Topic: USD vs BTC - page 57. (Read 121168 times)
Bitcoin is a way better alternative than local currency if they are just shopping stuff online while the dollar is more convenient if they do predominantly cash purchases. Bitcoin can substitute successfully debit and credit cards.
ofcourse it is. who the hell can say that bitcoin is at $1000 . if i say it to my friends they are sply think i am bluffing with thema d hencd will try to ignore it
Whether USD, bitcoin, gold, or any other currency or commodity, the thing that gives it value is the confidence that it will be considered valuable by many other people. In this respect, whether you use the USD or bitcoin, the value merely comes down to a confidence game. The USD has value because so many people believe that it does. Similarly, bitcoins have value because there are enough people who believe that they are valuable for them to retain that value. If something catastrophic were to happen to either the USD or btc to cause large numbers of people to lose confidence that those instruments would be considered valuable in the future by large numbers of people, you would see the value of them decline. It all comes back to confidence.
Gold has intrinsic value just like any other commodity that can be used directly, so these are out of your "confidence game". With dollars you pay taxes, and as long as the government can make you feel the pain in the ass for not paying them, it is also not about trust. It looks like only Bitcoin has nothing behind it but trust alone.
Gold's "intrinsic" value is based on historical longevity. There's nothing special about it other than superstition. It can suffer a loss of confidence the same as any other asset. All fiat also is only based on confidence. Hyperinflation is a direct result of a lack of trust in the currency, often because governments print it into obsolescence.
USD, this most commonly converted currency in the world. So what do you think who will win. The bitcoin that cant buy directly all the things in market or the USD that can buy all the things directly. We all know that bitcoin cant buy directly so we need USD, so that we can buy all the things we want to buy.
Hmmm that is kind of a narrow thinking. Not all can be bought by USD some still prefer the other way or their own fiat. Yes it is a strong currency and well known but bitcoin is still different, its usage is kind of a online currency when USD is just a good to the eye for physical thing because of its strength.
USD, this most commonly converted currency in the world. So what do you think who will win. The bitcoin that cant buy directly all the things in market or the USD that can buy all the things directly. We all know that bitcoin cant buy directly so we need USD, so that we can buy all the things we want to buy.
But hey you already know my opinion. A floating (adjustable) money supply has but one purpose - to confiscate the wealth of the people using it. Claims otherwise often made by those in the employ of the counterfeiters are usually tedious, comical, and easy to spot. I'm sure you are familiar with the relevant quotes on the topic from e.g. Henry Ford, Herr Rothschild, John Calhoun, Louis T. McFadden, and various others. Thanks I will check out more Taleb 
I got your point long ago
Basically, it comes down to claiming that despite possible theoretical superiority of adjustable money supply over a fixed one, it is worse in practice since it is always gets heavily abused by counterfeiters (as you mean it). But we are back to where we started with. In one of my first posts in this discussion, I accepted your assumption (for the sake of simplicity) that fiat money as a practical implementation of adjustable supply gets abused and fails inevitably. But you still have to prove that Bitcoin as a beacon of fixed money supply (or arbitrarily defined by some algorithm) would work at all (provided it is the only currency out there). I'm heavily inclined to think that if we somehow removed fiat and forced Bitcoin in the blink of an eye, the economies would quickly crash
I also thought like that occasionally, some years ago. "All this was built by fiat" I would say, sweeping my arm majestically at the financial center of London or New York. But this is a comic absurdity. We might as well cut one toe off at birth of all people, and then say "All this was built because we cut one toe off at birth of all people" . The logic is simply not there. Logic shows that there is NO theoretical superiority of a money supply adjustable by discretion of individuals. Theoretically and experimentally this can only be utter and complete economic disaster. The only reason it has sustained itself is due to the incredible increases in production and efficiency over the last century. Looking at the increases due to improved utilization of land, automation, communication, and transportation - one would estimate the standard of living should be at least 10 to 100 times higher than it was 50 years ago for everyone. Instead, we have diverted these gains into destruction and waste through a system of kakocracy and cleptocracy enabled by an adjustable money supply. It will take the world a long time to recover from such madness. That educated persons such as ourselves might consider defending the madness makes it clear - this is going to take a long time to eradicate
You are talking about how bad is fiat
But that doesn't magically make Bitcoin's drawbacks go away, right? And I tell you for the third time already, let's assume that you are right. Fiat is bad and all that. Just because money supply adjustable by discretion of individuals is evil doesn't make fixed money supply any better due to that. So what about Bitcoin now after all (or any algorithmically determined money supply, for that matter)? Let's suppose there are no limits to network processing capacity, blocks sizes and similar technical aspects, transactions are confirmed instantly and so on
But hey you already know my opinion. A floating (adjustable) money supply has but one purpose - to confiscate the wealth of the people using it. Claims otherwise often made by those in the employ of the counterfeiters are usually tedious, comical, and easy to spot. I'm sure you are familiar with the relevant quotes on the topic from e.g. Henry Ford, Herr Rothschild, John Calhoun, Louis T. McFadden, and various others. Thanks I will check out more Taleb
I got your point long ago
Basically, it comes down to claiming that despite possible theoretical superiority of adjustable money supply over a fixed one, it is worse in practice since it is always gets heavily abused by counterfeiters (as you mean it). But we are back to where we started with. In one of my first posts in this discussion, I accepted your assumption (for the sake of simplicity) that fiat money as a practical implementation of adjustable supply gets abused and fails inevitably. But you still have to prove that Bitcoin as a beacon of fixed money supply (or arbitrarily defined by some algorithm) would work at all (provided it is the only currency out there). I'm heavily inclined to think that if we somehow removed fiat and forced Bitcoin in the blink of an eye, the economies would quickly crash
I also thought like that occasionally, some years ago. "All this was built by fiat" I would say, sweeping my arm majestically at the financial center of London or New York. But this is a comic absurdity. We might as well cut one toe off at birth of all people, and then say "All this was built because we cut one toe off at birth of all people" . The logic is simply not there. Logic shows that there is NO theoretical superiority of a money supply adjustable by discretion of individuals. Theoretically and experimentally this can only be utter and complete economic disaster. The only reason it has sustained itself is due to the incredible increases in production and efficiency over the last century. Looking at the increases due to improved utilization of land, automation, communication, and transportation - one would estimate the standard of living should be at least 10 to 100 times higher than it was 50 years ago for everyone. Instead, we have diverted these gains into destruction and waste through a system of kakocracy and cleptocracy enabled by an adjustable money supply. It will take the world a long time to recover from such madness. That educated persons such as ourselves might consider defending the madness makes it clear - this is going to take a long time to eradicate.
Nope. If popularity is asked of course US dollar will win. If you ask people do they know what USD is they will say Yes. And if you ask if they know what Bitcoin is almost all people will say no. Also another fact is that all banks in the world accepts US dollar accounts in their local banks. While Bitcoin is not even recognize by any banks. I hope you get my point.
Yes i agree with you USD is completely different when compared with bitcoin, bitcoin is mining technology but where as USD is not mine able and where as bitcoin has introduced recently really it takes lot of time to recognize by the banks.
because both have differences. and besides, the two are not mutually dropping right ?
Instead of answering this weird question, we should ask OP what led him to open a new thread to talk about such an absurd point. Moreover, I see that he never returned to the discussion and decided to abandone the thread instead.
Nope. If popularity is asked of course US dollar will win. If you ask people do they know what USD is they will say Yes. And if you ask if they know what Bitcoin is almost all people will say no. Also another fact is that all banks in the world accepts US dollar accounts in their local banks. While Bitcoin is not even recognize by any banks. I hope you get my point.
Yes i agree with you USD is completely different when compared with bitcoin, bitcoin is mining technology but where as USD is not mine able and where as bitcoin has introduced recently really it takes lot of time to recognize by the banks.
Nope. If popularity is asked of course US dollar will win. If you ask people do they know what USD is they will say Yes. And if you ask if they know what Bitcoin is almost all people will say no. Also another fact is that all banks in the world accepts US dollar accounts in their local banks. While Bitcoin is not even recognize by any banks. I hope you get my point.
But hey you already know my opinion. A floating (adjustable) money supply has but one purpose - to confiscate the wealth of the people using it. Claims otherwise often made by those in the employ of the counterfeiters are usually tedious, comical, and easy to spot. I'm sure you are familiar with the relevant quotes on the topic from e.g. Henry Ford, Herr Rothschild, John Calhoun, Louis T. McFadden, and various others. Thanks I will check out more Taleb
I got your point long ago
Basically, it comes down to claiming that despite possible theoretical superiority of adjustable money supply over a fixed one, it is worse in practice since it is always gets heavily abused by counterfeiters (as you mean it). But we are back to where we started with. In one of my first posts in this discussion, I accepted your assumption (for the sake of simplicity) that fiat money as a practical implementation of adjustable supply gets abused and fails inevitably. But you still have to prove that Bitcoin as a beacon of fixed money supply (or arbitrarily defined by some algorithm) would work at all (provided it is the only currency out there). I'm heavily inclined to think that if we somehow removed fiat and forced Bitcoin in the blink of an eye, the economies would quickly crash
Banks only need borrowers which should meet a bank's criteria for loaning to them
If you don't of course mean by something borrowers, it pretty much proves that you don't fully understand how modern monetary system works (otherwise I don't quite understand myself what you meant to say). You won't believe me but I met a guy here who pretended to be a banker himself and who tried to ridicule me at first but he was in for a pretty rude awakening when confronted with what real bankers (for example, the former governor of the Bank of England) say themselves. After that I haven't heard a word from him, whether he is a real banker and not a plumber in some obscure bank office. And yes, money created in this way (through loans) is not very different from how bitcoins are mined in respect to centralization or lack thereof.
My credentials might or might not impress you but that is hardly the point of such a conversation as this is it
The main differences I like to point out:1) Public vs. Private
Public coins (like bitcoin) are created publicly. Everyone can see how much and when, and verify the totals. Private coins like the dollar, pound, and yuan are issued in private. Who gets to know how much, and when, and in which accounts specifically is always an EXTREMELY carefully guarded secret and is NEVER verifiable by the public.
2) Discretionary vs. Deterministically
As you say: "meet a bank's criteria for loaning to them". Of course you mean meeting the criteria of employees of a bank who have the job of selecting who gets to have money and at what rate. One person might want to approve a loan for a forestry project. Another might prefer a school. Dress properly and speak with the right accent of course when you apply. Bitcoin isn't really like that is it?
When people say money is "created through loans" what they are trying to say is that newly issued currency is often immediately loaned out. It is often loaned out to lenders. But not always. M0 paper for example isn't usually associated with a loan when it is minted. How many M1 accounts are created with no required payments? Again a bit of empathy in this field goes a long way. Put yourself in others positions and ask how you would run the operation.
Quote
You are still to challenge my point in the discussion of fixed vs floating (adjustable) money supply in the case of expanding (contracting) economy. Counterfeiting is inconsequential to the issue in question
Counterfeiting is my word for an "adjustable money supply". An effective counterfeiter is one who competes in minting (see e.g. Newton and the Counterfeiter) It's exactly the same thing, lets call it issuance. There is the question of public vs. private issuance, but I know of no public currency which allows for discretionary issuance. It would be easy to make such a thing, basically one could just build bitcoin with a separate clause "any coinbase signed with the following keys can create as many coins as they like at any time". Do you think such a project would be worthwhile?
But hey you already know my opinion. A floating (adjustable) money supply has but one purpose - to confiscate the wealth of the people using it. Claims otherwise often made by those in the employ of the counterfeiters are usually tedious, comical, and easy to spot. I'm sure you are familiar with the relevant quotes on the topic from e.g. Henry Ford, Herr Rothschild, John Calhoun, Louis T. McFadden, and various others. Thanks I will check out more Taleb
The dollar will still win it over and over again, its simply too strong and the bitcoin first needs to grow a lot more before it can really compare itself even to the dollar.
True, even to be able to match the fiat though it would be very difficult for bitcoin. to be equivalent to fiat. bitcoin take very long to continue to grow due to the current fiat far stronger than bitcoin Money is created through loans that commercial banks give in pretty much the same decentralized manner as bitcoins are mined.
This doesn't make any sense to me, sorry. We need to have something before we can loan it out. Money is not "created through loans", it is issued (at no cost in the case of fiat) and THEN - loaned out to people lower in the interest rate apartheid food chain. Money given to people (or created and loaned) at the discretion of the issuers or the next people down the chain is by no means the same decentralized manner as public coin. Private coin is an unverifiable hierarchy of secrecy at each step. How do we figure this is much the same as a public verifiable system with no preferred decision makers?
Banks only need borrowers which should meet a bank's criteria for loaning to them
If you don't of course mean by something borrowers, it pretty much proves that you don't fully understand how modern monetary system works (otherwise I don't quite understand myself what you meant to say). You won't believe me but I met a guy here who pretended to be a banker himself and who tried to ridicule me at first but he was in for a pretty rude awakening when confronted with what real bankers (for example, the former governor of the Bank of England) say themselves. After that I haven't heard a word from him, whether he is a real banker and not a plumber in some obscure bank office. And yes, money created in this way (through loans) is not very different from how bitcoins are mined in respect to centralization or lack thereof
Well some of us consider it a feature not a bug. The inability to counterfeit it annoys those who think that certain individuals should be able to counterfeit all moneys, perhaps thinking that certain individuals are more knowledgeable and might know when and where it is needed. Others of us prefer that which cannot be counterfeit by anyone. I for one enjoy seeing the competition between these in the marketplace. Gresham's law as a spectator sport
You are still to challenge my point in the discussion of fixed vs floating (adjustable) money supply in the case of expanding (contracting) economy. Counterfeiting is inconsequential to the issue in question
When the economy expands, producers take loans to expand their production (that would mean an increase in real wealth), and this leads to more money being created by banks. When the economy shrinks, producers either go belly up and their loans are written off with equipment auctioned, or they themselves liquidate part of their business to pay back the loans (that would mean a decrease in real wealth). Thus money gets destroyed, again fully endogenously, according to the needs of the economy. Just in case, I already know what question you are going to ask which as you think will challenge this mechanism (people always think that they know something which others don't)
In this case you know something I don't because I'm not sure the question you refer to. One such question might be: what do you mean precisely by "the economy expands"? Some indexes like some ways to calculate a fiat GDP also are dependent on how much new fiat is being issued, hence - the feedback, which leads to these indices losing their utility at some point in the fiat "business cycle" you began describing. A perhaps still more interesting question would be what is "real wealth"
The increase in the quantity of goods produced and volume of services rendered in proportion with increasing demand for them
To paraphrase: 1) why would we want to adjust the mining / issuance schedule? 2) How could such adjustment be verifiable?
I'm not talking about Bitcoin or any other coin which uses some algo for determining the required amount of money. I guess it cannot be done algorithmically in any imaginable way. Something like that Gosplan had tried to do in the former Soviet Union but failed miserably
It might be worth asking how some potentially worthwhile system couldn't be specified (aka done algorithmically). Anyway thanks for pointing me to Gosplan material, interesting reading. cheers -
You may also want to read what Nassim Taleb said about that specifically. He explained it pretty coherently why such a system is set to fail inevitably (in short, the Butterfly Effect)
Money is created through loans that commercial banks give in pretty much the same decentralized manner as bitcoins are mined.
This doesn't make any sense to me, sorry. We need to have something before we can loan it out. Money is not "created through loans", it is issued (at no cost in the case of fiat) and THEN - loaned out to people lower in the interest rate apartheid food chain. Money given to people (or created and loaned) at the discretion of the issuers or the next people down the chain is by no means the same decentralized manner as public coin. Private coin is an unverifiable hierarchy of secrecy at each step. How do we figure this is much the same as a public verifiable system with no preferred decision makers?
To paraphrase: 1) why would we want to adjust the mining / issuance schedule? 2) How could such adjustment be verifiable?
I'm not talking about Bitcoin or any other coin which uses some algo for determining the required amount of money. I guess it cannot be done algorithmically in any imaginable way. Something like that Gosplan had tried to do in the former Soviet Union but failed miserably
It might be worth asking how some potentially worthwhile system couldn't be specified (aka done algorithmically). Anyway thanks for pointing me to Gosplan material, interesting reading. cheers -
Namely, that regulation of fiat money supply sucks due to corrupt money regulators and that kind of thing. I won't argue this point (for the sake of simplicity, not because I agree with it). Let's assume that you are right, I mean in respect to fiat regulation. But we are still hanging around that former topic about fixed versus dynamic money supply. Now, Bitcoin with its totally predetermined money supply becomes the only currency out there. So could it possibly be any better than another scheme which takes into account the size of the economy (which either expands or contracts but never remains the same) through a feedback loop mechanism (that's what I mean)? I guess in the latter case it will be Bitcoin's turn to suck heavily
Hehe well I'm all ears in regards to some kind of feedback loop mechanism based on "size of economy". The idea seems to be a nonstarter but perhaps we can work on it and give it wings
There is nothing new under the moon
You talk about corrupt regulators, but you seem not to understand that most money in the economy is created endogenously, i.e. not through printing it (figuratively speaking) by a central bank or government ("corrupt regulators"), though they can certainly do it, for example, through so-called quantitative easings. Money is created through loans that commercial banks give in pretty much the same decentralized manner as bitcoins are mined. And this is the feedback loop mechanism that I'm talking about and which Bitcoin pathetically lacks. When the economy expands, producers take loans to expand their production (that would mean an increase in real wealth), and this leads to more money being created by banks. When the economy shrinks, producers either go belly up and their loans are written off with equipment auctioned, or they themselves liquidate part of their business to pay back the loans (that would mean a decrease in real wealth). Thus money gets destroyed, again fully endogenously, according to the needs of the economy. Just in case, I already know what question you are going to ask which as you think will challenge this mechanism (people always think that they know something which others don't)
To paraphrase: 1) why would we want to adjust the mining / issuance schedule? 2) How could such adjustment be verifiable?
I'm not talking about Bitcoin or any other coin which uses some algo for determining the required amount of money. I guess it cannot be done algorithmically in any imaginable way. Something like that Gosplan had tried to do in the former Soviet Union but failed miserably
Namely, that regulation of fiat money supply sucks due to corrupt money regulators and that kind of thing. I won't argue this point (for the sake of simplicity, not because I agree with it). Let's assume that you are right, I mean in respect to fiat regulation. But we are still hanging around that former topic about fixed versus dynamic money supply. Now, Bitcoin with its totally predetermined money supply becomes the only currency out there. So could it possibly be any better than another scheme which takes into account the size of the economy (which either expands or contracts but never remains the same) through a feedback loop mechanism (that's what I mean)? I guess in the latter case it will be Bitcoin's turn to suck heavily
Hehe well I'm all ears in regards to some kind of feedback loop mechanism based on "size of economy". The idea seems to be a nonstarter but perhaps we can work on it and give it wings.
First of all we'd have to have some metric of what we are trying to do. Why would giving miners / issuers more or less return for their work at a given time be helpful? Changing the absolute number of tokens in existence changes nothing - just like a stock split changes nothing. However changing the distribution (who has what fraction of the total) could in theory make a difference.. but to what end? Would the goal be a more even distribution? A distribution that favors people with a certain ability? These are possibilities. For your idea to move we need to state clearly the quantity we are trying to maximize or minimize with our variable money supply. Who needs to get these dynamically issued tokens and in order to do what? It seems to me this could only cause problems, but I'm open to suggestion.
Then, we need to figure out some way for the relevant quantities to be verifiable and public. Without this we are back to the stone ages of rule-by-counterfeit and deceit. If you want to have the mining reward go up if there are more birds, for example, then you need a public verifiable method of counting the birds. I don't see this as being possible. If you want token issuance tied to agricultural production, then you need a way for the public to verify agricultural production. Even absent any reason for doing this, how could we do this?
To paraphrase: 1) why would we want to adjust the mining / issuance schedule? 2) How could such adjustment be verifiable?
A specific precedence, yes, that is my argument. Precedence in terms of efficacy. Public, precise, and verifiable specification actually works in regulating the money supply. A selection of people in private with no possible oversight - won't work effectively. The difference is akin to replacing the voltage regulator in your car with a group of bickering robots all who would benefit from charging their own batteries with the voltage passing through. Which is a better regulator?
I don't remember you come up with anything of substance in the discussion of fixed (as defined by an algo) versus adjustable (through a sort of a feedback loop) money supply. So we are basically back to that topic. If that is your point, than no, these regulations, which essentially come down to firmly setting how many coins are mined on a daily basis, can't possibly be more efficient than dynamic money supply if done properly. If this is not what you wanted to say, please clarify what you mean by efficacy and what exactly it refers to...
It is not a thing which exists all by itself
Thanks for your reply. Yes I should be more clear about efficacy of regulation, I refer to the ability to regulate the money supply. If you look through documents describing what various regulators with names like Comptroller of Currency and Federal Reserve Board are supposed to be regulating, it is precisely this. And how well do they do? Well the outlook is grim as there's no way for us to even measure. Clearly the supply rises exponentially as issuers take their profits and support projects they approve of but by how much? All we can do is look at increases in housing prices and make our own inferences. With bitcoin we know *exactly* and every person can precisely verify that the money supply is regulated according to specification. This difference is clear and we can make the obvious statement that bitcoin supply is far more regulated than privately issued coins, do you agree?
Well, you just clarified what I had been suspecting
Namely, that regulation of fiat money supply sucks due to corrupt money regulators and that kind of thing. I won't argue this point (for the sake of simplicity, not because I agree with it). Let's assume that you are right, I mean in respect to fiat regulation. But we are still hanging around that former topic about fixed versus dynamic money supply. Now, Bitcoin with its totally predetermined money supply becomes the only currency out there. So could it possibly be any better than another scheme which takes into account the size of the economy (which either expands or contracts but never remains the same) through a feedback loop mechanism (that's what I mean)? I guess in the latter case it will be Bitcoin's turn to suck heavily
A specific precedence, yes, that is my argument. Precedence in terms of efficacy. Public, precise, and verifiable specification actually works in regulating the money supply. A selection of people in private with no possible oversight - won't work effectively. The difference is akin to replacing the voltage regulator in your car with a group of bickering robots all who would benefit from charging their own batteries with the voltage passing through. Which is a better regulator?
I don't remember you come up with anything of substance in the discussion of fixed (as defined by an algo) versus adjustable (through a sort of a feedback loop) money supply. So we are basically back to that topic. If that is your point, than no, these regulations, which essentially come down to firmly setting how many coins are mined on a daily basis, can't possibly be more efficient than dynamic money supply if done properly. If this is not what you wanted to say, please clarify what you mean by efficacy and what exactly it refers to...
It is not a thing which exists all by itself
Thanks for your reply. Yes I should be more clear about efficacy of regulation, I refer to the ability to regulate the money supply. If you look through documents describing what various regulators with names like Comptroller of Currency and Federal Reserve Board are supposed to be regulating, it is precisely this. And how well do they do? Well the outlook is grim as there's no way for us to even measure. Clearly the supply rises exponentially as issuers take their profits and support projects they approve of but by how much? All we can do is look at increases in housing prices and make our own inferences. With bitcoin we know *exactly* and every person can precisely verify that the money supply is regulated according to specification. This difference is clear and we can make the obvious statement that bitcoin supply is far more regulated than privately issued coins, do you agree?
By the way what do you mean by feedback loop? Do you refer to the difficulty adjustment? A supply which is adjustable at no cost by people who have personal reasons to adjust it will without a doubt adjust. Put yourself in the shoes of a private currency issuer and ask how you would manage it. If you are going to argue that this is anything other than catastrophic to the economy as a whole, I'd be very interested to hear how you figure.
As to the other topic you bring up.. can you think of an example where prohibition DECREASED the price of something? The only example I can come up with is the 500 rupee note in India, and that isn't quite fair because prior to the prohibition the prohibiters were accepting the things in trade for e.g. tax receipts. The psychologists among us might also point out that prohibition could even further increase the already increasing adoption rate
Do you really believe that a universal Bitcoin ban will spur the prices up? The psychologists among us cannot even agree whether the recent price hike is due to real adoption or just price manipulation by rogue Chinese miners
Yes, I believe the prices would go up. Also the spreads. Just like gold in India now. Or alcohol in 1920s Chicago. This would just be a blanket funneling of assets into the hands of criminals, just like all other prohibition of goods. What on earth would "manipulation by rogue Chinese miners" mean? Bitcoin doesn't care about your passport or what language you speak.. a miner is a miner.. and manipulation is just like any other market - performed by market makers.
Cheers --