Topic: Bitcoin crashes when those investing realise 2 things - page 4. (Read 10472 times)

Where did I criticize the dollar?  I only showed a graph that indicates the number of dollar units has been drastically increasing, which directly contradicted your claim.

But, let's assume I did.  Making a 1 million dollar bill would not be any different from 1 million $1 bills other than it is slightly cheaper to produce and move around.

In the real world selling sonmething that is not gold when you want to sell more you will receive less, but gold, if you have 1.000.000$ in gold you will receive the real price of gold and if you want to sell less you will receive less money percentually.

Lol. Divisibility doesnt mean the price wont go to the same price. If it werent ultra-divisible, the price would be like $10 because no one would want a coin that can only divide down to, say, $1 of buying power.

No.  Bitcoin could support infinite digits using floating point numbers.  This would probably be bad for a lot of technical reasons but it doesn't change the value of the whole units.
1.0 = 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00

Most gold coins are minted in 1 oz down to 1/10 oz denominations.  With improved technology it would be possible to mint smaller coins say 1/50 oz or 1/200 oz coins.   Would a 1/200 oz coin on the market make the price of gold fall? 

The US government currently issues pennies as the smallest sub unit of the dollar. As a cost saving measure say they ended the penny (as other countries have already done).  The divisbility of a dollar would be reduced by a factor of 5x from 1/100th of a dollar to 1/20th of a dollar.  Do you think that would increase the purchasing power of a dollar? Would you expect prices on the shelves fall to 1/5th their current price?

First: OP is possibly trolling.

Second: I'm nonetheless surprised by the response in here, which universally seems to say that increasing divisibility cannot possibly alter the valuation of each "individual" bitcoin.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Time for a thought experiment.

Let's assume, instead of a fixed number of decimal places, i.e. a fixed degree of divisibility, divisibility is permanently growing, say: 1 additional decimal place per day; each day, the number of sub-units increases by factor 10.

Does this still not influence the valuation of the base unit?

From a formal point of view, it shouldn't make a difference, I suppose (although I suspect calculating future values of the base unit, which necessarily equals the sum of the subunits, might become more difficult). However, keep in mind that the valuation of any object is determined by the market, and I am not at all sure if the idea of the number of subunits tending towards infinity will not affect the valuation of the base unit.

Thought experiment over.

Nobody proposed that divisibility should increase constantly, of course. But I propose that, if the market had reason to believe that divisibility could be increased at will, it might after all have a similar reaction as in my 'infinite divisibility' scenario above.

Very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Of course that was the intent of the OP.  He has jumped from one reason why Bitcoin will fail to another.  Strange how much time he spends on a forum devoted to the thing he "knows" will fail.

A troll is as a troll does.

All this talk of integer math... seems so redundant.

The decimal number system quite happily has no problem with the concept of there being 21m BTC, the software at the moment only shows 9 digits of precision past the decimal point. In future it may need to show more. Nothing changes.

The idea that there are suddenly more units is just a red herring.

oil sheik who hate the US dollar , and will trade oil in btc if it has Enough mass.
just a matter of time.

I think the statement itself negates the possibility of intelligence.

I'm not one to criticize anyone... but damn, this has gotta be the stupidest statement I've ever heard from I hope an otherwise intelligent individual.

Which statement is true:

A) 1 btc < (.5 btc + .5 btc)
B) 1 btc = (.5 btc + .5 btc)
C) 1 btc > (.5 btc + .5 btc)

Dollar cultists talk of individual "Million-dollars" being worth millions of dollars eventually,  which would mean very few people would ever own a whole "Million-dollars" and so would see their "Million-dollar" wealth expressed as sub units of a "Million-dollars". Now let's say that it is decided that instead of 100M, that a "Million-dollars" can now be divided into "Cents". As a result those people who hold any number of whole "Million-dollars" can buy 10x as much "Million-dollar" wealth from those who only have "Dollars". Goods priced in "Million-dollars" would obviously adjust, but there would be a period in which the imbalance would leave those with whole "Million-dollars" with a massive increase in purchasing power.

Yeah, dude, millionaires and billionaires can buy more stuff than me.  No duh.

+1

Yes, the same reason I'm even posting in this thread, lol.

Oh. So in this metaphor, you're willfully ignorant?  

Ok... If OP is actually not trolling, I think what he/she is failing to understand (or failing to intuit) is that the private key controlling 1 BTC, currently 100,000,000 base units (satoshis), will always control those base units and any they're divided up into down the road. Divide the current base unit by a million, and the private key to 1 BTC now controls 100,000,000,000,000 base units. Since that's happening for everybody at the same time, the system retains the *exact* balance between all holders of bitcoin that it had before; ie, no price changes, no scarcity change.

My percentage of the whole doesn't change. Neither does anyone else's.

OP, are you saying that you think people would still demand the same number of base units for a good after a divisibility change is made? Imagine that for a sec... Say I'm selling a GPU for 1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units. We increase divisibility by a million. Are you saying I'd sell that GPU for 100,000,000 of the new base units, ie: 0.000001 BTC? Despite the fact that everyone still holds the same quantity of BTC as before the split, and despite the fact that there are the same quantity of resources in the economy?

It's all about percentages.

PS: If you're trolling, nice work... But that's the last you're getting out of me. I'm done here.

The desert island is a metaphor for being ignorant. I can leave any time I want.

He didn't tell the others the island wasn't uninhabited and on the other side there was a burger stand.  Actually it wasn't a very good metaphor and OP will likely use that as "proof" he is right.  That is what trolls do.

Um... You'd starve, too. 

Let's say we're stranded on a desert island. I have a cheeseburger and you and 3 other guys are very hungry.


After negotiating for some time, it becomes clear that you all want the cheeseburger, and you're willing to trade every possession on your person for it. I, being the generous guy that I am, decide to cut it into 4 equal pieces and trade one to each of you, for 1/4 of your original offer.

The 3 other guys immediately agree to these terms and begin scarfing down their share of the burger. You, however, insist that I now have 4 burgers, so the burger as a whole is worth less, and refuse to pay the price (which you just a moment ago agreed to).

I sell the remaining piece of the burger to one of the other guys and you die of starvation.


The end.