Pages:
Author

Topic: The Bitcoin Fallacy (Read 3665 times)

legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
September 02, 2013, 09:38:39 PM
#27
From an Interview with Doug Jackson, founder of e-gold. Interviewed by Mark Herpel.

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2012/01/final-days-of-e-gold-interview-with.html

Let’s say they spend a million of these whatevers into circulation. Perhaps an exchange market even emerges. The public sends real money to the exchangers. As long as demand is such as to support growth in circulation the exchangers have incoming real money, some of which can be paid out to the occasional customers who want to sell their whatevers. At some point though aggregate demand for whatevers declines and the exchangers are deluged with whatevers from people wanting to exchange them for real money. Their trading balances are now chock full of whatevers but running low on real money. At some point the exchangers – possibly the only entities that
have been holding value (in the form of trading balances of real money) to offset the whatevers – repudiate pending exchanges [that had been locked/committed at now inconvenient-to-honor exchange rates] and everyone is shocked.

What is that "real money" that he refers to? Is it fiat money? Value is decided by supply and demand, if there is no demand, even the gold will lose its value, but demand only comes from properties that can satisfy people's desire, there is no fundamental differences between many kind of currency

OK, now let’s contrast with an issuer of real money. The techie parts for moving the bits may be roughly similar. But these bits are recognized by their issuers as constituting the embodiment of liabilities, obligations against which they must hold an equal portfolio of suitable assets, set aside expressly for their redemption. The difference between “virtual” and real money becomes evident if and when demand for the real money declines. No problema. Issuers of real money, by virtue of these holdings of current assets, some or
all of which are highly liquid, stand ready at all times to buy back (if need be) every unit of their monetary liabilities they have spent into circulation.

This concept only applies to issuing money with a hard asset backing, typically gold. But what decide gold's value? It's still supply and demand to its root


People who fall for the numbers-that-are-money fallacy tend to also say things “after all, the Fed creates money out of thin air” - which is simply incorrect. The Fed creates money by buying up (and holding) the ever-mounting debts of the US Treasury, and, these days, the mortgage backed and other securities that were recently regarded as so scary as to call into question the solvency of the banks that had been holding them.

FED first create money, and then buy government bonds and MBS. You can also first create bitcoin, and then buy government bonds and MBS. You can also mine gold and buy government bonds and MBS. No difference at all
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
September 02, 2013, 03:17:55 PM
#26
Ok. I am ignorant. Enlighten me. Assume I've never used bitcoin before. So enumerate the use cases. If you feel this exercise is beneath you then well just move on.   

My intention is clarity and understanding.

If you assume the I know (or should know a thing) then I assume I know what you assume I know then where is the real communication. Where is the understanding. Having strong opinions (or differences of opinions) is fine. That is why I engage here.  I'm truly interested in understanding the logic and the reasoning behind those opinions. But we get nowhere when you treat this inquiry with contempt. Why do you bother responding. Clearly you have an opinion and it matters to you. I'm just asking you to share it.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1000
September 02, 2013, 03:06:17 PM
#25
OK

Do what you have to do.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
September 02, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
#24
Carlton

Calling someone ignorant (when they are clearly intelligent) is not productive.


I respect your output Tipping Point, but be advised that I am referring to it's specific ignorance of Bitcoin's uses, and not it's general awareness of worldly matters. This is not ambiguous in the context.

Remember that it is quite possible to be simultaneously ignorant and intelligent, as ignorance is only a lack of awareness or of information, while intelligence is the innate or learned ability to form cognescent thought patterns. They are not synonymous, and therefore I will call a spade a spade. If it consistently behaves ignorantly, ignorant is not an inappropriate observation.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1000
September 02, 2013, 02:50:27 PM
#23
Carlton

Calling someone ignorant (when they are clearly intelligent) is not productive.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
September 02, 2013, 02:46:57 PM
#22
Bitcoin too has regulatory costs which creates tremendous vacillating friction here in the US and for any legitimate company that wants to do business with US customers.

This is true in one specific use case: selling on an exchange and withdrawing the USD to your bank account. Guess how many other use cases there are? I'll give you a clue (you're in desperate need, it's only fair), it's more than one. >1.



Instead of asking everyone to guess why don't you enumerate your use cases.

Are you really so ignorant that cashing crytpocurrency out of exchanges is the only use-case imaginable? Or is this some subtle "ignorance trolling"? I'm beginning to suspect the latter, you clearly have some semblance of a presenting a logical argument, and yet no ability to research the gaps in your awareness that are consistently being pointed out to you by the majority of this community.

If not trolling, seek help

Carlton

Personal attacks do not make a good debate. I'm not going to advance your opinion for you. You make counterpoints but don't provide any support. You ask the reader to "guess."  So again Ill ask you to enumerate your use cases.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001
September 02, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
#21
The article is from 2012. I would like to know his opinion now.

He's not available for comment, he's having tea and cookies with the Wired writer who pronounced Bitcoin dead back in 2011  Grin
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
September 02, 2013, 02:14:09 PM
#20
Bitcoin too has regulatory costs which creates tremendous vacillating friction here in the US and for any legitimate company that wants to do business with US customers.

This is true in one specific use case: selling on an exchange and withdrawing the USD to your bank account. Guess how many other use cases there are? I'll give you a clue (you're in desperate need, it's only fair), it's more than one. >1.



Instead of asking everyone to guess why don't you enumerate your use cases.

Are you really so ignorant that cashing crytpocurrency out of exchanges is the only use-case imaginable? Or is this some subtle "ignorance trolling"? I'm beginning to suspect the latter, you clearly have some semblance of a presenting a logical argument, and yet no ability to research the gaps in your awareness that are consistently being pointed out to you by the majority of this community.

If not trolling, seek help
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
September 02, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
#19
Is it millibitcoin?  Millibits? Millis? Centis? No - it is whatevers
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
September 02, 2013, 10:54:18 AM
#18
Bitcoin too has regulatory costs which creates tremendous vacillating friction here in the US and for any legitimate company that wants to do business with US customers.

This is true in one specific use case: selling on an exchange and withdrawing the USD to your bank account. Guess how many other use cases there are? I'll give you a clue (you're in desperate need, it's only fair), it's more than one. >1.



Instead of asking everyone to guess why don't you enumerate your use cases.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
September 02, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
#17
Bitcoin too has regulatory costs which creates tremendous vacillating friction here in the US and for any legitimate company that wants to do business with US customers.

This is true in one specific use case: selling on an exchange and withdrawing the USD to your bank account. Guess how many other use cases there are? I'll give you a clue (you're in desperate need, it's only fair), it's more than one. >1.

BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
September 02, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
#16
Bitcoin too has regulatory costs which creates tremendous friction here in the US and for any legitimate company that wants to do business with US customers.
legendary
Activity: 1220
Merit: 1015
e-ducat.fr
September 02, 2013, 08:48:12 AM
#15
As a supporter of e-gold the guy must have fallen victim of a true fallacy: gold is a collateral and the bitcoin network is not .
Gold is a collateral because it has industrial applications in jewelry ? Bitcoins do have industrial applications in the field of payment processing.
The bitcoin network is scalable either through its own versionning or through altcoins networks if needed.

Well, for anyone who can think things through, an internet overlay network like bitcoin is made of computers and telecom equipment run by people.
In what way is it different form a large corporation processing electronic payments (like Visa, Mastercard, Western Union,etc)?
It's mostly about the legal structure since they are all made out of the same (computers, telcos, people).
Bitcoin is community run with people joing and leaving in a frictionless, informal process while large corporation have contracts and regulatory compliance that create frictions, inertia and costs.
Bitcoin is new because it is P2P but also because the units of accounts are shares of the network at the same time.

These two aspects (collateral and units of accounts=stocks) are most often overlooked or misunderstood by critics.
full member
Activity: 193
Merit: 100
September 02, 2013, 08:01:54 AM
#14
"Issuers of real money, by virtue of these holdings of current assets, some or
all of which are highly liquid, stand ready at all times to buy back (if need be) every unit of their monetary liabilities they have spent into circulation"

What does this mean?

He tries to dumb-down really complex & murky concepts.
"Ready to ... buy back" [the currency] with what?  More of the same currency?  At what rate? Who, exactly, is the issuer -- central bank or "the government" or the nation as a whole?

I'm sure the guy understands fiat money better than that, so to me he comes off as being flip.

Thought so.

Whether it’s block-chain numbers, central bank numbers, wiskey, cigarettes or large stones, anything can be used as currency.  The aggregate value of that will be underpinned by confidence in it, and its utility.  There is an understandable disdain for Fiat on this forum, which I think actually works pretty well.   I just believe Bitcoin is a superior form of money, but time will tell.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 02, 2013, 07:28:46 AM
#13
"Issuers of real money, by virtue of these holdings of current assets, some or
all of which are highly liquid, stand ready at all times to buy back (if need be) every unit of their monetary liabilities they have spent into circulation"

What does this mean?

He tries to dumb-down really complex & murky concepts.
"Ready to ... buy back" [the currency] with what?  More of the same currency?  At what rate? Who, exactly, is the issuer -- central bank or "the government" or the nation as a whole?

I'm sure the guy understands fiat money better than that, so to me he comes off as being flip.
legendary
Activity: 4018
Merit: 1299
September 02, 2013, 07:27:35 AM
#12
>"The Fed creates money by buying up (and holding) the ever-mounting debts of the US Treasury"

Buys it using what?  That's right, money created out of thin air.
full member
Activity: 193
Merit: 100
September 02, 2013, 07:00:55 AM
#11
"Issuers of real money, by virtue of these holdings of current assets, some or
all of which are highly liquid, stand ready at all times to buy back (if need be) every unit of their monetary liabilities they have spent into circulation"

What does this mean?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
September 02, 2013, 06:24:41 AM
#10
So he's saying that money is valuable by virtue of consensus belief, and that floating point numbers aren't valuable in their own right? What would we do without these sages saving us all from ourselves. Waste of a couple of minutes, yet again
hero member
Activity: 602
Merit: 500
September 02, 2013, 06:19:00 AM
#9
nicely worded piece of crap opinion. at least he sounds sophisticated by the way he writes.
member
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
September 02, 2013, 05:28:54 AM
#8


People who fall for the numbers-that-are-money fallacy tend to also say things “after all, the Fed creates money out of thin air” - which is simply incorrect. The Fed creates money by buying up (and holding) the ever-mounting debts of the US Treasury, and, these days, the mortgage backed and other securities that were recently regarded as so scary as to call into question the solvency of the banks that had been holding them.

Has somebody torn this poster into pieces yet ? Sentences like that must be punished with the most severe force of the truth.

Yes they print money out of thin air. Yes they are in a master - slave relationship with us. Yes more and more people are aware of it all. Yes we are the 99 %. Yes they are just average psychotic selfish crazies.
Pages:
Jump to: