nothing encourages spending like inflation 
Why do you want to encourage spending? Because the faster we use up our natural resources and pollute the planet, the better?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 32961. (Read 26609721 times)
July 11, 2013, 12:25:04 PM
Because the faster we use up our natural resources and pollute the planet, the better?
July 11, 2013, 12:22:49 PM
I think you have some excellent points, but it is important to note that we are not just putting 'different people' in charge,
We won't even be putting different people in charge. We'll just be removing an option they use to exploit the people they're "in charge" of.
July 11, 2013, 12:21:30 PM
nothing encourages spending like inflation
Why do you want to encourage spending? Need to destroy some of that huge amount of cash you've printed up and given to your banker friends by getting the people they lend it to to feed it into some bubble or other?
July 11, 2013, 12:19:21 PM
I really think this chart is key. Lower highs and lower lows have not really been broken since the April 24th rise. (There is one slight cross from the beginning of May and early June, but just a few dollars off.) The lower highs have thus far been consistently lower, just eying it around $10 each time.
I'd say the $97 - $100 area is key. If we can rally above that then we have broken the lower high downtrend. But as of now and as long as we stay below around the $100 area (technically our last lower high was around $110) we are still in a downtrend.
What do you TA guys think of the lower high and lower low consistency in your experience? I understand BTC is a different animal.
July 11, 2013, 12:10:06 PM
I'm not talking about spending as in the bare necessities like hookers & blow, i meant spending which could be avoided -- lending for profit, investing, "spending money to make money," the boring stuff. I simply don't see how molecular believes that Bitcoin is bound to disperse wealth. (Bitcoin: Champion of the poor.) If anything, once you discount extremes (one person owns every bitcoin), nothing encourages spending like inflation
I believe the reasoning is that it would remove unfair advantages and wealth distribution to big banks (special loan conditions, cantillon effect etc.), plus the fact that middle-class families tend to have a larger percentage of their savings in inflation-sensitive fiat, whereas rich people can more easily diversify in the housing market, etc. .
July 11, 2013, 12:04:32 PM
What is most troubling is the widespread belief that human nature is malleable; that somehow once people who have adopted bitcoin get to run the show that it will be any different. I am the first person to complain about the excesses of the current establishment and the widespread systemic problems in nearly every aspect of western (global?) society. However, putting a different group of humans in charge will not drastically change the outcome. History is not linear and despite popular belief, human nature does not progress. 'Science and Technology are cumulative, ethics and politics are recurring dilemmas' (John Gray). This type of thinking isn't exclusive to users of bitcoin, but, unsurprisingly, there seems to be a particularly large contingent of believers in the impending utopia, borne from technological progress.
Bit off topic, but I typically get carried away once I get on my soapbox.
Bit off topic, but I typically get carried away once I get on my soapbox.
I think you have some excellent points, but it is important to note that we are not just putting 'different people' in charge, we are changing the framework by which money creation and financial transactions occur. I believe changing a framework càn have profound consequences.
By the way, theoretically, I would say that human nature does evolve, just very very very slowly, and only after certain "evolutionary incentives" change.
July 11, 2013, 11:59:57 AM
[...]Bitcoin has a limited supply. The money will disperse over the long run (rich people spend and invest, borrowers default). [...]
I can't see the logic here offhand, but, presuming that's true, does it then follow that those looking to accumulate more bitcoins than Average Joe are backing the wrong horse? Are you saying that non-inflationary currencies encourage spending?
I think having to live a life encourages spending. Definitely a good time to be accumulating bitcoins in my book. I'm not speculating right now but if I were, I'd be aiming to have more bitcoins at the end of the month than at the beginning, whatever my strategy.
I'm not talking about spending as in the bare necessities like hookers & blow, i meant spending which could be avoided -- lending for profit, investing, "spending money to make money," the boring stuff. I simply don't see how molecular believes that Bitcoin is bound to disperse wealth. (Bitcoin: Champion of the poor.) If anything, once you discount extremes (one person owns every bitcoin), nothing encourages spending like inflation
July 11, 2013, 11:54:30 AM
If i say its not a tripple down ,its not going to happen thats my luck ! Im all out .
July 11, 2013, 11:50:44 AM
So yes it can be done. Is it good for "Bitcoin"?
It may be. There's an awful lot of bitcoins owned by relatively few early adopters. If Bitcoin is to succeed, a large chunk of those bitcoins need to be extracted from those early adopters and spread amongst the general population.
