Topic: The problem bitcoin solves - page 3. (Read 948 times)
The investors will need to be stand in all type of situation then only he can make some changes in his future otherwise if he afraid of the problems and get out from that will not make any change in our life and in the Bitcoin value
Personally, I think Bitcoin is a good way to invest, since only in it you can save your money from devaluation. But there is a nuance here, you need to buy it not at the very top, but at that moment while it is at the bottom. Thereby you receive not small percent in real currency.
I think it makes our money really ours.
We are not bound to the government and other big companies for you know deciding decisions which should actually been ours.
Let me tell you something , once I invested like 2000$ in a bank , my grandma did that for me though for my college and it took like 10-20 years for it to double in amount , my parents kept adding money and also interest started piling up . We were expecting some amount of money from there but guess what ?
The bank closes down one day , the owner runs away with the money of the people , the owner was jailed and never heard of again, he kept making promises how he will return money but at the end the bank died and we only got 2000$ that is half the price we should have been given.
This is what happens with banks and all , never with Bitcoin but .
Bitcoins never betrayed me .
Government does a lot of time.
We are not bound to the government and other big companies for you know deciding decisions which should actually been ours.
Let me tell you something , once I invested like 2000$ in a bank , my grandma did that for me though for my college and it took like 10-20 years for it to double in amount , my parents kept adding money and also interest started piling up . We were expecting some amount of money from there but guess what ?
The bank closes down one day , the owner runs away with the money of the people , the owner was jailed and never heard of again, he kept making promises how he will return money but at the end the bank died and we only got 2000$ that is half the price we should have been given.
This is what happens with banks and all , never with Bitcoin but .
Bitcoins never betrayed me .
Government does a lot of time.
When bitcoin raising up maybe all of problem will be solve, but when we are seeing bitcoin on lower price many investor is not happy because have invested money in bitcoin with higher price.
Yes if only the person holding the bitcoin might be the problem solved, but not everyone in the world holds bitcoin. I know that bitcoin is able to improve and balance the world economy, but if bitcoin is only held by a few big whales, I think it's useless, it won't solve the problem.
Maybe it's lucky for those who already know bitcoin like us, we can make money every month from bitcoin, but what about people who aren't familiar with bitcoin? can bitcoin still be said to solve the problem?
Bitcoin and blockchain are different things. Blockchain is the technology behind the possibility of bitcoin. As some of the statements here, some are interpreting blockchain and bitcoin as the same. But it is not. Cryptocurrencies could really compete with the central banks and it is not the Paypal and Visa they compete with. But after 100 years, people will become more interested in educating themselves and will have access to education more than what we have today. That is the time that governments could not regulate everything especially when it comes to currency and trades.
Yes. There have been many new people here who only know Bitcoin is an electronic currency and it has very high value. But they do not know what the purpose of creating BTC is and which platform it is backed by.But at the present time, we will only see the value of the BTC increase but their technology is still the same. In the future, when the market has more users, the value of the BTC will decrease much. because they will focus more on technology and I'm not sure that Bitcoin can take on the work of balancing the world economy anymore.
When bitcoin raising up maybe all of problem will be solve, but when we are seeing bitcoin on lower price many investor is not happy because have invested money in bitcoin with higher price.
We can't assure it will as every investor has bought at a different price, they also don't just bought bitcoin but altcoins as well.
So far, altcoins still slowly recover, therefore we might need more increase of bitcoin.
When bitcoin raising up maybe all of problem will be solve, but when we are seeing bitcoin on lower price many investor is not happy because have invested money in bitcoin with higher price.
Bitcoin and blockchain are different things. Blockchain is the technology behind the possibility of bitcoin. As some of the statements here, some are interpreting blockchain and bitcoin as the same. But it is not. Cryptocurrencies could really compete with the central banks and it is not the Paypal and Visa they compete with. But after 100 years, people will become more interested in educating themselves and will have access to education more than what we have today. That is the time that governments could not regulate everything especially when it comes to currency and trades.
I seconded on this one where most people do believe blockchain and bitcoin is just the same but if they do tend to understand correctlythen they would tell themselves that they are wrong.
About the topic where bitcoin cant really solve economic problems,it do give out benefits in terms of anonymous transaction,p2p transfers
and some sort of earning money from it but it would really just still be considered as an alternative.
Bitcoin and blockchain are different things. Blockchain is the technology behind the possibility of bitcoin. As some of the statements here, some are interpreting blockchain and bitcoin as the same. But it is not. Cryptocurrencies could really compete with the central banks and it is not the Paypal and Visa they compete with. But after 100 years, people will become more interested in educating themselves and will have access to education more than what we have today. That is the time that governments could not regulate everything especially when it comes to currency and trades.
