Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 24705. (Read 26713602 times)

hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
If you see the quote about bank bailouts in the genesis block, then clearly satoshi has political/ economical motives.  I strongly disagree about the finite supply being only important for the late speculators as well.

"Clearly" to you, perhaps, not at all for me.

The purpose of including a newspaper headline in the genesis block was merely to prove that the block was created on that date, and not earlier. (Otherwise he could have pre-mined a few thousand blocks in advance, in secret, and use them later to steal other people's bitcoins.)

The headline of The Times on that day happened to be about bank bailout.  Did he choose that newspaper and that day on purpose?  I have seen no evidence that he did so.  And that quote seems to be the only "proof" that Satoshi's motivation to develop bitcoin was to rid the world of banks.

(Bitcoin will not get rid of banks or bank bailouts.  Their main business is to lend money that they don't quite have, and people will still want that service, even if money means bitcoin instead of dollars.)
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?

No. He's stubbornly wrong, but polite and intelligent (though misguided) in his arguments. If this community cannot tolerate that much dissent, it'd be too pathetic to be true.

+1
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
...
Inflation is a diffuse tax, whereby government takes from society an amount equal to the amount of currency that exists times the inflation rate.  Each person pays that tax proportionally to the amount of currency that he has and how long he keeps it before spending it.

Yes, but don't middle class people typically have a larger percentage of their savings in fiat in a bank account, compared to wealthy individuals, making it an uneven tax?  For a wealthy individual it makes more sense to spend a large amount of his time investigating how best to invest his capital in various things, like housing, companies, art etc.. On the other hand, spending days to figure out how to get 0,5% more on your 300 dollar savings doesn't make much sense, so you might as well park it in a savings account.

We have graduated income tax, property tax, etc., etc. to compensate for that.

For this truly is the best of all possible worlds
And in this world
The best of all worlds
Why I'm the best of all short-order fry cooks --This guy:
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?

No. He's stubbornly wrong, but polite and intelligent (though misguided) in his arguments. If this community cannot tolerate that much dissent, it'd be too pathetic to be true.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
Hoarding currency is a very stupid way of saving. 
Saving is a tax on workers: you work now, but instead of buying a car right away with your salary, you buy it only months or years later; in the meantime someone else uses that car.  That may benefit capitalists, but what drives capitalism is productive investment in factories etc., and what makes the capitalist economy spin is spending, not saving. 
Please explain how saving is a tax on workers.  
What drives capitalism imho is indeed as you say 'productive investment'.  I don't see how 'spending, not saving' gets in there.  In order to have something to invest, you first need savings.  Delaying your spendings on consumption goods to invest in efficiency improving production methods etc. allows for the creation of more or better quality goods, or with fewer work involved, so later you can get more shit for the same amount of effort.  Spending everything right here, right now achieves just the opposite.  


Inflation is a diffuse tax, whereby government takes from society an amount equal to the amount of currency that exists times the inflation rate.  Each person pays that tax proportionally to the amount of currency that he has and how long he keeps it before spending it.

Yes, but don't middle class people typically have a larger percentage of their savings in fiat in a bank account, compared to wealthy individuals, making it an uneven tax?  For a wealthy individual it makes more sense to spend a large amount of his time investigating how best to invest his capital in various things, like housing, companies, art etc.. On the other hand, spending days to figure out how to get 0,5% more on your 300 dollar savings doesn't make much sense, so you might as well park it in a savings account.

Like any tax, inflation tax not inherently evil: a good government should give it back to society as public services and infrastructure.  A  bad government may waste it (for example by rescuing failed banks), or use it for evil ends, but that is a separate problem.  But it is debatable whether inflation tax, as way to support the government, is more fair and effective than revenue tax, consumption tax, etc.. Experience seems to say it isn't: countries that abuse it generally have lousy economies.  Anyway, it is not a simple, black on white issue.
Agreed.
sr. member
Activity: 980
Merit: 256
Decentralized Ascending Auctions on Blockchain
has anyone here ever published a kindle book?

I wonder if I take bitcoin will I sell any. Free publicity if I tell people an author is taking bitcoin without converting it to fiat on r/bitcoin anyway
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1045
I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.


YOU ARE CORRECT

That is all you know, despite everyone pouring knowledge and superior understandings unto your black hole of an existence.

Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1008
Delusional crypto obsessionist
I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.


It seems you were too late for the get-filthy-rich-quick scheme party and are now butthurt, but hey, you can still have an academic interest.

Very true, I know a few people like this. They will capitulate when bitcoin reaches a price where no significant wealth increase is possible anymore.
But hey, we, the early speculators can then offload all our gazillions of coins to them and become filthy rich.
And then they get angry on the rich, trying to become rich as well.
But they fail, because the majority is too late, as always.

Without poor, no rich.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
things you own end up owning you
The way Winklevoss failed (hilariously BTW) at Money 2020 represents the way the average Bitcoiner act when trying to solve "problems", how fucking stupid is explaining what is money to thousands of payments experts at such an event ?!!!  some Bitcoiners think that they are experts about a subject they have no fucking Idea about or minimum knowledge, they go from ignorance to a minimum knowledge about something then they just go full retard and act like experts on the subject...which is really annoying.

 
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
Yeah, but is it possible to sell 0 btc to buy 0 xrp?

Pretty sure that just makes him full of shit, if he's claiming to have something and double it daily but really has zero, it's not clever semantics, it's bullshit.

It's a kind of nerd type, mathematically inspired humor: it's vacuously true of his non-existing Bitcoin position that he sold it. It is then vacuously true of his non-existing gains from that sale that he used it to buy Ripple. And so on.

Maybe not your kind of humor, but let's stop calling the old statist geezer a troll. He's just a bit rigid in his thinking Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.


you completely underestimate the power of market capitalization - even the get rich quick guys do their job. a higher market capitalization leads to higher level of investment around the technology, it leads to a better usability of the tokens aka "currency" - schumpeter once called a piece of gods work that money always moves to a place where it leads to the highest benefits (we can argue about that - but regarding technology and invention this probably true).

the point is that the market capitalization does its job - bitcoin is a value network with the function to transfer money. the first does its job in creating the latter.


even your investment in spam avoidance aka ripples would not be existent without this effects, this would probably be better for your personal wealth - but at least you are financing the development of quite a sound network aka ripple Wink
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.


It seems you were too late for the get-filthy-rich-quick scheme party and are now butthurt, but hey, you can still have an academic interest.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
If you started 350 days ago I really can't be arsed to calculate it, but either way you're clearly full of shit even if you only started with 0.01 btc or a few satoshis.
Which obviously means he has 0BTC.  Pretty easy to double 0BTC everyday now ain't it.  Kiss
Yeah, but is it possible to sell 0 btc to buy 0 xrp?
Pretty sure that just makes him full of shit, if he's claiming to have something and double it daily but really has zero, it's not clever semantics, it's bullshit.

Well I thought it was funny....


I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.
For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.
If you see the quote about bank bailouts in the genesis block, then clearly satoshi has political/ economical motives.  I strongly disagree about the finite supply being only important for the late speculators as well.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
what do you guys think of changetip?


I think we probably now have THE first power app - look at reddit etc. and imagine what is happening when we start spreading love on facebook etc.

The concept is awesome. If it can be more user-friendly, it has the potential to become the first bitcoin killer app. We will know that has happened when it goes viral over social and mainstream media.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  Wink)

I have to side with Jorge here. It is unlikely that coin emission will change in recent times but it is not impossible.
Ultimately you cannot enforce what rules people subscribe to. The mere existence of altcoins proves that multiple rule sets can concurrently exist.
And no one should fool themselves that only one coin will ever be accepted by retailers. If it is trivial to integrate bitcoin, it is trivial to integrate other coins.

The proposition that only bitcoin can and will survive comes from selfish motives. You only need to believe in that if you want its value to be extremely high.
There is enough room for multiple cryptocurrencies and they can and will come and go as technology changes.

Does it really matter if I pay something in btc, ltc, doge, nxt or ether? If the design and security of the protocol is sound (which I am not advocating here for many of the so called bitcoin 2.0 alts, the verdict is still open) and enough people use and accept it it is "good enough".

Arguments on the network effect only work to a certain degree. An analogy would be to claim that something like Facebook or Google will be the sole existing service simply because it has the biggest network.

You can both feel free to invest in Freicoin, I'll stick with bitcoin as is thank you very much.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1045
There is a lot of troll feeding going on here.....
hero member
Activity: 509
Merit: 500
Can't upload avatar
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
THIS is what Bitcoin is. The ability of Random Matrix Math to solve the human greed factor. The flaw is not the money. It's US.
People often suggest there is a greater "Math" behind why bitcoin is limited in supply.
Basically it is a few lines of code in the protocol an the fact that the majority of miners and users follow that protocol.
It is horribly trivial to change the supply of bitcoin to an arbitrary amount if there was enough backing by the community for it.
Saying it is impossible to change is having a fundamental misunderstanding of how or why bitcoin works
What you say may be true. But bitcoin's value proposition lies in those few lines of code. And that is why they will never be changed.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  Wink)

LOL
Jump to: