Muslims don’t say Muhammad was the son of God. Christians believe that Jesus is God and God sent him to save us. To cleanse our sins.

Burner phone best chance is phone shop in San Salvador, and Sim from most corner shops, they might use their own ID

I’ve read about the evolution of the Christian church’s view on usury, as well as the concept of “fair pricing” that was implemented by the early Church. This often relied on coercion to keep guilds aligned with a fixed price list, which distorted the free market. That seems similar to what you originally described as the negative effect of credit. 1. There are innumerable valuable things that are bought and sold (exchanged) that are based in the future, and therefore involve promises and abstraction, without being usury. For example: forwards, and investments in any asset with future potential use. That is effectively an exchange based on the promise that the asset will provide a certain amount of value. Will it? That depends on how events unfold. That’s the whole point of risk and reward. Please go into depth about what is “concrete” and what is “abstract” in your view of the market, where one distorts and the other provides a signal. It sounds to me like a central command economy where you decide what actually has value. Does insurance not have value? There is comfort of mind in knowing that if something happens, there is a pool of capital contractually committed to cover you in that event. For example, many of the ships that sailed across the globe to spread Christianity would not have been financially viable if they hadn’t been insured. With regard to the Bible verse: just because there are verses that explain how to treat a slave and how slaves should act more Christ-like, that does not condemn slavery. In many parts of the Bible, it does the opposite, placing each man in the same stature under the eyes of God. The verse I referenced explicitly condemns the servant for not placing the money in the bank to gain interest, so I don’t know how you are drawing similarities. It’s also obvious that if there were no credit market—no people willing to risk their capital so entrepreneurs can compete to use it—the number of projects entrepreneurs could take on would reduce significantly. Would it be unethical for me to pay you a service fee for using your capital, because it allows me to start a company I’m dreaming about? Would you make that illegal in the Christian nation where you set the laws? I think the purpose of the capital matters, whether it’s for consumption or investment, and whether the interest compounds in perpetuity. There are certainly many nefarious credit lending practices that are unethical, but I still feel that not allowing citizens to pay a fee on borrowed capital seems communist like, and not Christ-like.

I think you’re conflating debt creation as it occurs in today’s banking system with debt in its pure sense: owing someone an amount over time, with an agreement to reward them for the time you’ve been allowed to use their capital.

The value isn’t the promise itself, but the probability that the promise is sound and will be kept. There is always a risk that it won’t be paid back. For me to not have capital, and then to gain access to capital that I didn’t save, is very valuable. It saves me time. In fact, I’m willing to pay a certain amount for the time it saved me (interest). If I don’t repay that loan, I suffer by having to pay much more for the same service in the future. People won’t lend as cheaply as the risk increases. Just because Bitcoin has a hard cap does not mean Bitcoin cannot be exchanged over time between parties who make promises to each other. Of course there will be bankruptcy and jubilees, it’s a part of life, and it appears throughout the Bible. Matthew 25:27 (NIV) “You should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.” The “extra” is made through the entrepreneurial genius of the borrower. He uses the capital and his skill to earn more than he borrowed. Even if the supply is capped, this can still occur. Will more defaults occur? Of course. Will there be even a fraction as much debt in the world? No, much less, due to the nature of the money. But credit markets will still exist. I still don’t see how credit distorts markets if the source of the money comes from saving, rather than the creation of new money through debt. If anything, it helps the market self-regulate and find the true market interest rate

Those that are floated on the market yes, most are private and kept between two parties.

A bond is just, I save, and let someone else use my savings for a certain amount of time and for the ability to use my savings now they pay for that service which you can call interest. All on chain. I don’t know how I’m using future UTXO’s. I’m using a UTXO given to me in the promise that I give it back a long with another smaller UTXO that I earned thanks to being able to use the capital right now. Just because fiat works by creating new money every time a loan is made, does not mean that all loans create new money.

I love getting into this. I haven’t conflated equity and usury. Equity means the capitalist benefits on the upside, with technically no ceiling, if the entrepreneurial endeavour is successful, and either loses partially or wholly his capital if it’s a failure. A loan is indifferent to the economic outcome, but is a fixed percentage, like the bond you referenced. Now, the loan could be collateralised with assets, or it could be based on the reputation of the loanee, or even on an entrepreneurial endeavour, where, if it’s successful, then the payout is given, but it’s senior to any equity payouts. Now, with your example, there is no extra 10k sats that are conjured up, but the individual that took the loan would be expected to allocate the 100k in a way that the service or good provided generated income, after expenses, of 110k+ from individuals who held Bitcoin and decided to attain that good or service. Due to Bitcoin’s deflationary nature, both parties will be much less likely to go into a loan agreement over five years, as they know the ability to repay will be much lower. The main flaw in the argument is that you are assuming the sats will be able to be printed out of thin air the way the current credit system is, but once it’s time to settle, you need those sats on chain, and if you can’t pay your debts, there won’t be many people looking to loan you sats again. Credit will still exist, just much shorter ranged, at lower interest rates, and more local, where the individual loaning may benefit in other ways than just the sats return. This will inevitably be a market that is demanded, as there will always be individuals who can provide a tonne of value with a specific amount of capital while not having saved for it yet, and loaners that want to be senior to equity and are willing to have a ceiling on their return.

A value has been given to some code that is verified to have been worked for by guessing a number within a range. To think this code will help organise our civilisation and help us take it from chaos to order will be one of the great stories of humanity.

I don’t mean the creation of money, but the ability to pay back more than what you borrowed due to the thrift that you showed in providing a service that clients were keen on paying more than the cost of production (including interest) If you haven’t saved, and you’ve convinced a capitalist that you’d be able to put his capital to better use then him sitting on it, and you go for it then I don’t see the ethically incorrect aspect of that. That agreement will come to be. Credit markets won’t look the same, in terms of the proportion of capital that comes from it, but it will exist, and wondering why it would be unethical?