What magic is going on that allows the Reserve to deposit trillions into bank accounts but there is no inflation?
http://www.samizdata.net/2010/06/money-supply-th/
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20206. (Read 26610444 times)
November 12, 2015, 10:20:58 AM
http://www.samizdata.net/2010/06/money-supply-th/
November 12, 2015, 10:17:50 AM
^
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
There is a limit based on gestation time.
Which is why I argue so passionately that we don't need a blocksize limit. We already have the propagation factor. The risk of orphaned blocks puts a natural limit to blockspace scarcity.
It will also be necessary to have more xactions/block when the block reward is near zero. More xactions=more xaction fees. Miners need to be compensated or the network becomes less secure.
You're clearly not a pig farmer
'Gestation time' is a meaningless limit, x1000 production is trivial if there's demand for pigs.
In other words, scarcity of certain commodities is simply a function of demand.
so, to be precise, there is a limit, it's just very high and not likely to be lower than demand. However say, it's discovered that eating twenty pig eyeballs/day cures heart disease, cancer and gives you a 12 inch penis, then that gestation limit would be relevant.
November 12, 2015, 10:14:21 AM
The ~7TPS limit means that it may take a longer time to open each locker and if excessive xaction fees are required, then you have much less than 100,000,000 entries.
So it may mean that the stuff (colored coins, timestamps, etc) that you can put in the locker won't matter because there are other lockers on other chains that could be more useful. All smallblockers are doing is giving bitcoin's competitors time to catch up.
Exactly - by roadblocking the development of the blockchain, for whatever personal interest, the small block unit give more and more reason to transact away from the chain - this is hardly surprising when so many are involved in sidechain projects or alternatives.
November 12, 2015, 10:12:36 AM
BITCOIN SALE:
Buy 2 bitcoins (at $500 each) get the third FREE!!!
pwnd Buy 2 bitcoins (at $500 each) get the third FREE!!!
November 12, 2015, 10:11:55 AM
That's more like it, many of those are good reasons for bitcoin to have value - and all better then "Bitcoin is scarce" which is easy and fundamentally lazy.
Usefulness + scarcity go hand in hand in this case, so both are essential elements.
Regarding the 12kg / 1 BTC scarcity ratio, there is one key parameter that is lagging for BTC in order to start catching up in price (and I'm not speaking of catching the price of 1oz of gold, but rather 400 oz of gold).
This parameter is the mining cost.
The cost of mining 12kg gold / 386oz of gold is from 200.000 USD to 400.000 USD - with a mining cost estimated at ~500 to ~1000 USD per ounce, depending the field.
The cost of mining 1 bitcoin is currently nowhere near 200k or 400k USD needed for extracting 12kg of gold and this affects its perceived value.
When bitcoin generation starts to become much slower, and mining competition makes mining quite harder, this will have to change.
Those who are in for the longer term and co-factor the mining curve situation, have a very different price estimate from those who are trading day to day.
... Bitcoin is still "trivial". If this was happening on a large scale, we wouldn't still be at 4bn marketcap.
Ah, so no evidence of this actually happening?
Gotcha.
You asked me for large scale. There is no large scale use of BTC right now, whether we are talking about the "west" or developing nations. If it was happening widely we wouldn't be at 330$. But that's precisely why the situation is bullish, because what is now happening on the fringes of society, by a few tech-savy people who happen to know and use BTC, has the potential to spread to a far bigger % of the population. One of the safest assumptions is that adoption and use will increase - unless something catastrophic happens.
November 12, 2015, 10:08:24 AM
... Bitcoin is still "trivial". If this was happening on a large scale, we wouldn't still be at 4bn marketcap.
Ah, so no evidence of this actually happening?
Gotcha.
November 12, 2015, 10:08:12 AM
BITCOIN SALE:
Buy 2 bitcoins (at $500 each) get the third FREE!!!
Buy 2 bitcoins (at $500 each) get the third FREE!!!
November 12, 2015, 10:06:47 AM
John the Dumper is dumping again.
Good traders buy in opportunity.
I amn't going to do it though, cos all that would happen would be my position going $5 against me, and then me freaking out and going short, and getting wiped out on the rise to $370.
I think thats what bots are programmed to do - buy and sell soon on every steep drop no matter what. Probably works.
You would have to assume that most trading is bot trading, and those Bitcoin bots seem to really love sequential Fib retracements.
November 12, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
Go home Chart Buddy, you're drunk.
November 12, 2015, 10:01:13 AM
November 12, 2015, 10:00:19 AM
All you fools waiting for sub-300 should probably buy back in NOW.
You should be happy we're not buying back in now. There would be nobody with fiat left to halt the plunge in the event of a major dump.
November 12, 2015, 09:59:34 AM
...
No because they can't go to an exchange, sell BTC, get USD to their bank account and then go to their bank and withdraw USD. They can't do that. They will get national currency instead - in most cases.
So they use BTC as a hard currency / USD-equivalent currency. The BTC payment processors do the rest: If a payment processor can accept BTC as currency and send you a shipment of tangible assets like gold, silver, technology stuff (iphones, laptops, etc etc), it's like you have actually paid with USD and paypal. But it's not necessary to spend your BTC - you can also hold them as a safer alternative (compared to local currency that is devaluating), as some do with their hard currency holdings.
Can you point me to a country where that's actually happening, on non-trivial scale? No because they can't go to an exchange, sell BTC, get USD to their bank account and then go to their bank and withdraw USD. They can't do that. They will get national currency instead - in most cases.
So they use BTC as a hard currency / USD-equivalent currency. The BTC payment processors do the rest: If a payment processor can accept BTC as currency and send you a shipment of tangible assets like gold, silver, technology stuff (iphones, laptops, etc etc), it's like you have actually paid with USD and paypal. But it's not necessary to spend your BTC - you can also hold them as a safer alternative (compared to local currency that is devaluating), as some do with their hard currency holdings.
Or are you talking about China, wher that's simply not the case?
Bitcoin is still "trivial". If this was happening on a large scale, we wouldn't still be at 4bn marketcap.
November 12, 2015, 09:58:41 AM
^
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
There is a limit based on gestation time.
Which is why I argue so passionately that we don't need a blocksize limit. We already have the propagation factor. The risk of orphaned blocks puts a natural limit to blockspace scarcity.
It will also be necessary to have more xactions/block when the block reward is near zero. More xactions=more xaction fees. Miners need to be compensated or the network becomes less secure.
You're clearly not a pig farmer
'Gestation time' is a meaningless limit, x1000 production is trivial if there's demand for pigs.
http://www.swinecast.com/files/swinecast.com/120916_Leman_BreedingHerd_Hostetler-thumb-300w.jpg
In other words, scarcity of certain commodities is simply a function of demand.
November 12, 2015, 09:58:10 AM
That's more like it, many of those are good reasons for bitcoin to have value - and all better then "Bitcoin is scarce" which is easy and fundamentally lazy. Yes if Bitcoin can be used to do things that add value then it has value, and the finite number of bitcoins increases its value if more than that many are in demand, but first it must be used to do things - and the more those things are developed the better.
Owning 1 bitcoin equates to owning access to 100,000,000 entries on the blockchain (or lockers) - the more each entry can be used for (the more types of stuff I can put in a locker) and the more people want to access the lockers the more each bitcoin is worth.
The ~7TPS limit means that it may take a longer time to open each locker and if excessive xaction fees are required, then you have much less than 100,000,000 entries.
So it may mean that the stuff (colored coins, timestamps, etc) that you can put in the locker won't matter because there are other lockers on other chains that could be more useful. All smallblockers are doing is giving bitcoin's competitors time to catch up.
November 12, 2015, 09:57:43 AM
All you fools waiting for sub-300 should probably buy back in NOW.
November 12, 2015, 09:55:38 AM
All you fools waiting for sub-300 should probably buy back in NOW.
November 12, 2015, 09:49:46 AM
If the dollar stays as it is, it seems there is no end to this ponzi. A ponzi never dies, ever, as long as you have a never ending line of people to join and you can print money for free. Ponzi schemes collapse when nobody joins.
Ponzi schemes collapse when FEWER join than is needed to pay existing participants.
That binary view holds only if payout is predetermined, not managed/variable (as is the case with fiat currencies/economies). A 'ponzi' like that stays in a state of constant flux, so it's not even clear what's meant by 'collapse.' People get poorer? Die? World implodes?
November 12, 2015, 09:48:13 AM
^
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
There is a limit based on gestation time.
Which is why I argue so passionately that we don't need a blocksize limit. We already have the propagation factor. The risk of orphaned blocks puts a natural limit to blockspace scarcity.
It will also be necessary to have more xactions/block when the block reward is near zero. More xactions=more xaction fees. Miners need to be compensated or the network becomes less secure.
November 12, 2015, 09:39:29 AM
If the dollar stays as it is, it seems there is no end to this ponzi. A ponzi never dies, ever, as long as you have a never ending line of people to join and you can print money for free. Ponzi schemes collapse when nobody joins.
Ponzi schemes collapse when FEWER join than is needed to pay existing participants.
There's an end because there's a finite pool of potential suckers. The ponzi has to grow FASTER than the pool.
There's an end just like there's an end to cancer cell reproduction-either when the cancer is removed or when the patient dies.
You need to understand: it's not just a dollar ponzi. it's a fiat ponzi. The dollar will be among the last to fail.
November 12, 2015, 09:36:45 AM
^
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
Scarcity also doesn't have to be artificial: Pork bellies are a commodity, and, AFAIK, there's no limit to how many piglets a pig family can birth.
Jump to: