Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 29542. (Read 26609589 times)

I love the way he assumes that even if this happened - google created a coin - which they would never do for a bazillion reasons - that anyone would use it no matter how good it was. LOL. The concept of group dynamics and open source and first mover advantage is completely lost on this guy. He's got a lot of learning to do.

Yes, that is the initial growth phase, but eventually a point is reached where everyone is fully invested and can only acquire more BTC if they have income coming in from somewhere.

This is awesome... sat watching it for like 10 minutes.

Just sharing something http://www.bitlisten.com/

nonsense. when a person wants to use the bitcoin protocol, he or she can just do so. it´s free. (almost) no fees. if i decide to buy some sneakers and pay with bitcoin, well yes, i have to take some of my money and convert it into bitcoin. but that money is just the price of the sneaker - not the price for bitcoin. i don´t have to pay a premium because i use bitcoin. it´s free.

if one year later i decide to pay another pair of sneakers, and the price of bitcoin went up 10 fold, i would not pay more or less for those sneakers. the bitcoin network is free to use for everyone. you are mixing up bitcoin as a payment method with bitcoin as an investment in a strange way. and it sounds like you are bitter about the fact that you do not belong to those earlier adopters.

don´t be bitter. be thankful you did find out about it. you are an early adopter. join us & be happy.  

I think part of my point is that if BTC is so valuable as compared with other asset classes, then it holds its value better than other asset classes, then people will flock to BTC rather than currencies ... and then there is a snowball effect where the BTC is holding its value too well and more and more people are flocking to it b/c it is holding its value so well.


surely I also believe in personal responsibility.. but there are also social systems that screw certain people... NOT everyone has an equal chance, contrary to the lore.





NO HATING>>>>>> but You seem to be talking out of your ass to some extent about a prediction that everyone will be poorer.... You are trying to extrapolate some simple dynamics and paint a simple picture.... I just DONT buy it, but it does NOT seem to be worth arguing about.




You are leaving a lot of holes in your scenario... but there is some truth to the fact that the big guns may have a lot of money to throw against bitcoin and to develop competition... so that will be interesting to see how that plays out... and how many people die because of this battle.

 Your description of their planning their entrance strategy is a bit off base, though... b/c probably they are just a bit overwhelmed and confused and do NOT really know what to do about BTC.

Oh shit, not the deflation problem again.

and consumption is made possible by production.


... which means that in the current inflationary environment, nobody would ever sell anything, because they would get more money tomorrow.

This is nonsense, every trade have two parties, that include you selling your work-hours.
Inflationary means the seller will quickly turn his new money into something of real value. Deflationary means that the buyer will quickly sell more to recoup his money. None of these forces have more weight than the other.

The difference is that in an environment with inflation, it is more rational to hold no or a negative amount of money when you want to save. With deflation, it is more rational to hold money, and value will be souped up in the money system in stead of real assets.

Inflation is wasteful because of all the unnecessary resources you take up when you save, and it takes power away from you because you are in constant debt. Deflation economises real resources and allows you to use your saved resources more freely.

Even more important, the value lost from the money in inflation ends up somewhere, but not in your pockets.

Well, you can brute force your way into innovation in the IT field, and Android is one of the latest examples of it. They took a well known and innovative idea about an efficent and mobile OS and they perfected it on their own platform. Just as iOS took it over after Symbian.
Yes, 1 computer scientist can be more productive then 1000, but it doesn't matter if you can buy that 1 just as well as you could buy the 1000.
Small teams.are more effective in every fields, but some projects are just so work intensive that you cant settle with a small team.


Im logging off for today, will reply tomorrow when needed.

That uncle Phil did have some wisdom.

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air taught me more valuable lessons than my whole degree plus master thesis at Stanford.

Wow, the last time I read this much bullshit in a single post, it ended by telling me a story about the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

I may be using the wrong term... but deflationary, means exactly that the currency buys more with the passage of time compared with goods and services.  So let's say a kid is born in 2020 and his parents invest 1 bitcoin into a stored wallet.  At that point, the bitcoin is equal to the equivalence of $10,000 in today's dollars.  Even if the value of the bitcoin goes up by 15% per year (which I believe is fairly modest), then in 20 years that bitcoin would be worth about $200,000 and in 30 years, $900K.  



I am NOT concerned about volatility.... I am just making a point about the issue of the deflationary aspect of the asset.. whether it is a currency or a commodity or just a storage of value.

hahaha, kkapser's a blowhard ... he's not writing 1000 lines of anything except pure unadulterated FUD.

1) every communist regime known has had rampant monetary inflation

2) the most prosperous nation and period known in economic history is the free market capitalism under the deflationary gold standard period of the 1800's in USA.

You are contradicting yourself there. Because saving up in cash has been made impossible, as you say, you save less and buy more. The point is that people should save wealth in production, not in money.

^^  Cool.  I'm up for some of that.

BTC//^springboard off rock bottom tomorrow !!!  

I strongly disagree with this statement. I'm not sure if you know how to code but in Computer Science you can't brute force yourself to innovation.

If that were true than Microsoft, Apple and Google would be the only successful tech companies and we all know that is not the truth and they buy small companies like crazy.

1 genius computer scientist can do more that 1000 good computer scientists. Did you even look at the Bitcoin code ? It is pretty light. You could write some 1000 lines of code that could change the world forever if you have the skill. And usually in IT, bigger teams are always worst that smaller teams. At least that is my point of view.

Well, we know for sure that we do not become richer because of money printing (inflation). Second, stimulating demand by borrowing from the future is not bringing a net positive in the longer run. Finally, my purchase decisions are not affected by a few percent of inflation. I buy if I need or want something. Inflation is mostly an annoyance to me (saving is impossible in our current system).

So to me the artificial inflation argument does nothing right. Its just a gimmick that leads to a redistribution of existing wealth. Communism has nothing to do with this.

Explanation