Topic: Bitcoin is a Zero-Sum Game - Long-term interest bearing instruments viable? - page 3. (Read 14623 times)

No it wasn't.  Pointing out that people aren't likely to accept a bland assertion from you on the very point of debate is hardly an appeal to popularity.

Pointing out inconsistency in an argument is not being circular, and yours was an argumentum ad populum.

Kind of, but with all the money printing not enough people will do it to the degree that it stops inflation for very long, so you are mainly hurting yourself.

Just because everyone can steal doesn't mean it's not stealing. I would call it a tax because it would be legal and fairly predictable, but then a lot of people here don't differentiate between taxing and stealing, so stealing it is.

Hoarding is will suppress the economy, and I think that's bad. If someone thinks having a deflationary self regulating currency is more important than having an economy that is as strong and flourishing as possible that's an opinion they are entitled to, but I disagree with it.

Inflation is an increase in price levels, not an increase in the money supply. Inflation is a result when the money supply is expanded beyond the demand for new money, just like deflation is the result if the money supply is not expanded enough to the demand for new money.


Do you even know what wikileaks does and why it accepts bitcoin donations?


How willing will investors be to fight over 0.1%-0.5% per YEAR rather than 7% per WEEK? How willing will businesses be to take on the risk of a deflationary currency loan? There is a big difference between scam and reality.

Not sure what you mean by "non-BTC", but here are a few to start with:

Check out FeedZeBirds, BitcoinTorrentz, Rugatu, IBB, SatoshiDice, bioethanol, and several assets backed by precious metals

(this list is in no way supposed to be exhastive or reflect advise to buy any of these assets)

So, make an argument that isn't circular then.

Is it wrong if I hld my Fiat-euro's in cash instead of bidding up the price of bread at the supermarket? Am I hurting anyone else if I decide to keep physical money in my pocket instead of lending it out to the bank against interest?

Why would hoarding individuals be thieves if everyone has the exact same opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the appreciating money? It's called a market (which includes ordinary money transactions); a summary of millions of individual transactions between millions of individuals. No more, no less.

If hoarding becomes a problem, it is individuals reacting to bad influences from the outside (usually: government policies).

I am not saying it is bad I'm just calling it what it is. You even mention "new money" in your quote above.

More money will always equal higher prices at some point.. unless you also plan to remove credits?

Off topic, but I also don't see how your system avoids being gamed to death: Hold a bunch of coins, send them to your own addresses once in a while - system awards you with new coin due to you being an "account holder that is trading".

If you are truly giving the money to everyone why not just make a Bitcoin client that moves the comma once in a while?

I don't do that stuff.

You never mentioned anything about the investments being GOOD, just investments in general - you're "moving the goal posts". Surely the real world is no less riddled with bad investments and scams.
If something good did come along, and it will I think, people should start to choose that over the scams.

Its an app that has a paid version... how is that not a business?
I was talking about the TOR amory site for illegal guns.
Dice and poker is legal in many countries I think.

News reporting is a business right? Fox news, CNN - all businesses, why not wikileaks?

Alpaca socks are also legal

Here's a list of more businesses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Toys.2C_Games_and_Hobbies

Anyway BTC is only a few years old so a "few" businesses is fine for now. I promise you I will be the first to complain if golden opportunities arise and people just sit on their BTC.

When discussing the investor willingness in a deflationary economy; yeah it immensely helps my case that people gave a guy named "pirate" 5% of the entire economy (okay maybe he only got 0.5% for real, who knows).

After reading the last 2 pages I have a thought.


Bitcoin is a currency but it not being used as one at the moment, even though people do trade with it.    It is being a wealth reserve asset and we have only seen a couple items that actually made the cut, ie: gold & silver bullion.  People are purchasing and holding (saving) in Bitcoins because they are more adverse to the current condition of their local currency, being that that are all inflating at amounts that are giving you negative rates of return.   What I think makes Bitcoin more attractive than Gold and Silver is that you "can" trade around with it easier than having to walk to your nearest rare coins dealer and exchange your bullion.  

We can not focus on the "fixed" aspect enough.  Have we really ever had a fixed asset that truly could not be expanded so that is should in theory hold some value permanently?   Remember all the electricity and capital equipment (computers) that it took to get this many coins into circulation.  

On the other had, fiat currencies are not "wealth reserve assets", you can try and call them that but they do not hold value over time and in scenarios where they are holding value, they are in debt instruments which are actually pulling value from the future to maintains its own value.  

With this said, Bitcoins might be on a track to actually have trade continue to decline and only be used for major transfers of value where you need faith in that value or purchasing items where the quasi-anonymous nature lends to these transaction.



Food for thought...

No, it's not. Inflation is a general increase in price levels, whereas the goal of my proposal would be to keep stable price levels. And even if it can't attain that impossible goal, new money is awarded to existing account holders as well as people who transact, not to banks expanding credit--often considered the biggest problem in causing the business cycle and inflationary theft.


Takes one to know one.


I tried checking out GLBSE to see if there were any non-mining (btc currency creation) or non-ponzi investments, but I couldn't find any and their site is slow. Care to link to any non-BTC non-ponzi businesses? Wallets are not businesses. Armory is an open source client. About the only legitimate business on there that isn't illegal in many countries is camgirls, which I'll give you half a point for. It was an existing site, not one that took any investment in BTC. And really, wikileaks? You think wikileaks is a BTC business let alone a business at all? What's the point in even talking to you?


Do you really think championing the biggest bitcoin ponzi to date is helpful to your arguments? Or does it make you just look desperate? Hmm. Does it surprise me that the aggregate group surrounding bitcoin which doesn't even understand the definition of inflation gets scammed for 5 million? Not particularly.

I would expect nothing else on a forum which has a deflationary currency as topic.

Not really. If the deflation was lower there would be less incentive to save, but as long as there is deflation the effect would still be there. It would suppress people's wish to trade, just like inflation would encourage it. See, I can used loaded words as well.

No one here believes that but you (and maybe a couple of others).  It is hardly an established fact.  It is, I think, the central question here, and you can't claim it as evidence of it's own truth.  (To do so would be to beg the question.)

I've got to head out in a few minutes so I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I think I addressed your point above in comment #86 of this thread.

As I said, this is just hypocritical. If you call inflation theft then you are inconsistent when you don't call deflation an involuntary theft from those who invest to those who put the money in the safe.

You just said that it will, even though you for political reasons call it involuntary to give it a negative spin.

Let's just ignore the fact that that's exactly what's happening in the Bitcoin economy.

I most certainly do. While I agree that it's very practical for people like me who like to save to be able to just put all my money in a safe and still reap most the value that other people's trade adds to the economy, that effect is clearly bad for the economy as a whole. I am not going to rationalize that fact away just because it doesn't fit what I ideally would like to be true.

Voluntary exchange is what produces growth because both parties benefit -- not just lots of trades.  In contrast, printing new fiat money (aka counterfeiting) is a form of involuntary exchange or theft. I don't buy the argument that the latter is needed to encourage the former.

Again, there's no reason to expect that most people would stack "almost all the money in a safe for later." There's always going to be a balance between present consumption, savings, and investment.  And again, you ARE adding something to the economy when you simply save your money as previously explained.

Whoah, lighten up, dude. Anytime I'm engaged in a debate about anything, I try to keep in mind two possibilities: (1) I might be wrong; and (2) that might be ok.  I'd encourage you to do the same.

I skimmed YOUR alt currency proposal and it contained the idea of adjusting the block reward at economic down turn or something like that. Here it is:
"Unbounded" - That's also called inflation.

As for inflation used as a bad word, I am not, it just so happens that you have a link in your signature to an inflationary alt currency and
it just seems clear to me that some here believe in inflation or deflation, so I grouped them.

That is a local change seen over ~1 year after a huge run-up, how about the more relevant 2-3 year range?

You're looking at a fluctuation trying to refute my argument that the market thinks BTC has real value - who's fallacious now?

"Cherry picking" is that the fallacy you used here?

MPEX, GLBSE, Android wallets, Satoshi dice, silk road, armory, coinabul, BTC camgirls, BTC poker and at least one Chinese businessman said he used it with benefit... is wikileaks a business?

That's more than I can count fiat/BTC exchanges btw.
Is ignoring the realities a logical fallacy? I am really not versed in logical fallacies
(Arhhh its ALSO "cherry picking")

There are probably more I don't remember or don't know about.
... and for a start up currency I don't see the problem with a bunch of exchanges. Its just the first needed thing really so your counter-argument makes no sense either way.


But GLBSE is not just seeing a trickle; pirate alone had 500K in debts which is 5% of ALL currently existing BTC and there is a whole BUNCH of other stuff on there that people are investing in.
What percentage of their dollars do people invest, do you even know?

And you just accused me of arguing there would be NO investments when in fact my wording was not near as strong as that - a straw man fallacy.

Do you understand the economic consequences if only very few DID invest in a BTC world? Clearly those few investors would have MUCH more clout as economy is all relative so the net effect is the same.

Yeah right. These "logical fallacies" can be applied to almost any argument, though of course yours are begging for it.

The amount of trade that is happening is what defines the size of the economy. When you trade away your money you have to do something to get new money, and this is what adds to the economy. Lots of people stacking almost all the money in a safe for later does not. Every day you don't trade anything is another day you haven't added anything to the economy. That does not mean that that every trade that is possible to do is smart to do, but with no trade there is no economy, and with little trade you have a little economy. Lots of trade means a big economy.

It's really that easy, and that's why currencies which creates price deflation gives a smaller economy than one which creates inflation. I also know you will never accept this because just like religious people you have decided on what you want to believe first and then make up "facts" which fits your belief.

On this point I agree with you there is an abnormality. Bitcoin is experiencing hyper-deflation. This is new to the field of social science in economics and I am not sure how it evolves. My thoughts expressed elsewhere.  

I can't argue that because I don't know what a "market failure" is until the term has been adequately defined.