Topic: The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed - page 12. (Read 14061 times)

I expected that you would raise this issue, lol. No, I don't. But in fact this is irrelevant, for two things. First, fiat (unlike Bitcoin) is neither meant nor actually thought as a long-term store of value. It is meant and used as a means of exchange, but being a means of exchange is antagonistic to being a store of value in the long run. Thereby it cannot be trusted by definition...

So whoever decides to store their wealth as fiat is shooting themselves in the foot... with a cannon, wtf

But you do that with fiat don't you? The people running things most likely don't wan't anything bad to happen to the system just because they're at the top, that's human nature. However bitcoin truly isn't perfect, but what is? You could nitpick about anything and everything, the only thing bitcoin is in my opinion a better and superior alternative to fiat.

There are two major issues with that. First, even if the Bitcoin protocol were set as a law of nature, this wouldn't by any means make it perfect per se. In fact, this whole topic is about that it is actually far from being perfect (or just good enough, lol), mildly speaking. Second, it is not set by nature, but what is made by humans can be unmade by humans too. So why should I trust it?

Why should I trust my real wealth to a relatively small group of people who control Bitcoin and who could kill it if they chose to?

With a little change (not every money, but fiat only) this is what I say myself, lol. The strength of a fiat currency is a mirror of the strength of the state behind it. In a sense, it is a derivative from the power and might of the state. It lives only as long the state exists. When the state weakens (for whatever reason), it deliberately weakens its currency in an effort to postpone its collapse and ultimate destruction...

But the faith is subjective while the power of the state objective

Well we have the USD which only value is given by peoples faith and gold as well. Every money ever created is a ponzi scheme if you think about it. Why do we let people we don't trust run this ponzi, why not a protocol that everyone could inspect and review. We know exactly what it does and how it works. You can't really say the same about fiat.

Any ponzi works like that, and faith (or credit, in your terms) is not a lasting asset, let alone it's not inherent to Bitcoin, not its intrinsic feature which can't be taken away from it to declare it as having value of its own. Unless you make it into a religion of sorts...

But you have tight competition in the field, lol

And Bitcoin, the money "for the masses", is an epitome of wealth inequality itself, though all its "wealth" is fake and illusionary, indeed (all those who are eager to discuss or refute this walk here)...

How are you going to "democratize" it?

All those distinguished people are either idealists or just have an agenda (like Lenin), sorry

Does ZIRP cut it?


This won't cut it either. Even if you somehow managed to remove control over the monetary system from the hands of the few (the central bankers) and give it to the many (the people), the control would still eventually end up in the hands of the few, since the masses are ignorant, but the chosen (lol) are corrupt. The problem is ironically aggravated by the fact that the masses can't even accept their ignorance as a fact of life which is actively used against them for the sake of the few...

“Every woman must learn to rule the state” by Lenin was a flattery toward the masses and an example of just that

In my opinion, a balanced system can only exist in the absence of usury.
What do you think a balanced system would look like?
How do you propose to bring about a balanced fiat system?
How will the people acquire control of the money? How can it be taken from the central bankers who will NOT give it up voluntarily?
I personally cannot see the system coming to balance when so much wealth and power is held by so few. I think we must democratize currencies and cryptography while eschewing all private credit and usury systems, then we can realize the vision of the founding fathers:
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
"Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
"But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp 1920 - Director of Bank of England
More Quotes Here
Bitcoin is backed by the credit of those who accept it (i.e. demand it). The people who DO accept bitcoin are giving it value by driving the demand; I am convinced that these people will always exist, so therefore bitcoin is an asset with value of its own.

In what aspect(s) is it superior to a balanced (read not being constantly abused) fiat system? In that it encourages saving? But without an underlying asset having value of its own (like gold), it will eventually turn into an outright Ponzi, if not already...

Are you one of the early adopters or just hope not to be the last to jump off the train when it finally derails?

What is the point of discussion of this now? Is not that we can change basic principles of bitcoin now anyway. There might be better economic systems out there, I am not questioning it.
But bitcoin is still FAR superior to current FIAT system, and that is what matter for me. To all who think that bitcoin is not good - maybe someday you will earn Nobel Prize for your own economic system.

Negative interest rate system is superior to bitcoin system.

Im much impressed. Maybe care to explain me your wikipedia economics with your own words?

Go away clown

You are a idiotic hypocrite. You did the same shit as the guy who you blame. (Page 2)

^^ If that happens, that means a whole bitcoin would be worth 5*100 million / 100 = 5 million dollars?
Ok... how much would a loaf of bread cost if that happens?    And how much would Bill Gates earn in a second?

But I agree with you on the demand of bitcoin and the correlation of that to it's price. Tho I'll be modest (and also stick to reality) and say it will hit 500 USD soon, especially with the halving comming.

It isn't flawed. If bitcoin becomes add widely used as you say, then the demand will go up, along with bitcoin's price
 Maybe a satoshi might be worth 5 cents in a few months time!

If you refer to the Wiki article, I read it long ago. I want to hear your understanding of this concept, how you see it. Look, at first you make mention of it here (as the best monetary system out there), no problem, and then you decline from explaining why it is so?

What are your arguments supporting your claims really?

Read the link to understand the concept.