Bitcoin won't be able to solve economic problems alone. People have a lot of work to do on themselves, about their mentality with money and how the current system really works and that they understand there are alternatives. but it's something going to happen soon.
People follow the money, when you (govt.) hit their money (bank account) they start yelling and act. A concrete example could be if the govt is forcing the citizen to give their gold to govt. (it happened once in the US) or banks in bankrupt deciding to use people money to recapitalize or absorb a liquidation (they have the right to do this)
People follow the money, when you (govt.) hit their money (bank account) they start yelling and act. A concrete example could be if the govt is forcing the citizen to give their gold to govt. (it happened once in the US) or banks in bankrupt deciding to use people money to recapitalize or absorb a liquidation (they have the right to do this)
All these people saying that Bitcoin is helping those living in countries with bad economies, it seems you all are dummies. If Bitcoin can't help those living in countries with good economy, then how is it going to help those in countries where their economy is very bad? Do you think that Bitcoin is a free money for those living in poor countries? You think they don't need money to buy it? People in Venezuela are in no way benefiting from Bitcoin, don't know why people keep saying rubbish that Bitcoin is helping Venezuela, funny. How exactly, through faucets? Faucet is the only free money in Bitcoin and as long as I'm concerned, they pay less than pennies and are the worst thing anyone should be doing.
I do not think also that bitcoin only can solve government problems especially when it comes to fiat currency that were being controlled by the government. There is no efficient way in having an absolutism for every system therefore bitcoin needs other system like in that fiat currency system that will also let users to decide whether of the two systems will be used. This is how should be done for the government and for bitcoin.
if you look at the history of bitcoin, there is no fraud when the transaction is done using bitcoin. maybe only a few are misusing the purchase of illegal weapons, but that's just me listening to the gossip (not yet valid) and I think it's just an opinion from the government because the anonymity of bitcoin transactions makes them a little scared. and also the crypto exchanger that can still be hacked must be repaired immediately the security system. more than that, bitcoin has resolved what Fiat cannot solve, such as money laundering and corruption.
When the article says "no confirmed cases of fraudulent transactions" it's not referring about transactions related to illegal activity, it's about the security of the whole Bitcoin network (51% attack, cryptography, ...)
And your "crypto exchange that must be "repaired" immediately" has nothing to do with the topic. and worst Bitcoin didn't stop or refrain money laundering and corruption
Penultimately, Bitcoin offers the kind of financial freedom that hasn't been experienced anywhere.. not ever. Humans can't be oppressed or restricted forever. We always fight for liberation and Bitcoin is the first time, humans have been financially liberated from the "oppressors," and more importantly, it is digital also...not something physical like Gold that can be easily tampered with (seized, withheld, etc). I'll forever love Bitcoin!
While Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can help people living in struggling economies, for now, cryptos with their volatility are still not so useful as speaking of business. Imagine, that you are an owner of eg. shipyard (or any other business where you are basing your business activities on long term contracts, which usually are not amendable). You sign contracts for building ships for like 2-3 years in advance. And even regular fiat currency exchange rates can bring the company to the edge of bankruptcy. Until we get over the volatility, we cannot say the problem is fully solved.
But still, a partial solution is much better than having no alternative at all.
But still, a partial solution is much better than having no alternative at all.
if you look at the history of bitcoin, there is no fraud when the transaction is done using bitcoin. maybe only a few are misusing the purchase of illegal weapons, but that's just me listening to the gossip (not yet valid) and I think it's just an opinion from the government because the anonymity of bitcoin transactions makes them a little scared. and also the crypto exchanger that can still be hacked must be repaired immediately the security system. more than that, bitcoin has resolved what Fiat cannot solve, such as money laundering and corruption.
Quote
Modern financial history is littered with hyperinflation, defaults and currency devaluation. Bitcoin could put an end to that, says Saifedean Ammous
Paul Krugman, blogger, fiat-currency enthusiast and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics earlier this year justified his scepticism about cryptocurrencies in the New York Times. He asked readers to give him a clear answer to the question: what is the problem cryptocurrency solves? He wrote: ‘Governments have occasionally abused the privilege of creating fiat money, but for the most part governments and central banks exercise restraint.’ He added that, unlike bitcoin, ‘fiat currencies have underlying value because men with guns say they do. And this means that their value isn’t a bubble that can collapse if people lose faith.’
Case closed, apparently. What he omitted to mention was that bitcoin has been operating successfully for almost ten years now, with no confirmed cases of fraudulent transactions. Every day, its traded volumes run to billions of dollars. In fact, bitcoin’s increasing reputation for security and the growth it is still undergoing suggests it is not about to go away. Could it be the market knows something about bitcoin and central banks that Krugman does not?
A closer look at the track record of government money offers a perspective somewhat different to that seen through Krugman’s rose-tinted spectacles.
As I write, Zimbabwe and Venezuela are undergoing the ravages of a collapse of government money, while Argentina, Iran and Turkey teeter on the brink. A quarter of a billion humans live in these failing economies — but not enough, evidently, to dissuade Krugman from endorsing government control of money so wholeheartedly.
It’s not even as if what is happening in these countries is a new phenomenon. Hyperinflation has occurred 57 times since the end of the first world war, afflicting several billions of people. In every instance, it has been the type of money whose worth is supposedly protected by men with guns that has become, well, worthless.
Indeed, hyperinflation is a form of economic disaster unique to government-created money. There was never an example of hyperinflation when economies operated a gold or silver standard. Government money is relatively cheap to produce, meaning governments in crisis are all too happy to produce it. In this way — as we have seen too often — it is possible for a society to lose all of its savings in the space of a few months, or even weeks. This is what happens when the wrong people gain control of the financial levers. Whatever alleged benefits government-managed money may have, a single episode of hyperinflation far outweighs them all.
While most countries have not experienced hyperinflation, they have almost all experienced significant currency devaluation over sustained periods. Between 1960 and 2015, for example, money supply in all countries increased by an average 32 per cent per year.
Krugman doesn’t seem to believe the value of government money needs to be justified intellectually. Instead, he believes ‘men with guns’ will suffice as an argument. The good news for him is that intellectual justifications do not ultimately matter when set against the realities of the market. The power of the state is usually sufficient to protect the economic monopolies he defends. However, the bad news is that the flow of bitcoin — which is decentralised, digital and cryptographically secured — is far harder to stop with guns.
Krugman cites the relatively high cost of bitcoin transactions as a reason the cryptocurrency cannot compete long term with fiat currencies. He seems, mistakenly, to assume bitcoin is competing with consumer payment networks like Visa or PayPal. But as I argue in my book The Bitcoin Standard, that is not what bitcoin is best suited for. Rather, bitcoin is an international settlement network, one that competes with the central bank settlement systems that are the foundation upon which networks like Visa or PayPal depend.
It must also be said that bitcoin transaction costs are relatively cheap compared with those of traditional settlement systems. And that’s not to mention that bitcoin offers international clearance within an hour, while the current banking system usually needs days, and sometimes weeks.
Certainly, there is appetite for a credible alternative to government-controlled fiat currencies. In the nine years that it has been trading, bitcoin has appreciated 700,000,000 per cent against the dollar, despite the naysayers and warnings of its impending collapse.
Perhaps the most compelling argument for bitcoin is the completely apolitical and predictable monetary policy it operates within. Bitcoin cannot be used for quantitative easing, for example. You can’t just print more of it when the whim takes you. If bitcoin’s continued growth deprives central banks of the ability to finance catastrophic wars by printing money, or if it prevents even one more tragic incidence of hyperinflation, the energy consumption required to mine it will be the best bargain humanity ever got.
Could bitcoin collapse? Of course it could. Any investor who puts a large amount of money into bitcoin must know they are taking a significant risk. But bitcoin’s price-falls these days bottom out at prices many times higher than they did only a few years ago.
Can government currencies and bonds collapse, or drop significantly in value, despite the ‘men with guns’ that protect them? The answer — after 100 years and more of hyperinflation, financial repression and sovereign default, which together have affected billions of people — is a resounding yes.
It’s no wonder so many people do not share Krugman’s enthusiasm for the last century’s experiment with government-controlled money, and herein lies the problem that bitcoin solves. Bitcoin offers anyone in the world an escape from being controlled by economists who believe they are immune to the lessons of history.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-problem-bitcoin-solves/
Paul Krugman, blogger, fiat-currency enthusiast and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics earlier this year justified his scepticism about cryptocurrencies in the New York Times. He asked readers to give him a clear answer to the question: what is the problem cryptocurrency solves? He wrote: ‘Governments have occasionally abused the privilege of creating fiat money, but for the most part governments and central banks exercise restraint.’ He added that, unlike bitcoin, ‘fiat currencies have underlying value because men with guns say they do. And this means that their value isn’t a bubble that can collapse if people lose faith.’
Case closed, apparently. What he omitted to mention was that bitcoin has been operating successfully for almost ten years now, with no confirmed cases of fraudulent transactions. Every day, its traded volumes run to billions of dollars. In fact, bitcoin’s increasing reputation for security and the growth it is still undergoing suggests it is not about to go away. Could it be the market knows something about bitcoin and central banks that Krugman does not?
A closer look at the track record of government money offers a perspective somewhat different to that seen through Krugman’s rose-tinted spectacles.
