I will, once again, bring your attention to hashql, which is so pleasant to use. It's so minimal that it is almost more a pattern than a library. Try it out as an alternative to graphql if you are mainly querying a SQL database anyhow (although it can be easily configured to request data from other types of sources.) I don't think it can currently combine results from multiple data sources, but I think it should be within the realm of possible things
I think it comes down to, if you read the history of the American Medical Association, that some doctors simply didn’t like a free market pushing down prices for their services.
No, not something better designed. Something augmenting Bitcoin to make it cheaper to transact while maintaining a base layer for final settlement that is secure and decentralized.
You leave out other characteristics that make Bitcoin an attractive economic good, when you think that matching or exceeding the security at a lower cost is a valid argument against Bitcoin. If it was all about power consumption, Bitcoin wouldn’t keep increasing in demand and price.
Look, you can theorize all you want about the inefficency of Bitcoin, but the market has spoken and continues to speak.
What you call inefficiency (I guess in terms of power consumption) is a misuse of the term in a world where value is subjective. It is efficient and necessary for the use case and value it provides. You can argue it is ineffecient compared to Proof of Stake for example, but Proof of Stake is a completely different system and has a completely different incentive structure.
I’m saying also that L2 (and L3, … Ln) is a way to scale the number of users without increasing power consumption. Every time you add a layer, there are other trade-offs for the benefits gained. But at the base layer you still have the benefits of not having a central authority censoring and controlling exchange of an economic good.
Maybe Lightning Network will scale, maybe not. But VISA or Mastercard could build on top of Bitcoin and allow many more transactions than the base layer does. You would use the base layer for final settlements.
Already now you can get a VISA/Mastercard and use that to spend Bitcoin. But of course, every layer on top of Bitcoin presents its own set of trade-offs in terms of trust and security.
Your first mistake is assuming that the power used to secure the Bitcoin network is a waste. It is clearly not, since thousands of people believe it is worth paying for.
The second error is implicitly assuming that the number of people Bitcoin serves is correlated with it’s power usage. You could serve the same number of people as the banking sector does now without increased power consumption when you bring layer 2 or 3 solutions into the picture.
Use fzf for file navigation and perhaps vim-vinegar. When you open Vim, use :cd to change to your project directory and you’re ready. Use :term to start stuff, e.g., a local web server or whatever. Use fzf to navigate between open buffers.
There was no lag. You just didn’t see dramatic price increases in consumer goods. But you saw substantial increases in the price of stocks and real estate for instance. Also in healthcare and education.
Now new money is being spent on consumer goods while supply of goods and services have been severely restricted during the corona panic. Of course soaring energy prices is now also contributing.
When Austrians talk about inflation, they specifically mean an increase in the money supply. They also mean this today. You said in your original post that for a cryptocurrency to be inflationary/deflationary, it needs a governing body adjusting the supply - which is not correct using the original definition of inflation. And even if you use your definition (increasing price level), it is still just an effect of inflation (increase in money supply) that may or may not be caused by a governing body.