Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 29543. (Read 26609618 times)
February 18, 2014, 03:03:06 AM
February 18, 2014, 03:01:56 AM
We need lots of buy-hold-buy-mores, and lots of successful daytraders.
... and we need the bad daytraders to feed the good daytraders, and we need the ignorant nay-sayers to slow down the rise, so the visionary late-comers have a chance.
for such a nice person you sure make a terrible president of turkey.
What's wrong about peacefully (for us) removing a million armenians from the surface of the earth?
February 18, 2014, 02:53:49 AM
KKaspar:
I do NOT necessarily disagree with you, but to me it sounds as if your post is filled with a lot of hate and resentment for poor people.
I was merely trying to describe a dynamic that exists with deflationary currency, and you and I seem to have some agreement about a potential incentive that could be created in which people may NOT have the incentive to work. We agree on that, but I CANNOT bring myself to agree with some of the other seemingly hateful and assumption aspects of your post.... that seems to assume that rich people are entitled to more than poor people... and a bunch of the other assumptions that goes along with those kinds of striving to maintain the status quo and the current wealth distribution.
You also seem to be asserting some kind of assumption about trickle down economics actually working, which I CANNOT bring myself to agree with those kinds of assumptions, either.
Anyhow, if bitcoin is going to be successful, you and I agree that it would change social dynamics. Accordingly, you seem to assert that it is NOT in line with human nature, and I would assert that some social, economic and political institutions may need to adapt to these new dynamics to find a way to work.... especially, if governments and companies are NOT able to get rid of bitcoin, then they will have to work on ways to adapt... which may create growing pains for a lot of us... NO matter what our previous conceptions of the ways of the world and human nature and politics, productivity and wealth distribution.
I do NOT necessarily disagree with you, but to me it sounds as if your post is filled with a lot of hate and resentment for poor people.
I was merely trying to describe a dynamic that exists with deflationary currency, and you and I seem to have some agreement about a potential incentive that could be created in which people may NOT have the incentive to work. We agree on that, but I CANNOT bring myself to agree with some of the other seemingly hateful and assumption aspects of your post.... that seems to assume that rich people are entitled to more than poor people... and a bunch of the other assumptions that goes along with those kinds of striving to maintain the status quo and the current wealth distribution.
You also seem to be asserting some kind of assumption about trickle down economics actually working, which I CANNOT bring myself to agree with those kinds of assumptions, either.
Anyhow, if bitcoin is going to be successful, you and I agree that it would change social dynamics. Accordingly, you seem to assert that it is NOT in line with human nature, and I would assert that some social, economic and political institutions may need to adapt to these new dynamics to find a way to work.... especially, if governments and companies are NOT able to get rid of bitcoin, then they will have to work on ways to adapt... which may create growing pains for a lot of us... NO matter what our previous conceptions of the ways of the world and human nature and politics, productivity and wealth distribution.
I don't have hatred against poor people. I also believe that one can be better off without wealth but with a healthy spirit.
But I do dis-like poor people who blame their situation on others. People who say that rich people are to blame that they didn't decide to get good grades, that they didn't decide to go to college, that they didn't make the right career choices etc.
Bitcoin wouldn't change social dynamics, it would only make everyone poorer, both the rich and the poor. The ratio will be the same and there will still be rich people who have gotten rich by either work or by exploitation of others. Trade will just be more ineffective and people would be motivated to sit on their ass more. Not just blue-collared workers, but also the CEOs and managers.
I think that an country could actually adopt bitcoin if it doesn't care about it's economic strength. There are also countries like that. Not a lot tho..
It would be absurd that major powers couldn't overcome bitcoin though. Take a team of good 100 python coders and give them a year and there would be a coin that would surpass bitcoin in every quality aspect. Right now only students and hobbyists are coding bitcoin source based altcoins, because the big boys are still planning their entrance strategy.
February 18, 2014, 02:38:37 AM
Like I said. Go buy more of your precious rocks. Check back in 5 years and either gloat or ask for forgiveness. We will be waiting either way.
Nah, I will stick around and observe the development of this community as well. Maybe even say some things again to bring people closer to earth.
Like I said, I'm quite intrigued by the idea that bitcoin brought forward. I'll probably also invest some money into it when the price isn't held up only by desperation. I truly believe that bitcoin still has about 1-2 years of life and 1-2 bubbles left in it, before the hype finally settles.
February 18, 2014, 02:35:51 AM
Maybe I am being too narrow minded to think that way, but compounding interest is a powerful thing and if BTC is guaranteed to go up every year by even as little as 10-15% (and those are conservative numbers based on the supply issue and I would think that the guaranteed price increase would be greater than 15% annually). BTC would change the whole dynamics of the world and incentives for labor......
Once bitcoin matures the deflation rate should match the growth rate of the economy, around 3-4%. If people stop working the economy will slow and the deflation rate will be less. It's a self limiting problem.
sorry Schizoid, but your comment seems like too much pie in the sky for me to relate... Surely, both you and I are speculating a bit about the future and maybe it is so far into the future that it does NOT matter too much.. but YOU know that the BTC protocol already sets the parameters for the expansion of the BTC supply up until 21 million until 2140... so until 2140, the amount of expansion will be decreasing... so now it is about 12% then in 2017, it will be 6% then in 2021 it will be 3% then in 2025 it will be 1.5%, then in 2029 it will be .75%... all the way reducing in half every four years until we get to 2140.... Even by the time we are in 2029, the rate is less than 1%.
I was actually assuming an expansion rate of 0%. If the BTC supply is fixed, its value will be determined by the size of the economy. If the economy grows (more goods and services per BTC), BTC will rise. If the economy shrinks (fewer goods and services per BTC), BTC will fall.
The rapid rise we've seen so far has been due to the rapid growth of the bitcoin economy, but that won't go on forever.
February 18, 2014, 02:33:30 AM
Accordingly, capitalism works by exploiting people and creating an incentive for people to work. For example, if any schmuck can get a bitcoin (or fraction of a bitcoin) when he is a baby (and then stashes it away), then he would never have to work a day in his life by the time he is 18 years old.
Maybe I am being too narrow minded to think that way, but compounding interest is a powerful thing and if BTC is guaranteed to go up every year by even as little as 10-15% (and those are conservative numbers based on the supply issue and I would think that the guaranteed price increase would be greater than 15% annually). BTC would change the whole dynamics of the world and incentives for labor......
Maybe I am being too narrow minded to think that way, but compounding interest is a powerful thing and if BTC is guaranteed to go up every year by even as little as 10-15% (and those are conservative numbers based on the supply issue and I would think that the guaranteed price increase would be greater than 15% annually). BTC would change the whole dynamics of the world and incentives for labor......
why do you think it's deflationary? the price is currently rising with adoption and confidence and by the time bitcoins stop being created we should be at peak adoption, there may be a bit of deflation through coin loss but by then we may also see population decrease if 3rd world countries are brought up to 1st world level where birth rates have fallen below the replacement rate.
oh and why focus on it as a currency anyway, if used in parallel to other currencies as a payment method the price and volatility don't really matter.
February 18, 2014, 02:30:55 AM
If nobody would spend money because of a rising value of money, that money would - in the end - buy less again because the economy is not growing but shrinking. Of course, this is a contradiction. No such thing will happen. Instead, an equilibrium will exists that indeed differs from our current system.
Nobody will hoard money indefinitely. There is a simple reason for this: time.
Nobody lives forever, right?
Nobody will hoard money indefinitely. There is a simple reason for this: time.
Nobody lives forever, right?
Well, someone will always buy something. Just less people buy something.
When inflation motivates people to consume more, then you can be sure that deflation will motivate people to consume less. Of course there won't be radical outcomes that no money will be spent, but a country that runs on deflationary currency, will fall behind in economic development compared to countries with inflationary currency.
It's like with communism or just plain old socialism, where everyone will work less and work is less important in society in general, but everyone are also poor because the lack of quality production.
I have lived in Soviet Union, so I know how childish economic dreams can create deficit in even the most regular goods.
February 18, 2014, 02:29:14 AM
gawd are you guys still feeding this troll?
... it's kind of like watching a bad re-run of mid-2011. Just go back and read the archives, you aren't bringing anything new to the table dude, you're a complete mini-mind, get over yourself.
Bitcoin is gonna kick your ass (and hundreds of other know-it-alls just like you) up and down the street forever unless you get a clue.
Away from the monetary lightweights.
... it's kind of like watching a bad re-run of mid-2011. Just go back and read the archives, you aren't bringing anything new to the table dude, you're a complete mini-mind, get over yourself.
Bitcoin is gonna kick your ass (and hundreds of other know-it-alls just like you) up and down the street forever unless you get a clue.
Away from the monetary lightweights.
February 18, 2014, 02:28:55 AM
I do think people have to come together and take ownership over BTC.
There exists a Bitcoin Foundation which supposedly promotes/supports the Bitcoin project with regard to some legal issues, paying Gavin and such. If this isn't what you want, go ahead and start something else. Are you talking about more of a marketing type of organization? I think Stolfi was talking about an Investment Club but maybe his idea is more fleshed out than that, or maybe I am just wrong.
I'd imagine if Jorge called it a 'start-up' and called himself some grand title like CEO, many would think it a good idea.
LOL.... not sure about that.
It's a shame because, as I said, I approached people last year but people who are 'into' BTC don't want to join together and drive it forward. Here in Australia every industry has a peak body organisation which works in tandem with unions and government to drive innovation, best practice, safety etc. It seems obvious Bitcoin needs a grassroots organisation to mandate exchanges, commerce etc with similar best practice guidelines.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say maybe you're not aware Bitcoin has some pretty Libertarian roots? That's a political party in the U.S. but it's also a philosophical lifestyle choice. I'm not a Libertarian politically so I could be wrong but I think from a business standpoint the gist is, "let me run my business literally any way I choose and if the market doesn't like it they can get service from someone else."
Apart from business, the lifestyle choices are very "Don't Tread on Me" (anti-regulation, anti-tax) aligned. (see Gadsden flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag). The Free State Project, a political migration of Libertarians into New Hampshire, U.S., sometimes uses the Tread motto.
http://freestateproject.org/store/product/dont-tread-me-shirt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project
About Libertarianism Wikipedia says, "This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association." The community is simply not composed of people who want to be told what to do. They do not want mandates, rules or guidelines. There was a loud row during the time that the Bitcoin Foundation started up because so many were against it. You have an uphill climb if you want to start any sort of centralized movement since the entire affair is about DEcentralization.
February 18, 2014, 02:28:38 AM
except for providing the largest supercomputer network the world has ever seen x 50, thus making hacking the protocol obsolete and futile, while providing the infrastructure needed to run the protocol that no competitor can afford. [/b]
PS I assume you were referring to miners and not to people that have large amounts of bitcoin. Because if its the latter then - jealous much?
PS I assume you were referring to miners and not to people that have large amounts of bitcoin. Because if its the latter then - jealous much?
At first, the network of ASICs, that are built to hash fixed results, is not exactly a supercomputer network. SHA256 bitcoin ASICs can do nothing else then to hash bitcoins or heat your home.
AND the increase in network power doesn't increase the security of the network because most of the network is pooled together. When you only have to compromise 2 pools, then it doesn't matter how powerful of an hashrate they are processing. So, miners aren't actually contributing to the security of the network unless they are solo-mining. That is what makes bitcoin mining a fools game. Future coins needs to have a system where payments are distributed without intermediate services and with more constructive goals in mind.
Like I said. Go buy more of your precious rocks. Check back in 5 years and either gloat or ask for forgiveness. We will be waiting either way.
February 18, 2014, 02:23:55 AM
Maybe I am being too narrow minded to think that way, but compounding interest is a powerful thing and if BTC is guaranteed to go up every year by even as little as 10-15% (and those are conservative numbers based on the supply issue and I would think that the guaranteed price increase would be greater than 15% annually). BTC would change the whole dynamics of the world and incentives for labor......
Once bitcoin matures the deflation rate should match the growth rate of the economy, around 3-4%. If people stop working the economy will slow and the deflation rate will be less. It's a self limiting problem.
sorry Schizoid, but your comment seems like too much pie in the sky for me to relate... Surely, both you and I are speculating a bit about the future and maybe it is so far into the future that it does NOT matter too much.. but YOU know that the BTC protocol already sets the parameters for the expansion of the BTC supply up until 21 million until 2140... so until 2140, the amount of expansion will be decreasing... so now it is about 12% then in 2017, it will be 6% then in 2021 it will be 3% then in 2025 it will be 1.5%, then in 2029 it will be .75%... all the way reducing in half every four years until we get to 2140.... Even by the time we are in 2029, the rate is less than 1%.
Your other point about needing less expansion will probably only work if there is less population.. Do you really think that we are going to be forced to develop a system of reduced consumption and localism.. Maybe that will happen, but that is surely speculation, at this point... My earlier point is that I am thinking that probably it would have been better to have bitcoin to have greater and consistent expansion built into the currency.. maybe 3% a year or something like that.. and then just to have that forever and ever.... b/c people are going to lose their bitcoins and population expansion.. but there are also unknowns.. as well... .
February 18, 2014, 02:21:26 AM
except for providing the largest supercomputer network the world has ever seen x 50, thus making hacking the protocol obsolete and futile, while providing the infrastructure needed to run the protocol that no competitor can afford. [/b]
PS I assume you were referring to miners and not to people that have large amounts of bitcoin. Because if its the latter then - jealous much?
PS I assume you were referring to miners and not to people that have large amounts of bitcoin. Because if its the latter then - jealous much?
At first, the network of ASICs, that are built to hash fixed results, is not exactly a supercomputer network. SHA256 bitcoin ASICs can do nothing else then to hash bitcoins or heat your home.
AND the increase in network power doesn't increase the security of the network because most of the network is pooled together. When you only have to compromise 2 pools, then it doesn't matter how powerful of an hashrate they are processing. So, miners aren't actually contributing to the security of the network unless they are solo-mining. That is what makes bitcoin mining a fools game. Future coins needs to have a system where payments are distributed without intermediate services and with more constructive goals in mind.
February 18, 2014, 02:13:33 AM
Yeah, this "Let's just give everyone money and everyone can be rich!" doesn't work in real life. Money doesn't always equal wealth, you know..
Actually it is production that creates wealth and production is stimulated by consumption.
When world currency would be deflationary then consumption will slow because everyone will be motivated to hold onto their money, not to use it on consumption. That in turn means that production will slow down and that actually means less wealth to everyone.
Now, if the globe would be in one peaceful society, then maybe it could fly. Less consumption would mean less destroying our natural enviroment and all. But because evolution dictates the survival of the fittest, this laziness propagating economic way won't work. People who work more and better will always rule over those who just want to sit on their ass.
KKaspar:
I do NOT necessarily disagree with you, but to me it sounds as if your post is filled with a lot of hate and resentment for poor people.
I was merely trying to describe a dynamic that exists with deflationary currency, and you and I seem to have some agreement about a potential incentive that could be created in which people may NOT have the incentive to work. We agree on that, but I CANNOT bring myself to agree with some of the other seemingly hateful and assumption aspects of your post.... that seems to assume that rich people are entitled to more than poor people... and a bunch of the other assumptions that goes along with those kinds of striving to maintain the status quo and the current wealth distribution.
You also seem to be asserting some kind of assumption about trickle down economics actually working, which I CANNOT bring myself to agree with those kinds of assumptions, either.
Anyhow, if bitcoin is going to be successful, you and I agree that it would change social dynamics. Accordingly, you seem to assert that it is NOT in line with human nature, and I would assert that some social, economic and political institutions may need to adapt to these new dynamics to find a way to work.... especially, if governments and companies are NOT able to get rid of bitcoin, then they will have to work on ways to adapt... which may create growing pains for a lot of us... NO matter what our previous conceptions of the ways of the world and human nature and politics, productivity and wealth distribution.
February 18, 2014, 02:12:42 AM
Yeah, this "Let's just give everyone money and everyone can be rich!" doesn't work in real life. Money doesn't always equal wealth, you know..
Actually it is production that creates wealth and production is stimulated by consumption.
When world currency would be deflationary then consumption will slow because everyone will be motivated to hold onto their money, not to use it on consumption. That in turn means that production will slow down and that actually means less wealth to everyone.
Now, if the globe would be in one peaceful society, then maybe it could fly. Less consumption would mean less destroying our natural enviroment and all. But because evolution dictates the survival of the fittest, this laziness propagating economic way won't work. People who work more and better will always rule over those who just want to sit on their ass.
There is a logical fallacy in assuming a rise in value of a currency and a shrinking economy. If nobody would spend money because of a rising value of money, that money would - in the end - buy less again because the economy is not growing but shrinking. Of course, this is a contradiction. No such thing will happen. Instead, an equilibrium will exists that indeed differs from our current system.
Nobody will hoard money indefinitely. There is a simple reason for this: time.
Nobody lives forever, right?
Correct. As we have seen, companies start accepting bitcoins and people start spending them. AMAZING! They don't hoard them, they actually spend them. Wow.
February 18, 2014, 02:11:15 AM
Yeah, this "Let's just give everyone money and everyone can be rich!" doesn't work in real life. Money doesn't always equal wealth, you know..
Actually it is production that creates wealth and production is stimulated by consumption.
When world currency would be deflationary then consumption will slow because everyone will be motivated to hold onto their money, not to use it on consumption. That in turn means that production will slow down and that actually means less wealth to everyone.
Now, if the globe would be in one peaceful society, then maybe it could fly. Less consumption would mean less destroying our natural enviroment and all. But because evolution dictates the survival of the fittest, this laziness propagating economic way won't work. People who work more and better will always rule over those who just want to sit on their ass.
There is a logical fallacy in assuming a rise in value of a currency and a shrinking economy. If nobody would spend money because of a rising value of money, that money would - in the end - buy less again because the economy is not growing but shrinking. Of course, this is a contradiction. No such thing will happen. Instead, an equilibrium will exists that indeed differs from our current system.
Nobody will hoard money indefinitely. There is a simple reason for this: time.
Nobody lives forever, right?
February 18, 2014, 02:08:47 AM
Just like html was to the development of the internet.
Please stop comparing bitcoin to html, e-mail or tcp/ip. These protocols didn't have the baggage of unit cost on their back.
If HTML would be like bitcoin, then new HTML adopters would have to pay monetary tribute to the earlier adopters of HTML to start using it.
Then HTML wouldn't have developed very far and people would have been motivated to create alternative options, without the baggage of those early adopters, who just want to earn on your expense, without doing anything themselves, except for providing the largest supercomputer network the world has ever seen x 50, thus making hacking the protocol obsolete and futile, while providing the infrastructure needed to run the protocol that no competitor can afford.
FIFY
PS I assume you were referring to miners and not to people that have large amounts of bitcoin. Because if its the latter then - jealous much?
February 18, 2014, 02:07:38 AM
Maybe I am being too narrow minded to think that way, but compounding interest is a powerful thing and if BTC is guaranteed to go up every year by even as little as 10-15% (and those are conservative numbers based on the supply issue and I would think that the guaranteed price increase would be greater than 15% annually). BTC would change the whole dynamics of the world and incentives for labor......
Once bitcoin matures the deflation rate should match the growth rate of the economy, around 3-4%. If people stop working the economy will slow and the deflation rate will be less. It's a self limiting problem.
February 18, 2014, 02:06:39 AM
Just like html was to the development of the internet.
Please stop comparing bitcoin to html, e-mail or tcp/ip. These protocols didn't have the baggage of unit cost on their back.
If HTML would be like bitcoin, then new HTML adopters would have to pay monetary tribute to the earlier adopters of HTML to start using it.
Then HTML wouldn't have developed very far and people would have been motivated to create alternative options, without the baggage of those early adopters, who just want to earn on your expense, without doing anything themselves.
February 18, 2014, 02:03:13 AM
February 18, 2014, 02:03:12 AM
Look, I am not one that believes that bitcoin is going to become the premier or even "a" premier currency in the world. I do however believe that bitcoins first mover advantage is a massive advantage. Bitcoins power (just like gold) comes from peoples belief in its value first and foremost. That isn't going to change, its going to grow. Second, the applications being built on top of the protocol are going to more and more valuable. Just like html was to the development of the internet. We truly don't know where this technology will become. Probably something we haven't though of yet.
But even if bitcoin is a little bit of a lot of things - frictionless payment system, currency, store of value, remittance vehicle, collapsed state secondary currency (see NEO/BEE in Cyprus), trade payment system, trust and will platform, it doesn't matter. There are only 21 million of these coins. And there are 7 billion people. It doesn't take a lot for bitcoins price to be in the high 5 figures or 6 figure range. And when it gets there volatility will actually be a helluva lot less too.
I think that we largely agree with one another.... and my previous discussion point about the deflationary aspect remains a concern of mine... but I am NOT of the belief that it is fatal to bitcoin.. .at least NOT in the early days... And the dynamic of bitcoin may be quite interesting in 20 years... to see if it holds any niche at that time.
Nonetheless, I agree with you about the exponential potential of bitcoin. Frequently, I like to use the example of gold having a 6.5 trillion dollar market cap, and BTC has less than a 10 billion dollar market cap. The dollar has something like 15 trillion dollar market cap... Anyhow, BTC could take some of that functionality and value... even less than 1% of the combination of the two, would leave bitcoin with a 200 billion dollar market cap - which is more than 20 times its current market cap. And, there are a lot of other potential uses for bitcoin to take value from other markets, including remittances and the currencies of other countries.... and we could get to those points fairly quickly.... less than 2 years...
Jump to: