Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 534. (Read 2032289 times)

'less' is just as much a centrally planned decision as anything, and often the best one.  Particularly if one positions themselves to exploit a vacuum created by the rest of the world.  Some Caribbean nations do the same thing I believe.  But when the vacuum vanishes...

my favorite too

Great stuff.

"Since it’s inception, Bitcoin has been operating as if there was no block size limit at all.
If this limit is kept in place, then suddenly Bitcoin will be in uncharted economic territory."

Further, since Core Dev is totally focused on making safe changes and testing as much as possible, allowing the block limit to be hit is the antithesis of their development approach. Once the limit is hit the event becomes the equivalent of foisting a massive untested change onto the entire network at once. The height of lunacy.

Lots of good quotes, but I liked:


and

Yeah, this is what's missed in a lot of Keynsian vs Austrian discussions. The counter-cyclical math *does* work, it's just that it's impossible for humanity to actually implement without the devolution you mention; thus, an "honest money" ends up being better in practice, longrun.

A misappreciation for the human factor is what draws so many genuinely bright minds to central planning. The math, they think, is elegant and works, so that's that. The realities of moral hazard and political incentives (literally) do not entire the equation.


Anyways...will address the rest of your comment when I have more time.

Contains a precious quote:

Here in Switzerland we have less central planning but 'longer stretches of better performance for more people'.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/

I had not thought of it that way, but I like it!  It fits quite well in a lot of ways.


To me there is little functional difference be between being backed by something powerful (fiat-laws, gold-pyhsics, BTC-math) and using the solid item itself as backing.  Hence my focus on 'reserve currency'.  Something like sidechains or [gold|fiat]-backed USD can provide all the ornamentals and don't need to be bothered with the heavy lifting of securing the base value.

So, I don't buy the contention that something needs to be 'useful day-to-day' to have long term value.  Indeed I see the opposite as being more true.

I freely admit that I am more of a Keynsian than not.  Central planning and manipulation can provide longer stretches of better performance for more people.  But I think that any honest Keynsians will admit that their games are cyclic and periodic resets are necessary.  Usually marked by devolution into blatant cronyism and totalitarian nightmare as the fiat backing (the justice system) fails.  My interest in Bitcoin (and gold) are for their utility value at such relatively rare junctures.  While we wait, I do believe that the blooming of opportunities afforded by the flexibility of sidechain developments could do good things for a lot of groups, and could materially effect the outcome of a Keynsian reset.  Hopefully in a good way.

no, theoretically not.  shouldn't be too complicated at all.

the question, will they do that, especially before they scrap the project.  who knows.

Apple is not Amazon ...  more plausible would be for their engineers to take care of the ApplePay UI with bitcoin under the hood. Any problems with that?

actually, i'm quite pissed that i missed the chance to re-short gold @ 1307 this morning. it came right up to my target of several months ago. got a limit order up right now that i hope gets hit. c'mon gold, c'mon.

EU proposal for printing €50B/month (or €0.6T/year).

ECB Executive Board’s QE Proposal Calls for Roughly €50 Billion in Bond Buys Per Month
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ecb-executive-boards-qe-proposal-calls-for-roughly-50-billion-in-bond-buys-per-month-1421851130

Maybe it's time to change the thread title to what is really going on "Fiat collapsing. Bitcoin UP"

next failure coming; ApplePay.

I suppose they see no point in sinking more money in half-measures. Especially when a thorough solution is in sight.

another one bites the dust:

http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=26908

i think this is the Internet and continues:



http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/01/global-middle-class/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

it depends.  if the fundamentals are good and the market psychology is positive, increasing usage aka velocity, may be interpreted as a good thing or as a concept "catching on".  market participants in that scenario would be encouraged to bid up prices to get in on the action.

The scientific definition is prolonged whale dumping.
Edit - I see the prevailing wisdom is better expressed  I'll add it's less likely as we're all central bankers now, and everyone benefits if we do it well.

I'd concede that limited supply is NO guarantee that hyperinflation doesn't occur... if and only if he would concede that limited supply is simply a better assurance that hyperinflation doesn't occur, than any monetary policy in an inflationary currency which is manipulated by groups that benefit from the inflation (central banks and governments)...has EVER provided in the history of money.

He is being a pedantic ass, but a forgivable one.  It has to be a very difficult job to defend an indefensible position for year after year.