Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail (not today or tomorrow) - page 2.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 12:26:00 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 12:24:49 PM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 12:07:52 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:46:50 AM

In this case, the problem (or fear) is still there (as you say yourself), i.e. does the bank actually have those deposits? Full reserve banking doesn't change a thing here (it is all psychology, lol)... Grin

So you say.

Are there many runs on public storage facilities?

What do you mean by public storage facilities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-storage

According to the article on Wikipedia, "the rented spaces are secured by the tenant's own lock and key". Your analogy is lame at best... Grin

What does it have to do with banking? The only thing which comes to my mind is renting deposit boxes (though the analogy is also lame). And yes, Bank of America (if I'm not mistaken) has been caught secretly and unlawfully drilling open the deposit boxes of their clients. A good reason for a deposit box run, lol...

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 12:24:49 PM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 12:07:52 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:46:50 AM

In this case, the problem (or fear) is still there (as you say yourself), i.e. does the bank actually have those deposits? Full reserve banking doesn't change a thing here (it is all psychology, lol)... Grin

So you say.

Are there many runs on public storage facilities?

What do you mean by public storage facilities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-storage

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 12:07:52 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:46:50 AM

In this case, the problem (or fear) is still there (as you say yourself), i.e. does the bank actually have those deposits? Full reserve banking doesn't change a thing here (it is all psychology, lol)... Grin

So you say.

Are there many runs on public storage facilities?

What do you mean by public storage facilities? Just can't fancy one...

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:46:50 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 11:44:09 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:36:58 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 11:26:02 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:10:56 AM

You are talking about full reserve banking preventing at least some of the bank runs. The definition you've provided says that the cause for bank runs is based on the fear of losing depositors' money. I don't actually see how this type of banking can extinguish such fears from arising... When you store something at a warehouse (not necessarily money, lol), your stored items can still be stolen, damaged and whatnot...

I'm surprised you don't see it. Skeptical, even.

Indeed, you could try to get away with saying that those reserves are not stored in the bank itself (since those reserves are usually held as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank), but could we call this system banking in the first place (even warehouse banking) when all depositors' money is actually held at the central bank? Grin

I'm not sure what you're saying.

I just think it's obvious that people are going to be more trusting that their bank is going to be able to give them back their deposits if the bank actually has those deposits

In this case, the problem (or fear) is still there (as you say yourself), i.e. does the bank actually have those deposits? Full reserve banking doesn't change a thing here (it is all psychology, lol)... Grin

So you say.

Are there many runs on public storage facilities?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 11:44:09 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:36:58 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 11:26:02 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:10:56 AM

You are talking about full reserve banking preventing at least some of the bank runs. The definition you've provided says that the cause for bank runs is based on the fear of losing depositors' money. I don't actually see how this type of banking can extinguish such fears from arising... When you store something at a warehouse (not necessarily money, lol), your stored items can still be stolen, damaged and whatnot...

I'm surprised you don't see it. Skeptical, even.

Indeed, you could try to get away with saying that those reserves are not stored in the bank itself (since those reserves are usually held as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank), but could we call this system banking in the first place (even warehouse banking) when all depositors' money is actually held at the central bank? Grin

I'm not sure what you're saying.

I just think it's obvious that people are going to be more trusting that their bank is going to be able to give them back their deposits if the bank actually has those deposits

In this case, the problem (or fear) is still there (as you say yourself), i.e. does the bank actually have those deposits? Full reserve banking doesn't change a thing here (it is all psychology, lol)... Grin

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:36:58 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 11:26:02 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:10:56 AM

You are talking about full reserve banking preventing at least some of the bank runs. The definition you've provided says that the cause for bank runs is based on the fear of losing depositors' money. I don't actually see how this type of banking can extinguish such fears from arising... When you store something at a warehouse (not necessarily money, lol), your stored items can still be stolen, damaged and whatnot...

I'm surprised you don't see it. Skeptical, even.

Indeed, you could try to get away with saying that those reserves are not stored in the bank itself (since those reserves are usually held as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank), but could we call this system banking in the first place (even warehouse banking) when all depositors' money is actually held at the central bank? Grin

I'm not sure what you're saying.

I just think it's obvious that people are going to be more trusting that their bank is going to be able to give them back their deposits if the bank actually has those deposits.

But whatever. This conversation has drifted quite far from anything that matters. We apparently disagree. So what? Let's move on. Please.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 11:26:02 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:10:56 AM

You are talking about full reserve banking preventing at least some of the bank runs. The definition you've provided says that the cause for bank runs is based on the fear of losing depositors' money. I don't actually see how this type of banking can extinguish such fears from arising... When you store something at a warehouse (not necessarily money, lol), your stored items can still be stolen, damaged and whatnot...

I'm surprised you don't see it. Skeptical, even.

Indeed, you could try to get away with saying that those reserves are not stored in the bank itself (since those reserves are usually held as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank), but could we call this system banking in the first place (even warehouse banking) when all depositors' money is actually held at the central bank? Grin

What is left of a bank in a bank then?

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 11:10:56 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 10:57:29 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 07:28:46 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 04:24:46 AM

Sorry, didn't notice your answer in time Grin

Actually, it is you who are theoretically right (in assumption that 100% reserve banking prevents most bank runs). But lol, you don't know human psychology. Even if all the money is said to be there (in the money warehouse), why should they, depositors, believe it in the first place, and not try to withdraw their money as soon as possible in the second, e.g. in the case there is "fearing that their ~~bank~~ warehouse will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time"? Holy crap, even if the money is there, it still may not prevent from the crowd going wild... Grin

Well, in the case of Bitcoin, when the warehouses are properly implemented using split keys, because it can be proven that it's still there.

Anyway, how about some bank runs. Do you agree that full reserve banking would prevent some bank runs?

I mean, I already disagree with you, but I just wonder how much. You agree that at least some bank runs are caused by actual rational fears, right?

You may disagree as much as you like, but you just can't deny the simple fact that even 100% reserve banking (or warehouse banking) can guarantee you that a bank does actually have the money depositors trusted it with, lol...

Sure I can.

But that's not what I was talking about anyway.

You are talking about full reserve banking preventing at least some of the bank runs. The definition you've provided says that the cause for bank runs is based on the fear of losing depositors' money. I don't actually see how this type of banking can extinguish such fears from arising... When you store something at a warehouse (not necessarily money, lol), your stored items can still be stolen, damaged and whatnot...

I'm surprised you don't see it. Skeptical, even.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 10:57:29 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 07:28:46 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 04:24:46 AM

Sorry, didn't notice your answer in time Grin

Actually, it is you who are theoretically right (in assumption that 100% reserve banking prevents most bank runs). But lol, you don't know human psychology. Even if all the money is said to be there (in the money warehouse), why should they, depositors, believe it in the first place, and not try to withdraw their money as soon as possible in the second, e.g. in the case there is "fearing that their ~~bank~~ warehouse will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time"? Holy crap, even if the money is there, it still may not prevent from the crowd going wild... Grin

Well, in the case of Bitcoin, when the warehouses are properly implemented using split keys, because it can be proven that it's still there.

Anyway, how about some bank runs. Do you agree that full reserve banking would prevent some bank runs?

I mean, I already disagree with you, but I just wonder how much. You agree that at least some bank runs are caused by actual rational fears, right?

You may disagree as much as you like, but you just can't deny the simple fact that even 100% reserve banking (or warehouse banking) can guarantee you that a bank does actually have the money depositors trusted it with, lol...

Sure I can.

But that's not what I was talking about anyway.

You are talking about full reserve banking preventing at least some of the bank runs. The definition you've provided says that the cause for bank runs is based on the fear of losing depositors' money. I don't actually see how this type of banking can extinguish such fears from arising... When you store something at a warehouse (not necessarily money, lol), your stored items can still be stolen, damaged and whatnot...

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: MICRO on February 21, 2014, 07:33:24 AM

And yeah one suggestion , ur thread should not state "Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail" it should be "Is Bitcoin ultimately doomed to fail?" Cheesy

. It is just not doomed to fail

. It will do much better than we think.
Also take a look on my news thread. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-news-evryday-from-multiple-sources-475397

Well, it may fail even faster than that (looking at all those closing exchanges and their owners running away with the traders' money)... Grin

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 07:28:46 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 04:24:46 AM

Sorry, didn't notice your answer in time Grin

Actually, it is you who are theoretically right (in assumption that 100% reserve banking prevents most bank runs). But lol, you don't know human psychology. Even if all the money is said to be there (in the money warehouse), why should they, depositors, believe it in the first place, and not try to withdraw their money as soon as possible in the second, e.g. in the case there is "fearing that their ~~bank~~ warehouse will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time"? Holy crap, even if the money is there, it still may not prevent from the crowd going wild... Grin

Well, in the case of Bitcoin, when the warehouses are properly implemented using split keys, because it can be proven that it's still there.

Anyway, how about some bank runs. Do you agree that full reserve banking would prevent some bank runs?

I mean, I already disagree with you, but I just wonder how much. You agree that at least some bank runs are caused by actual rational fears, right?

You may disagree as much as you like, but you just can't deny the simple fact that even 100% reserve banking (or warehouse banking) can guarantee you that a bank does actually have the money depositors trusted it with, lol...

Sure I can.

But that's not what I was talking about anyway.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 21, 2014, 07:28:46 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 04:24:46 AM

Sorry, didn't notice your answer in time Grin

Actually, it is you who are theoretically right (in assumption that 100% reserve banking prevents most bank runs). But lol, you don't know human psychology. Even if all the money is said to be there (in the money warehouse), why should they, depositors, believe it in the first place, and not try to withdraw their money as soon as possible in the second, e.g. in the case there is "fearing that their ~~bank~~ warehouse will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time"? Holy crap, even if the money is there, it still may not prevent from the crowd going wild... Grin

Well, in the case of Bitcoin, when the warehouses are properly implemented using split keys, because it can be proven that it's still there.

Anyway, how about some bank runs. Do you agree that full reserve banking would prevent some bank runs?

I mean, I already disagree with you, but I just wonder how much. You agree that at least some bank runs are caused by actual rational fears, right?

You may disagree as much as you like, but you just can't deny the simple fact that even 100% reserve banking (or warehouse banking) can't guarantee you that a bank does actually have the money depositors trusted it with, lol...

MICRO

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1037

CEO @ Stake.com and Primedice.com

And yeah one suggestion , ur thread should not state "Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail" it should be "Is Bitcoin ultimately doomed to fail?" Cheesy

. It is just not doomed to fail

. It will do much better than we think.
Also take a look on my news thread. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-news-evryday-from-multiple-sources-475397

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 04:24:46 AM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 03:54:44 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 20, 2014, 02:53:51 PM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 02:41:02 PM

Well yeah, of course.

But we wouldn't have any bank runs, right?

Wrong. That's why I'm telling you that even 100% reserve banking won't help you. If we take as a basis the definition that you've given, then bank runs could still happen (i.e. the depositors trying to withdraw their funds immediately), but since there is no loaning (the money is in the money warehouse all the time), there will be no significant negative effects, if any, on the economy and no bankruptcies...

Well, you're right that it's theoretically possible, but it'd eliminate the vast majority of bank runs, would it not?

Remember, part of the definition is "fearing that their bank will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time". You agree with that definition, right?

Sorry, didn't notice your answer in time Grin

Actually, it is you who are theoretically right (in assumption that 100% reserve banking prevents most bank runs). But lol, you don't know human psychology. Even if all the money is said to be there (in the money warehouse), why should they, depositors, believe it in the first place, and not try to withdraw their money as soon as possible in the second, e.g. in the case there is "fearing that their ~~bank~~ warehouse will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time"? Holy crap, even if the money is there, it still may not prevent from the crowd going wild... Grin

Well, in the case of Bitcoin, when the warehouses are properly implemented using split keys, because it can be proven that it's still there.

