[throwwit]

Ha... I guess I can be a bit terse. Just think of the “turbulence” in navier-stokes as valuation fluctuations. Without the realworld dampening effects of regulation, slow tranactions, and managed markets — volatility along the lines of the infinite incongruities posed in the article are possible. ( note: Im not referring to a pendactic ‘infinite’ wrt a blockchain).

[qubex]

Ah OK I get it now.

I’m an applied mathematician and a macroeconomist that studied turbulence in financial markets and crashes thereof. I can assure you that the dynamics are pretty distinct. In economics wealth is not a conserved quantity whereas in physics energy and momentum are.

[throwwit]

I think bitcoin’s fixed-limit and deterministic transactions makes it a uniquely closed & conserved system (regardless of deflation and lost wallets). The discrepancies in valuation among exchanges & localities seem to show a relativistic (to borrow a physics term) quality. [I’m however not really into bitcoin or an economist though]

[qubex]

> bitcoin's fixed limit

That's what makes it unsuitable for being a currency.

> a uniquely closed & conserved system

Nope. Bitcoin may or may not be (lost wallets, as you point out, is one way in which it is not). But the ‘system’ is the economy, because money is moving in and out of bitcoin because it can be exchanged for other assets (goods, services, or other currencies when doing conversions).

So no. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to nip this apparently valid but flawed analogy in the bud. The only commonality is the word ‘turbulence’ which is being used as a label for two entirely different phenomena that have some similitude and points of contact but are largely distinct and unrelatable.