Topic: Peter Schiff on Bitcoin - page 12. (Read 38915 times)

Sorry but I didn't like how you were making one sentence proclamations upthread as if you were some authority on the subject matter.

Yeah I was pretty harsh by saying "ignore this guy". I am just tired of dealing with all the people who don't understand that money is intimately related with debt and you can't just put a wall between the two and pretend it is not the case.

And all those don't realize that Bitcoin's coin supply is really fucked up.

Having said that I am glad we are moving towards decentralized currencies, if we can get some competition for Bitcoin that corrects the design errors.

The lack of comprehension, probably willful, is palatable.  It's also bitter.

I saved this one for last because it is so humiliating.

The really funny part is where you argued that users have more than one coin account, then used that to argue that the coin distribution would skew from the chart I showed towards better than worse.

Math is not your strong suite (nor is reading comprehension). You got the ratio direction reversed  

Let's see if you can figure that out.

You are cluttering this thread with noise.


I never assumed that. How many times have you failed to read during this debate.

I am not going to continue wasting my time on an idiot.


Well that proves you aren't worth speaking to.


Relative size of the float my idiot. And the fact that Bitcoin wants to become the global online currency.

But I am not going to spell it out for you. Because you will never stop with your nonsense.


Do some research.


  


 


And you really thought I was making an argument that Bitcoin should be uniformly distributed.   


I don't know whether to  or 

I am no longer interested. I've made my points already.

Can't think of a witty response, Mr. President?  Or have you finally decided you have better things to do than attend class?

Why do you assume that bitcoin will, or must, become "the single global currency"?  That would be quite a victory, but is far from necessary or predictable.

Why do you assume that any wealth distribution is abnormal?  The US $ denominated wealth distribution in the US is far worsh than what you presume to state for bitcoin.

Why do you assume that you have structured your math problem correctly?  The math may be inarguable, but the application of same is not.

You presume a lot, I notice.


Why?  Where do you get such numbers from?  I've already shown that neither the absolute number of bitcoiners, nor the precise wealth of any particular bitcoiner, is knowable.  So your application of simple division is bullshit.

And why do we assume this?  I don't.  Even if I were to take such a presumption as a given, that does not imply that the curernt distribution, whatever it may be, will remain constant.  There is no reaons that it would.


Who cares?  The answer to your bullshit ssumptive questions are still bullshit assumptions.  Garbage in, garbage out.


Again, so what?  There is no example of any currency, in the history of mankind, that has ever been evenly distributed.  Why must bitcoin be different in this regard?


I'll concede that your level of research is very basic.

You still don't understand what's happening here, do you?

Believe it or not, I'm doing more than just sitting here waiting for your responses.  I will have to concede one thing however, as it's become apparent that there is no way you're actually old enough to have attended Cambridge.

You do realize that Bitcoin can never become the single global currency without having a very skewed ratio of have and have nots. The math is unarguable.

---

Separately I hope you know how to divide 10.5 million by 350,000. So that means an average Bitcoin wealth of very roughly $10,000.

And we assume Bitcoin will rise at least another 10X in price, so make that $100,000 each.

And that is if Bitcoin was uniformly distributed, which we both know it isn't even close to being uniformly distributed.

We could safely assume the top 20% owns 80% of the Bitcoin wealth.

And very likely Bitcoin will rise 100X in price from here, since it already has risen multiples of that.

So where does that place them on the distribution of world wealth? Hint: in the 98% realm.

Now I shouldn't have had to teach a professor that. That is a very basic level of research.

It means it is failing as a currency. It is becoming a mania asset speculation.

And with no debasement in the future, there is no way to reverse that effect.

I don't see an argument here.  You do realise that those people who don't own any bitcoins at all cannot rationally be considered in the wealth distribution, right?  Or do you consider all your British compatriots to be tragicly poor due to the fact that incrediblely few of them own any US $ denominated account balances?

Lets see if you can do basic division. Apparently not.

Wait, I thought you didn't have time to educate me?  I'm starting to have fun with this.

I guess you can't do blockchain math either.

1/2 of coins were minted in the first 4 years. 350,000 users. 7 billion people in the world.

Go figure.

Again, proving that you don't understand how bitcoin works.  While this does show (roughly) 98% of coins are kept in 2% of addresses, I never contested that.  I contested the claim that 98% of coins were "in 2% of the hands".  There is no provable corrolary from the number of addresses with balances to the number of actual people who own bitcoins.  To demonstrate, I have a client that has 1000+ addresses, and maintains a distribution of funds.  Nor am I unusual in this regard.  Furthermore, MtGox uses four distinct wallets for it's internal user wallets.  Some addresses could have tens of thousands of bitcoins pooled from several users, others can have next to nothing at any given time.  It's actually unusuall for an online wallet service to use individiual addresses linked to individual users; because it's cheaper and easier to account for member to member transfers internally without using the blockchain.  While it's still possible that every address with a balance is realtive to the number of users who own those coins, that is almost certainly not the case.  Even the mainline client makes no effort to consolidate funds into single addresses, so the most obvious 'guess' regarding the distribution your data represents is that that is the distribution of the size of individual transactions, not the distributions of individual users' wealth.  The later is deliberately unkowable, by design.


BTW, for a long time the top address was the coin mixer pool for The Silk Road.  The Silk Road had tens of thousands of registered users, many thousands of which were regularly active.  That little factiod alone shatteres your presumptive wealth distribution.

Epic Fail.

What happened professor? Did the cat get your tongue? hahaha. Idiot.

Read it upthread and weep. You just ate your words.


So you don't claim that money is orthogonal to debt now?

Oh, this is going to be fun...


I've made no such claim.


I don't have to, really.  You're here trying to argue (prove) a negative.  It can never happen.  I don't have to disprove your premise, your premise is false on it's face.

Professor MoonShadow, read this and weep.

---

Haha. You don't know who I am. Very funny. That is like telling the President he has never run the country. Wait I will get an embarrassing link for you.

I will grant you this. Money is not always a debt, but that is just semantic weasel words, because it is always compatible with debt. Hard money that presumes that money and debt are orthogonal (as you claim) has never been a reality. I've presented the logic upthread. You have not refuted it.

I take it that you really don't know how bitcoin actually works, do you?


I'm surprised this lasted this long.

Indeed that is my point. If you don't design Bitcoin to be distributive in supply and thus a medium-of-exchange, it will fail.


I have cited both and explained them both ad nauseum in the past few days. Just click my name and read the past few pages of my posts.

I don't have any time nor desire to repeat it ALL again for you. If you are not interested to know the truth, then go on your blissful ignorance way.

This ends here.