Anyway, how about some bank runs. Do you agree that full reserve banking would prevent some bank runs?

I mean, I already disagree with you, but I just wonder how much. You agree that at least some bank runs are caused by actual rational fears, right?

Quote from: deisik on February 21, 2014, 04:24:46 AM

Yes, I like this definition, especially that part about people trying to withdraw deposits immediately. It hits the nail on the head and correlates perfectly with the part about fear!

Great.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 06:37:08 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 20, 2014, 04:07:23 PM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 03:55:16 PM

I didn't realize you were guessing. Thanks.

guess : to suppose or think (something)

You deprived me of the ability to think or make assumptions about something? Grin

Now look up the definition of the noun. Tongue

"an attempt to give an opinion or answer about something when you do not know much about it or are not sure about it"

I followed from logic that individuals won't be holding much in checking accounts, since they are paid very little as interest (in comparison with term deposits). This I said explicitly. But it may very well depend on a myriad of other things, and in some specific bank the situation might be different (which I also mentioned)...

Yes, I can't be sure for all banks (I thought it had been made clear)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 03:54:44 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 20, 2014, 02:53:51 PM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 02:41:02 PM

Well yeah, of course.

But we wouldn't have any bank runs, right?

Wrong. That's why I'm telling you that even 100% reserve banking won't help you. If we take as a basis the definition that you've given, then bank runs could still happen (i.e. the depositors trying to withdraw their funds immediately), but since there is no loaning (the money is in the money warehouse all the time), there will be no significant negative effects, if any, on the economy and no bankruptcies...

Well, you're right that it's theoretically possible, but it'd eliminate the vast majority of bank runs, would it not?

Remember, part of the definition is "fearing that their bank will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time". You agree with that definition, right?

Sorry, didn't notice your answer in time Grin

Actually, it is you who are theoretically right (in assumption that 100% reserve banking prevents most bank runs). But lol, you don't know human psychology. Even if all the money is said to be there (in the money warehouse), why should they, depositors, believe it in the first place, and not try to withdraw their money as soon as possible in the second, e.g. in the case there is "fearing that their ~~bank~~ warehouse will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time"? Holy crap, even if the money is there, it still may not prevent from the crowd going wild... Grin

Yes, I like this definition, especially that part about people trying to withdraw deposits immediately. It hits the nail on the head and correlates perfectly with the part about fear!

sawani

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

A store of value would not be that if it were to lose its purchasing power, by definition. It has to gain through time, or at least remain stable in near term. Bitcoin has deflationary nature by itself, though its volatility through low volume of trades doesn't currently make it a good store of value either. If it persists though, this might change gradually...

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Yeah, I doubt they have people who know how to track coins. And if you mined then sold bitcoin face-to-face, the IRS wouldn't know.

Until you get arrested for running a money services business without a license. Like Michel Espinoza and Pascal Reid.

anth0ny

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on February 20, 2014, 04:07:23 PM

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 03:55:16 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 20, 2014, 03:01:51 PM

If you are really curious about that percentage (i.e. the ratio of demand deposits to term deposits or the inverse relationship), we could approximately calculate it here (for Russian economy). On rough estimates, demand deposits compose less than one third of term deposits for individuals...

So my guess is correct, lol

I didn't realize you were guessing. Thanks.

guess : to suppose or think (something)

You deprived me of the ability to think or make assumptions about something? Grin

Now look up the definition of the noun. Tongue

"an attempt to give an opinion or answer about something when you do not know much about it or are not sure about it"

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: anth0ny on February 20, 2014, 03:55:16 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 20, 2014, 03:01:51 PM

If you are really curious about that percentage (i.e. the ratio of demand deposits to term deposits or the inverse relationship), we could approximately calculate it here (for Russian economy). On rough estimates, demand deposits compose less than one third of term deposits for individuals...

So my guess is correct, lol

I didn't realize you were guessing. Thanks.

guess : to suppose or think (something)

You deprived me of the ability to think or make assumptions about something? Grin

Topic: Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail (not today or tomorrow) - page 2. (Read 40854 times)