The OP is stupid.
+21M 
Topic: Bitcoin crashes when those investing realise 2 things - page 2. (Read 10472 times)
The OP is stupid.
Actually the OP is a clever guy and has made some interesting posts in the past. It's a good thing to have critics. They sharpen our thinking.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
Good point. Skeptical thinking is a virtue. And no one should be beaten up for not understanding.
No, but when you stubbornly insist you are right when EVERYONE is telling you you are wrong, you'll start to take abuse.
Once more, and then I'll just have to accept that having a vested interest means you lot will never get it.
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
I think you are misunderstanding inflation.The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
Thought experiment, imagine every dollar bill in existence magically had an extra 0 printed on them (lets suppose there are no fractions of dollars for simplicities sake). Every 1 dollar bill becomes a 10 dollar bill, every 10 dollar bill would become a 100 dollar bill etc. What would happen? As soon as everyone has figured this out, the only thing that would happen is that everyone ads a 0 on all their price tags as well, so that a good that previously cost 3 dollars would now cost 30 dollars. You could argue that the dollar supply, in terms of the "base unit", increased tenfold, but this wouldn't matter as everones wealth in dollars did as well.
This is the kind of "inflation" of base units bitcoins may experience. It is irrellevant. Inflation doesn't have bad consequences of itself. It is bad because it usually comes with a redistributive effect of wealth. If newly created money is spent into the economy from a fixed point, those who get it early benefit at the expense of those that get it late. As long as new money is distributed based on what you already own, the only effect will be new prices in terms of what you seem to call the "base unit".
Actually the OP is a clever guy and has made some interesting posts in the past. It's a good thing to have critics. They sharpen our thinking.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
Good point. Skeptical thinking is a virtue. And no one should be beaten up for not understanding.
No, but when you stubbornly insist you are right when EVERYONE is telling you you are wrong, you'll start to take abuse.
Bittburger, it looks like it's already taken longer than 14 seconds...
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
1 BTC = 100.000.000 Satoshis is arbitrary. You may use whatever metric you want, but 1 Satoshi is lowest amount you can have in blockchain.
well at this moment. But changes can be made to the source, so that it can be infinite!
In a hard fork which would be a new protocol. If anyone supports the old one it will also still exist. It won't be happening in our lifetime anyways.
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
1 BTC = 100.000.000 Satoshis is arbitrary. You may use whatever metric you want, but 1 Satoshi is lowest amount you can have in blockchain.
well at this moment. But changes can be made to the source, so that it can be infinite!
Again this stupid thread where dividing a potato can feed the world 
"LOL" as the young people say
Someone thought about the mining after all coins are mined?
The Hashpower is needed to confirm transaction.
But why mining, if there are no coins left to mine?
The miners would live off the transaction fees. The Hashpower is needed to confirm transaction.
But why mining, if there are no coins left to mine?
Someone thought about the mining after all coins are mined?
The Hashpower is needed to confirm transaction.
But why mining, if there are no coins left to mine?
Looks like a perpetum mobile.
Just cash out (not yet, but in a few years) when nearly all coins are mined.
The Hashpower is needed to confirm transaction.
But why mining, if there are no coins left to mine?
Looks like a perpetum mobile.
Just cash out (not yet, but in a few years) when nearly all coins are mined.
Yes, it has been discussed countless times.
Someone thought about the mining after all coins are mined?
The Hashpower is needed to confirm transaction.
But why mining, if there are no coins left to mine?
Looks like a perpetum mobile.
Just cash out (not yet, but in a few years) when nearly all coins are mined.
The Hashpower is needed to confirm transaction.
But why mining, if there are no coins left to mine?
Looks like a perpetum mobile.
Just cash out (not yet, but in a few years) when nearly all coins are mined.
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
1 BTC = 100.000.000 Satoshis is arbitrary. You may use whatever metric you want, but 1 Satoshi is lowest amount you can have in blockchain.
Because the percentage you control is the same!
The dumbness is strong with this one.Let me explain, as you clearly aren't smart enogh to grasp the idea yourself.
Normally if somebody didn't understand a concept, I would try to explain it to them. However, others have already tried to do that (see excellently written out pie example by holliday), but you just call them idiots and insist that you are right. Therefore, you have earned my "douchebag of the day" award, which comes with a life-time of ignore.
lol, i knew this thread would be full of pwnys and wins.
Yeah, I'm only here for the lulz ...and the pie
I actually tend to find a divisibility a good argument. However, one can find very difficult to own an atom of gold, whereas you can own 0.0000001 btc.
So, I do believe can crash because of this. I just hope it will return to a niche.
So, I do believe can crash because of this. I just hope it will return to a niche.
Let's compare apples to apples. There are about 10 billion ounces of gold in the world. Divide that by 21 million and you get that the final supply of each bitcoin equals about 476 ounces of gold today. A Satoshi is 0.000 000 01 bitcoin, so it is equivalent in supply to .000 004 76 ounces of gold.
.000 004 76 ounces of gold might sound small, but the equivalent value of that amount of gold at current prices ($1276/ounce) is .6 cents. That seems oddly close to a reasonable base unit for a currency to me.
Coincidence? I think not. Satoshi knew what he was doing and probably based the final supply and initial divisibility off of similar calculations.
+1
Actually the OP is a clever guy and has made some interesting posts in the past. It's a good thing to have critics. They sharpen our thinking.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
Good point. Skeptical thinking is a virtue. And no one should be beaten up for not understanding.
Actually the OP is a clever guy and has made some interesting posts in the past. It's a good thing to have critics. They sharpen our thinking.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
So it's a bit disappointing to see him coming out with this guff.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1?
It would make absolutely no difference.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
Do you mind pointing to a system where this statement is true? I am really curious.
The only thing that comes immediately to mind would be a hologram. Apparently you can cut a hologram in half and it will still project the full image.. though you may lose some resolution. So even in this case it's not entirely true. Even though one tiny part of the whole would technically perform the same function, (showing the image) the image would not retain the same quality.
Once more, and then I'll just have to accept that having a vested interest means you lot will never get it.
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
Someone has already mentioned stocks, but hell, I'll do it too.
stocks are infinitely divisible, just like your example. stocks are also virtual, like bitcoin and not like gold. stocks split all the time in a manner that should easily display your theory. find us ONE historical example to support your point.
** show me the data to support your view. **
i am wroth that you have spent 7 pages of forum time to not present DATA. i want to cut those seven pages into a million pieces and hand them to you. you gotta carry that weight.
Jump to: