Topic: Silverfuturist on bitcoin. (Read 6907 times)
So many phrases involve "out of thin air" with economics.
I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has parts of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation.
why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).
now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.
why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).
now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.
Yes. The block chain concept is brilliant, the code is very good, but the BTC "monetary policy" leaves much to be desired. This is not a criticism of Satoshi, whose brilliant work leaves us a foundation to build upon.
My hope is to make it easy for anyone with an economic theory (not just C++ programmers) to start a block chain with a new policy, get it mined at high difficulty (leveraging the Bitcoin network), and promote the new currency. To this end, I am developing Another Block Explorer with a focus on multiple currencies. I would hope someone (perhaps I) creates an open-source exchange for Bitcoin-like currencies, a client with multi-currency support (including genesis block creation and pluggable block acceptance rules), a set of configurable policy modules, and a "currency designer" application.
Over the ages, kings and banks have tried many monetary policies with varying success. I believe the path to a better one lies through experiment and a wealth of options.
Quote
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client,
they can, if others agree to that, as I've mentioned. also known as forking the blockchain (or creating a new one).
still, out of thin air.
forking the block chain would be an enormously expensive and foolhardy venture, and creating a new block chain would give you something that's not really a bitcoin, because it's essentially a new, less secure currency.
To me, that is the point, you keep saying "out of thin air" but there's a clear difference, one you can trust and value and the other you can't, or at least not as much.. the block chain backs the currency
Quote
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client,
they can, if others agree to that, as I've mentioned. also known as forking the blockchain (or creating a new one).
still, out of thin air.
forking the block chain would be an enormously expensive and foolhardy venture, and creating a new block chain would give you something that's not really a bitcoin, because it's essentially a new, less secure currency.
Quote
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client,
they can, if others agree to that, as I've mentioned. also known as forking the blockchain (or creating a new one).
still, out of thin air.
forking the block chain would be an enormously expensive and foolhardy venture, and creating a new block chain would give you something that's not really a bitcoin, because it's essentially a new, less secure currency.
either case would be the equivalent of scrawling the word 'money' on a piece of toilet paper and calling it a bitcoin, people won't accept it.
Quote
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client,
they can, if others agree to that, as I've mentioned. also known as forking the blockchain (or creating a new one).
still, out of thin air.
A predetermined function over time whose impact on the real world is the employment of physical resources as described above. You're missing the point.
you are changing your argument with each post you make.
Quote
Creating something out of nothing means that you are not bound to the use of any physical resources.
you aren't. you are bound by a function over time/algorithm, and by the fact that everyone agrees to that function by downloading the same bitcoin client.there are no resources involved in bitcoin creation, aka out of thin air.
by employing resources, you can only make it so that YOU get a bitcoin, instead of someone else.
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client, they would, and bitcoins wouldn't exist at all. But they can't, the block chain verifies all bitcoin creation, and that's why all these mining rigs (which cost money to build and electricity to operate) are doing useful work by strengthening the block chain, it's not "out of then air", and it's a hell of a lot more legitimate than simply firing up a printing press and printing paper money.
Really though, this thread is getting useless, how don't know how many different ways I can explain the same thing.
A predetermined function over time whose impact on the real world is the employment of physical resources as described above. You're missing the point.
you are changing your argument with each post you make.
Quote
Creating something out of nothing means that you are not bound to the use of any physical resources.
you aren't. you are bound by a function over time/algorithm, and by the fact that everyone agrees to that function by downloading the same bitcoin client.there are no resources involved in bitcoin creation, aka out of thin air.
by employing resources, you can only make it so that YOU get a bitcoin, instead of someone else.
No, that's not my claim. Value is in the exchange, but saying bitcoins are created out of thin air is fucking ridiculous. They are ade out of shit-hot graphics cards, electricity and processing time, applied specifically to the purpose of creating a good form of money. The value comes from trade. The more people trade for them, the more value.
that's not true either.
bitcoins are created by a predetermined function over time.
the whole hashing exercise is just a way to determine their distribution (and to verify transactions) but bitcoins aren't really created by hashing power. the rate of creation stays the same, no matter how much "shit-hot graphics cards" are online.
one lawn-mower could mow the whole world.
A predetermined function over time whose impact on the real world is the employment of physical resources as described above. You're missing the point. Creating something out of nothing means that you are not bound to the use of any physical resources. At one time this was more the case, but by definition, the more people that decide to attribute some form of value to bitcoin, the more physical resources are required to produce them. The same amount are produced every day, but the requirements are a more or less direct physical reflection of the amount of people valuing them.
The more they are valued, the more they are certainly not made out of nothing.
Quote
Now let me ask again, where is the value in a bitcoin? Mining is no different to printing money and we have all seen what happens to economies that print money. They suffer for it.
Print money ? is mining bitcoin that only exist 21.000.000 and then stop, is comparable to printing paper legalize by a group of people choosen by masses named goverment ?
Do you think mining bitcoins is not suffer ? Zero electrical bill ? Zero on pc's Zero GPU's ? Zero internet connection ?
Value ? are you saying about people abuses bitcoins to buy drugs ? Wikileaks accept bitcoins donations ? and lots of community here have their online store can be bought with bitcoins ?
Bitcoin is the first of its kind, it still young
it can be used like whatever people call it, it have unique capability, its global, you can trade it, you can play it like stocks etc. etc.Are you posting 50+ randomly ? Are you just lazy using search function ? or A moron ? and obviously you don't read the wiki's or pdf's or old threads
Try using the search function
has anyone here denied bitcoin could become money? I didn't.
it's just very unlikely, and if so, several government bans are ahead which have to be overturned by the people.
Of course this is a risk venture, the first of its kind in the history of mankind, nobody it giving anything for certain.it's just very unlikely, and if so, several government bans are ahead which have to be overturned by the people.
And in regards to the government bans, this has been discussed a lot here in the forums. Basically we can argue about reasons for some governments supporting Bitcoins and other trying to ban bitcoins. I have even argued that I dont see bitcoin surviving in its current state without a couple of powerful governments protecting it from the attack of other powerful gropus and/or governments. I mean if bitcoins becomes what it is intended to be, the balance of power in the world will change. This wont be without resistance from powerful groups.
has anyone here denied bitcoin could become money? I didn't.
it's just very unlikely, and if so, several government bans are ahead which have to be overturned by the people.
it's just very unlikely, and if so, several government bans are ahead which have to be overturned by the people.
Quoting from another poster in economics thread.
Currency and money are very similar and many people think that they are one of the same. However, there is one major difference that separates the two. First, let's obtain a firm grasp of how they are similar. Both currency and money have to be:
-A unit of account
-A medium of exchange
-Portable
-Divisible
-Durable
-Fungible (one coin in my hand has the same value as one coin in your hand)
Money must be all of the above, but has to also be a "store of value" over long periods of time.
Paper is never a store of value in the long term, because it can be printed at will and only has the value given to it as determined by the issuing government. Also, all paper currencies have failed in the past, that means they have gone to its intrinsic value of zero. Gold and silver have been used as "money" for over 5000 years because it satisfies every requirement stated previously. Once upon a time, the U.S. was on a gold standard. This meant that for every dollar printed, there had to be gold to back it up. Our dollar was considered "money" because of this gold backing. Thus, the phrase "good as gold" was coined (you could redeem your dollars for gold). Gold has to be mined and that process takes time and physical effort.
So by all means, BitCoin could become MONEY! Alas, dollars are not money, only currency! Of course, to become money, Bitcoin still needs prove two things:
-To withstand the test of time (and by so doing becoming a store of value in the long term).
-To become a medium of exchange (it has the potential to be one, but it is still not widely accepted as a medium of exchange in the world).
People, if the technical aspects of Bitcoin prove to be solid, and it becomes a widely accepted medium of exchange, it could not only become MONEY, but the best money the world has known so far, because of its capability to be managed digitally which allows the instant transfer allover the world without any centralized authority.
Of course precious metals will be preferred for more long term security, as bitcoins could be made inoperative worldwide in minutes with any massive attack to the internet. Even if we return to the stone age after a nuclear catastrophe, gold and silver would still be money accepted by people, as it does not requiere technology to fulfill its function.
But Bitcoin runs far ahead of gold and other PMs in portability (try to carry a gold bar in your pockets), divisibility (try to cut a gold coin), and the most important one: as medium of exchange (try to send gold overseas in minutes with a click of a button using P2P).
Regards.
Currency and money are very similar and many people think that they are one of the same. However, there is one major difference that separates the two. First, let's obtain a firm grasp of how they are similar. Both currency and money have to be:
-A unit of account
-A medium of exchange
-Portable
-Divisible
-Durable
-Fungible (one coin in my hand has the same value as one coin in your hand)
Money must be all of the above, but has to also be a "store of value" over long periods of time.
Paper is never a store of value in the long term, because it can be printed at will and only has the value given to it as determined by the issuing government. Also, all paper currencies have failed in the past, that means they have gone to its intrinsic value of zero. Gold and silver have been used as "money" for over 5000 years because it satisfies every requirement stated previously. Once upon a time, the U.S. was on a gold standard. This meant that for every dollar printed, there had to be gold to back it up. Our dollar was considered "money" because of this gold backing. Thus, the phrase "good as gold" was coined (you could redeem your dollars for gold). Gold has to be mined and that process takes time and physical effort.
So by all means, BitCoin could become MONEY! Alas, dollars are not money, only currency! Of course, to become money, Bitcoin still needs prove two things:
-To withstand the test of time (and by so doing becoming a store of value in the long term).
-To become a medium of exchange (it has the potential to be one, but it is still not widely accepted as a medium of exchange in the world).
People, if the technical aspects of Bitcoin prove to be solid, and it becomes a widely accepted medium of exchange, it could not only become MONEY, but the best money the world has known so far, because of its capability to be managed digitally which allows the instant transfer allover the world without any centralized authority.
Of course precious metals will be preferred for more long term security, as bitcoins could be made inoperative worldwide in minutes with any massive attack to the internet. Even if we return to the stone age after a nuclear catastrophe, gold and silver would still be money accepted by people, as it does not requiere technology to fulfill its function.
But Bitcoin runs far ahead of gold and other PMs in portability (try to carry a gold bar in your pockets), divisibility (try to cut a gold coin), and the most important one: as medium of exchange (try to send gold overseas in minutes with a click of a button using P2P).
Regards.
No, that's not my claim. Value is in the exchange, but saying bitcoins are created out of thin air is fucking ridiculous. They are ade out of shit-hot graphics cards, electricity and processing time, applied specifically to the purpose of creating a good form of money. The value comes from trade. The more people trade for them, the more value.
that's not true either.
bitcoins are created by a predetermined function over time.
the whole hashing exercise is just a way to determine their distribution (and to verify transactions) but bitcoins aren't really created by hashing power. the rate of creation stays the same, no matter how much "shit-hot graphics cards" are online.
one lawn-mower could mow the whole world.
Out of thin air? No, out of (currently) 10.574 Thash/s. You think that kind of computing power is made of faery dust unicorn-horn? Think again.
hard work to obtain something doesnt make it valueable.
this guy worked hard with his lawn mower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIaCHqxdSXc&feature=feedf
and he's funny, too, which got to be worth something.
No, that's not my claim. Value is in the exchange, but saying bitcoins are created out of thin air is fucking ridiculous. They are made out of shit-hot graphics cards, electricity and processing time, applied specifically to the purpose of creating a good form of money. The value comes from trade. The more people trade for them, the more value they can be traded for.
