Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1037. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2014, 12:39:56 PM
I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

I wonder how many coins they could get if they started doing this today. 

I'm guessing a good chunk - 1/3 of all in existence at least.  A lot of people would sell their coins before it was clear who was buying them.  And then it would take a bit to realize the CB's intention.  It would take some very high prices before everyone knew what was happening.  Over $100k, I'd guess.  We could hit $10k and nobody would even suspect it was any different than previous bubbles.

the risk for them doing this would be enormous.

reputational risk would include a market perception of fear of Bitcoin and lack of confidence in USD.  it would be a clear signal that they believe their future is doomed.  just "being in the game" would not facilitate monetary policy manipulation which is the raison d'etre for their existence in the first place.

if ppl found out they were doing this, everyone and their mother would pile in driving the price even higher to stratospheric levels.  i suppose they could find a proxy buyer to accumulate coins but if they accidentally pick a Snowden-type, they'd be screwed.

CB's aren't smart investors as far as i'm concerned.  look at Gordon Brown's faux pas.  during the noughts, CB's in general were selling gold for the most part.  the recent buying by Russia and China, i believe, will go down in history as yet another mistake.

no, i think the CB's, especially the Fed, are "all-in" with fiat.  that's not good; for them.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
August 11, 2014, 12:19:46 PM
Is it just me or were premiums almost double a year or two ago?

1 oz Gold Bar - Credit Suisse (In Assay)
Any quantity only $21.99 per bar over spot!
- See more at: http://www.apmex.com/product/11950/?&RILT=Link_1oz-CreditSuisse-GoldBar&utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Non-Purchaser%20Conversion#sthash.mR23LWlQ.dpuf
full member
Activity: 236
Merit: 100
August 11, 2014, 12:17:41 PM
I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

I wonder how many coins they could get if they started doing this today. 

I'm guessing a good chunk - 1/3 of all in existence at least.  A lot of people would sell their coins before it was clear who was buying them.  And then it would take a bit to realize the CB's intention.  It would take some very high prices before everyone knew what was happening.  Over $100k, I'd guess.  We could hit $10k and nobody would even suspect it was any different than previous bubbles.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
August 11, 2014, 08:31:02 AM
Ragrding the earlier discussion in this topic regarding block limit has everyone read http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2d7ofh/technical_discussion_of_gavins_o1_block/ interesting summary.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
August 11, 2014, 03:46:41 AM
Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

Joking aside, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin use continues to grow, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

It amazes me that the Fed wasn't all over the SR coins with proxy buyers outbidding Tim Draper (or not outbidding, but Tim being told that they did). There must some people working there with a brain. The Fed should have analysts who can see that, even though crypto is unproven long-term, they can do huge risk mitigation by acquiring a holding which represents a few percent of the 21M possible Bitcoin. This goes for other CBs.


Yes, it's not like it costs them anything to do so.  If they want to procure 500,000 BTC, they can create the money for the purchase out of thin air, add these dollars to the liability side of their balance sheet and add the 500,000 BTC to the asset side.  That's how the Fed works.  In fact, after TARP, they probably don't even need an act of Congress to start buying.

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

You forget that current policy is based on continually expanding, continually expanding the expansion (exponentially increase) of the money supply (including debt). With bitcoin, the only thing that is theoretically possible, is for the central bank to smooth out the volatility, in reality they can not do that either (because they can not look into the heads of the economic actors (everybody) (yet).
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
August 11, 2014, 02:15:25 AM
Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

Joking aside, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin use continues to grow, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

It amazes me that the Fed wasn't all over the SR coins with proxy buyers outbidding Tim Draper (or not outbidding, but Tim being told that they did). There must some people working there with a brain. The Fed should have analysts who can see that, even though crypto is unproven long-term, they can do huge risk mitigation by acquiring a holding which represents a few percent of the 21M possible Bitcoin. This goes for other CBs.


Yes, it's not like it costs them anything to do so.  If they want to procure 500,000 BTC, they can create the money for the purchase out of thin air, add these dollars to the liability side of their balance sheet and add the 500,000 BTC to the asset side.  That's how the Fed works.  In fact, after TARP, they probably don't even need an act of Congress to start buying.

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
August 11, 2014, 02:01:13 AM
Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

Joking aside, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin use continues to grow, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

It amazes me that the Fed wasn't all over the SR coins with proxy buyers outbidding Tim Draper (or not outbidding, but Tim being told that they did). There must some people working there with a brain. The Fed should have analysts who can see that, even though crypto is unproven long-term, they can do huge risk mitigation by acquiring a holding which represents a few percent of the 21M possible Bitcoin. This goes for other CBs.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
August 11, 2014, 01:47:41 AM
Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

In all seriousness, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin becomes an important part of the economy, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  
newbie
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
August 11, 2014, 01:19:42 AM


Quote
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects:

https://i.imgur.com/iAFPs1J.png

The political environment should ensure this doesn't happen. When growth and jobs have been mere mirages for so long, the prospect of a crypto led renaissance is a vote winner. Candidates look forward thinking, innovative and fresh even though the thinking is short term ie, getting elected.

If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?


I can not see this happening for real, there is too much power in the hands of asic manufacters, but that is only if governments realy decide to just buy those manufacters, than we could be in trouble. For a short while it could cause price to rise up.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
August 11, 2014, 12:05:26 AM
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?
"Please don't throw us into the briar patch, central banks!"
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
August 10, 2014, 11:48:29 PM


Quote
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects:



The political environment should ensure this doesn't happen. When growth and jobs have been mere mirages for so long, the prospect of a crypto led renaissance is a vote winner. Candidates look forward thinking, innovative and fresh even though the thinking is short term ie, getting elected.

If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
August 10, 2014, 10:42:46 PM

The full paper is available for download.  It's quite well-written and worth a read. Here are some highlights that caught my eye:


The paper reads as though the growth of bitcoin is inevitable given its properties:




The author points out some interesting implications of a mature bitcoin economy:




This overreaching proposal would hurt global innovation, resulting in less wealth production in aggregate:




Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects:

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 10, 2014, 10:11:42 PM
I describe the mechanisms by which cryptocurrencies — a subcategory of virtual currencies — could replace tax havens as the weapon-of-choice for tax-evaders. I argue such outcome is reasonably expected in the foreseeable future due to the contemporary convergence of two processes. The first process is the increasing popularity of cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin is the most widely recognized example. The second process is the transformation of financial intermediaries to agents in the service of tax authorities, as part of the fight against offshore tax evasion. Financial institutions are faced with increased governmental pressure to deliver information about account holders, to withhold taxes from earnings accumulating in financial accounts, and to remit such taxes to taxing authorities around the world. Significantly, cryptocurrencies possess all the traditional characteristics that tax haves do; Earnings are not subject to taxation, and taxpayers’ anonymity is maintained. The operation of cryptocurrencies, however, is not dependent on the existence of financial intermediaries. Thus, cryptocurrencies have the potential of defeating the recent successes of governments in battling offshore tax evasion. I further suggest that while governments have paid some attention to this issue, they have so far failed to identify the acuteness of the potential problem.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2305863
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 10, 2014, 06:02:06 PM
This sounds interesting. It's hard to believe this is coming out of the UK. This type of inevitable discord is what will drive Bitcoin forward no matter what idiots like Lawsky tries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/britain-regulate-bitcoin-legitimate-currency-2014-8
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
August 10, 2014, 04:19:39 PM
when he first announced accepting BTC for gold, i said he probably was already convinced and was trying to accumulate.  i still stand by that.

we should get him drunk and ask him.


We should just wait a while for the Bitcoin 1K$ party to finally come around and invite all of these guys for a drink  Cheesy

regarding the podcast: Andreas truly is the Terence McKenna of Bitcoin
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
August 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
just look at the return on the different timeframes going back to 7d.  then look at the 365d charts:



I've been working on several iterations of indexes for alts.  Right now, the only two I can find BOTH include BTC, which makes up around 93% of the movement of those indexes.  The purer alt indexes I have constructed and have been tracking both portray the broad alt market as pretty unfriendly right now. 

My guess is that since most alt traders are only looking at their own portfolios (because there is currently no good way to see the broader market), they are mistakenly assuming that markets as a whole are performing better than their portfolios.

OR they think they are smart enough to pick the few winners.  In the early 20th Century, there were hundreds of auto makers.  That eventually got whittled down to three.  Even though the capital costs and overheads are lower and the process and speed of innovation is faster, I'd guess the same thing will happen to most alts.  It may not be quite as stark because a more-or-less DOA alt can hang around for a while without the same liquidation concerns, but 99% of them are going to languish at a value close to zero.



 
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
August 10, 2014, 01:33:44 PM
Interesting to note the gold bugs are converting.

Jeffrey Tucker puts it down to experiencing bitcoin; he related the story of being ridiculed by P Schiff for 18 months over his bitcoin stance until one day Schiff approached him, marvelling at how quick bitcoin transactions were completed and how it saved his company plenty on fee payments. Schiff had decided to accept bitcoin purely opportunistically to cash it out, but is now converted.

Wonder if this kind of story, multiplied across the market, will see an increased flow from gold to btc?

Of course it would but, link please.

OK, im not sure how far in it is but the whole segment is a good listen.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-134-disruptive-leaps

now THAT is really good news. 

altho quite predictable.  Jim Rogers too.

+ 1, it adds to the momentum.

And the whole podcast was great, discussing honest skeptics, indoctrinated thinkers vs no experience, paradigm breaking etc etc.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
August 10, 2014, 01:03:12 PM
when he first announced accepting BTC for gold, i said he probably was already convinced and was trying to accumulate.  i still stand by that.

we should get him drunk and ask him.
Jump to: