Topic: ► ► ►HashFast Endorsement - page 7. (Read 36923 times)

Yes, but why wouldn't you offer the facility for those that are entitled that kind of protection?

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

Bitcoin is many things.  hence the conundrum to authorities.

i'm a big defender of hoarding b/c i do some of that myself.  but pure hoarding by everyone won't work out so well.  the best outcome for BTC to rise in price is if it also utilized by an active economy and grows to the point of increasing tx's. 

how else can miners, like you, be incentivized to mine in light of the block reward eventually being eliminated?

In that case, what does money velocity has to do with anything?  Or are you claiming that increasing the dollar velocity helps bitcoin economy?  Try to be consistent & remember what we're talking about.  Have we at least come to an agreement that selling BTC for $$$ has nothing to do with bitcoin velocity, though, if you view BTC as a commodity, it increases the $$$ velocity?


"A well known fact"?!  In that case:

*This "perception of utility", is it a good thing, or are we foolin' ourselves?  I take it it's just a perception & not actually utility


I happen to know that you're wrong.  The demand could not be higher simply because the supply has increased.  If the demand happens to be higher, and there's no extra BTC dumped by HashFast, BTC prices would climb.  If there's the extra supply provided by HashFast, the price would not climb.  Cypher, learn to supply & demand


This is simply goofy.  Do you think they're waiting in hopes of the price being *higher*?  You're trying to talk yourself out of a simple supply and demand equation, and unless you're well versed in sophistry, it ain't going to happen.

There's no reason to think they'll be any more likely to do anything with them then you.

Anyway, I don't really see why velocity is supposed to be a good thing for bitcoin.  The lower the velocity, the higher the price.

From a Keynesian perspective, high monetary velocity is good because more velocity means more economic activity. And of course high inflation means high velocity because people want to get rid of their money as quickly as possible instead of hoarding it.

But on the other hand, if you want the price of bitcoin to go up, then  you want to hoard it, and restrict supply.

So? I use bitcoin as an investment and a savings account. Sometimes I buy goods with it. Sometimes I send money to relatives in developing countries using it. It's not just a currency.

Chargebacks are typically charged to the merchant, with a fee

When your hoarded coins in cold storage are spent for a miner, either by paying HF for them to sell, or selling your coins directly on an exchange, you increase velocity, eventually. Your coins get sold to someone, they'll sooner or later do something with them.

No. You're straight up factually wrong.

If the bank does not recover  your money, they will cover it themselves. That's in the contract you sign when you sign up, and I'm pretty sure it's the law. The bank loses the money, not you. If you have a zero balance on your CC then your debt will go negative.

The bank can basically create money out of thin air, and they consider things like this to be a cost of doing business, easily covered by all the fees and interest they collect on CCs.

Crumbs is a ridiculous troll, who I have on ignore.  However he is correct on this.  While you could argue that BTC are goods, the best you could argue in that case is that when you sell them on an exchange, you increase the velocity of dollars in the economy.  But you're not really increasing the velocity of bitcoin.

On the other hand, simply buying the miners in BTC would increase the velocity of bitcoin, since it would cause BTC that was tied up in wallets to be actually transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something. That would not be the case if they were purchased with dollars.

many moving parts here.

i happen to pay off my cc right when i incur the "debt" so i look at this differently than you do. 

as for what Bitcoinorama posted earlier, that coverage will be limited and will vary depend on where you are.  in a worst case scenario where a company absconds with your money and the cc/pp has no avenue to recover said money, you will take a loss.

That isn't even remotely true.  Credit card debt is a LOAN.  You don't actually lose anything until you pay down your card debt, and you're not contractually obligated to pay that debt if you didn't get what you paid for, within a certain time frame.

The bank loses the money, not you. Insurance is exactly what it is.

the problem with what you're saying is that you're thinking of BTC as purely a form of currency.  many of us already know that the definition of what BTC is differs.  many think of BTC itself as a "good" or "asset".  they don't view it purely as a means of transacting.  they view it as an investment with the potential to grow in value and act as a store of value.

speculation on the value of BTC itself has played a big role in building the Bitcoin economy.  it's a well known fact that the faster it changes hands and circulates, the better it is and will be for the Bitcoin economy as it provides fees for the miners/exchangers and it increases it perception of utility.

you making the statement that the price will definitely go down by selling them on an exchange is ridiculous.  i happen to know that is false.  you have no way to predict what demand will be when HF does this.  there are plenty of hidden buyers waiting in the wings who want to buy a big chunk of BTC when it becomes available on the market.  no one knows they're there, especially you.

Cypher, if you have time, can you please get to my two questions at the bottom of the 20th page?

Wrong.  Here's a wikip quote for you, you like those:
"The velocity of money ... is the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent on new goods and services produced domestically in a specific period of time."

Note the red, emboldened text above.  BTC is not being spent on goods or services.  It is being converted into dollars, which are neither goods nor services.  
The above definition is oversimple, but it is specific enough to point out that it's not a just "changing of hands" that needs to take place.
Also, note the presence of the word "domestic."  Why do you suppose it was introduced into such a rudimentary definition?  I'm not going to lecture you in economics, suffice it to say that exchanging one kind of money for another kind of money does not increase the velocity of *anything,* dollars or BTC.


You're right, there has to be a willing buyer.  Simply because more BTC appeared on an exchange (HashFast selling our BTC) *does not mean that there will be more people looking to buy BTC.*  The number of buyers stays the same, there's a greater supply of BTC, what happens to the price, do you suppose?  Must we go over this again & again?
 ...

Nope, that depends on where your located and the type of cover offered by a cc's respective issuing bank.

Certainly for customers in the UK that is not the case. It's why I've been so vocal on this;


http://www.moneywise.co.uk/scams-rip-offs/scams/how-to-deal-bankrupt-firm

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/how-can-i-get-my-money-back-if-a-company-goes-bust/

this brings up an interesting point that applies to all of these companies.

you seem to have been arguing from the beginning that cc/pp are acting as some sort of insurance company that will take responsibility for providing FULL refunds if KNC scams everyone and takes off with their money.  nothing is further from the truth.  if KNC is able to get away with everyone's money and removes it from their bank accounts, the cc/pp companies have nowhere to go to retrieve those monies.

you'll be left with a loss.

Yes, selling BTC for USD is, in fact, increasing BTC velocity.  the BTC is exchanging hands and moving thru the Bitcoin economy as a result.

You clearly don't have the capacity to understand what i've been saying ad nauseum.  for HF to sell those BTC for USD, there has to be a willing buyer on the other end of that tx who "wants" those BTC and is more than willing to part with their USD.

in fact, they're willing to pay a premium for them as evidenced by the rising price.

No, what he's saying is that it makes no difference to the health of Bitcoin whether Hashfast accept Payment in BTC, or fiat, as Hashfast's suppliers currently only accept dollars, and will want payment in dollars, which requires all their payments to be converted by facilities such as Bitpay. This does not support Bitcoin.

If however Hashfast convinced their suppliers to accept payment in Bitcoin, this keeping the chosen currency payment one of a closed loop, that would both be impressive, and beneficial for Bitcoin, as it subsequently increases Bitcoins awareness, and acceptance, and most importantly treats it as a currency for payment, and not merely just a vehicle of currency exchange. This supports Bitcoin.

Alas, the only reason Bitcoin is being accepted as the preferred payment is to mitigate liability upon recourse. In essense they have a free ride with investors monies, whilst assuming minimal accountability. Ultimately if Hashfast were to fail by a catastrophic miss of proposed profitable time period, they would clearly not be able to refund all, as pre-order monies will have been spent on vast non-reoccurring engineering costs, without a third party to accept liability for ensuring enough funds exist for refunding customers.

Of course this is unless Hashfast have secured a third party to insure them over such potential eventualities that mimic other secured payment choices, and protect their customers from reckless behaviour. Have they?

I'll just quote myself, i'm not going to revisit the same crap over & over.  Watch the boldface font:


Let me repeat:  Transactions where BTC are exchanged into dollars do not increase BRC velocity.  I assumed we were past that.  If you feel that they do, state so now.  I'll show that you're dead-wrong again, and move on.  

Do BTC->$$$ transactions increase BTC velocity?  Simple yes or no, and we're done.  Like pulling a tooth, Cypherdoc, why drag it out?

As far as me being instrumental "birthing a new ASIC company," i would rather drink from the dick of a goat.  ASICs are inevitable, as is death.  I'm not interested in helping to bring about either.  If you enjoy funding companies that make our gear obsolete & bring about bitcoin centralization, go ahead, just don't pretend that it's for the good of bitcoin.