I'm tired of these youtube idiots that come out with "Duhhh, I jus don't unnerstan how come somethin I can't hold and ain't shinny can be any valubal"
That's just coz you're stupid. There are descent criticisms of bitcoin to be said, but not understanding anything that "ain't shinny" is not one of them.
Out of thin air? No, out of (currently) 10.574 Thash/s. You think that kind of computing power is made of faery dust unicorn-horn? Think again.
hard work to obtain something doesnt make it valueable.
this guy worked hard with his lawn mower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIaCHqxdSXc&feature=feedf
and he's funny, too, which got to be worth something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgYamdGLuA4
Quite sad that he is also going for the Ponzi scheme thing... actually it is an insult to all the early adopters, who are entrepreneurs!
Quite sad that he is also going for the Ponzi scheme thing... actually it is an insult to all the early adopters, who are entrepreneurs!
I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has party of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation.
why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).
now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.
The Euro works because the legacy currencies were tradable for it.
There is hardly any real wealth transferred into bitcoins, mainly because you can just create bitcoins with mining.
Bitcoins is like a new country inventing their own currency but without giving up their old one. They decide to trade this currency among themselves and then they try to sell it to others (for USD, for example). Wow, they can't believe it - people will actually pay them for their "invented out of thin air" currency, they're all going to be rich.
This picture is not sustainable. Eventually, people refuse to pay anything for bitcoins.
It has all the hallmarks of a ponzi because the only people who believe in swapping real wealth for bitcoins are those who have convinced themselves that they will get a long term return. They can get a short term return if they are quickly in and quickly out but in the long term they will lose all their money.
Out of thin air? No, out of (currently) 10.574 Thash/s. You think that kind of computing power is made of faery dust and unicorn-horn? Think again.
Real wealth is not bitcoin, or dollars, or euros, or even gold. All that stuff is just information, written with atoms, bits or ledgers at central banks. Real wealth is the work people will exchange using these different media. They are all claims on wealth, you can't eat gold. Money is information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgYamdGLuA4
Quite sad that he is also going for the Ponzi scheme thing... actually it is an insult to all the early adopters, who are entrepreneurs!
Quite sad that he is also going for the Ponzi scheme thing... actually it is an insult to all the early adopters, who are entrepreneurs!
I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has party of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation.
why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).
now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.
The Euro works because the legacy currencies were tradable for it.
There is hardly any real wealth transferred into bitcoins, mainly because you can just create bitcoins with mining.
Bitcoins is like a new country inventing their own currency but without giving up their old one. They decide to trade this currency among themselves and then they try to sell it to others (for USD, for example). Wow, they can't believe it - people will actually pay them for their "invented out of thin air" currency, they're all going to be rich.
This picture is not sustainable. Eventually, people refuse to pay anything for bitcoins.
It has all the hallmarks of a ponzi because the only people who believe in swapping real wealth for bitcoins are those who have convinced themselves that they will get a long term return. They can get a short term return if they are quickly in and quickly out but in the long term they will lose all their money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgYamdGLuA4
Quite sad that he is also going for the Ponzi scheme thing... actually it is an insult to all the early adopters, who are entrepreneurs!
Quite sad that he is also going for the Ponzi scheme thing... actually it is an insult to all the early adopters, who are entrepreneurs!
I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has party of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation.
why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).
now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.
it's simple economics, initially low adoption, low value, low invested capital, bitcoins are plenty a penny.
Gold has physical properties that give it value. BTC has none of these physical properties.
Do you know what true value is? The average layman does not.
We are talking monetary value here, not just any old value.
For music, the intellectual property has value. You can sell the IP or you can use it to manufacture records that will sell.
Now let me ask again, where is the value in a bitcoin? Mining is no different to printing money and we have all seen what happens to economies that print money. They suffer for it.
see my legend.
Jump to: