Topic: Is this a paradox? (Read 4604 times)

Because moving the mouse to copy& paste, or somehow navigating a rich text box with arrow keys was not something I wanted to do; nor was tying out a full base64 encoded pseudoramdom-generated name. I pretty much typed out ampk, looked at the rest of the name, and said fuck it. Happy now, ampkZ?!? 

Note: this same economic concept is why the world will never "run out" of oil, or trees, or any resource. If the last barrel of oil were found... at what price would it sell? Infinity. And long before that last barrel, alternatives would be used.

So cheer up all, we'll never run out of oil, and Bitcoins will never all be owned by one person

It would be impossible for one person to accumulate all bitcoins unless they had dropped to essentially zero due to a devastating flaw/security issue.

Why impossible? Because every marginal bitcoin which is purchased from some other owner will increase in value up to infinity. Imagine if one man started buying all the bitcoins now... the price would rise and rise and rise. Perhaps he could get half the bitcoins. Maybe 80% of them. But as he approached 100% ownership, those with the remaining coins would only sell at higher prices. A bitcoin would become so expensive that not even Warren Buffet could purchase the last few.

Note: this same economic concept is why the world will never "run out" of oil, or trees, or any resource. If the last barrel of oil were found... at what price would it sell? Infinity. And long before that last barrel, alternatives would be used.

So cheer up all, we'll never run out of oil, and Bitcoins will never all be owned by one person

It would be impossible for one person to accumulate all bitcoins unless they had dropped to essentially zero due to a devastating flaw/security issue.

Why impossible? Because every marginal bitcoin which is purchased from some other owner will increase in value up to infinity. Imagine if one man started buying all the bitcoins now... the price would rise and rise and rise. Perhaps he could get half the bitcoins. Maybe 80% of them. But as he approached 100% ownership, those with the remaining coins would only sell at higher prices. A bitcoin would become so expensive that not even Warren Buffet could purchase the last few.

Note: this same economic concept is why the world will never "run out" of oil, or trees, or any resource. If the last barrel of oil were found... at what price would it sell? Infinity. And long before that last barrel, alternatives would be used.

So cheer up all, we'll never run out of oil, and Bitcoins will never all be owned by one person

Given we're already off-topic. Just because of the curiosity: why did you referred to me as "Ampk"?. Instead of "amp" or "ampkZ"?.

My user name is base64-encoded pseudorandom-generated data, BTW .

I know that many merchants who accept BTC today instantly convert them back to fiat again, so one could say it is not really worth the hassle but you have to keep in mind that we're bootstrapping a decentralized global currency here - that's not an easy task!

Gresham law only applies if there is an artificially fixed exchange rate between two currencies. If the currencies float freely Gresham law does not apply.

If you look at the number of US Dollars in circulation, and you imagine that those are replaced by Bitcoins, you get a value in the order of $50k per BTC.





EDIT: Some hard numbers added:


New York FED says: $829 billion in circulation.

There will be 20999999.9769 BTC (if the decimal point does not change - else it may be a little closer to 21M).

This makes $39,476.19 per BTC. And this means current USD! As the USD will inflate, the value per Bitcoin will rise alike.

Just being analytical, money is the root of all evil is an obvious fallacy. Rand's character, d'Anconia, does not address this. Instead he goes off on a tangent about how money is a basis of morality. Which I think is as nonsensical as saying it is evil.

I'm no big fan of Gresham's law but it has some merit.

As long as you can pay with fiat currency for everything, you don't have a high incentive to pay with BTC. On the other hand, I really like spending BTC because its so easy and secure compared to other forms of online payment.
I regularly buy a few BTC and spend them on things I would have bought anyway or make some donations.

I know that many merchants who accept BTC today instantly convert them back to fiat again, so one could say it is not really worth the hassle but you have to keep in mind that we're bootstrapping a decentralized global currency here - that's not an easy task! It is a bit like voting for a politician who you think won't win the election - some could say your vote was lost but it is very important for a democracy that everybody votes for the one he believes to be the best.

The good thing with Bitcoin is, that it has enough advantages on its own to flourish regardless of everyone acting for its greater good. Bitcoin's value (ie the demand for them) can come from at least two sources: Bitcoin as a medium of exchange and Bitcoin as a store of value. If they are perceived more as a good store of value then there will be more hoarders and their demand will raise the price. At the same time, less BTC in circulation will limit their usefulness as a medium of exchange which lowers the demand from merchants hence lowering the price again. This in turn will make some hoarders part with some of their coins because they fear that they are not so good a store of value after all -> more BTC in circulation, more attractive to exchange them... Rinse, repeat.

I really see such positive feedback loops built into the foundation of Bitcoin as its greatest quality. Despite all the flaws, imbalances and imperfections of human society and people's motives - they just work!

You probably can tell that I'm in an optimistic mood today

Where's the paradox?.

FYI: Her character is not quoting the bible therefore there is no misquote.

I believe the original goes: "the love of money is the root of all evil." From 1 Timothy in the NKJV Bible.

So this d'Anconia guy makes a passionate "man is behind money "speech based on a misquote? Ayn Rand ought to know better.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money?