As I write, Zimbabwe and Venezuela are undergoing the ravages of a collapse of government money, while Argentina, Iran and Turkey teeter on the brink. A quarter of a billion humans live in these failing economies — but not enough, evidently, to dissuade Krugman from endorsing government control of money so wholeheartedly.
It’s not even as if what is happening in these countries is a new phenomenon. Hyperinflation has occurred 57 times since the end of the first world war, afflicting several billions of people. In every instance, it has been the type of money whose worth is supposedly protected by men with guns that has become, well, worthless.
Indeed, hyperinflation is a form of economic disaster unique to government-created money. There was never an example of hyperinflation when economies operated a gold or silver standard. Government money is relatively cheap to produce, meaning governments in crisis are all too happy to produce it. In this way — as we have seen too often — it is possible for a society to lose all of its savings in the space of a few months, or even weeks. This is what happens when the wrong people gain control of the financial levers. Whatever alleged benefits government-managed money may have, a single episode of hyperinflation far outweighs them all.
While most countries have not experienced hyperinflation, they have almost all experienced significant currency devaluation over sustained periods. Between 1960 and 2015, for example, money supply in all countries increased by an average 32 per cent per year.
Krugman doesn’t seem to believe the value of government money needs to be justified intellectually. Instead, he believes ‘men with guns’ will suffice as an argument. The good news for him is that intellectual justifications do not ultimately matter when set against the realities of the market. The power of the state is usually sufficient to protect the economic monopolies he defends. However, the bad news is that the flow of bitcoin — which is decentralised, digital and cryptographically secured — is far harder to stop with guns.
Krugman cites the relatively high cost of bitcoin transactions as a reason the cryptocurrency cannot compete long term with fiat currencies. He seems, mistakenly, to assume bitcoin is competing with consumer payment networks like Visa or PayPal. But as I argue in my book The Bitcoin Standard, that is not what bitcoin is best suited for. Rather, bitcoin is an international settlement network, one that competes with the central bank settlement systems that are the foundation upon which networks like Visa or PayPal depend.
It must also be said that bitcoin transaction costs are relatively cheap compared with those of traditional settlement systems. And that’s not to mention that bitcoin offers international clearance within an hour, while the current banking system usually needs days, and sometimes weeks.
Certainly, there is appetite for a credible alternative to government-controlled fiat currencies. In the nine years that it has been trading, bitcoin has appreciated 700,000,000 per cent against the dollar, despite the naysayers and warnings of its impending collapse.
Perhaps the most compelling argument for bitcoin is the completely apolitical and predictable monetary policy it operates within. Bitcoin cannot be used for quantitative easing, for example. You can’t just print more of it when the whim takes you. If bitcoin’s continued growth deprives central banks of the ability to finance catastrophic wars by printing money, or if it prevents even one more tragic incidence of hyperinflation, the energy consumption required to mine it will be the best bargain humanity ever got.
Could bitcoin collapse? Of course it could. Any investor who puts a large amount of money into bitcoin must know they are taking a significant risk. But bitcoin’s price-falls these days bottom out at prices many times higher than they did only a few years ago.
Can government currencies and bonds collapse, or drop significantly in value, despite the ‘men with guns’ that protect them? The answer — after 100 years and more of hyperinflation, financial repression and sovereign default, which together have affected billions of people — is a resounding yes.
It’s no wonder so many people do not share Krugman’s enthusiasm for the last century’s experiment with government-controlled money, and herein lies the problem that bitcoin solves. Bitcoin offers anyone in the world an escape from being controlled by economists who believe they are immune to the lessons of history.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-problem-bitcoin-solves/
....
Here we have someone addressing fundamental economics & finance topics mainstream sources have a tendency to avoid.
This could be a neglected area where discussion and debate are in dire need, as well as greater awareness and proliferation of information.
Many have talked about the importance of skepticism and peer review to maintain good standards in society. The question could be raised of whether Paul Krugman's stance: "fiat money retains value as it is backed by guns" is verifiable by history. Certainly many are aware of venezuela and other nations issues with inflation and overprinting of fiat currency. However most seem not to comprehend the negative consequences of these principles until they have first hand, real life, experience with them. That learning curve could blind many to the intrinsic value of crypto currencies. Its possible bitcoin is still undervalued.
Anyways, I would be interested to know if anyone cares to defend Paul Krugman's stance in late 2018. Some consider Krugman to be a valid source due to him being awarded a nobel prize in economics. However there is a recent school of thought which says: nobel prizes like the nobel peace prize haven't been awarded to deserving recipients in recent times. Obama received a nobel peace prize for *some say* making war in the middle east and around the world worse than it had been before he took office. There could be a precedent for Paul Krugman doing similar things with fiscal, financial and economic policy in terms of him pushing quantitative easing (QE), economic stimulus and other policies which are controversial in nature.
Jump to: