Topic: People are going to die (rant) (Read 6882 times)

I didn't borrow any thing. I said that I am scared for the people who did that.

Im sure there are a lot of people who lost bigtime today.

I don't think you're quoting the right person...either that or you need to work on your reading comprehension...

so how much did you borrow then? only highly experienced traders should be trading on margin on an asset like bitcoin.

IF they didn't sell...

That's why i always tell: you only lose if you sell below the buy price...

In at the very most a month or so (probably much sooner) they should be able to at least fully pay the loan+interests back.

I am little scared for the people who told that they took huge loans to purchase BTC 

OP here. I hate to say it... but told you so.

Guess what? The reddit forum is full of 'you should not have invested more than you could have afforded', as well as 'oh well, I only had 300 bucks in there, half of which I mined'.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1c51ck/i_think_this_subreddit_should_seriously_consider/

Why, because you don't think Bitcoin will be worth that much, or you don't think the dollar will be around anymore?

This is crazy talk, yes.

20 years from now $200 will get you 0.002 BTC

This.

20 years from now, you're going to wish you could buy a bitcoin for $200.

Yup.

And fat returns for the old-timers who sold a few.

That's what I find so weird: I doubt even 20% of the people buying in now will come out of this okay if a bust comes. They're at more than tenfold the risk former Bitcoiners were at. Why do this? If someone buys BTC for speculation, how about doing it at 5 dollars, or 14 if you're slow, but >200? Smart money whoo.

No, I was paying attention. He talks at the beginning about selling PCs at a price determined by a basket of world currencies (held in trust to be redeemed if the holder so decides). And later on, he talks about PCs being the only suitable coin in the system for long-term savings (since CCs demur).

PCs may not be the instrument of trade 99% of the time, but they definitely exist, and whatever their final value, the initial distribution and guaranteed face value is handled by the "trust" (a monopoly).

This is what I was sort of misunderstanding when I first read it - I didn't "get" how CCs were tied to their PC face value. I've got some other confusions about the whole design, but I feel like I understand how CCs are used for trade a little better than I did the first time through. Mainly I'm worried about fungibility (all CCs are not created equal, and you accept CCs that are not current at the risk that nobody but the issuer will recognize them).

Funny that we're seeing such a huge price DEFLATION, then, huh?

On the contrary, BTC has eliminated price inflation. Most long-term worries of the Bitcoin economy have to do with price deflation, and the (very real) problems that it poses (if it's severe enough, which I don't anticipate that it will be). Severe price inflation typically occurs when a money supply is inflated beyond the capacity of the market. This devalues the currency, causing prices to rise. Since Bitcoin has, as I said, a known, predictable rate of monetary inflation, and this rate is set to slow and stop, again predictably, price inflation is not a problem I expect to ever have to worry about, unless demand for BTC drops precipitously, which, given the current socio-politico-economic climate, I don't see happening.

Maybe you should read the whole sentence, then, you'll get a better idea of what I'm actually saying than if you read the first phrase and then just skip to the end. Here, try again:

That middle part is important, skip it at your own peril.

Maybe you shoud read them yourself, they might clear some things up for you as well:
"Monetary inflation is a sustained increase in the money supply of a country. It usually results in price inflation"
... which I fully expect it to do given the crazy rate of BTC inflation we're seeing these days, hence I find it natural to talk directly about price inflation and not waste time distinguishing it from monetary inflation. And, as already pointed out, the BTC system has NO CONTROL over price inflation and this makes it suck as a currency.

I took your phrase as "Short-term fluctuations [...] something even your MythicalCoin can't control", hence my reply.

You don't seem to have paid enough attention to Grignon's paper. It's clearly stated that Perpetual Coin is not "mined" or "distributed" at all, but serves only as a reference:
"The essential purpose of Perpetual Coin is to be the unit of value. Functionally it could just be a
definition and not need to exist as an object at all."

Not sure what you mean here, but if it's based on the faulty assumption above it doesn't even matter.

The only coin that is actually used in transactions is CC and while CC is still subject to inflation/deflation, it will only fluctuate for one issuer (producer of goods and services) at a time and not hit the whole economy. The different producers on the market - who are also all issuers of their own brands of CC - are insulated from eachother's monetary policy mistakes.

The long run has arrived for fiat money.

Yeah, it was. Which makes it even more telling that this was the smartest thing he said, don't it?

The context of that quote was utter stupidity. If I remember right it was a response to an argument that Keynesian policies are harmful in the long run.