It seems these early adopters have had a pretty good understanding of where the future is going. I for one would be happy to see these kinds of people get incredibly, filthy rich, so they can invest in awesome new businesses and technologies. Now that would make a change away from the current status quo, where the financial system only benefits parasites and sociopaths.
IMO most Bitcoiners are the most sociopathic people there are.
It takes a *special* attitude to strive after a system where economic status is derived only by a unchangeable, unchallengeable, non-physical ledger.
What is most troubling is the widespread belief that human nature is malleable; that somehow once people who have adopted bitcoin get to run the show that it will be any different. I am the first person to complain about the excesses of the current establishment and the widespread systemic problems in nearly every aspect of western (global?) society. However, putting a different group of humans in charge will not drastically change the outcome. History is not linear and despite popular belief, human nature does not progress. 'Science and Technology are cumulative, ethics and politics are recurring dilemmas' (John Gray). This type of thinking isn't exclusive to users of bitcoin, but, unsurprisingly, there seems to be a particularly large contingent of believers in the impending utopia, borne from technological progress.
Bit off topic, but I typically get carried away once I get on my soapbox.
July 11, 2013, 11:49:39 AM
The money will disperse over the long run
Bitcoin HAVE TO or it's doomed. simple as that.
There's a caveat to that though. Not necessarily. Consider diamonds. de Beers has a stockpile that's enough to supply the world diamond market for three years. Yet starry eyed young men are still coaxed to spend several months salary on what, at heart, are some quite useless rocks due to a tradition that was invented by... de Beers' advertising agency.
So despite what I've said before and though I still think it's better for Bitcoin to be more widely held and spread, there's still a good chance that it would succeed if not.
July 11, 2013, 11:45:26 AM
[...]Bitcoin has a limited supply. The money will disperse over the long run (rich people spend and invest, borrowers default). [...]
I can't see the logic here offhand, but, presuming that's true, does it then follow that those looking to accumulate more bitcoins than Average Joe are backing the wrong horse? Are you saying that non-inflationary currencies encourage spending?
I think having to live a life encourages spending. Definitely a good time to be accumulating bitcoins in my book. I'm not speculating right now but if I were, I'd be aiming to have more bitcoins at the end of the month than at the beginning, whatever my strategy.
July 11, 2013, 11:44:21 AM
The money will disperse over the long run
Bitcoin HAVE TO or it's doomed. simple as that.
July 11, 2013, 11:33:13 AM
[...]Bitcoin has a limited supply. The money will disperse over the long run (rich people spend and invest, borrowers default). [...]
I can't see the logic here offhand, but, presuming that's true, does it then follow that those looking to accumulate more bitcoins than Average Joe are backing the wrong horse? Are you saying that non-inflationary currencies encourage spending?
July 11, 2013, 11:32:53 AM
The total outstanding Bitcoins doesn't change so a single person holding a significant amount doesn't matter for the value.
The number of bitcoins must cover the whatever market they are being used for. The fine divisibility of Bitcoin means that this is not a logistical issue but if some dude is holding 5 times the value of the world economy in his wallet, things get tricky.
July 11, 2013, 11:08:07 AM
So yes it can be done. Is it good for "Bitcoin"?
It may be. There's an awful lot of bitcoins owned by relatively few early adopters. If Bitcoin is to succeed, a large chunk of those bitcoins need to be extracted from those early adopters and spread amongst the general population.
It seems these early adopters have had a pretty good understanding of where the future is going. I for one would be happy to see these kinds of people get incredibly, filthy rich, so they can invest in awesome new businesses and technologies. Now that would make a change away from the current status quo, where the financial system only benefits parasites and sociopaths.
IMO most Bitcoiners are the most sociopathic people there are.
It takes a *special* attitude to strive after a system where economic status is derived only by a unchangeable, unchallengeable, non-physical ledger.
Maybe it would change your mind if you didn't spend so much time in the speculation forum?
I refer to the Bitcoin early adopters, not the current get rick quick types. People like the the guy responding to this Reddit topic and there are many other examples.
right on dude. That guy in the reddit post talks my heart. I have several magnitudes of coins less than him, but my thinking is very similar nevertheless.
I agree with your earlier post that a world "financed" by these early cryptogeeks is probably better than what we have now.
There is however a distinction to the status-quo that is much more important in the long run: Bitcoin has a limited supply. The money will disperse over the long run (rich people spend and invest, borrowers default). It's seemingly easy to argue that interest rates effect a concentration of money over the long run (I used to think this). But this is not true in a free market using an inelastic money supply. Wealth will actually flow to the people offering good products and services in such an environment. We did a good first step to enable this with cryptocurrency and the free market should follow. So I also agree with the reddit poster that Bitcoin will grant access to the global market for the currently poor (think System D, see this TED talk) and make for a fairer level playing field.
July 11, 2013, 11:03:49 AM
I don't agree with this. The price will rise as the demand/use/store of value (whichever route BTC takes) increases thus making the "limited" amount of BTC more valuable. People will not have to own a Bitcoin but rather could own a few Satoshis which will be worth what a whole BTC is worth today. I believe this is what many "early adopters" who are holding their BTC are hoping for. Regardless if you are buying BTC now you are an "early adopter". Get in where you can, and help grow BTC however you can.
This is the point though. How much can a few Satoshi be worth when there are several people out there holding tens (hundreds?) of thousands of bitcoins? How much is the Mona Lisa worth if I have a warehouse full of them out back? Speculation encourages large holders to release some of their funds for profit before doing so would devastate a mature market.
Volatility now or catastrophic volatility later. Fortunately not your (or anybody's) choice.
The total outstanding Bitcoins doesn't change so a single person holding a significant amount doesn't matter for the value.
July 11, 2013, 10:57:11 AM
I don't agree with this. The price will rise as the demand/use/store of value (whichever route BTC takes) increases thus making the "limited" amount of BTC more valuable. People will not have to own a Bitcoin but rather could own a few Satoshis which will be worth what a whole BTC is worth today. I believe this is what many "early adopters" who are holding their BTC are hoping for. Regardless if you are buying BTC now you are an "early adopter". Get in where you can, and help grow BTC however you can.
This is the point though. How much can a few Satoshi be worth when there are several people out there holding tens (hundreds?) of thousands of bitcoins? How much is the Mona Lisa worth if I have a warehouse full of them out back? Speculation encourages large holders to release some of their funds for profit before doing so would devastate a mature market.
Volatility now or catastrophic volatility later. Fortunately not your (or anybody's) choice.
July 11, 2013, 10:56:10 AM
IMO most Bitcoiners are the most sociopathic people there are.
It takes a *special* attitude to strive after a system where economic status is derived only by a unchangeable, unchallengeable, non-physical ledger.
It takes a *special* attitude to strive after a system where economic status is derived only by a unchangeable, unchallengeable, non-physical ledger.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/going-rogue-share-traders-more-reckless-than-psychopaths-study-shows-a-788462.html
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle
July 11, 2013, 10:51:02 AM
It seems these early adopters have had a pretty good understanding of where the future is going. I for one would be happy to see these kinds of people get incredibly, filthy rich, so they can invest in awesome new businesses and technologies. Now that would make a change away from the current status quo, where the financial system only benefits parasites and sociopaths.
I have no problem with them getting rich. And that's where the speculation comes in to a degree. Speculation raises the price (at certain points), allowing the holders to "cash in" on their foresightedness.
I do have to say that I'm not a big fan of the manipulation but that is something that will hopefully (I believe it will) resolve itself in time.
It's all just the free market at work. If Bitcoin can't handle it, it doesn't deserve to succeed.
July 11, 2013, 10:49:51 AM
So yes it can be done. Is it good for "Bitcoin"?
It may be. There's an awful lot of bitcoins owned by relatively few early adopters. If Bitcoin is to succeed, a large chunk of those bitcoins need to be extracted from those early adopters and spread amongst the general population.
It seems these early adopters have had a pretty good understanding of where the future is going. I for one would be happy to see these kinds of people get incredibly, filthy rich, so they can invest in awesome new businesses and technologies. Now that would make a change away from the current status quo, where the financial system only benefits parasites and sociopaths.
IMO most Bitcoiners are the most sociopathic people there are.
It takes a *special* attitude to strive after a system where economic status is derived only by a unchangeable, unchallengeable, non-physical ledger.
Maybe it would change your mind if you didn't spend so much time in the speculation forum?
I refer to the Bitcoin early adopters, not the current get rick quick types. People like the the guy responding to this Reddit topic and there are many other examples.
Jump to: