is treated as a commodity, other currencies count as most things, I guess.

So, you may be right and your parent will also.

> If most things go awry after a war, that's not because of the currency and nobody will care about the currency either

Then why are you bringing this up? You said it yourself: "that's not because of the currency". It's because the things you buy became too expensive or too cheap. If the currency remains stable, you could still buy the same amount of most things in other countries not affected by the war.

> things you buy became too expensive or too cheap.

> if the currency remains stable

> you could still buy the same amount of most things in other countries not affected by the war

Sure I can, sure, but whether or not the currency remains stable is the very question, not a hypothesis. This is circular reasoning. If most things are still sold in exchange for the currency in question, then that currency is still only as stable as the economy that is selling most of the things, by your own definition of an economy of most things.

I'm just saying you have a dysfunctional definition.

to put it in other words, I'd readily assume a currency couldn't be stable if it wasn't serving its intended purpose, being representative of economic state.

That's not its intended purpose. Its intended purpose is representing debt. That's why fiat money bills are called IOUs.

"buy the same amount of most things"

You are then talking about the thing / currency exchange rate.

So many new users just to attack you Mike. And all the buttcoin trolls suddenly became small blockers. Evidence of Blockstream hiring shills continues to grow.

Look at the list of investors. Banks invested in Blockstream.

I never said banks don't know how to hedge.

Even if we build a spaceship that can accelerate up to the speed of light and send it to the nearest star, we won't even know what happened to it in our lifetime. Doesn't seem like something the world could agree to donate all its money for.

People talk about how long space travel takes, I feel like people forget that at 1g of acceleration the entire galaxy is within 22 years of travel.

For an observer in the ship, obviously. Here, outside, it will be more like 200 thousand years, and constant 1g acceleration is impossible.

You are also forgetting how hard it to maintain that 1g of acceleration for a long period.

Just 1000 years for a stationary observer vs 22 years for a astronaut under 1g constant acceleration. It's not that radical.

The diameter of our galaxy is about 100,000 light years. Unless you've got some way to go faster than light then you're 2 orders of magnitude out on your estimate.

That's ignoring relativity! For the astronaut, travelling at near C, dilation will occur and it will seem to be less time.

Aside from many other technical challenges (including how to shield your super-fast ship from microasteroids so it doesn't get holes punched in it at 0.5c), the main problem is: where do you get the energy needed to maintain constant 1g acceleration?